< June 20	June 22 >

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

The result was speedy delete as a duplicate (WP:CSD#G6 by NawlinWiki. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Collapsing universe[edit]

Page already exists at Hubble's law. StaticGull Talk 11:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MetalNMix[edit]

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull Talk 11:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable local radio program. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1 by Athaenara. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saptahiki[edit]

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull Talk 11:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A1. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Turner[edit]

Delete. I suspect these articles are hoaxes, related to 13 White Dresses (nominated below). If they are real, they don't meet noability guidelines as they don't appear to have been in any films that are mentioned on IMDb or won any awards. I can't find anything on IMDb or google. Proboable vandalism. Beloved Freak 23:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because subject is twin sister of the above, both articles created by same user:

Delete Both articles are utter nonsense. Channel ® 23:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, probable hoax. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right, looking like the work of a hoaxster. Someone should probably look through all this editors edits with this in mind. Dekkappai (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned it is most likely a hoax, and if it is not then it fails WP:BIO anyhow. JBsupreme (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, there are no sources, no assertions of notability, and it may well be a hoax. BecauseWhy? (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just someone trying to create a fantasy; hoax. Jack?! 13:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax; there doesn't appear to be a director named Jane Purrier.
Delete. Can you say "hoax"? Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 14:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 14:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Nutritionist - this really didn't need an AFD. Black Kite 00:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health food coach[edit]

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article is referring to a Nutritionist. –BuickCentury Driver 23:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to preclude that when it states "A food coach may have as much knowledge as a nutritionist or herbalist without the same certification.". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the "food coach" thing does exist. If you google "food coach," you get about 42k results, some of which appear to be actually relevant. People like this, this, and this appear to do this as a full-time job. The question then is, should it be included? I have found very few people who actually are "food coaches," and not even the most prominent one has an article already. There is a position entitled "food coach" at Sears, but it looks like something totally unrelated. Aside from that, the page itself is pretty bad. No sources, no wikifying, and the whole article is a puff piece for alternative medicine. The second paragraph is just sniping at doctors. So, unless someone is willing to fix the article up significantly and to show me why it should be notable, I say delete. BecauseWhy? (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Nutritionist - wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia of WP:EVERYTHING. Merge the good stuff with nutritionist - its says a Health food coach is as knowledgeable but uncertified as nutritionist - and lose the cruft. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Nutritionist; The only difference given between this and Nutritionist is that a Nutritionist may have a certification, but per the article on the topic, there is no regulation on the term Nutritionist (as opposed to dietician) - so anyone can use the term regardless of education/certification. CredoFromStart ^talk 20:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hattiesburg Black Sox[edit]

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - While the article is greatly in need of work, there is sufficient information available to establish this team is notable. A book entitled The Negro Leagues, 1869-1960 by Leslie A. Heaphy mentions this team, and on several web news articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tough call but agree with Wildhartlive. This is the book s/he is referring to by the way. — Wknight94 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Severnye Vrata[edit]

Not enough nobility. ElectricalExperiment 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't assert notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks notability. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13 White Dresses[edit]

Not notable, even if it is real. Jack?! 21:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article appears to be a hoax. I can find nothing on IMDb or google, which is highly unlikely for a film featuring Helena Bonham Carter, Rupert Everett etc, not to mention having won "Cleverst Film" at the Venice Film Festival. --Beloved Freak 23:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable. Google search only returns this article, references to it, and unrelated references to clothes. No mention on Google Groups. Similar results for "Thirteen White Dresses". Nothing with similar title on IMDB. Also, no similar film found in the recent filmography of any of the people listed as cast members (again on IMDB). I strongly suspect this is vandalism. Silverfish (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 23:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense, hoax. The mentioned 'awards' don't exist either. This should have been a Speedy, really. Channel ® 23:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found nothing at Film Index International or on Google, using both "13 White..." and "Thirteen White..." Unless someone finds proof the film exists, it looks like a hoax. Nice to see AfD used for what it should be used for for a change. Dekkappai (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nominated two actresses supposedly featuring in this film above. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Turner) --Beloved Freak 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it, it's probably a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BecauseWhy? (talk • contribs) 05:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Cleverst Film"? Even if that was spelled correctly to "Cleverest Film", it's still a tip off to the fact that this film doesn't exist, a likely hoax or at least fails WP:V with no reliable sources. All it features is a definitely made up plot summary. Only google hits I get are for this article, this very AfD discussion, an AfD notification the creator's talk page, a few Wiki mirror sites and eBay results for white dresses. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 11:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Systems Engineering Team[edit]

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article on an unremarkable training scheme in the US Navy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a training scheme. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the products of a training scheme if you prefer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added two citations to demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Buckshot06(prof) 02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources included aren't really independent. Spawar helps design new systems for the navy and works closely w/ L-3. The house committee source is from the testimony of the spawar commander. I see that the user was in the navy (he was on a target, to boot) and now works for L-3, so he clearly has some interest and expertise. My suggestion is that he search out independent sources for the information provided. The Naval Engineer's Journal is a highly technical third party resource that may have an article on FSET installations. Seapower, published by the Navy League is also sufficiently independent, so a promo story on FC's might work. All Hands is not technically independent, but is probably sufficiently so for an article like this. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable training scheme or organisation, article does not make much sense in either case. doktorb _words^deeds 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. The article looks like it was written by a chief. It makes sense presuming that you understand the terms and admire some of the syntactical peculiarities of modern naval language. The article subject probably isn't notable, but there is a slim possibility that a concerted search through periodicals dedicated to the subject might reform that outlook. Protonk (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Riddiough[edit]

Soccer coach. Authorship by Nathanr7 suggests autobio. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs citations, but claims to have played professionally for a top club, however sources don't seem to back that up. does anyone know where an official list of former players could be found? --T-rex 02:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked allfootballers.com, a subscription statistical site which lists every player to have played for every Football League club since the League started in 1888, and no player with the surname Riddiough has ever played in the League. Therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE. Therefore delete ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would appear to fail WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear on this source, which lists post-WW2 Football League players and is recognised as reliable by WP:FOOTY, or on Soccerbase. Therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence to back up claim. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and appears to have COI issues. – Pee Jay 11:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 01:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alive II Tour[edit]

Non-notable tours. Limited context given. No proper referencing. Any notable tour information can be added to List of Kiss concert tours.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think club tour shouldn't be deleted, but rather converted to a generic stub since "club tour" is a frequent term used in other contexts not referring specifically to the Kiss club tour. See these results from google for examples. --Waldir ^talk 02:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: This nomination is very silly. When in doubt, improve the article, don't delete it. So, just because you're too lazy to be bold and improve the article yourself doesn't mean it should be deleted. The Rocksimus Maximus Tour is very notable since it was co-headlined by two very notable prolific rock bands, sometimes considered to be arch-rivals and the top American rock acts of the 1970s. It received enormous amounts of press, and it was the last tour with Peter Criss, and the first tour in which Aerosmith started charging over $100 a ticket for regular seats, a trend which has continued on every one of their tours since. There is also a lot of context in the article, and I'm sure more can be added in the future. References can also be improved and added in the future. Keep in mind that articles on tours are still developing. I'm sorry, but anything that is attended by hundreds of thousands of people and makes tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, marks notable firsts or lasts, or features prolific highly notable pop culture icons is notable, and deserves an article. Abog (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Large scale bundled nominations like this make it next to impossible to research all of the articles to see if they might meet the notability guidelines. How many people are likely to do this with any degree of thoroughness? RMHED (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close as premature. The previous AfD closed one day ago and an editor made a reasonable request to reconsider that closure, which I allowed to give it some time for reworking prior to bringing it up for discussion again. The rapid renomination of this article before time was given to carry out that request is not helpful to the process or trying to come to some kind of conclusion here. I doubt anyone could make a good argument that a reasonable amount of time was given for the improvement of the article prior to this nomination, so I am closing it. Shereth 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Upson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable failed municipal candidate. Fails WP:BIO. 1st afd 2nd afd Delete GreenJoe 20:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources already in the article spread over both the election and her earlier arrest. (so not WP:BLP1E). Also per the lots of additional coverage in reliable sources found by Abd here - User:Abd/Donna Upson establishing this persons notability even stronger. Davewild (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the 3rd nom. Please explain a little more why you renominated it? I'm neutral on this subject and have read a few of the previous AfD discussions, which were more than extensive and well argued from both sides. Have you read the 2nd nom and the page history? Please read the bottom of this this discussion with the admin that closed the 2nd nom. Faradayplank (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is way too soon to renominate. Please, before !voting in this, read the prior two AfDs, and the page of sources, which is by no means complete, at User:Abd/Donna Upson. The closing admin from the second AfD noted that there was no consensus (which was correct as the !votes stood) but decided on Merge as a compromise. Unfortunately, there is plenty of material on Upson that doesn't belong in the target article, Ottawa municipal election, 2003. Yes, Upson is a "failed candidate," but most "failed candidates" don't attract national coverage in major media, over many months, extensive local discussion in a major newspaper (The Ottawa Citizen), and six published letters to the editor of that newspaper (that's not material for the article, I think, but it shows notability). And there is reliable source about earlier events in her life, again, quite a bit of it. The Merge process began with the Ottawa election article, and already reliably-sourced material was removed ("Baby Hitler") because it didn't belong there, and I'd agree. It belongs in a separate article. The closing admin agreed to allow the redirection to be removed, to allow work on the article, and if, after that was done, he would renominate.[1] This renom by the last nominator, immediately after a decision by the closing admin? No. This should be speedy closed without prejudice. Given that this is an article with ample reliable source, about more than the Ottawa mayoral candidacy, I'd can't imagine what violation of WP:BIO is involved, and the nominator does not specify what violation that might be. I'd urge also, reading my last comment for that AfD, which hit an edit conflict with the close, it is at the beginning of Talk:Donna Upson. In discussion with the closing admin, Shereth, which I engaged in in lieu of going to Deletion Review, I pointed out that there were numerous incorrect assumptions made by !voters in the second AfD, and, when those reasons for deletion were discounted, there weren't any reasons left. And that includes the reason in the present nomination, there is no substance there, and the nomination is directly contrary to WP:POLITICIAN, which specifically discusses the situation of a failed candidacy which receives wide independent attention. I'd say that this is an abuse of the AfD process and leave it at that. --Abd (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the previous nom's closing only a day ago to merge this article to the Ottawa municipal election article. Should User:Abd re-write the article in a way that meets the objections of the AfD, then I would endorse the keeping of that article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin agreed to renom after the work was done, just so that consensus could be clear, so DoubleBlue would have his opportunity to review. However, I'm a bit puzzled. The article was short, but was reliably sourced, and it covered the prior events involving this woman that preceded the mayoral candidacy, though it needed some updating. It included reliably sourced material that wasn't about the election. What "objection" was in the AfD? I reviewed all the arguments in the AfD, and none of them fit the bill. I'd say that the article was acceptable as it was; but that with the new material I've found, it goes way beyond that. However, I'd request DoubleBlue to make his concerns known in Talk:Donna Upson so they can be addressed in the proper place. Merge decisions don't actually require AfDs, you know. I've seen an AfD speedy closed just for that reason. --Abd (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The second AfD did not provide clear consensus to keep, so I don't think it's a speedy keep. However, based on the notes I see of the close and the post-close discussion, the article warrants more than the 24 hours it's gotten to get improvements. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on my prior comments, the article has met the burden of demonstrating that the subject was covered in multiple reliable sources. National news articles are written about her for more than just her candidacy for mayor in Ottawa. As a result, the article does demonstrate notability and should be kept on its merits. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. Per the norms of the AfD process, this discussion has been renamed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (3rd nomination). The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson is now the first nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fried rice with sausages[edit]

WP is not a recipe book or a how to guide ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and WP:NOT#HOWTO. I have reported this user to AIV for continuing creation of inappropriate recipe articles after final warning. JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For some reason this editor has decided that June 21, 2006 is "Dump My Recipe Book on Wikipedia Day." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nailed by Calton. Black Kite 00:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Babbitt[edit]

Minor fictional character in a soap opera. Lacks real world information. Character appeared for only 2 months in a long running show. Fails notability and coverage of media. Magioladitis (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of As the World Turns characters. --neon white talk 21:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect redirect per neon white Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect without deletion as it has enough coverage that I believe it can be salvaged in some context. Thus my policy based reasoning is Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS, WP:PROBLEM. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor fictional character without the slightest shred -- or hope of any, frankly -- real-world impact, notability, or even attention. --Calton | Talk 06:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, I agree. Delete. Eusebeus (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the character might have been discussed in Soap Opera Digest or some such magazine, and having print references would help a lot in establishing notability. Everyking (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be correct. :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton. Minor, non-notable, no coverage, etc. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This character, which as has been pointed out is covered in various sources, is not WP:JNN. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provide specific sources. Links to search engines with her name substituted are not acceptable. I will not respond to any comment that does not contain links to legitimate, reliable, independent sources which cover this character specifically and in depth that I can read right now. As you have tried to pass off non-reliable sources as reliable in the past, please review WP:RS and WP:RSEX if necessary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The specific sources are there by clicking on the search engine. As you have dismissed reliabel sources as non-reliable in the past, you may also want to review those pages. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Gameshow "you lost" noise] No links to sources provided! Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the links above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete/redirect all to In the Aeroplane Over the Sea. --jonny-m t 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Carrot Flowers Pt. One[edit]

Nominating this and ten of eleven articles on album tracks from a 1998 album by Neutral Milk Hotel. The album itself deserves an article, and the articles are well put together but only Holland, 1945 was a single (I have not nominated it as part of this deletion). The album doesn't have any chart placings in its long article so suggests that the album isn't of major relevance and each song's article fails to assert notability, instead seeming more suited to a fansite (noting that tracks are the longest on the album and other trivia), and as such I don't feel each track warrants an article of its own. Esteffect (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of articles nominated is as follows: The King of Carrot Flowers Pt. One, "The King of Carrot Flowers Pts. Two & Three", "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea", "Two-Headed Boy", "The Fool", "Communist Daughter", "Oh Comely", "Ghost", (Untitled) and "Two-Headed Boy Pt. Two". Esteffect (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The individual songs on the album are not notable by themselves (except Holland, 1945). The articles also appear to be comprised mostly of OR. Teemu08 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All to main album article as guidelines suggest with non notable album tracks. --neon white talk 21:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All to In the Aeroplane Over the Sea. Only "Holland, 1945" has any notability as it was the single. Any usable information can be merged into the page for the album (however it's mostly OR). The album itself certainly has notability (a book was written about it, but there are other reasons). But notability is not inherited. As I stated above, only "Holland, 1945" has notability due its release as a single. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The album didn't chart, but it's consistantly regarded as one of the most important indie albums of the 90s. Each of the articles could be expanded 100 times over, I think. There's a lot in the 33 and one third book, and the articles don't even start to talk about the evolution of the songs on tape and live. There's a lot of room for expansion, and the album is particularly notable. Stormx2 (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only one aside from "Holland, 1945" to show any notability is the Untitled Neutral Milk Hotel song for the reason that it has no title, but I didn't vote keep on that one because i am unsure if that's enough to hinge notability on and I had no reason aside "it's interesting", anyhow. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Keep ... Merging can be handled in the normal way if editors want to - Peripitus (Talk) 11:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smell the Glove[edit]

This is a fictional album, i.e. it was never released and is an in-world album in Spinal Tap. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spinal Tap. There isn't enough out-of-universe info for its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep (all the way upto 11) - Borderline notable (fictional) album. Maybe with expansion with the Metallica references, could turn it into a strong keep. Lugnuts (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spinal Tap. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it meets the notability guidelines [2]. RMHED (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian seafood fried rices[edit]

Wikipedia is not a recipe. Chimeric Glider (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and WP:NOTGUIDE. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially since I originally prodded this. No recipes, please. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and WP:NOT#HOWTO. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish seafood fried rice[edit]

Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Chimeric Glider (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and WP:NOTGUIDE. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and WP:NOT#HOWTO. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This user is creating and recreating similar recipe articles depite a final warning to stop. This and her other inappropriate pages should be deleted, because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or a how-to, and she should be reported at AIV if she continues to create and recreate them. --Ka renjc 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author reported to AIV and blocked for 31 hours. Now to clear up. JohnCD (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Blackpool, possibly something encyclopedic here, though this ain't it. Black Kite 01:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Showzam[edit]

Non-notable circus event. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and insert brief info about the event into Blackpool.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese-style curry chicken fried rice[edit]

Wikipedia is not a recipe. Chimeric Glider (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete the author appears to be entering his entire family cookbook one entry at a time. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Move to Wikibooks Cookbook after the Engrish is fixed. Wikipedia is not a how-to site. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and WP:NOT#HOWTO. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Syndicate Tour[edit]

Non notable concert tour articles; no assertions to notability are cited (reliably). In addition, there are no proper references.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have a Nice Day Tour for sure. Third-highest grossing tour of the year, and considerable information about the tour is present in the article. For groups in this stage of their career, tours are often more important commercially to them than albums or singles, and thus the tours are quite important and notable. The solution to a poorly sourced but eminently salvageable article like this is to add references, not delete it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Along with The Rolling Stones tours you've nominated, these are quite clearly notable tours that should be tagged for references, rather than sent to AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Particularly the New Jersey Syndicate Tour, since it was a huge turning point in the band's career. It is the tour in which they exploded and became a household name around the world. It was probably the longest and most grueling in the band's history. It featured some of their longest renditions of songs, and saw the band mature, both personally and musically. The tour was so grueling and emotions ran so high that it nearly caused the band to break up, as the band members parted ways after the tour was over. Yes, references need to be added. But that is only reason to improve the article, not delete it. Enough with the blanket nominations. Abog (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If all the Rush tour pages are being deleted then all the tour articles should be deleted. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AskWiki[edit]

Written like ad, single source isn't all that impressive, site no longer working. Delete as non-notable. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. Notability does not expire. If it was notable at the time the article was created o, it remains notable today. --Eastmain (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think there may be bias to keep this due to its Wikipedia connections (as with the board of the Foundation in the early days, when said board had articles but weren't really notable themselves), but the article is an advertisement for something that seems to have had little coverage and hasn't became notable yet. If it is kept a rewrite is needed. Esteffect (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, does not assert notability. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Shankarananda Giri[edit]

Non notable. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Not much more to say, really. Channel ® 23:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the week since nominating this article, I have looked for sources, and have found none. If anybody knows of any sources, especially reliable sources, please feel free to add them to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, references found do not warrant notability. The Holy Stream: The Inspiring Life-story of Swami Chidananda - Page 31A few days later His Holiness Sri Swami Sankarananda Giri of Varanasi came to... by Sarat Chandra Behera - Hindus - 1981 - 205 pages

Comment: Found the mention of his name and a quote in 2 books [3].Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bihariji Maharaj[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs referencing, expansion, and copyediting, but it appears to be about a significant piece of local infrastructure. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no sources. Even the Bharunda article, where this building supposedly is, doesn't mention it. Channel ® 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the week since nominating this article, I have looked for sources, and have found none. If anybody knows of any sources, especially reliable sources, please feel free to add them to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why does the link Bihariji Maharaj, a guru redirect to Bharunda (a town)????????? Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. No third party sources found.Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy-cook rice (joke)[edit]

I suspect that this article is a 1 year and 9 month old WP:HOAX. The article is the sole edit of its contributor and nobody has made substantial changes to it since. It is an article about the "ECRB" or "Easy Cook Rice Bit" - a comedy act. But googling "Easy Cook Rice Bit" produces only 3 hits, this article and two clones of it on external sites. Googling "ECRB" with "comedy" is equally fruitless. This strongly suggests that the article is just made up.

There are no sources and the article freely admits that "The ECRB has never featured on a UK TV comedy show". However, it has been "alluded to". I wonder even if sources are found whether the topic would be notable enough for an article anyway. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks verification and reliable sources. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources provide, and Google searches do not provide any reliable sources. Also, no google hits for the lines of the 4 line version. Silverfish (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't assert notability, and lacks sources. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no attribution of the notability of this joke to reliable sources. Vague claims of well-known comics "alluding" to it are insufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:HOAX and lack of WP:V Artene50 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No joke doktorb _words^deeds 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I too could not really find anything to verify this one. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references. Not notable. Axl (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme Me[edit]

No sources of this upcoming album, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Reverend X (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of WP:N. Happyme22 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is unverified, has no notability established and has no reliable sources. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Fire (band)[edit]

Seemingly non-notable musical group. Prod removed by creator without comment or alteration. tomasz. 16:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, as the article fails to establish notability. Happyme22 (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was speedy delete and salt as recreation under WP:CSD#G4 - Revolving Bugbear 18:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mumtaz Badruddin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable person. Written almost like a nonsense article would be written. Could easily be a speedy. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Just noticing the first page creation was a speedy delete and suggest this page name should be locked from being created again. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt WP:Speedy#G4, recreation of deleted material. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT, as this is the third time it has been created. Happyme22 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion basically hinges upon whether the sources given are reliable and relevant. While they aren't top-notch, they will suffice. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheylanli tribe[edit]

Not notable and no reliable sources that describe this tribe. See WP:N and WP:RS.

Delete. A very lengthy and patient attempt was made to get reliable sources through a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard as well as a discussion of notability was made on the talk page. All that resulted was that one of the sources that use to be a blog was replace with a forum and the title of he article was renamed. This article is obviously not notable as there isn't any secondary (or primary) reliable sources describing this tribe. Currently the article has three sources and none of them are notable, 2 out of the three are forums. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. if can be proved by one more source that such a tribe within the Kurds of Azerbaijan indeed exists. I am not a speacialist in this field but for academic purposes we should have as many articles as it relates to the lost/forgotten people/tribes and ethnicities. --Aynabend (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a long exhaustive process trying to get reliable sources regarding this tribe but none were found. The article should be deleted with no prejudice to recreation if information can be found down the road. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pocopocopocopoco has been putting all his efforts to delete articles both about Sheylanli tribe and Sheylanli village because he hasn't been able to push his unrealistic informations into either of these articles. First times to avoid 3RR, he teamed up with many unknown IP's for edit warring and to stop anons I got articles semi-protected. After that Poco started to vandalise articles by his own and warned here. Some of his early unrealistic edits are 1 and 2 (as you can see from its location the village has nothing to do with Lachin corridor). Then he started to attack the articles by many different ways, in contradiction with his edits to the article he claimed that village and so tribe doesn't exist. You can see his whole claims both about Sheylanli village and Sheylanli tribe here. Its obvious that Poco's AfD is not constructive and is another way of trying to get ride of the article (edit warring). This article is about a kurdish tribe and is very important for the history and culture of Kurds in Azerbaijan. Gülməmməd ^Talk 20:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Lack of any verifiable sources to prove this even exists let alone prove notability. Google searches provides only wikipedia hits with google scholar and books providing zero. --neon white talk 22:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sheylanli is a little known, but absolutely real and interesting, from an ethnographic point of view, Kurdish community. They are described in details in the Soviet Academy of Sciences’ journal Sovetskaya Etnografiya ("Soviet Ethnography"), No. 5-6: 1932, pp. 125-135. They are referred to as Шейланы (Sheylany) there. Also, there are several interesting photos from the Sheylanli village in that journal and it would be great to have them on Wikipedia. Another reference to this tribe can be found in Alesker Alekperov’s Studies in Archaeology and Ethnography of Azerbaijan (a monograph in Russian; Baku, 1960), which lists the Sheylanli among other Kurdish clans such as Babaly, Sultanly, Kullukhchi, etc (p. 143). Tatiana Aristova in her Transcaucasian Kurds (also in Russian; Moscow, 1966) mentions Sheylanli among the poorest Kurdish communities of Azerbaijan and places it, along with Zerty and Minkend, in the Lachin district (p. 54). There is also a list of the Kurdish family names found in Sheylanli there (ibid, p. 48). True, there are not many English-language sources on the topic, but we can translate the verified and verifiable information from these Russian publications. We need more on Caucasian ethnology, not less.--Kober^Talk 22:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is little known then it's unlikely to be notable. --neon white talk 22:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are myriads of things that are little known in the West, but constitute an important part of national histories on the other side of the former Iron Curtain. Given the current upsurge of scholarly interest in the Caucasian cultures and a striking ethnic diversity of this region, I find the article completely suitable for Wikipedia.--Kober^Talk 04:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is wikipedia not caucasuspedia or kurdopedia. There's nothing in your obscure sources that shows anything that would indicate notability. We already have an article for the town Sheylanli. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be amazed but Wikipedia is intended to be Caucasuspedia, Kurdopedia, Russopedia, Zimbabwepedia, etc. This is not a very solid argument to justify your deletionist agenda. My sources are not obscure to those who has ever been interested in the history and ethnography of the former Soviet countries.--Kober^Talk 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No its not, it has to meet notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. The minor mention in the sources you provided do not indicate that it meets notability criteria. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Per Kober's comment, it is mentioned in many scientific journals/sources and all of us know that such material is notable. If it is not available trough Google search engine, then we should make it available by bringing it up to our encyclopedia from archives. This is one of the main purposes of Wikipedia, otherwise people could find what they need from other sources. Gülməmməd ^Talk 22:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not by any means my expertise, but these sorts of weird niche topics are exactly what many people look to find on Wikipedia - in particular, for the references to more extensive coverage. Can translations of the references be Wikisourced?Patent.drafter (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obscure and minor mention in few old Soviet journals does not warrant an article in Wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the sources can be translated, sure they do. Protonk (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please note that a Soviet journal and two monographs I have cited are the sources which I found in a very quick research. I am not an expert on the Kurdish population, and there may be many other sources published in the recent years. --Kober^Talk 05:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There was a very long and patient attempt to get reliable sources for this article and none materialized. It is safe to delete without prejudice to recreation should something more reliable pop up that establishes notability of this tribe. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Remember, truth is not the criterion for inclusion in wikipedia. This tribe may exist but sources available to us and verifiable by an english speaking editor may not exist. If someone wants to translate some of these journals for us and wikisource it, then we can certainly proceed. Old obscure soviet journals are no less appropriate as sources than many of the current obscure journals we use here. However, if sources cannot be found or made available in english, then there isn't really a good reason to retain the article. Protonk (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the sources in Russian are fully accepted in Wikipedia. If in case you need to translate a text from Russian to English, here is the tool for that, Google language tool(although is not perfect). Gülməmməd ^Talk 03:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I read the sourcing policy. I don't think the policy disallows them, but all things being equal English sources are preferred. And, frankly, I'm not sure how I would go about using google's translation system to translate an out of print soviet journal. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Protonk is correct, foreign source are generally accepted as long as they are not the primary source an article is based on or as evidence of notability. --neon white talk 17:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to stop foreign language sources being the primary sources of an article or evidence for notability. Would we have deleted an article on Special Relativity a hundred years ago because Einstein wrote in German? I very much hope not. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's work is very likely to have second and third party writings (for example Ludwik Silberstein's book) making it notable, however this subject does not. --neon white talk 17:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's so contrafactual as to not even make sense. WP:V states a preference for English sources over other language sources. If they don't exist, then we can use them, but there is, honestly, a verifiability problem. the source is in russian, then the only people who verify can verify the text are those who speak russian. That doesn't mean that sources should be ignored, but that we should be careful basing an article around sources which can only be verified by a small fraction of the editors. Let's not make this discussion absurd by suggesting that we are ignoring something like special relativity. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this topic is notable enough to merit its own article. It is important for the coverage of the history of Kurdish people in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's only your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a blog about Kurdish people in Azerbaijan. Articles are required to meet notability criteria. --neon white talk 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is only your personal opinion as well. And also, you had better assume good faith when speaking about other nations. Kurdish people exist in Azerbaijan and encyclopedia must have articles about them. The topic might not be interesting for you but it has vital importance for the Kurdish people in Azerbaijan not to loose their history in the darkness of the History. We shouldn't oppose this. Gülməmməd ^Talk 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well referenced for both verifiability and notability. Just because sources are not available to everyone at the click of a mouse, e.g. because they are not online or are only understandable by someone with the relevant expertise, be it scientific expertise or the understanding of a particular language, it doesn't mean that they are not valid. Do any universities or academic journals in the world tell their students or researchers that they can only cite sources written in one language? Of course not, because that would hinder the advancement of knowledge. So why do so many people try to restrict Wikipedia in this way? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article uses web forums as sources. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 6 out of 8 sources in the article are not forums. Here's another source that indicates that this tribe has been the subject of academic study.[4] Phil Bridger (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But if you ignore the obscure non-English sources that user:Kober found above, the only sources that describe the subject are forums. The other sources make no mention of the subject. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What is "obscure" about those sources? Academic sources such as these are the gold standard in reliable sources. And, once again, there is no requirement that sources should be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If these sources were the gold standard there would be verifiable. I don't see anyone able to verify them. Also, from what Kober describes, even if they were verified they still would not establish notability. They seem to have more material about the town than the people. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting encyclopedic article. Geagea (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Geagea and Kober, interesting article indeed. Iberieli (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are interesting to you personally is not a criteria for notability. --neon white talk 17:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its none of your business Neon what should stay or what should not, its democratic voting and in my free opinion this article is well sources and is suitable as encyclopedic material, voted so accordingly. Period. Iberieli (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the business of any editor who choose to contribute to an afd. A read of afd wikietiquette is advisable. --neon white talk 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and same if it not intersting you that not mean that it should delete.

Geagea (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't a vote. AfD's, just like any other discussion on wikipedia, are an attempt to reach consensus about interpretations of guidelines or evidence. So in this case, if you announce "this article is great and I love it, so therefore it should be retained", you are wasting your time. You are free to voice your opinion, of course, but it will be noted insofar as it contributes to the discussion and leads to a guess at consensus. Also, I find it odd that your vote will count based on your opinion of the article but that Neon has "no business" commenting on the article itself. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat myself again: Due to references and sourced materials, also topic content which is offered by this article, it can not and should not be deleted due to its encyclopedic material (which this web site claims to represent). My vote was based on these assessments. End of discussion. Iberieli (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lack of English language sources is irrelevant. They are preferred but not required. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is indeed a fact. Few sources are available but still there are some sources. And encyclopedia is created for the purpose of enlighting people on all big and small issues and facts.--Dacy69 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability has not been clearly established here, but if someone wants a copy on their userpage to work on, drop me a note. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Schwartz (coach)[edit]

Non-notable athletic coach. Only claims to fame are that he wrote a chapter (not the whole book, just a chapter) in a book, and edited two others on the subject of strength training. References provided are not reliable sources, just a handful of YouTube videos, his own web site, a couple of flyers, and bookseller listings of books he edited. No independent coverage of why he is notable. Google turns up very few relevant hits - most are instead about the advertising executive. Just not enough here to make him notable. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, and no real assertion of notability. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - youtube.com and athleticmusclebuilding.com are not very reliable sources. Fails WP:N as well. Happyme22 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand that these are not considered reliable sources. I only added these sources at the request for more sources by Realkyhick. These non-reliable sources can be removed if that's the issue. But I believe the real issue is the notability of the subject. I think the fact that he has edited books, written articles and spoken at conferences on the topic of athletic performance proves that he is notable in this area. I don't think we need a newspaper article to validate these facts, the references I've provided are sufficient evidence that he has in fact done these things. From what I have read in WP:N it would seem this article passes the standard. As someone in the sports training community I would undoubtedly say that he is notable in our field. Obviously I may be a little out of my league here, since this is my first page, but it seems a little odd to me that this would be requested to be deleted. Tom122079 (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, we do need independent references like newspaper articles. All the references you have provided so far are either created by him, or seek to promote him in some way. They are not independent. The fact that he has done these things does not in itself make him notable. We need proof that others who have no personal or professional connection to him see him as notable, and you have provided no sources to show that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The first source in the list proves that someone who has no connection to him sees him as notable. That's not enough to make him famous or the pre-eminent person in the field, but it does make him notable. If we need to remove the other sources I understand that, but I don't understand the removal of the entire article. Tom122079 (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, one person mentioning a passage of a book on their web site does not by itself make a person notable. If that were the case, anyone could make almost anyone else notable by posting something about them on a web site. There just isn't enough. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Significant coverage in reliable third party sources has been provided. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The French Democracy[edit]

Procedural nomination - contested speedy for not asserting notability. CitiCat^♫ 15:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds interesting, but no reliable sources to back it up, nor any assertion of WP:N. Happyme22 (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to be some reliable sources. There are 2 external links in the article itself, that give some coverage to the film. There was a Washington Post article about machinima that talks at length about the film: [5], and articles about the film from mtv.com [6], and about machinima in general that gives a significant mention to the film: [7]. Silverfish (talk)
Keep, several reliable sources did cover this as one of the first machinima films to tackle politics, if for no other reason. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is utter nonsense, a single film made using a video game for such propose is ridiculous and not notable. It is not at all famous outside that website. --81.1.101.218 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per Wikipedia:Notability. See the google search link provided by Dhartung above, there are a number of other articles, from e.g. USA Today[8] and The Washington Post[9] --Stormie (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were allowed, all "notable" movies films would be on here, such as famous horror films Near and Chat Room, were both made with the movies. Wheres their page? --81.1.107.251 (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there articles in major newspapers specifically about them and their creators? Unfortunately, both of those have names which are impossible to effectively Google for. --Stormie (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete the first three per WP:ATHLETE. Black Kite 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Lathrope[edit]

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE because he's never played in a fully pro league. Also nominating Luke Daley, Gerson Mayen and ~~José María Callejón~~ for the same reason. All articles were originally prodded, but the prods were all removed without explanation, except for the latter, which was removed with the claim "will be professional next season", which is irrelevant (being professional does not count - he must play a game, though if this is what the contestor meant, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Callejón. Played for Castilla in fully-pro Segunda División in 2006-07 (before they went down to Segunda B), see LFP site. Not sure which of the two Callejóns on that list is José María and which is his brother, but they both played! cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll trust you on that (the link doesn't work) and remove him from the nom. Could someone fill in the stats so this isn't repeated? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, wasn't concentrating, this link should work. Have now added stats and referenced mention of the Segunda División appearances to José María Callejón and his brother Juanmi Callejón, which had also been prodded. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lathrope, Daley & Mayen without prejudice as they fail notability. Should they ever play in a fully-pro league then recreate. --Jimbo^[online] 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Speedy keep Callejon, delete others - Per Struway2, passes WP:ATHLETE. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Callejon, Delete Lathrope, Daley & Mayen per Struway2. Giant Snowman 00:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayen He is signed to LA Chivas of the MLS - a tier 1 team. He regularily appears on reserve games. Unlike most leagues, MLS reserve games consist entirely of professional on professional teams. As such he meets WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable per WP:ATHLETE. – Pee Jay 11:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shimoyakedou[edit]

Dōjinshi circles typically are not notable to begin with and this one is no exception. The article does not assert any form of notability and no potential reference can be found form which notability can be assume. Simply having a booth at several Comiket events, which hosts approximately 35,000 dōjinshi circles and authors twice a year, doesn't make one notable either. The article also contains a great deal of original research in the form of analyzing their artistic styles and story structure that cannot be verified through independent sources. --Farix (Talk) 15:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable doujinshi circle: this circle is not Peach Pit, Type-Moon or 07th Expansion (notable former fanzine producers). Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Doceirias (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous (High School Musical song)[edit]

Non-notable song Sceptre ^(talk) 15:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High School Musical..... wow. Haha, no indication of WP:N. Happyme22 (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It charted on both iTunes and Hot 100 and with High School Musical 3 coming out, it can only get more press and play LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I hate all the hub-bub about High School Musical, songs that chart on the Hot 100 are considered automatically notable. Teemu08 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're probably notable. Top 10/20, maybe. When you get to around 60 or 70, maybe not so. A lot of songs from both soundtracks charted higher than 74, but were still deleted at AFD. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per previous comments. Another thing to add to the long list of things I hate that are nonetheless notable. Warhawk137 (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Store charts aren't relevant to notability. Number 75 on the Hot 100 isnt all that good of a claim for notability, there's no reason it can't be merged with a broader article. --neon white talk 22:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can't argue with the charts --T-rex 02:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maidenhead Astronomical Society[edit]

This article has been speedily deleted several times, citing lack of notability assertion. The current version has a borderline assertion of notability, however clearly fails WP:N. Googling "Maidenhead Astronomical Society" provides 100 links, and I can't find any news items reporting on the society. The article also has no citations, and basically lacks all grounding for an wikipedia article. -Toon^{0 5} 14:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some citations have been added, however they are no more than listings of the society, and contain no information other than to assert that the organisation exists. Two of the citations actually have nothing to do with the group. -Toon^{0 5} 15:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm on a losing battle. The society has had reports in the local paper which don't exist on their website, as well as UK astronomy magazines. I appreciate you taking the time to review this article, and very much appreciate your comments. I originally use the Birmingham Astronomical Society wiki page as guidance for material that makes the grade, but it seems theirs is not a good template to work from as, according to the standards applied to my article, theirs has no notability either. I guess there is nothing more I can do to stop the deletion. Mbandrews (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, Birmingham Astronomical Society isn't a very good article; I've tagged it for sources and improvement, because it may actually be slightly notable. If those don't appear, though, it should probably also be deleted. Look at our good articles for examples of high-quality ones to use as templates. I hope you take this as a learning experience and create better articles in the future. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I was going to vote 'keep' because I saw citations present. However, as Toon05 said, they contain merely mentions of the institution. Mbandrews, if you provide additional citations that pass WP:RS, I would be willing to switch my vote from 'neutral' to 'keep'. Happyme22 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After the article was expanded, I was quite willing to try to add to and improve it further, but after having a look around, I could barely find any mention of the society anywhere on the web - the only news article being an aside, mentioning that some guy who build a telescope in his front garden was in the society. The Notablility guideline states: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization" - the group clearly has neither national nor international scale activities, and there doesnt seem to be information that can be verified by reliable, independent organisations. It also states: Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. and Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. - as a member of the 'a member of the Federation of Astronomical Societies' surely this subject should exist as a section under "members" of this federation. There is no way this article qualifies as "notable" on its own. -Toon^{0 5} 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significance appears to be solely WP:LOCAL, and there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage by reliable and independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't inherited, so simply having Patrick Moore involved isn't really enough. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK chaps. I see where you are coming from so please don't waste any more time on this but instead send the article to the bin. I clearly have a lot to learn. Mbandrews (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless aforementioned reports in UK astronomy magazines discuss the society and its notability in more depth than a passing mention. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge...which at this point just requires a redirect to KROQ New Music leaving the history visible. --jonny-m t 02:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004 KROQ New Music[edit]

Basically a mixtape, with no claim of meeting WP:Notability -- half the radio stations in my area release similar CDs every year. See related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin & Bean's Christmastime in the 909. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Merge the lot, and I also mean the ones here too, KROQ#KROQ-related_albums, into their own page, similar to the Australian radio station Triple J does with their Hot 100 disks. One page, nicely laid out, and it will clean up that red link farm on the KROQ page at the same time. All IMHO, of course. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Esradekan, I did not understand what you meant by "IMHO". I have made a sufficient format for my new page and the others are ready to go. My format on the new page has kinks, but I will get to that in due time. Thank you. User:JokestrMike89 | Talk to me| —Preceding comment was added at 10:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agreed. One page is sufficient for all these. CitiCat^♫ 16:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge / redirect works for me. (I didn't realize there was an appropriate section in the KROQ article, or I would have just done it myself. Also 2007 KROQ New Roq should be merged, as it has the same issues.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Copy that. I'll merge ASAP if that works. I do have a couple references and outside links now, so it may be more formidable... I shall only do the New Rock mixes though, because I am not very knowledgeable on the other Christmas compilations and such --JokestrMike89 15:39, 21 June 2008
    - Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - A little better?: KROQ New Music. I'm still making updates, but that's the gist of it so far, so please don't go and recommend it for deletion yet, haha ;) --JokestrMike89. And THANKS for the suggestion. That was a good idea. At first I thought you just wanted me out :( haha. Just kiddin'. —Preceding comment was added at 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Clearly there is no consensus to delete, as aside from the nominator only one other editor has expressed a desire for deletion. Whether or not to merge the content to Griffith University is an editorial decision and discussion of any such proposal is best conducted on the article's talk page. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith University Law School[edit]

fails WP:CORP notability not established from independent sources Michellecrisp (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Griffith University per the normal practice for university departments. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nick. Having said that, there is no reason why university departments can't be notable in their own right, or can't be spun out from over large parent articles. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Law schools, just like medical schools etc, are notable--they are of more significance than university departments, as major components of a university with generally a semi-autonomous organisation DGG (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this the case for this institution? Or are you making the case that Law Schools are inherently notable? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with above, there is no general rule about medical or law schools being more notable than other parts of a university. This has to be assessed on a case a case basis. In Australia, law and medical schools generally fall under Faculties and are no more autonomous than say an engineering school. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is more notable than the great majority of other article topics. It's a useful resource for people studying law.Osloinsummertime (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see WP:USEFUL -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Again no specific independent third party evidence is provided in the article of meeting WP:CORP as per below Michellecrisp (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability

Comment The article has three or so independent citations. It is incorrect to say there is no evidence. In addition, the block quote above is out of context. There are many other relevant guidelines. WP:DELETION Osloinsummertime (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 independent citations in an article that has existed for over 1.5 years is hardly enough evidence to satisfy WP:CORP. What I am looking for is third party evidence eg from several newspaper or the law society that states that is more than a normal law school. Has it produced notable alumni? Michellecrisp (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Michellecrisp, I think these questions are rather arbitrary and not clearly relevant. Osloinsummertime (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment clearly relevant, any organisation article in Wikipedia must satisfy WP:CORP. You seem to shy away from the fact that there is little third party evidence of notability. If you want a good law school article to compare look at Harvard Law School. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Too bad it isn't a middle school. If all the middle school inclusionists would line up for graduate schools like they do for middle schools, this discussion would have been speedily closed. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The school is covered, in the Griffith University article. Further, the school is not a graduate school; it offers undergraduate courses. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incorrect: As the article itself notes, the school has graduate and undergraduate LLB programmes. It also has masters and PhD degrees.Osloinsummertime (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Griffith University. This has the benefit of being an easy solution. That way no information is lost and if the subject meets the notability requirements in the future, nothing will prevent it from being split into it's own article. Farside6 (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have checked the Social Sciences Research Network and found the law school is #74 in the list of 100 Top International Law Schools. I believe this is measured by reference to impact (citations, etc.) of faculty scholarship. I'll add this independent source directly to the article.Osloinsummertime (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable in its own right. Satisfys WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to see why this came here. We don't delete tertiary, degree awarding bodies and the question of a possible merge to the parent university is a matter for a separate editorial action for which AfD is inappropriate. TerriersFan (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is not a standalone school. If the above argument is true then it follows then every school of Griffith University and every university should have its own article, clearly WP:CORP must be satisfied first. There seems to be some misconception here that this law school is like a North American law school. In Australia, that is rarely the case, as they are predominantly undergraduate (often with students doing combined degrees with other schools), and are no more autonomous than saw an engineering school or psychology department. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What happened to favouring case-by-case reasoning, Michelle? As I said, the website shows that the school is a graduate school in large part. But why does that even matter? More important, since not a single person here (besides Michelle) has said this site should be deleted, I added a "close" tag. The guidelines suggested this was appropriate. Michelle has erased the tag. Can anyone advise what is appropriate as there is no consensus favouring deletion? (While you are at it, Michelle and I seem to disagree about whether the notability tag on the article should remain. Since this debate began I changed the article to add a very important third party source establishing notability. Is it safe to say, now, that we should simply leave the site alone and turn to debating the notability of other articles now?Osloinsummertime (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A number of editors, including myself, have voted to merge this with the article on the uni, which is pretty much the same as deletion as the article will become a redirect. It seems that the 'all schools are notable' crowd is charging into this debate, and I doubt that they have much knowledge of how Australian universities are run (eg, that this is a university department rather than an independant 'school' and that it doesn't award its own degrees and post-graduate qualifications). The schools deletion sorting list is becoming a bit of a problem, IMO, as any nominations of post-primary schools attracts the same faces asserting that the school is notable. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentClosing a discussion is the role of an administrator, not someone who doesn't want the article deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators Michellecrisp (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While WP:NAC may be used in limited circumstances, this AfD has one delete and three merge/redirect comments, so the outcome is far from clear at present. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The process is not supposed to be a vote so much. It's a debate. I think the onus is on the single 'delete' voice to address and refute the arguments thus far made against deletion. Also, it would be useful for those recommending merge to address the recent addition of the arguably quite important new citation in the article. Osloinsummertime (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not my role to refute every counterargument. I am happy to let the process run and await the outcome. Appreciate if you do the same. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't believe there's enough here to justify it sitting out of the main uni article. Murtoa (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it publishes a peer-reviewed journal, the Griffith law review, surely gives it some notability. The article could be better written. Other recent university law schools in Australia, such as Deakin Law School, UNSW Faculty of Law, Monash University Faculty of Law, have their own article. Surprisingly there's not one on ANU Law School. Mathsci (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As do Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and UWS. WWGB (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems similar to Deakin Law School. the others have notability more clearly established especially through a list of many notable alumni. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Michelle, my point about refutation is this: When you present an argument, and I then argue it is wrong, it's good form either to drop the argument or keep at it only after refuting my counter-argument. As it is, I believe you are repeating points without acknowledging their weaknesses. For example, why persist with the "notable alumni" line of argument (which, in my opinion, is arbitrary) while ignoring the independent citation I added (which, as I argued and you ignored, is a very solid source)? There is not much sense in that. Osloinsummertime (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many Australian university departments have their own peer-reviewed journals which put out a few brief issues each year, so this isn't any particular distinction. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be appropriate to distinguish between Australian law schools originating in the 19C, the 1960's and the 1990's. It is unreasonable to expect law schools founded in the 1990s, such as UWS School of Law or the other two already mentioned, to number high court judges or ambassadors amongst their alumni. The Faculty of Law, Cambridge lists no alumni; there is no article on the faculty of law at the University of Oxford although there is one on the undergraduate Oxford Law Society. There appear to be no hard and fast rules. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone should probably, then, add a notability tag to the Cambridge law school.Osloinsummertime (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a law school. It's notable. Rebecca (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick Google search turned up notable alumni, now added to the article, which should satisfy Michelle.Osloinsummertime (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please keep discussion to article not me. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's easier to refer to a point someone made when you use her name.Osloinsummertime (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Law schools arent inherently notable, some may indeed be notable, this one most certainly isnt. It fails WP:CORP. The lack of reliable third-party sources is certainly a worry. Redirect the page to Griffith University, with the option to recreate if significant third-party sources can be found. Five Years 06:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fiveyears: If it were certain, we wouldn't have the different views represented in this debate. In what ways are the third party sources weak?Osloinsummertime (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are three references for this article: the speech - which appears to be incidental coverage, a somewhat relevant piece on indigenous education at the law school, and a piece which is restricted. Im simply not convinced that this is sufficient to base an article on. Five Years 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 'restricted' piece is the important one. I believe it's not actually restricted; you can get a free log in identity. In any case, not all WP references have to be free and open to all like WP itself is.Osloinsummertime (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN is a problem here - its "notability" is stitched together from three entirely unrelated sources, two of which do not strictly speaking meet WP:RS. Orderinchaos 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem on their face related to notability; it is your onus to explain why they aren't. It isn't at all clear how they're "unrelated" (to each other? to notability?) much less that they are entirely so. The citation to WP:SYN and assertion of "stitching" are similarly conclusory, presented without any backing.Osloinsummertime (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - notability must be asserted - it is always the onus of whoever wants the content to justify its addition or retention. This is a fairly fundamental principle on Wikipedia and I'm genuinely surprised to see someone attempting to argue the reverse. Orderinchaos 10:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What I'm saying is, having already asserted a justification (ie. the citations) at my end, the onus in the present context is now on you to explain why it doesn't work, using more than conclusory assertion. It is always your onus to back up what you say. Osloinsummertime (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Griffith University - non notable outside the context of Griffith (it doesn't have its own students per se, Griffith has students who study law). Orderinchaos 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not accurate; it is a law School not a law department.Osloinsummertime (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia (and I've been a student for a fairly long time, and did once study law) Departments are within Schools which are within Faculties which are (at some places) within Divisions. There's *dozens* of "schools" within any University. In fact, their website tells me: "Griffith University has 46 schools and faculties, organised into ten study areas." Among others included is the Griffith School of Environment. This site confirms that in order to enrol you enrol through the State tertiary admissions centre into the University under the law programme, so you're not in fact a student of a separate school if successful. Orderinchaos 00:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I follow your reasoning. The bottom line is that Griffith Law School is a law school, no more or less than any other law school. Law schools have special prestige status within most universities where they are present and, most importantly, have the formal status allowing them to confer professional qualifications. Osloinsummertime (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Special prestige status"? Clear original research. It is not a separate law school, it is very much part of Griffith University, just as its School of Environment is part of Griffith University, and the School of Arts at the university I presently study at is part of that venerable institution. This is a very different situation to that found outside of Australia, where separate law schools do indeed exist. This seems like some grown-up version of schoolcruft trying to rear its ugly head here. Orderinchaos 16:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your school is worthy of inclusion on WP too; I can't see how separateness matters to notability. There is already ample evidence on WP that law schools in Australia are unique, separate, what have you; but again, the question of "separateness" is an irrelevancy. Osloinsummertime (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Griffith University. I don't think there's enough here for the article to stand on its own, but it certainly fits within the larger university page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a standalone article per the numerous precedents provided above by Mathsci and WWGB, and also on the grounds that this article contains a similar amount of prose as Griffith University already, merging it in would rather unbalance that article. --Stormie (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content needs to be either edited out or trimmed down, so I don't think this is a problem. I personally think the other "precedents" (note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an invalid ground for argument) should be deleted too. Orderinchaos 11:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's important to note that Griffith Law School runs at least three research centres, the Socio-Legal Research Centre, the Centre for Credit and Consumer Law, and the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture. I have just added these to the school's article.Osloinsummertime (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep otherwise Osloinsummertime will get extremely upset if this article is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.68.56 (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, Nakon 01:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angband (band)[edit]

Non-notable article subject. Fails to meet critieria set by WP:MUSIC. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Keep, I've been putting some thought into this one for a few days now, and I'm changing my vote, in no small part to Paul Eirk. I've been thinking of voting keep under WP:MUSIC#C7, but didn't because the only reference we have is a band press-release, which "technically" fails reliable sources. However, taking into consideration where they are from, I'm gonna over look that, and coupled with the fact that WP:MUSIC is a guideline, not policy, I'm changing my vote to keep under WP:MUSIC#C7. And from one band to another, I wish them all the best with their new record contract. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN subject. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that was implied in your statement of nomination. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm staying neutral, but I'll note that this band is calling itself the first Iranian metal band, at a time when metal is banned in Iran, to be signed to a European label. Source: Blabbermouth.net (I also note that's all that's appearing in a Google News archives search). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too, and and was wondering if it failed #1 of WP:Music#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, since it is the same press release, verbatim, in every source I can find. Your thoughts Sir! Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are correct. I remain neutral, with my optimistic stance that this article's subject might have some sources that are hard to access via the Internet, as is sometimes the case with bands from the Middle East. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)}

Comment: I edited the page and removed the "first band thing" hope it solve the problem.

the 2 last links are about the first part of article to confirm the Chuck Schuldiner's comment about the book that Mahyar dean wrote in 2000.
Sincerely
Mortex2—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortex2 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 June 2008

Comment -- I still have research to do on the band, so I won't throw a judgment in yet, but I originally tagged the article with the notability tag. If it is indeed the only signed metal band from Iran, then it is certainly notable by criterion 7. Otherwise, it's a shoo-in for deletion. -- 83.203.195.129 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I searched in many metal news sites, find many metal bands from Iran in metalarchive.com but non of them are signed and also entered the word "iran" in news archive of blabbermouth.net (CNN of metal) and read all of the news about metal from Iran. They are the first band.thanks for the time and comments. --Mortex2 (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Persian Mirror website claims that "Ahoora is a Progressive Thrash Metal Band... Recently they signed to British label, Real2Can Records, which will release their self titled debut album worldwide." It is undated so it is unclear whether they beat Angband to the signing, but it does mean that Angband are not the only Iranian metal band signed with a European label (unless you are distinguishing between "metal" and "progressive thrash metal"). Road Wizard (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If its right why Ahoora are in the unsigend bands section at myspace!!!!they are unsigned and just send their cds to this store to sell, just Check them at myspace. from the other hand real2can is more like an online Records store, Its not a label. you can send your Cds and they sale it like Cd baby.--85.15.24.162 (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thats right ahoora are unsigned based on myspace. thas why only a non-metal Persian site wrote about them not the metal news sites.--Mortex2 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an independent observer who knows very little about the Metal genre, Iranian music or music articles on Wikipedia I have pointed out a source that appears relevant to this discussion. The source claims another Iranian band has signed with a different European label. Whether this source is reliable is up to the judgement of editors more familiar with the subject material. However, I would point out that the self-published source for the Angband claim is not a very reliable source itself. I have no judgement on this issue, hence my choice to comment and not put forward an argument.

On a separate point I find it interesting that 85.15.24.162 (who has commented above) refactored and signed your comments on my talk page.[10][11] Do you want me to restore the comments on my talk page to what you wrote? Road Wizard (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further at the edits of 85.15.24.162 it appears that the editor also altered your comments on this discussion page.[12] However I see that you have fixed the problem by adding a new comment to replace the altered one.[13] Road Wizard (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)--85.15.13.164 (talk) (UTC)[reply]

Comment: thats right, when I did more reseaches I added another comment, you can say anything about the article but Its not fair to comapre it with an unsigned band, I live in Iran and I know Persian mirror. did you check myspace for this Iraniain unsigned band ahoora !? I decided to remove the first band thing once but I have to keep it to match the rules of wikipedia, and now after lots of reasearches I do know they are the frist band.--85.15.13.164 (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The press release proclaiming the band as the first Iranian metal band to sign a recording deal with an European label can be dismissed as inaccurate. Aside from Ahoora that Road Wizard mentioned, the black metal act Sorg Innkallelse is on the underground Estonian label Hexenreich and has released two albums through it with a third arriving in August this year. It seems to me that if any Iranian metal band deserves an article on wikipedia, Ahoora and Sorg Innkallelse are more notable than this Angband. Heck, I can think of several other metal bands from different countries across the Middle East that deserve an article more than Angband. There is very little coverage of Angband which is not surprising given that they have yet to even release their debut album. --Bardin (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ho hum, apparently there is a wikipedia article on Sorg Innkallelse. --Bardin (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and Ahoora's label is in question (signed or not? who knows!). I'm still not going to make a judgment, but I can't say I'm too impressed with the arguments for or against deletion. 83.203.178.6 (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Default to keep. I note that a considerable amount of information has been added to the dictionary definition that was nominated {[14]). As the AFD was no consensus, if the article does not further improve in a few months, it can always be revisited here at AFD. Neıl 龱 20:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roadfan[edit]

All-out dicdef. Also, that notable roadfans section is very unencyclopediac. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems any further information beyond the dicdef would be opinion only. CitiCat^♫ 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable hobby; various roadgeeks have been interviewed in media sources and thus reliable sources can be found; I know in particular that "The Georgia Roadgeek" (can't recall his real name) has been interviewed by local papers, along with a description of the hobby. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadgeek, where this article, under another name, was nominated for AFD and closed with an overwhelming "keep". —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, it should be moved back to roadgeek, since that's the term that gets the reliable sources (ignore the first from a Usenet mirror). --NE2 21:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be it a notable hobby or not, it violates WP:DICDEF. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary or Delete. The condition of the previous AFD – however overwhelming it may have been – was that it be cleaned up. Given that the article has not been expanded since then, there doesn't seem to be much to say beyond the dictionary definition. -- Kéiryn (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary as "roadgeek", move the Wikipedia page back to roadgeek, and create a "soft redirect" to the Wiktionary entry. --NE2 03:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roadgeek was nominated for deletion previously, with a result of "Keep and cleanup." The resulting improvements began with the deletion of the interesting and encyclopedic information about a fairly well documented hobby, removal of all related images, moving the article to a less notable title, followed by another AfD. Note that the current AfD is perfectly understandable and I do AGF. The article should be moved back to Roadgeek, should be restored to the longest version, and should have templates requesting improvement and references as appropriate. It would be better to use a title that applied to the hobby, rather than the hobbyists, I think. But "Roadgeeking," even with 4280 hits, doesn't seem quite right. Roadfan has about 7,000 hits, compared to 56,000 for Roadgeek, 132,000 for "road scholar" (many for roadscholar.org, a travel learning program), and 14,000 for "roads scholar" (many for state and federal highway-related training programs).--Hjal (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent and per notability. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As notable as it may be, it still violates WP:DICDEF. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete per above, there is no consensus on where it should be keep or not and besides Wikipedia not a dictionary of anything. --75.47.158.192 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been restored to encyclopedic content with additional material and references. It's not GA, but it's good enough to drop this AfD.--Hjal (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki transwiki to wiktionary, WP:DICDEF Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable hobby. Does not seem to be a dicdef to me. Prior AFD result was a clear keep. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per ED2. No info lost, and is in appropriate place.Yobmod (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Dicdef where it belongs TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep based on apparently reliable sources. I say "apparently" through having viewed them; however if there is a ridiculously complex hoax occurring here, please feel free to bring back to AFD. Black Kite 01:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Sign Language[edit]

I am opening this nomination on behalf of an IP user, 86.134.175.128 (talk · contribs), who claims that the article is a hoax and that the language does not exist. I am reproducing our conversation thus far below for convenience.

(86.134.175.128 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)) The page NISL needs to be deleted the information is factually incorrect there is no such language such as NISL. A few of the universities in the UK and Ireland have found no such language and the comments "Unionist BSL users (mainly members of the British Deaf Association") is offensive I am surprised a highly respected organisation such as the BDA which has worked worldwide is allowed to be riddiculed in this way.

I am a bit sceptical, since there are some online sites which mention NISL, such as [15] and [16]. Are you claiming that all these sites have also fallen victim to the hoax? Gail (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(86.134.175.128 (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC))Unfortunately yes if you see [17] the NI government are currently working with numerous deaf organisations who all agree on ISL and BSL however NISL does not exist. DCAl are the department solely taskedd with languages and currently deal with all the contraversial languages already it would be a major political issue if they missed NISL if it actually existed!! Some of your references refer to NISL before the official state of NI actually existed so how can Northern Ireland Sign Language exist before Northern Ireland? I am happy to provide further info if necessary.

Gail (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if reliable sources can be found. What I've found in a cursory search is that "NISL", to the extent that it can be defined, is essentially a dialect of British Sign Language. At least one source indicates that Northern Ireland's Catholic community tends to use ISL while the Protestants prefer BSL. Sorting this out according to NPOV will be challenging, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if reliable sources are not found. WillOakland (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The global-lingo.com link referred to in Gail's comment of 17:40, 20 June 2008 is using the Wikipedia article as its source, making that reference invalid. The other link (Irish Deaf Kids) states BSL is the primary sign language of Northern Ireland with BSL only being used in Britain. However this disagrees with the British Government and legal position which both recognise BSL as the most widely used sign language in Northern Ireland.[18] The discrepancy between the two sources would seem to agree with Dhartung's finding that NISL is either a dialect of BSL or just an alternative name for BSL when used in Northern Ireland. The article's claim that NISL has official recognition certainly appears to be incorrect as only BSL and ISL were recognised by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in March 2004.[19] Road Wizard (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had referred to the global-lingo.com page not just because it mentions NISL, but because it claims to "offer interpreters trained in" it. Another document I found is this school publication, which claims that its students "are also taught Northern Ireland Sign Language (NISL)" (pg. 33). Finally, I may have also found a source which qualifies under WP:RS and confirms the contentious status of NISL: Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory And Practice by Terry Janzen, specifically pages 256 and 265, which quote a primary source written by Shane O Heorpa (can't find it online). Is that source sufficient for retaining the article? Gail (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't access the secondary sources you mentioned, but this may be the primary source being referred to.[20] It states that:

"NISL is what many people refer to as "BSL" - but just because NISL use the BSL alphabet and a lot of BSL signs doesnt mean its BSL itself - as it does have a LARGE number of ASL signs in NISL... and also a large number of ISL signs - of course our local signs too.

There is a big debate in Northern Ireland about whether we can use the term NISL or BSL - but my work, the SLCB, will use the term NISL - in sensitive areas, we will say NISL (NI-BSL) - its a very political issue".

With the contentious nature of this issue editors will need to be very careful about what statements the sources can support if the article is kept. Road Wizard (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the primary source was an academic publication:

O Heorpa, Shane (2003). What is NISL? A Northern Ireland Sign Language? IASLI Newsletter, 4 (3). Dublin: Irish Association of Sign Language Interpreters.

What you pasted roughly corresponds to what is stated in the secondary source, which goes into more detail on the subject (about 1 full page). Could you please check whether you can access it through this link and then navigating to pages 256 and 265 manually? Gail (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't access page 265 for some reason (must be some setting on my computer causing a problem) but I have read page 256. I have taken the liberty of rewriting the article based on the sources. I have tried to aim for a neutral balance given that the NISL acronym is disputed and not officially recognised. Road Wizard (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on rewrite. Other sources would be welcome to fill out the article a little, but I think it can survive in its current form. Road Wizard (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Road Wizard's rewrite... and thanks for the good piece of work :) I'll try filling it out a bit later if I find more sources. Gail (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(86.134.175.128 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)) DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.175.128 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Global-lingo cannot claim to have interpreters trained in NISL as there are no courses or interpreter training in that language CACDP the examining body for sign language qualifications and who is linked to the register of interpreters in the UK IRP only train in BSL and ISL.[reply]

I can dismiss the comment in the school publication as it is an Irish medium school and it would be politically foolish to mention anything British in their publications despite that BSL has no political allegiances as a language. The Department for Employment and Learning the government department responsible for work and education has recently announced money for the training of BSL and ISL tutors and interpreters [21]

So I would not be surprised if all schools have to clarify the language they use as it would make the Government look foolish by deliberately excluding a language especially one that is supposed to be a NI language?

All the references which highlight NISL are written by Shane Oheorpa, who was reported to have started the SLCB but the only description of this organisation is on Wikipedia another website highlights an address but on investigation there is no organisation there. Mr Oheorpa may feel he uses NISL (I am not sure if he does) but I cannot find any references that anyone else does. I wanted to refer to IASLI for further clarification but they dissolved in Dec 2007 as reported in the WASLI newsletter but IASLI (Republic of Ireland) ASLI for (England Wales and NI) and SASLI (Scotland) are all the professional organisations for Sign Language Interpreters and none of them mention NISL other than the article Mr Oheorpa wrote in the IASLI newsletter I am not sure if this is an academic publication but I have emailed someone in the former IASLI organisation for their input.

[22] is a project with numerous universities across the UK which includes Queens in Belfast is undertaking a corpus [23] and there are no references to NISL there.

I have looked at all the organisations in NI that seem to represent deaf people and sign language and none mention NISL NDCS BDA NIDYA RNID CACDP

I get your point; however, you should understand that Wikipedia must adhere by a neutral point of view (NPOV), "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", even if such views are not endorsed by the official authorities or mainstream community (as is, in this case, clearly stated in the article). Even if we were to agree that NISL is mostly the result of a politically-charged undercurrent, it still remains one which has been picked up by an established publisher, John Benjamins, and in my opinion should therefore be noted. Gail (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge & Redirect to Ilam, New Zealand. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilam Primary School[edit]

No indication of notability, and schools, especially low-level ones, are not always notable Shirtboy1324 (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC) — Shirtboy1324 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Non-notable; seems like an A7 or even A3 to me. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not an A7 (schools do not meet A7) or an A3 (there is content; the article states the location of the school, gender of the pupils and uniform colour) Anyway, merge and redirect to Ilam, New Zealand per light-year long precedent for non-notable but verifiable schools—deletion is not necessary; reliable sources may be published to make the article notable and viable in the future. EJF (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ilam, New Zealand.-gadfium 20:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ilam, New Zealand. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ilam, New Zealand - all NZ primary schools are being progressiviley documented in the articles on their parent localities. dramatic (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as merge/redirect to Ilam, New Zealand#Education to where I have already merged the content so the page just needs redirecting. TerriersFan (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Clark[edit]

delete – This article is off to a bad start. It survived a prod[24] without meaningfully addressing the notability concern. The article is promotional and overly sympathetic in nature because its single editor is a key member of the organization.[25] Most or all of the "Ministerial" section is copyvio material from a book.[26] The key claims to notability are as founder of an organization and author of twelve books. The organization may or may not be notable (most on-topic Google hits are book promotions or the organization's own press releases); if it is notable, then an article on Spirit of Life Ministries would be more appropriate. Most or all of the twelve books are self published, which eliminates that particular claim to notability. Finally, Wikipedia is not demanding this article in the form of internal links to it; that is, as of yet there is no internal indication of notability. Because of the conflict of interest problems and dubious notability I think this article should be deleted. An article about the organization may be appropriate if neutral editors deem it so. Once deleted, the article should be recreated as a redirect to Clark University, whose founder is presumably a significantly more notable individual. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I'd like a neutral article on this person to get some factual information but the author of the article is an apparently an employee wp:coi, it's not sourced at all by reliable citations. I tried to clean it up but without some neutral sources it's a loosing battle. It still reads a little like a promotional piece. I'll go re-read WP:SPS. And what I found was "Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:" "3. it is not unduly self-serving," "7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.". Here's a couple searches I tried for other references: nada from find articles, nada,and nada. Faradayplank (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New German School[edit]

Largely un-cited essay (see WP:OR and WP:CITE). Has bibliography, but most "references" are actually footnotes. Aside from sourcing and verifiability issues, the tone is inappropriate for WP: "However, nobody had actually believed, all of Wagner's claims were true"; "Beethoven had reached his hand to the specific German North again...". Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sentences "nobody had actually believed..." and "Beethoven had reached his hands..." are quotations from Franz Brendel's speech "Zur Anbahnung einer Verständigung" as being cited in the bibliography. The speech is a famous source, being used by everyone who writes about the "New German School" and wants to be taken earnestly. As far as the user "Delicious carbuncle" doesn't know that, it is not the article's, neither the author's fault, but solely his.

Adding some further remarks to the sources, Detlef Altenburg who edited the book "Liszt und die Neudeutsche Schule" (see the bibliography) is worldwide recognized as being the top expert regarding the "New German School". He is professor for musicology at the "Franz Liszt Hochschule" at Weimar and leading member of the German "Franz Liszt Gesellschaft". In Weimar, he has access to tons of still unpublished source materials in the "Goethe- und Schiller Archiv". Much of it was used in essays in the book "Liszt und die Neudeutsche Schule". In other words: Those essays are not only some sources, but among all sources being available today, they are the best and most reliable ones which could possibly be chosen.80.145.136.128 (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the concerns raised about the article, not my ignorance of relevant famous speeches, which I freely admit. I think you're making my point for me about the unsuitability of this particular article. I don't see any reason why the general material should not be included in WP, but this article needs to be completely rewritten with reference to WP guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is obvious that I did respond to your objection, you are still putting claims without any reasons. With much patience: Disturbing an editor in such kinds while an article was just commenced is of most unusual kind. Continue doing it that way, it will be recognized as nothing else than a kind of trolling. Redirecting to reality again: When an editor with knowledge and experiance takes the labour of writing an article about a difficult subject, the adnavtage is certainly not at the editor's side, but at Wikipedia's.80.144.72.13 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a reasonably good start to an article. DGG (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am perplexed as to why this would be nominated for deletion. The subject matter is notable enough and the article clearly has ample verifiable sources with a bibliography and references. Any other problems should be resolved by improving the article and not deleting it. --Bardin (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability was never the issue. Since I nominated it, subsequent additions have been somewhat better referenced. The issues of prose that is rather flowery for an unencylopaedia and WP:OR remain, but it's clear they won't be addressed here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Flowery prose and original research are grounds for improving the article. See WP:DEL#REASON and WP:ATD. Given time, this could even turn into a featured article one fine day. --Bardin (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiseek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable. Original sources now longer valid. Site has been taken down since first AfD discussion (which had very little participation). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability. Never made it big, and now gone --T-rex 15:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability does not expire. If it was notable at the time of the first AfD, it remains notable today. --Eastmain (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the outcome of that limited discussion was "no consensus", not "keep" --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Soxred 93 13:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google news search finds quite a few mentions[27] and while many are behind pay portals and in other languages some of the article appear to be quite substantial.[28] - Icewedge (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability does not expire. It (marginally, to be sure) made the grade when it was active, so it stays. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 01:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone GUI[edit]

Not notable computer software. Only 76 unique ghits, none of them reliable. Article created a month ago and there has only been only one trivial addition since. Debate 木 12:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability, no references. - Icewedge (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as above; no claim to notability.Fletcher (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it badly fails the test for notability. This probably should be WP:SNOWed. S. Dean Jameson 13:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luithicca[edit]

Suspected hoax. First google search of Luithicca comes up with userpage of someone called Leo. Nothing on any disease affecting anything. Ged UK (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The article claims that the disease affects pigs and boars but their is not a single result outside of WP for the phrases Luithicca "boars" or Luithicca "pigs" and the user appears to be a vandal (see User talk:Obsession114). "Luithicca" also does not seem to follow standard disease naming procedure. - Icewedge (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Religion in Japan. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese gods[edit]

Reads like a book report for elementary school, not as an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Red Blue Eagles[edit]

Non-notable amateur football team. The club plays in a purely social competition, the sources provided are either not independent of the subject or are only of minor relevance. This is a disputed PROD, reasons can be found on the article talk page. Mattinbgn\^talk 10:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 11:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adelaide Red Blue Eagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a notable amateur football team playing in a legitimate competition. I dispute the claim that it is non-notable, pointing to an article in The Murray Valley Standard as proof of the clubs notoriety, which has a circulation of almost 4,000 (ABC audited). In regards to the SAASL being a purely social competition, the SAASL is the level of football (soccer) below the three professional leagues of South Australia which are run by the FFSA. Many players in the league are payed money to play, making it a business exchange. Social soccer is playing in the park with mates. How can this article on a SAASL team be any different to that of the article of SAASL team FC Adelaide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babny002 (talk • contribs)
Delete as per Mattinbgn comments. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. I just speedy deleted FC Adelaide under CSD A7. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This team is a "notable team" see http://saasl.com.au/frmShowPage.aspx?strPageName=clubs&intDivisionID=61&intClubID=183. Furthermore it has a first team and a reserve team. With the reserves currently still in a competitive cup, see http://saasl.com.au/frmShowpage.aspx?strpagename=cup_matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.75.200 (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete getting mentioned in a local paper with a circulation of 4,000, and having a reserve team do not assist its non-notable status. Murtoa (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The team also employs a coach who previously competed in the National Soccer League, (predecessor to the A-League). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.75.200 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 14:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:N. Five Years 06:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 11:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The notion of merging these into a single article has some merit but is primarily an editorial, rather than an AfD, decision. Shereth 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stones American Tour 1981[edit]

Non notable tours. I think A Bigger Bang Tour and others are notable, so I am not nominating them. Notability is not asserted (nor reliably asserted).

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

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. You must be joking! Rolling Stones tours have been among the most famous concert tours of all time. If we have any articles about concert tours, then for example The Rolling Stones American Tour 1969 and The Rolling Stones American Tour 1972 would have to be among them: both were major cultural milestones in rock history. Much mainstream press attention was given to both of them at the time; indeed, a well-known book was written about the latter (Robert Greenfield's S.T.P.: A Journey Through America With The Rolling Stones). Sourcing for many of these tour articles comes from another well-known book, Roy Carr's The Rolling Stones: An Illustrated Record. Like them or not, the Stones' image, popularity, and cultural impact has always come just as much from their concert appearances as from their albums or singles, even the most obscure of which all have their own articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And to take your prime example, Rolling Stones American Tour 1981, this tour is notable, and not just for being a major Rolling Stones tour. It was the highest-grossing and most-profitable tour ever at the time. It was sponsored by Jōvan, a surprising move at the time that attracted a lot of business media attention, but soon presaged most major rock tours getting corporate sponsorship. And the tour is also notable for Keith Richards' being clean from substance abuse and the band's playing being much better as a result. And this notability is reliably, third-party sourced, with cites including several books on music and business and New York Times newspaper and Forbes magazine articles as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the 1981 tour is also notable for the first pay-per-view broadcast of a concert (the december 18th show at Hampton Virginia ... which is in itself notable for still other reasons). Sssoul (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I can only assume the nomination is a joke, possibly by Paul McCartney. Nick mallory (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or Merge and Redirect. The Stones are a very well know band and most of their tours are notable, especially their first few. I'm going to suggest the others be merged and redirected into a list as I doubt every single one of these is notable. — _Maggot^Syn 13:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the articles from the 1969 American Tour on forward are long-standing articles that have a lot to say about the tours and deserve to be individual articles. The articles on the 1967 European Tour and before are recent creations that are generally just lists of tour dates and songs played. Those might be combined into one article per year or something like that, unless the author of them has plans to further expand them. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all or Merge. Yes, some of the shorter articles on the early ones could possibly be merged OR developed further, but they should definitely all be kept. The 1963-1967 marathon of touring the band did is a very major aspect of their history & notability. Sssoul (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The Rolling Stones are one of the most popular live music attractions in history. On any reasonable standard, their concert tours are notable Edelmand (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The tour names are arbritrary and there are tours that occur in the same year in the same country which have pages. What about "The Rolling Stones 1st British Tour 1964" and "The Rolling Stones 1st British Tour 1965"? How can two tours be the first?? The Rolling Stones 2nd European Tour 1965 only has 3 dates. How is that notable? The Rolling Stones 4th European Tour 1965 only has 6 dates. If the Rolling Stones performances are so notable - which I believe they are - shouldn't there be a page like Nine Inch Nails live performances instead of this variety of disparate non-notable, badly named articles. Can I please emphasise that this deletion nomination has excluded a fair few other RS tours, as I believe that some are notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe The Rolling Stones American Tour 1969 is not notable? From the lead of that article: "Rock critic Robert Christgau called it "history's first mythic rock and roll tour",[2] while rock critic Dave Marsh would write that the tour was "part of rock and roll legend" and one of the "benchmarks of an era."[3]" I could find a half-dozen more assessments like that if necessary ... even Jack Black would agree. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the tour and article names, from 1970 on they are taken directly from the Rolling Stones tour posters whose images you see in the articles; these are as official as you'll get for tour names. (The posters themselves have become famous over the years.) The 1969 American tour didn't seem to have a name on its poster, but every reference source uses this obvious retronym for it. The 1967 and before names are taken from the listing of them in Roy Carr's The Rolling Stones: An Illustrated Record. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the 1967 and before articles, as said above, there may be merit into coallescing them into The Rolling Stones 1964 tours, The Rolling Stones 1965 tours, The Rolling Stones 1966 tours ... Each article could then trace the evolution of early Stones tours — how long they played, other acts in the tour package with them, types of venues, nature of audiences, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to remove the 1969 tour from this nom. I think anything involving the stones and 1969 is probably notable, but I hope you can see my issue with the other articles. How about we remove the less notable articles and create a RS Live article (which RS's notable stage craft, performances etc). And I'm sure JB would agree with your previous statement. ;) Aren't we at risk of forking, and relying on, to much on Roy Carr's book? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every one from 1969 on is notable. These were all major tours, with their own names, posters, promotions, attendance records, cultural impact, scandals, personnel dramas, etc. Let's discuss Rolling Stones American Tour 1981, the one you named this whole AfD after. Have you read it again? Do you really still think that tour isn't notable? As people have pointed out above, in addition to being a major Rolling Stones tour, it set ticket-selling records at the time, it innovated the use of corporate sponsorship and pay-per-view events, and it marked a turn-around in Richards' playing abilities. What makes that tour less notable than Licks Tour, which you decided was notable? What makes that tour less notable than Tenacious D 2006-2007 Tour, which you've made many edits to? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for sourcing, that's not a problem. Tons of stuff has been written about the Stones. Rolling Stones American Tour 1981 uses a wide variety of sources, for example, none of which is Carr. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I would be willing to remove 1981. But what about all the articles which have poor context, and just seem to be a gig date listing. Am I able to remove the AfD nominees by just removing the templates from the respective pages? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if the articles on the pre-1967 tours need to be developed more, then please put an appropriate "help needed" banner on them - don't delete them! maybe Wasted Time R's idea of merging them into "RS Tours 1963", "RS Tours 1964", etc, would work until the articles get more fleshed out (and i absolutely agree that overdoing Carr as a source is a mistake in more ways than one!) but: bear in mind that the Rolling Stones played their 1000th gig sometime in 1967. 1000 gigs in under 5 years - they played more often than some people bathe - no wonder they're still going strong! ahem, i mean: you bet those early tours are notable! Sssoul (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to rail against an obvious consensus. I still think perhaps a few of the articles I nom'd only list a few dates and aren't really notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool - could you perhaps provide a list of the few that you're talking about, and/or put appropriate banners on them asking for them to be either expanded or merged? that might get more support than en masse nominations for deletions of articles about tours that even you grant are in fact thoroughly notable ... hope you see what i mean. Sssoul (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a compromise? For the band Led Zeppelin, there is an article entitled Led Zeppelin concerts. This article has a heading "Concert Tour Chronology", under which all of the band's concert tours are listed. The Rolling Stones could have a similar article, with all of their concert tours listed. Those concert tours which are considered notable enough could have a separate article of their own, whilst their less notable tours would not have a separate article, but would at least still be recorded in the list. Having an article called "Rolling Stones concerts" would also provide some scope to provide information about their concerts in general terms, rather than just specific tours (eg. typical concert characteristics, number of concerts played, concert recordings etc) Edelmand (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would absolutely support. In that page, you could discuss the influence in live performances RS have made etc. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all As with large scale bundled nominations it's impossible to fairly judge notability of every article listed. RMHED (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Self evident notability as supported by the references in the articles, let alone other arguments. Requiring development is hardly a need to delete. M♠ssing Ace 20:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roma (Romani subgroup)[edit]

The author has the original claim that the "Roma people" are a subgroup of the "Romani people", unsupported by any actual reference, all the books/articles I have read use the words "Roma people" and "Romani people" as synonyms. As such, this article is just a duplicate of Roma people.bogdan (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bogdan, what books have you read on the subject? AKoan (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I know, the terms are interchangeable, and no evidence has been shown they are not. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the content is not supported by any source or reference, the ones already cited have no connection with the subject Rezistenta (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article. The content is not encyclopedic. --Olahus (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would remind to the admin who will consider this AfD to read here, here and here. The users who voted above are also those who work on distancing the name of the Romani people from that of the Romanians. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See also my comment here. --Kuaichik (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm saying on more time, simple and clear - write a source where it says Roma are a subgroup of Romani people and they're not synonims Rezistenta (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: It goes simple and clear by reading them in the request for move I presented previously. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although, sometimes Roma and Romani are used as synonymous in various articles, a closer look shows that Roma are only the eastern Europe Romanies (and all the Romanian nationalists know this, actually, but try to hide it as much as possible). The problem is the similarity between Romani and Romanian: for this reason, some Romanians (but not all, obviously, since I myself am Romania) try to hide the Romani name. AKoan (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith and refrain from speculating on what "all the Romanian nationalists" "know" but "try to hide as much as possible". Present sources that say the Roma and Romani are two discrete groups, and I for one will readily change my opinion. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of discussion over the issue has been conducted in english and romani wikipedia. I think while viewed superficially, the two seem interchangable but they arent. Since the people involved in the article are from the Romani community, we should give them some space to work on. Its really bad when we do not give some space for the local members to work on articles about themselves. As an example I have stopped working on Kathmandu, the city where I have lived the whole of my life, because some Admin referring to Encyclopedia britannica prevented me from creating Kathmandu and Kathmandu Metropolitan City as separate articles, although anyone of 24million Nepalese people and government of Nepal recognizes them as different . At the end of the day, it only makes wikipedia less informative with such deletion and controls. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , from the same reason mentioned by the user Masterpiece2000.--Feierabend (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A closer look at their feet? fingernails? toes? how do you distinguish them ? bring one reference supporting what you're trying to say, because Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.
Comment I will Rezistenta, don't you worry AKoan (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here you are! So we heave an ethnic group that is sometimes called Gypsies, Roma (people) and Romani. This articles uses them all:

[29]

I shall not discus the term Gypsy now since it has been discussed plenty of times. I will refer only to the present problem: the distinction between Roma and Romani. While the writes of this article seem to use initially the term Roma and Romani as synonyms, at the “Discussion” section when they present the branches of this ethnic group it appears clearly that Roma are only the Eastern Europe branch of this ethnic group: Individual groups can be classified into major metagroups: the Roma of East European extraction; the Sinti in Germany and Manouches in France and Catalonia... The only term that refers to all these branches is that of Romani. The terms Roma and Romani are not really synonyms, there is an inclusion relation between them, which is: Roma is included in Romani together with all the other branches. Any other source that will present a classification of the branches of this ethnic group will show the same thing, that Roma is the branch that originated in Eastern Europe. AKoan (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nowhere in that article it is written that Roma are a subgroup of Romani people, over there it is written Genetic studies of the Roma (Gypsies): a review and as I said before Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.] Rezistenta (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article makes it clear that Roma only refers to the members of this ethnic group from Eastern Europe. The only term that refers without any doubt to all these branches is that of Romani. I'm sure you can read. The article shows just what I've said, that the terms Roma/Romani are just apparent synonyms. AKoan (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quote the paragrapch where it says Roma are a subgroup of Romani people. The Roma and Romani are used as synonims in that article

Genetic studies of the Roma (Gypsies): a review Data provided by the social sciences as well as genetic research suggest that the 8-10 million Roma (Gypsies) who live in Europe today are best described as a conglomerate of genetically isolated founder populations. The relationship between the traditional social structure observed by the Roma, where the Group is the primary unit, and the boundaries, demographic history and biological relatedness of the diverse founder populations appears complex and has not been addressed by population genetic studies. The Roma (Gypsies) became one of the peoples of Europe around one thousand years ago, when they first arrived in the Balkans [1,2]. The current size of the European Romani population, around 8 million [2], is equivalent to that of an average European country (Figure 1). While human rights and socio-economic issues related to the Roma are increasingly becoming the focus of political debate and media coverage throughout Europe, their poor health status 3-6 is rarely discussed and still awaits the attention of the medical profession.

Romani population size in different European countries The collection of this type of data depends on declared ethnic identity which, in the case of the Roma, can be affected by a number of political and social circumstances. The estimates in the figure are the average of the numbers provided by different sources, such as census data, ministries of internal affairs and human rights organizations . Stop invoking false references which are not supporting the content Rezistenta (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no need for a paragraph to say explicitly "Roma is a subgroup of Romani". Just the same I could ask you to show me a paragraph where it saids that Roma is equivalent with Romani. But the article makes it clear that Roma are the Eastern Europe branch (you have seen that paragraph didn't you?). AKoan (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes there is need to say explicitly becayse these are the rules of wikipedia otherise it's ORIGINAL RESEARCH and wikipedia does not publish OR . Read over here : If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research Rezistenta (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Than you show me a source that saids explicitly that "Roma people" and "Romani people" are synonyms. Otherwise it's ORIGINAL RESEARCH. AKoan (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G7) by PhilKnight. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderpop[edit]

This is a page about a term only used by a member of a single obscure band to describe his own music. This has no notability as a genre of music from reliable sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NEO & WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My google search seemed to confirm WesleyDodds's objection. Fletcher (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WesleyDodds, Esradekan, and Fletcher. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Happyme22 (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A search through Google News archives, as well as a search through a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, turns up no sources. Notability per WP:N is not established. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jagger/Richards with a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Glimmer Twins[edit]

Non notable. Anything of use could be added to Jagger/Richards Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

what "same reason" is that? "Nanker Phelge" is not synonymous with "the Glimmer Twins", nor is it a true pseudonym for "The Rolling Stones" (since some of the songs were co-written by non-Stones) ScottSwan (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Unencyclopedic article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could this fail notability? Under what basis? matt91486 (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jagger/Richards since they are the same people. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - it certainly doesn't fail notability, major album production. But in this case, it can easily be merged and redirected as per Metropolitan90. The other article is a little more of a gray area as to where to merge and redirect, but it should also be merged and redirected as well. matt91486 (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to merge and redirect Nanker Phelge, it should be merged and redirected to The Rolling Stones since Phelge was the pseudonym used for the band's collective songwriting efforts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Jagger/Richards with redirect. Maybe notable enough for a section, but not enough info to make an interesting article. Pseudonyms are very rarely interesting by themselves. Yobmod (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all merge arguements TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per general consensus. Notability of the individual has been been satisfactorily established. Hence, the claim that the article could be a hoax has been disproved. Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 18:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A M Nair[edit]

Unsourced (wp:v, wp:blp), and it looks like a hoax after a Google search for "Ayyappanpillai Madhavan Nair". -- Jeandré, 2008-06-21t09:23z 09:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for nair san and nairsan gives more. Has written an autobiography [30] on which is based an upcoming movie, Nairsan. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, no reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and expand. There are enough notations of the man's existence online to allow expansion.Wjhonson (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Those are just some of the sources available a couple of mouse clicks away, many of which refer to a feature film being made about the subject, which is an explicit notability criterion of WP:BIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is a well-known personality in Kerala. Tintin 04:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, he's likely going to be the subject of a major film co-starring Jackie Chan [39], that's beside all the other references in books and newspapers he gets, clearly an influential historical figure. RMHED (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments above are completely decisive for keeping. What more is there to say?John Z (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Bridger's sources above. Notable. Renee (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 01:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Epic Change[edit]

Non-notable non-profit organisation. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN nonprofit organization. Fails WP:COMPANY. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not shown with reliable 3rd party sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-06-21t09:26z
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as per Wikipedia:Notability. --Stormie (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing parents[edit]

Reads like a personal essay on eugenics. Or rather, an essay on an article about eugenics by Dr. Hugh LaFollette called “Licensing Parents”. It could well be that this is simply a transposed college essay. If there is something in here that is worthwhile it could be inserted into the Eugenics article. A significant side-issue to the subject of eugenics would be mentioned in the main article, but Licensing Parents doesn't appear in that article. If this topic is worthwhile it should start in the main article and break off from there when it has reached appropriate size. SilkTork *^YES! 07:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inappropriate article. Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NEO: author describes it as a neologism in the intro. YrPolishUncle (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shereth 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Tamraz[edit]

This article, which seems to be written with negative intent towards the subject, is sourced only by court documents and other primary sources. Notability not established. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Keep. The report by the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate has enough of the characteristics of a secondary source that I would say notability has been proven. --Eastmain (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not a secondary source but strict WP rules.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a few extra sources implied in the text of the article - the last body paragraph, for example, notes that he's mentioned in See No Evil. A cursory news search showed a few recent news articles, as well as a couple hundred (!) from 1997. This appears to have been a huge deal when it originally surfaced a decade ago - notability appears quite clear. The only reason for the lack of diversity in sources is simply because the Congressional report was so thorough. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like a lot of the statements are sourced to the Congressional report, but that it doesn't actually say anything like what the statements say. Andre (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In which case, the article needs some rewriting in order to bring it back in line with its sources - which, it appears, is happening. If there were no interest in correcting the article, that'd be cause for deletion, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Zetawoof_(ζ) 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it free web hosting service for personal vendettas, per WP:NOT. Notability has not been adequately established. The article serves no useful purpose and is potentially detrimental to the reputation of a living person. Its slanted perspective flies in the face of WP:BLP. Have some mercy and kill it quick! Cleo123 (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on notability, but if there's concerns about personal vendettas then WP:NPOV issues should definitely be reviewed.NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Hardly a "personal vendetta". There was a Congressional investigation of his campaign contributions, for heavens' sake. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, are you trying to say that members of Congress wrote this article??? The contribution history would seem to indicate that the article's creator has dedicated nearly all of his time on Wikipedia to this article. Given the incredibly negative tone of the article, it would most certainly appear that this article may well be the product of a personal vendetta of some sort. If this person truly is notable, editors should not be having so much trouble providing secondary sources for the material.Cleo123 (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that's certainly not what I said - I'm honestly not sure how you're understanding "There was a Congressional investigation of [Roger Tamraz's] campaign contributions" to be saying anything about the authorship of this article. As far as AaronXavier's contributions go, all of his edits to this page are within a single day, save one image added the following morning - this looks a lot more like insufficient use of the Preview button than a "personal vendetta" to me. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You understood my point. I simply called you on your flaming, which is very inappropriate. I stand by my remarks. Cleo123 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are reliable. Roger Tamraz is notable businessman. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Well-known in the international finance, politics, and espionage communities (albeit for different aspects of his career.) Article is well sourced, and expanding the references would be easy to do if needed. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be some peripheral notability, but this article is not NPOV and does not appropriately reference its claims. In fact, many of the references don't even relate to what they claim to cite. Andre (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is it a thriller? Delete per Andrevan Andre. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious BLP issues. Smells bad. Seems to be full of original research and pushes a clear point of view. Use of court records, congressional discussions, etc, as primary sources unsupported by secondary evaluation is also problematic, and is actually forbidden under BLP. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Several secondary sources have been introduced after the last AfD comment. This may need further review. Sandstein 07:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is confirmed, though the article could use some rewriting (which, by itself, is no reason to delete it). Ecoleetage (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ecoleetage. Improvement on references is definitely needed. YrPolishUncle (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though, like others, i agree it needs improvement. Sufificently notable and sufficiently well sourced even as it is to meet blp. DGG (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 in Hot 100[edit]

this is just a list of #1 songs from 2005, which hasn't been expanded since created a year ago. It's redundant information already provided in Hot 100 number-one hits of 2005 (United States) Wolfer68 (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar existing articles:[reply]

Delete Redundant to information in Hot 100 number-one hits of 2005 (United States) and the other articles posted above. Also 2007 in Hot 100 and 2008 in Hot 100 are similar articles created by the same user Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect all as redundant --T-rex 02:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't 2007 in Hot 100 and 2008 in Hot 100 be nominated too? --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There may be some merit to the suggestion that this article be renamed, but that is more of an editorial decision rather than one for AfD. Shereth 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Near future in film[edit]

I think that this pretty much defines a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Many of the films on this page will never be released or will be shelved. Not only that but it is an opening to create articles on proposed films, which we've always discouraged. And it can't be maintained very easily because which films get listed and which do not? It seems arbitrary. Just a very bad idea. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's all sourced, and many of these films will be made, just as many won't. Alientraveller (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL. And I agree with the nom, this has the hallmarks of WP:CANOFWORMS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously passes WP:CRYSTAL because the information is verifiable and sources are provided. Furthermore WP:CRYSTAL explicitly allows for the possibility of discussing forthcoming movies and so the nomination is quite misleading. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content elsewhere, or if nothing is deemed useful, delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles that by definition will have completely different content from year to year do not belong. I echo Esradekan Gibb's concerns about WP:CANOFWORMS. Skomorokh 12:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Some films in production have their own article, since it is near-guaranteed there will be a full-blown article containing a plot section, cast section, production section, reception section, and so forth. The other links are appropriately in sections of articles related to the projects' subject matter, shown to be in development. Woohookitty is providing his own opinion about these projects by saying, "Many of the films on this page will never be released or will be shelved." Who is he to claim this? All projects in the article have verifiable coverage to be in development. People don't just announce possible films for the hell of it. Behind the scenes, there are evaluations to determine how to produce a film. For maintenance, what's the issue? The films or projects (the latter meaning they aren't in production yet) have target release dates. While this by no mean guarantees their actual releases, it indicates a goal that is already used as criteria for this article. Obviously, some clean-up is necessary, and I would completely discourage citing IMDb to apply the criteria. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doesn't qualify as unverified speculation because the entries in the article are, for the most part, reliably sourced, being either articles featuring statements from actors, directors, producers, or studios regarding upcoming projects, or entries from reliable sources derived from said articles. That said, the intent of the article is best served by replacing the comingsoon.net sources with sources more informative and specific, because, while comingsoon.net is reliable, it is not a primary source, and in itself serves the same function as this wikipedia article. So, instead of having the cominsoon.net entry for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, it would be more appropriate to reference, for example, a news article about how the stars are signed on to produce said movie. WP:Crystal also implicitly allows articles on future releases of movies by warning editors to avoid advertising or unverified claims. Also, all the films listed are in either production or development at some level, and therefore are not only considered future events, but ongoing projects. And, finally, given that individual articles on planned movies, assuming that there are reliable sources in which to find information on those movies, are considered valid topics, a topic that functions as a list of said movies, functioning to paint a picture of hollywood production in general in the near future, should also be considered valid. Warhawk137 (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A per Alientraveller. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the above. Everything is sourced and verified. Wether these films are made/released is irrelevant, they have been announced, and that is all the article states. JMalky (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although the article's title does invite misinterpretation of WP:CRYSTAL. Shouldn't it be 2009-2015 in film or something? JMalky (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the information can be verified. These have all been announced. Mollymoon (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept it needs a better title. To me, "Near future in film" suggests films set in the near future at the time they were made (e.g., Strange Days, Until the End of the World). Also, as JMalky pointed out, "near future" is an ambiguous time-frame. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. the grouping of these films serves no end --T-rex 03:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as an end to a Wikipedia article. Some of them change more than others. Why should all verifiable information about projects beyond 2009 be merely rejected from Wikipedia because they are going to change? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that. In fact I wouldn't suggest that articles on any of these individual movies be deleted as they are all verifiable. What is useless is grouping them all together on a page like this. --T-rex 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it useless? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has no use? There is no reason to group these films like this. The only thing they have in common is an expected release date of 2010 and beyond. We have no reason to think there is anything special about that. --T-rex 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not any different than grouping together movies that were released in, say, 2006. Warhawk137 (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Films have been grouped by year, nationality, genre, and so forth. What is useless about a 2010 and beyond grouping? We have groupings -- 2009 in film and before then. These are projects that are targeted for a release date after 2009. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject of the article is inherently unstable and violates NOTDIR. WillOakland (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Inherently unstable" is an inappropriate way to describe the article. It is dynamic, and there are other dynamic articles on Wikipedia, keeping up with changing rankings or leadership or sports statistics. This one isn't any different. Also, I'm not sure how this article is like a directory. The common theme of this article is that these are films in production or in development. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I draw a distinction between articles that change because someone put in the effort to break a record and one that changes merely by the passage of time. This article would have to be updated on a daily basis to stay accurate. WillOakland (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about demographics around the world need to be updated pretty often, too. I'm not sure why the dynamic nature of an article would warrant its deletion. Articles grow in different ways -- articles on 19th century science books will crawl, articles on celebrities will be constantly active. Not to mention that heavily-vandalized articles (profanity, disputed figures) require constant maintenance. I don't think that just because updates are necessary warrants deletion. If anything, "daily" is an exaggeration as this timeline is far enough in the future that there are not many productions set up for a 2010 release and beyond. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is in line with the other ones of its type (2006 in film, 2007 in film, etc.), and the information while dynamic is fully cited. In short, the article is perfectly compliant with WP:CRYSTAL. Steve ^{T • C} 08:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a lot of movies are coming out after 2009 and it would be nice to have a page for it. --71.178.250.89 (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to 2010s in film. "Near future in film" is not a good name for an encyclopedic article. This article was originally renamed from 2009 in film because it contained information about 2010, while 2010 in film was originally deleted in 2005, and was protected from recreation from early 2007 until May 2008 when it was created as a redirect to this article. As the content for each individual year grows, per WP:SIZE it should split to 2010 in film, 2011 in film, etc. when there is enough verifiable information for each year. Until then the year articles should be redirected to the decade article. DHowell (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This article does a great job in organizing future film releases and it is sourced. I think these Near future in ... should continue with video games, television, etc... (Tigerghost (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Youth Empire[edit]

Strains to show some sort of notability, but is it notable or really just self promotion? Only existing 2 years and many blogs and minor source refs plus a large list of non-notable acts. Where are the Reliable sources? Triwbe (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Youth Empire is currently the biggest privately held youth community in Singapore. That is notable. Youth Empire (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they appear to have done some work on the Olympic bid. If that can be sourced to anything other than blogs, it might establish notability. I have not been able to source it to reliable sources. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant violation of the Wikipedia:NOT#ADVERTISING policy. Note: If and only if reliable sources demonstrate that it is notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), drastically reduce to an encyclopedic entry which doesn't mirror its own PR. — Athaenara ✉ 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This debate took some sorting out before I could come to any kind of reasonable conclusion. There are valid arguments on both sides of the equation here, but the truth of the matter is that the arguments for deletion are both more numerous and more persuasive. Several arguments for keeping referenced essays pertaining to the age of the article itself, but as this was effectively a (now modified) copy of another article made while that one was under consideration for deletion, more time than is apparent has been given. Either way there appears to be consensus that this is not inclusion worthy. It has rightly been pointed out that a large amount of the debate arises due to inadequacies in our existing notability guidelines, but for better or worse this AfD is not the place for discussing the shortcomings of our guidelines and this article must still be held to its standards - and again, the consensus here is that it does not. Shereth 20:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joseph Didier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

One murder of many every year, sad but not notable. Also per the delete arguments in the previous two deletion debates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Didier and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Joseph_Didier. Debate 木 06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, as I said in the first AfD: "Sad, but the vast majority of single murders are not notable, and this one has nothing which sets it apart from the others." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not notable. A ni Mate 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep because the nominator shows that they are unaware of the situation. "one murder of many every year" is written. However, the Didier kidnap and murder is, by far, the most notable murder in the area for the past 100 years. Nearly 35 years afterwards, it is still known in the area and 14 times, huge community protests have prevented parole of the killer. The article has already been improved. A nomination just a few days after the 2nd AFD (this is the 3rd for the topic) is too much. Presumptive (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider WP:DEMOLISH as reason to keep. Presumptive (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the reason that the second deletion discussion is because you violated United States copyright laws and Wikipedia policies by a direct copy-and-paste job on the previous versio. The AfD was ended early with a speedy deletion. You fixed the copyvio, but not the notability problem. One of the sources you have givem is simply an online plea to keep the murderer from being paroled, and two others are mere reports of the parole hearing. Your comment above is an attack against the nominator, which is not allowed. You have not provided sufficient independent, reliable sources to verify what you have written, and much of it is laced with personal opinion, also not allowed. ~~You have already been blocked once for various persistent violations of Wikipedia policy in regard to this article.~~ - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are being so rude. Your facts are not true. I just checked my block log. I have not been blocked. I also did not attack the nominator - read it again. The murder is not just one of many, the area has few high profile kidnappings and murders like this one. I don't know what to think when you already said two statements which are not true. There are sources out there, many in print, not online. Help find it, not just to think of reasons to delete it! Already a suggestion was given and it was taken (re-written). Presumptive (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. User:Presumptive was not blocked, but he was reported to the admins' intervention board (AIV). (I think I got Presumptive crossed up with a nother troublesome editor on a separate AfD. My apologies.) However, Presumptive has sent messages to those who supported his cause in the previous AfD in an apparent attempt to rally support - see User talk:Realkyhick#User:Presumptive - so I posted the ((Not a ballot)) template above. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These people discussed it on their own free will and their own initiative on the previous AFD. Nobody told them to come to the initial AFD. If you keep on nominating an article for AFD repetitive times, eventually you will wear people out and only you and the delete folks will come. Please help out! There is much to write about Didier! Presumptive (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably read WP:CANVASS. A ni Mate 03:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These people made comments only yesterday or so. These are people that understand the situation. If you don't understand it, then you think it's only an insignificant murder. The fact that many made comments yesterday or the day before means it's not canvassing. Again, help me improve the article, don't keep thinking of negative comments! Presumptive (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not canvassing for people who support your position, why didn't you leave messages on every person who commented on the previous AfD? A ni Mate 03:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I only contacted people that I thought could improve the article and know how to stop repetitive AFD's. If you can help with the article, this would be appreciated. Presumptive (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional facts about notability: The fact that it draws so much community protests decades after the fact says something about it's notability. A lot of these Wikipedia murder articles are just recent sensationalism, something this article stands above and ahead of. Another fact is that the city has a population of only 150,000 but one hearing drew over 54,000 protests and petitions. That's a huge number. If Wikipedia only has things that all 6 billion people know about, then there will be few articles. This event was extremely notable regionally, it's not just a death that is quickly forgotten. Presumptive (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the article is better written than the previous version, the murder is still not notable. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 03:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been implied in this and earlier AFDs on this topic that Rockford, IL is some kind of sleepy little village in which murder is rare, and the exceptions therefore notable. Brewcrewer, for example, in the last AFD argued that Rockford, IL was, "in 1975, a city with relatively very little crime". Presumptive also argues (above) that "The murder is not just one of many, the area has few high profile kidnappings and murders like this one." Although whether there are other "kidnappings and murders like this one" is a judgment call (in my view all murder is pretty horrendous) we can, however, be pretty certain that Rockford's overall murder rate is, in reality, somewhere between average and unusually high. Although it's hard to find statistics on the web dating back to 1975, we do know that there were 11 murders in 1980, 16 in 1990 and 11 in 2000. In 2005, in fact, Rockford's murder rate was more than twice the National average per 100,000 population, ranking 76 out of 381 cities. What we can say from all of this is that murder rates in Rockford actually appear to have been pretty stable at around or above the national average for at least the last 35 years. Unless there was some inexplicable jump in the murder rate immediately after 1975, we can be reasonably certain that there is indeed nothing whatsoever remarkable about Rockford's crime rates that would make this sad murder any more notable than any other murder anywhere in the country. Debate 木 07:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This analogy is not applicable though it's a novel one. I never said that Rockford had no murders then this one came along. What is true is that of the many murders in Rockford, this is probably the most notable one in the past 50 years, possibly in the history of Rockford from 20,000 B.C. to 2008 A.D. Presumptive (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF AFD I've looked at AFD and there is no prohibition on suspending an AFD temporarily. Please allow me about a week to gather new facts to establish notability even more. After that when I am mostly done, the AFD can continue. This could be the cooperative way to improve the encyclopedia. The alternative is (if the AFD deletes the article) that I will recreate the article after a week or two and this will only create hard feelings. So let's agree to hold off the AFD for now.

If you really want to delete the article during the week or so I am working on it, why not replace the article with a blank space and maybe a sentence or two (such as "This article is currently being re-written and some AFD participants have agreed to let this proceed). This is like blanking an article but the article remains in the history. Then in a week or so, I'll present the re-done article that establishes notability even more and the AFD can proceed.

Once again, this is preferable to recreating the article and having the AFD delete people get mad because they think I am defying them. Presumptive (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You've had two different AfD's already, and the only reason you got the second one is because the first was closed early on speedy-delete copyright violation grounds. If the outcome of this AfD is to delete and you re-create the article, you will be blatantly violating Wikipedia policy and will be blocked. There is no precedent that I have ever seen for suspending an AfD to give an author more time. AfD's usually last five days, which is generally considered enough time to fix any problems - if they can't be fixed in that time frame, then the article deserves to go. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable crime: the double murder in my hometown really was a murder in a sleepy little town, but it's definitely not notable, and this is even farther away. And I've never heard of suspending an AFD: has it ever been done for anything? I can't imagine why we would here. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Clearly non-notable, sad but non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is in better shape than the previous versions but notability is still not established. Almost all the references are to the local newspaper Rockford Register Star and almost all of them occur only around the time of the disappearance/search/murder. Evidence of some wider national coverage is needed to demonstrate notability. Coverage should also be spread over a longer period of time than the time of the murder and the search, to avoid applicability of WP:NOT#NEWS. To quote from WP:NOT#NEWS:"Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." If it is correct, as Presumptive says, that this murder case is very notable, there will be a few subsequent references to it in the media/books extending beyond the period the event was taking place. Nsk92 (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken but many of the references are not from 1975. There's references form 1999, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008, etc. Presumptive (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then this needs to be made clear in listing these references. In fact, the customary WP format for a reference is to include the title of an article/news-story, the name of the publication where it appeared and the date it appeared. Nsk92 (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no murder wshould be considered "unnotable" especialy when tere are hundreds of sources available proving that this alleged killing was notable. the graphic and grotsuque nature of the crime also makie it notable and gaurantee that is hsould be taken into consieration by many as being notable and WP:Verifiability. Smith Jones (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(repeatD) also due to WP:Policies WP:CHANCE, WP:DEMOLISH, WP:PNJCS, WP:BITE, and WP:V all say that this article should remain here adn given a chance to succeed. Smith Jones (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hundreds of sources available"? Please. If there were really hundreds of sources, we would not be even having this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, WP:CHANCE, WP:DEMOLISH, WP:PNJCS are not WP Policies, and not even guidelines but rather essays. Verifiability is not being questioned here, notability is. If it is shown that the event is notable, I'd be perfectly happy to let the article stay and be improved. Nsk92 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please be more careful and do not remove the comments of others when adding yours, like you removed my comment in this edit:[40]. Nsk92 (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that jeez the purpose of those essays/guidelines whatever was to establish that there is aj acceptable case for maintainign this article and giving it a time to be improved by the dedicated editor contributed it to it rather than automatically deleting it. No article has ever started of as Featured Article quality. Most articles started off as relatively poor quality and were graducally imrpoved by good work from hard editors. If we deleted every article that wasnt Featured Article quality we wouldnt have any ensyclopedia at all. Smith Jones (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any publications of this in reliable sources outside or Rockford? If so, I think it should be a keep, though the tone of the article needs some editing still. If not, it's much more doubtful. DGG (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply a simple Google search yields hundreds of various sources referneicng or discussing the murder, some of which are undoubtedly written outside of Rockford. My brief Google search yields these sources simply on the first page alone [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

These sources, in conjucntion with the sources provided in the article itself, to me proves that htis article is at least notable. remembe,r just because an article isnt imemdiately relevenat to the entire planet doesnt mean its notable. The Virginia Tech shooting was rpobalby not of great relevance in Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka but that doesnt mean that it was not notable enough to get an article here. Smith Jones (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Uh, I think the Va. Tech shootings got just a wee bit more coverage than this single-victim murder. Having said that, I think if Didier's murder had happened today in the cable-news and Internet's 24/7 news cycle era, it may have gotten a bit more play. A lot of things have changed in the intervening three decades. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - maybe so but just because the v-tech shootings are more notable than the Didier murders doesnt mean that the Didier murders deserve to be ignored or suppressed. the fact that I was able to dredge those many sources up there proves that this subject is at least notable enough for inclusion. Smith Jones (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to SmithJones: Only one of those sources is about the murder. Another is about the murderer being up for parole. A third is a classified ad from User:Presumptive trying to save this article (?!?!). There is a link to a picture of a person but no identification of the person. None of these sources indicate any notability whatsoever. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - reply --- how is a news paper article not neveridence of notablity? Further to the point, if someone cares enough about htis subject to pay to take out a classified ad to garner support for it, doesnt that itself prove to be notable? We have articles on all sorts of movements that contriute to social chance such as the civil rights movement. surely anything that can achieve some sort of movement status is ntoable, especially when reported on by several credible journalistic sources??? Smith Jones (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm trying to maintain civility about this whole thing, but it's becoming very difficult. This has apparently become some sort of personal campaign on the part of User:Presumptive and some friends of his/hers to keep this thing on Wikipedia. The classified ad this user ran is about as bizarre and as blatant a violation of WP:CANVASS as I have ever seen. Heck, why don't you just stage a rally in the town square? And for User:Smith Jones to equate this "movement" with the civil rights movement borders on the absurd. This whole affair has been blown completely out of proportion. I will say this one more time: Joseph Didier's murder was hideous and very sad, but it does not meet Wikipedia's standards — and I emphasize, Wikipedia's standards — for notability. Period. I appreciate that the Rockford paper did a fine job of covering this crime many years ago, as well as the triennial follow-ups when the murderer comes up for parole again. But very few other news media have given any significant coverage. And by longstanding Wikipedia precedent, murders of a single victim are not considered notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand your point and i respect thay you are working so hard to be civil and respectful to a lowly 2nd class eidotr like myself, but i must protest you allegation. I have never met Presumptive before this and I noticed this only when this issue exploded all over the WP pages. TO be honest, i never really thought that the resistance to the deletion of the Didier page was equal to the Civil RIghts Movement but my purpose was that this issue mobilizes thousands of poeple to protest the parole of the killer even after many decades. I am not swaying this this article will ever be omnipotent or anything I am only saying that this article deserves to maintain its presence on the Internet since the only reasons being given for the deletion is that it is a single murder (Which are not always unnotable) and that it only affects one region of the world (which has never really been a reason for deleting in and of oitself.) Smith Jones (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A "presence on the Internet" is not a problem. This crime already has that. A presence on Wikipedia is entirely different. Anyone can post a web page on all manner of free hosting sites about this crime, and I think someone already has. But Wikipedia has higher standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"*******I agree with your but I am not talking only about presnece on the Internet. THese movements are in rela life against the parole of Joseph Didier. All I am saying is to give this a chance and it should be deleted later if the creator fails. Smith Jones (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per ANI and user Smith jones above. This is ridiculous. Presumptive acted in good faith and the article has quite a few references. Articles like this contribute to Wikipedia significantly and should not be deleted.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 21:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having read this thoroughly, I can't see why this is notable in Wikipedia terms. For the information of anyone who had the sense not to get involved in the spate of similar discussions, the notability of murder victims was discussed at spectacularly great length last year, and whatever argument anyone's likely to make was probably already made there. – iridescent 23:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can see, ALL of the "Delete"s above are based on spurious reasoning and a simple statement that the subject is not notable. However, Notability is established by multiple, independent reliable sources, which this article has. WP:N and WP:V are established. There is no other reason to delete this other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid reason for deletion. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Spurious reasoning"? Give me a break. I have stated my reasons quite clearly and they were certainly not spurious. I had two main concerns: one about the lack of coverage by media outside of Rockford and the other about whether coverage extended beyond the time of the event. The second concern has been largely addressed by Presumptive's reply but the first one has not. If evidence of wider coverage outside of the local media is demonstrated, I'll be happy to change my vote. Regarding WP:IDONTLIKEIT, again, that is certainly not my reason for a delete vote. On a personal level I feel a lot of simpathy for the victim of this crime and his family in this sad story and I can understand their desire to generate more publicity regarding this case, especially since the convicted murderer in this case is apparently up for a parole hearing every couple of years. But Wikipedia is not the right forum for doing that. If the topic passes WP:N, there is no problem with the article staying in. However, until and unless passing WP:N is demonstrated, I'll stick to my original vote. Nsk92 (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to clarify misconceptions:

A reader of ANI wrote "Something just isn't right there...Just an opinion, when someone's spare time is basically spent editing a page about a murder 20 years ago and argueing about why it's important there is something very wrong with that type of individual. Wow.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment also shows how Seattlehawk94 has no idea about Joey Didier (peace offering: the user name says Seattle, not northern Illinois, so he/she has an excuse) Nearly every year, the story is brought up again on the news, in the newspaper, on TV, etc. This is not dragging up a 35 year old murder. There have been well over 100 murders in the region since then but none of them has the continued publicity of the Joey Didier murder.

Even goggling Joseph Didier or Joey Didier comes up with over a million hits, more than Eve Carson (white college student murdered in 2008), a murder debated on Wikipedia and was kept. This may be because of the regional coverage of Joey Didier every few months.

Also of note (will be introduced into the article if it's not AFD'ed) is that Joey Didier is one of the few C class murders in nothern Illinois whose parole has always been unanimously denied. Most or all others have had some support by the parole board, such as a 9-2 vote or 7-6 vote, etc. (I located a reference to confirm this) Joey Didier's killer/kidnapper has always been 11-0 in every of the more than a dozen times.

Also of note is the recent comments in the first AFD, exerpted here because the first AFD was just days ago.

Keep. This murder had a strong effect on the community (thus making it notable) as the reliable sourced provided by the article attest. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep Per One Event stuff keep the article on the murder if the event is notable and delete the other one if the subject is only notable because of the one event. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep Notability seems to have been established. This needs cleanup and inline cites, but not deletion. Also, before it ends up here at AfD anyway, Joseph Didier should be redirected to this article as per the usual outcome. Jim Miller (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep but merge. There's no need to have two articles on this. My preference would be to make Joseph Didier the main article as someone looking for information on this 3-decade-old event will type in the guy's name, not "Murder of ..." 23skidoo (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This comments are in italics to highlight (make it clear) that they are reported here by me. Presumptive (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're getting over a million ghits you're doing it wrong. Googling "Joseph Didier" OR "Joey Didier" returns a google estimate of only 5,390 hits. As is usual with Google, this is a vast over-estimate since if you scan through to the end of Google's list a couple of times (click the page '10' button on the bottom of the search) you'll find that Google only actually returns 324 unique hits, most of which are entirely irrelevant. Debate 木 08:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found it difficult to navigate through the fine points under WP:N, because, as written it is difficult to see if this person has or has not met the Wikipedia definition of notability. I took a look at WP:Notability (criminal acts), which, while not yet a policy, deals directly with this article, and does so in a way that I think is wise. If you look under victims WP:Notability (criminal acts)#Victims, it states that a victim of a crime in and of itself does not meet notability, even if they are the subject of a multitude of articles. I suspect that someone is writing this policy to address this issue. So, even if this article survives AFD, it may one day be in violation of [[[WP:N]], and get deleted anyhow. My personal opinion is that it does not meet the guidelines to meet encyclopedic notability, even if there is some current loophole that might somehow let it on here .... for the moment. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above coment -- I agree thatwp:n is somewhat poorly writen for this particular instnace. however, this article is not about a VICTIM but about the CRIME, which negates your ealrie r point. Smith Jones (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response as Smith Jones points out, this seems to be more about looking for loopholes in policy than the actual notability issue. I will counter by referencing WP:Notability (criminal acts)#Notability of criminal acts. This section directly addresses the crime versus victims or perps. There is a specific suggestion here that (in the event of a recent crime) to go to Wikinews first, and wait for significant national coverage. Since this is not a recent crime, there should already by significant national coverage ... which based on the article there does not appear to be. Unfortunately, this is not yet official policy, though I am concerned that inclusion of an article like this opens the door for supporting an article on virtually any violent crime that is significantly covered in the local press of any municipality in the world, no matter how large or small. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
addition to response' - specifically, and I quote from this policy-in-progress: This criterion means that multiple sources are required, not just multiple references from a single or small number of sources. It would therefore be insufficient to base an article on a series of news reports on a crime by a single newspaper or news channel. The requirement for national or global scope refers to how widespread the coverage of a topic is. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst the murder clearly had a huge and devastating impact on the local community the harsh truth is that it still remains a local event and there is no evidence of any significant national or international notability. nancy ^(talk) 19:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response -- NOT EVERY article has a huge imapact on the entire country or the entire world. there are many events such as the Virginia tech shooting, the Kitty genovise murders, and the murder of jack the Ripper that recieved coverage but only affected one pretticular region. I see no reason to delete this article based solely on the fact that it directly impacted only one area. It affects literally hundreds of thosuands of people and has been covered extensively by the media, which is really the main reason why the WP:n POLICY WAS written. The purpose is not to suppress or cover up murders that are poltically inconvenient or insignificant to editors. A little empathy for the victim is to required here; why should this murder be igored just because it happened in Rockwell and not, say, Northern Virginia or Los Angeles or New York CIty or Lodnon or elsewhere. Smith Jones (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~It's not so much about impact but about national coverage.~~ The Kitty Genovese was an important aspect in the discussion about bystander effect, Jack the Ripper was one of the first serial killers to beome part of the global conscience, and the Virginia Tech massacre was the largest school shooting in history. A ni Mate 23:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike that. The examples you listed all had major impact outside of their regions. AniMate 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - i fail to see how. while i aprpreciate the impact of the Genovese/Ripper murders, but it prooves that this problem. The Didier murders sparked an enormous social movement dedicated to keeping Didier in jail to the point where everyt ime he got up for parole. This is at least as large as the impact caused by the Genovese stabbing which cause the bystander studies. And I still see that these events had only a local effect. Genovese's murder took place only in New York, Jack the Ripper's slottering of prostitutes took place entirely in inner-land London, and Va. TEch received a lot of coverage and was notable for its monstrosity but then again so was the Didier murder and both still only took place in one region. Come Smith Jones (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? This "enormous social movement dedicated to keeping Didier in jail" was actually a movement that involved members of one very specific community/are to keep a man named Robert Lower from making parole. You say you appreciate the impact of the Genovese/Ripper murders, but I'm not sure you do. Try googling them. Its an awful test of notability, but I think its appropriate in this case. If you're actually saying that the national and international coverage and impact of the Joseph Didier murder is anywhere near these, then clearly you do not appreciate the imapct at all. AniMate 00:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Virginia Tech Massacre led to massive campus security efforts across the nation not to mention major international coverage. In China, for instance, the story was run front-page while that country experienced a campus mass murder in the same week that was buried inside most papers. Further, the Ripper murders (note, not the murder of Ripper) has been a continous subject of debate particularly among historians and sociologists interested in the question of Victorian sexuality. This Diddler murder was simply a local event. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SmithJones - I have to take issue with your suggestion that "empathy with the victim" is a basis for keeping the article - this is an encyclopaedia, the key driver here is notability not sentimentality. I also object to your tacit implication that I (and indeed other contributors to this debate) am lacking empathy which is an offensive and baseless accusation. Let's try and keep this discussion grounded firmly in Wikipedia's policy and guidelines and steer clear of emotive arguments and ad hominem attacks. nancy ^(talk) 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per requests above for sources outside of Rockford. [48] gives 16 stories by my count in the Chicago Tribune. Can't find anything in the NYT archive or google books.John Z (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage over a one month period in 1975 still fails WP:NOTNEWS. Also, Rockford is only a couple of counties away from Chicago - it's so close it's virtually a suburb. Debate 木 01:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles date from March 5 to October 28 of 1975. The area and population that the Trib covers is much larger than Rockford's paper, hence its selectivity must be higher.John Z (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for stories, 2-3 stories appear in the Freeport Journal Standard every year. If you need help, contact the librarian at 1(815) 233-3000. Several other newspapers have coverage. There is also TV coverage even 35 years later. This is truly an exceptional murder of the over 100 that have happened in the past few decades. The others don't get such coverage. The beauty of having a wikipedia article is that we can convert information in print to online so as to bring knowledge to the world. If we only cite websites, then we are re-hashing stuff easily available and potentially just creating noise and recycled bytes. Presumptive (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more important the news source, the farther removed from Rockford and the later in time, the better for notability.John Z (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vote reaffirmed. Presumptives point are brilliant, and are for more accurate than the aspersions cast by the deletionists Smith Jones (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Jones, it is not a vote, and its a little unorthodox to note your opinion as you are, twice. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DCEdwards and WP:NOT#NEWS. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has plenty of references & etc.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNot notable, it's a local story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Plenty of reliable source attest that this murder had a longlasting effect on a region of a few hundred thousand strong population, thus making the incident notable.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, Merge/Redirect to Rockford, Illinois#History. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#NEWS is the best policy in dealing with this ... coverage was never more than local to part of one state, and the event itself was not itself covered for more than a short period of time. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully point out a wrong statement, namely the story has been covered much more "than a short period of time". It continues to be covered since 1975, including 2008, 2007, 2006, etc. This continual coverage is part of its notability.Presumptive (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References, please? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the references being discussed up above refer to efforts of friends/family/local citizens to keep the murderer behind bars .... there is nothing notable about groups of people banding together to keep a convicted person behind bars when their parole comes up. They are sometimes covered in the press. Also, there may be some local commemoration of the event. Covering a commemoration is not the same thing as covering the event. A Columbus Day Parade commemorates the lading of Columbus, but the landing and the parade are not the same thing, are not equally notable, and coverage of the parade is not the same thing as covering the landing of Columbus. The commemoration may be notable and the event it commemorates may be notable, but just be cause something is commemorated, does not establish its notability, even if it is given a story every year in the local paper. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for those doing the Googling, be cautious - it seems that there were two Joseph Didier murders, coincidentally, both of them in 1975. See this piece which mentions the Joseph Didier murdered in Denver, a crime which also seems to have attracted some coverage due to remaining unsolved for 26 years before convicted murderer Marvin Gray confessed to it. A number of the unique google hits mentioned by User:Debate above refer to this murder. --Stormie (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Notability hasn't been established. Although all murders are horrendous, wikipedia is not a news achieve nor is it an achieve of small campaign groups, however righteous their cause, if they cannot be shown to be suitably notable. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability. No non-local coverage of either the murder or the campaign to keep the murderer behind bars. Some of Smith Jones' "sources" given above make me wonder whether he actually read them. Huon (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment exactly WHAT is wrong with my sources??? Really Id like to see the reasons why they are being casually dimsissed. I have seen no reason to view my sources as being inferior or second-rate compared to the sources that are used on other articles. For Gods sake I've seen people use google searhes to support a pint in an article. If that is allowed to go on for months I see no reaso why my sources should be impeached. I ask of any of you to give me a reason, solid, npov reason, why any of my sources are inadequate for any reason or purpose. Smith Jones (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - the article's sources satisfy WP:RS, though in my book they're not enough to establish notability. But the "sources" you listed above include this one, which says that a Joseph Didier co-authored an article on computer science. Relation to the article: None. I find it hard to believe that you read it and thought the victim of a 1975 murder might co-author an article written in 2004. Huon (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply i think isee your point although i dont see why one bad source makes all of the other ones unnotable. Besides, you have no way of knowing that the computer science article wa s originally written in 2004. It is common for articles to be reprinted in electornic format ever since the Intenret useage became commonplace. That could easily be what happened here; an article written a significant while ago in paper format was finally put on the Internet in 2004. Another possible answer is that this is a different Didier related to the Joseph Didier currently in prison for the murders. In that case it only adds to the notability of the articles subject since it proves that Didier was a prominent computer enthusiast in the 70s and may have been involved with the development of such scientific advances as the Arpanet. I still think that, even if that particular source is irrelevent, the other ones remain relevant enough to confer notabiltiy to the subject. Smith Jones (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Jones - you seem to be confusing the victim (Didier) with the perpetrator (Lower). Didier is not in prison, he is dead. Lower is in prison. Didier was 15 when he was killed, hardly likely to have been a prominent computer enthusiast. nancy ^(talk) 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it appears that you are correct. But my original point still stands; there is no evidence that Lower was not a prominent computer enthusiast or that Didier's relative could be involved with computer scientific evidenced in the article regarding the Internet that I cited above. I still see no way that any of the anti-Didier article people can argue that it is impossible for either of them to have been involved in computer research and that their families were completely uninvolved either. Smith Jones (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is all very interesting but what I am struggling to fathom is what this speculation has to do with establishing the notability of Murder of Joseph Didier? nancy ^(talk) 20:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT does not relate directly oto the notability of the article. HOWEVER it does address the veracity of one of my sources and thus proves that Didier or Lower were notable and that their crime was notable under WP standards. Smith Jones (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, not sure if I have this straight, but I think that you are saying that if you provide a random web-page which happens to contain the word Didier then that somehow makes Murder of Joseph Didier notable? nancy ^(talk) 21:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hm it is clear that you have not understood both WP:N and the explanations have been given regarding the multiple sources I have provided throughout this entire AFD regarding the notability of the articles subject. Please, reread my explanations and the policy backings I have cited if you have time and forward any questions to me either here on my talk page. Smith Jones (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Jones .... did you just say to an administrator it is clear that you have not understood WP:N? That is not a cool thing to say to anyone, but definitely not something you want to go throwing out to an admin .... especially when they have demonstrated that they do understand WP:N.

Two posts ago, you state But my original point still stands; there is no evidence that Lower was not a prominent computer enthusiast... I think this goes to the heart of a misunderstanding that you are having. You are correct, there is no evidence not proving his involvement in computers, but that's because you can't prove that. In order to do that, we would need to find an article or other written evidence that says "Lower was not a computer enthusiast." The burden or proof on establishing notability is on the editor(s) trying to do so. You cannot come in and say "well ... its up to you to prove that he is not notable." That would require looking for evidence that never existed in the first place.

I respect your passion, but I have to say that I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete the article if you want. i dont care anymore. ive wasted so much valuable time arguing this point and its clear that no matter what evidence i bring to bear it will be ignored and other aspects of my posts will be attacked. You can delete this article if you want or keep it if you want. I won't reply any more after this. Smith Jones (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading the article and the arguments as well as Wikipedia's guidelines on notability I cannot see this as being notable. It was a horrible crime but that in itself does not make it notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmsb (talk • contribs) 00:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Areas of agreement Despite some hostility, I think there is a certain amount of agreement. At first there was a misunderstanding about references. Now, I think there is agreement that there are at least two dozen online references dating from 1975-2008 (my estimate is that there are over 150 references but the AFD is too short for me to get them). (There is also agreement that the event happened and that it was horrible). There is a differences of opinion on the notability. I presume (no pun intended) that everyone believes the references that there are huge protests every year about this killer, that this is a special Illinois C-class killer (there aren't many of these) that is reviewed by the parole board every year, and that most of the C-class killers are not rejected by the IPB by a 11-0 vote (but Didier's killer has always been), that the city has only about 80,000 adults and one year 54,000 petitioned or wrote protests against parole (this is a record but I am awaiting written confirmation), and that there is multiple references from many sources in different areas but that the recent coverage has been from multiple local sources (newspapers and TV). So I think there is a lack of consensus as to whether this qualifies for notability.

My personal conciliatory opinion is that the notability guideline is inadequately described and this has created unnecessary conflict. Even if it were better defined, there's a problem to whether it would promote news and new-ism versus history because guidelines seem to favor online news stories over print references. Therefore, a murder of 2009 is likely to meet a revised notability guideline compared to a murder of 1959, which may be an unintended product.

Some Wikipedia articles (kept, not AFD'ed) of the recently debated murders that have TV ratings appeal, such as young lady Eve Carson and nude model Zoey Zane, may not stand the test of time like Joey Didier. Will there be continued references in 2043, 35 years from now and will there be the widespread regional knowledge of the events like Joey Didier? Nobody knows the answer. If the women are not remembered or reported, then we would have come to the wrong conclusion to keep those and (if we delete Murder of Joey Didier) wrong to delete this article.

In short, I'm am sorry that there is a lack of consensus for notability probably due to the ill-defined WP:N guidelines or that the guidelines makes no mention of certain factors that some deem are notable. Presumptive (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of conciliation, a well written analysis, nicely done. May I seriously suggest that if this article is deleted I concur with user:brewcrewer that an acceptable alternative would be to include some of the more pertinent facts in Rockford, Illinois#History, which might go some way to achieving your main aim here while not not triggering the same level of opposition that a separate article has, since WP:N does not apply to article content per WP:NNC. Debate 木 10:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Walsh[edit]

After doing some research, there is nothing to support that anything on this page is truthful. There are no listings of this person having been in the shows which are purported on the page, and the MySpace page that supposedly referenced the claims in the article is set to private, which were removed as citations based on the fact that it is a private MySpace page with no access to verify. The latest film the person is supposedly set to do is a hoax. There is one other MySpace page that is just some high school kid's personal page and the "songs" he supposedly has recorded were done in his bedroom.This is a non-notable person and the article appears to be a hoax. Meanwhile, the one accessible MySpace page that was listed as an external link conveniently does not mention an acting career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable, possible hoax, and wouldn't satisfy notability guidelines even if genuine. Hqb (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax. The person has one credit listed on IMDb and that alone doesn't warrant notability. Pinkadelica 07:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it is not a hoax, it fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are we left with once we strip away the unverifiable claims? Nothing or almost nothing? Do we care which? No. Delete either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Seeman[edit]

This page is more of a memorial page for a crime victim. The girl wasn't notable prior to her death in 1990, there has been no arrests or trials, and aside from a few ongoing notices regarding missing or murdered children, has not remained a factor in the news. The article has one citation, which is a 15 year anniversary story posted online. As much as I hate to say it, the article doesn't assert why this particular person is notably different from the hundreds of others who didn't meet notability Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pinkadelica 07:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy per WP:CSD#G10. Along with the above concerns, this article has BLP issues with respect to an unindicted suspect listed here with weak sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malt & Barley Editors[edit]

non-notable social club within a minorly notable journal. Includes highly inappropriate content, such as accusations of bribery, slander, etc. WP:NOT for things made up in school, WP:NOT myspace, etc. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a private club for a bunch of law school students. Notability is sorely lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. It is a non-notable private club for a bunch of law school students. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. These are apparently the people who are in charge of getting the beer for a certain organization's parties. Non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shereth 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Sweetland[edit]

~~This "article" reads like a political campaign poster and Dale Sweetland does not appear to be notable currently. « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:09 2008 June 16 (UTC) 23:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. No verifiable sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's the primary-elected nominee for a major office, so he's notable enough. I added the 'cleanup' template. Flatterworld (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreate if elected. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, I agree with Brewcrewer. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:39 2008 June 17 (UTC)
Keep I am the author - I made changes to make this more fact based. Please advise on additional edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.107.223 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I would suggest reviewing some of the points discussed above. Review the notability and verifiablity policies/guidelines (perhaps by using the help function on the left) and addressing updates to the article from there. (Specifically, include some reliable 3rd party sources under the references section, which show the subjects notability).Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reviewing the points that were thoughtfully discussed above, I have made considerable changes to this article. I included reliable 3rd party sources -- the Syracuse Post-Standard (a well- established local newspaper within CD-25) and the Washington Post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfis (talk • contribs) 20:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have changed my opinion to keep per Wilfis. Reference 3 2 establishes enough notability. « D. Trebbien (talk) 02:19 2008 June 19 (UTC)
- Comment. Isn't this discussion pretty much over if you're withdrawing your nomination? Ford MF (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily. Here, however, I think that having the AfD relisted, receiving a few more Keep opinions, and seeing the article completely re-written in encyclopedic style is enough. I would close this debate myself, but per Wikipedia:Non-admin closure I shouldn't as I have expressed an opinion. « D. Trebbien (talk) 02:11 2008 June 25 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, I don't understand how the trivial mention of his name as a candidate makes him notable enough. He still fails the criteria of WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Existing doesn't equal notability and reference three only confirms his existence. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Sorry, ref 2, not 3). I think that Dale Sweetland may satisfy the primary notability criterion, "[has received] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Here, the exact meaning of significant needs to be more broad because the subject is not as well-know as others, and notability is mostly independent of popularity, so in my view, having a reasonably lengthy newspaper article about the subject is fine. « D. Trebbien (talk) 15:59 2008 June 19 (UTC)

That's okay we all make mistakes (lord knows I make quite a few every day). Anyway, I'm sorry to say I still don't see it. Article looks okay and it verifies that he is running for office (but, it is one local newspaper, which doesn't say significant coverage to me). Don't get me wrong if he is elected than maybe he becomes notable but, I'm still not convinced he is notable accoring to the policies and guidelines I spoke of above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's redaction is the mistake. He falls way short of meeting the wp:bio notability standard. He, in no way, received signficant coverage, a basic wp:bio requirement. The third ref provided barely mentions him, so we are left with one article in a small-town paper. Besides for falling far short of the significant coverage requirement, the coverage he has received has revolved around one event only, thus violative of wp:blp1e. The only option to have his bio on Wikipedia is if it is included in New York's 25th congressional district election, 2008. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about WP:BLP1E too. Changed to Weak Keep, although now I feel ambivalent. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:02 2008 June 20 (UTC)

The argument seems to be what 'significant coverage' means. From the Basic Criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] 'Non-significant' (imo) means he was mentioned in some community paper for something incidental (such as, won first prize at the town's barbecue contest) and someone's trying to use that mention as an excuse to create an article. If Joe Blow decides to run as a candidate and his entire campaign consists of creating a website, and he only receives such 'non-significant' news coverage, he's not notable. The nominee of a major political party for national or state office is, by definition, notable. Some are more notable than others, some are indeed famous, but they all meet the Wikipedia 'notable' threshold. An election to choose people to run the government of the United States is not some trivial 'event', such as who won the Demolition Derby or who competed for Miss America, it's actually important. This sort of question is going to arise a lot between now and November, and we need to be clear on the boundaries. Flatterworld (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the argument is over the meaning of 'significant coverage', then the Washington Post's repeated coverage of Sweetland's campaign should settle it. Chris Cillizza, well-known for his blog, "The Fix", is critical of the Sweetland campaign, to wit "...there doesn't seem to be much energy behind his candidacy. The most exciting thing that has happened in this race of late is that Sweetland's pollster, who also happens to be a professor at Syracuse University, has stepped aside after Maffei made an issue of the pollster's dual roles." But he has ranked it the #1 Congressional race for the second month running. This seems like significant news coverage to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfis (talk • contribs) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, although I would like to see additional reliable sources added for verification. Happyme22 (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I've long been saying, it is reasonable that major party nominees for national legislatures arenotable, for there are always sources--as in fact there is her. DGG (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Primary elected nominee for major office. Ford MF (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the above reasoning nearly every candidate for President of the United States (including some write-in candidates) meet the notability criteria as most are "elected nominees". Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G1. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video game downloads[edit]

While quite good advice, it's still an OR Essay. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And also is a blatant advertisement of the website in the first line... --Legion fi (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not an encyclopedia article. Maxa megalon 2000 05:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio. Kevin (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine[edit]

Delete Non notable publication per WP:BK. Further the article was created by the book's author constituting a clear conflict of interest. It's also a copy vio as it's copied directly from the book and thus doesn't comply with GFDL. Right now this is nothing less than a WP:ADVERT. Ave Caesar (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above comment, there really isn't much more to say... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: there's no need for AfD, this article is blatent copyvio... - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR. YrPolishUncle (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rivkin[edit]

Bio of an American executive. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources to back up the "largest private label music aggregation and distribution company", inline links to websites, promotional. Statisticalregression (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, unsourced. YrPolishUncle (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, no sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious promotional piece, non-noteworthy and non-notable company.StefanBurke (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Result was Speedy Delete. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive Sovereignty[edit]

Delete non notable political theory. Primarily original research. The article was created by the person who seems to purport this theory thus constituting a conflict of interest. Even the article itself classifies it as an "emerging theory." Ave Caesar (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just because someone comes up with some new idea doesn't mean it's worth writing an article about... the original author of this article has also created wiki articles for his books. All have been speedy'd at least once for copyvio. Compplete OR gibberish if you ask me... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NEO. YrPolishUncle (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Maybe delete the user page on the same basis. If anyone other than Mr. Maszka is impressed by his ideas, he's successfully obscured it with his endless blog spam. WillOakland (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BURN-E[edit]

I originally tagged this article for deletion as a hoax. It appears that this is indeed an unproduced short film scheduled for the DVD release of an unreleased film, as sourced to an unnamed orchestra member and reported on blogs and forums. As a violation of WP:MOVIE, WP:V, and WP:RS, I have to recommend Delete // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is no official citation/announcement about the existance of this film yet. SpikeJones (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly sourced speculation, and as such WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - pixar has traditionally released shorts of this type in theaters along with the full length film, so confirmation may not be that far away --T-rex 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Recreate once there is info.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You'd have to be in denial to say that BURN-E is not Pixar's next short film. What else would it be? dogman15 (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know sarcasm doesn't translate very well over the internet, so I'm going to ask if you're serious? Because we really don't have any sources asserting that there is a movie called BURN*E... // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The information presented here is generalized and conjectured. There is no official announcement, although the article might be worth re-writing when the WALL-E DVD comes out and more information about BURN-E is available. 98.212.237.50 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The are already three references and they even made a logo, which by the way is very similar to WALL-E's. Please consider waiting at least until the actual film is released (tomorrow) to see if the producers say anything about the short iDosh! talk? 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Now it has ~~five~~ nine references and bit more info. iDosh! talk? 03:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But all the sources still go back to a forum post by an orchestra member. Please have a look at WP:RS and tell me how these qualify as reliable sources. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 11:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noahudlis - Although this article should include more sources, it does not merit deletion. Pixar does often release movie-based shorts exclusively to DVD, especially Mater and the Ghostlight on Cars, and Your Friend the Rat on Ratatouille. The DVD will be released many months later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahudlis (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep, well sourced, valid, accurate, why delete it? Knowitall (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequately sourced at this point. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources all trace back to a forum post and/or are in blogs; therefore, they are not reliable. And I use too many semicolons. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: And you are saying that using semicolons is bad? The semicolon is used on the article's name is supposed to be like that. iDosh! talk? 00:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is untrue that all of the sources go back to a forum post. The website of the score's composer lists BURN-E on his resume, and establishes it as the DVD short for WALL-E. Closer should thus disregard this line of argument entirely, due to its manifest lack of truth. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: It is offical!!! Dalekusa (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in light of latest info. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above - rst20xx (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. Kuralyov (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (for the 4th time) and salt. xenocidic (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil $hawtee[edit]

CSD for A7-bio. and its recreation of deleted content. proposed artist does not appear meet WP:BIO. Request protection to not allow re-creation. Katanada (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt Subject of the article is the author, who is removing AFD & CSD tags. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable Google hits, the references provided by the article creator don't seem to actually have anything to do with the subject. Rnb (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7.

Dandavidband[edit]

Notability of this band is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom said, it doesn't establishes notability. Furthermore, I think it mets the A7 CSD. --Legion fi (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. CSD A7. Why are we even here? This is obviously a hoax – there’s no sources, no ref’s. A quick google comes up with nothing. I don’t see why the speedy and prod templates were removed in the first place. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, now tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is definitely not established and the article is rather vague. Artene50 (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Suggest the merge, if you are still interested, on the subject and targets talk. — _Maggot^Syn 05:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Inequity[edit]

Notability of this album is not presented or easily confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Google comes up with a bunch of possible sources. The article needs a complete rewrite to make it adequate but the topic its on is ok. I suggest give the authour some time to work on it – and if its still in that condition in a week prod it. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Beneath the Massacre per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why merge? It's a valid article, what would happen if we merge all albums into an artist's main article? Mess.--Kmaster (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because of WP:MUSIC#Albums states "album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". And actually you're right, all artists albums that are no more than a track listing should be merged according to wikipedia's guidelines. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But the idea of merging does not seem very bad, It might be a good alternative. Cannibaloki 02:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I generally dislike deleting albums by notable artists, even if it's just a tracklisting. Don't get me wrong, I love deleting stuff, but albums stubs like this usually have enough assumed notability that, for me, deletion isn't a high priority. This one started out as a tracklisting, but I added a little bit, and the editor above me added a little bit more, and now it's improved. Not a featured article yet, but better. Who knows, someone else might come along and improve it even more, if we don't delete it first. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big booty[edit]

Notability for this article is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both sources provided are user editable – meaning that anybody (including the author of this wikipedia article) can edit it, hence it isnt a reliable source. Looks like a game a schoolkid made up. It isnt notable and looks hoaxy. Plus, I wouldn’t advise a google search on this one :D Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Booty may very well have been invented by a schoolkid; many games feel this way because they were in fact invented by a kid or are kids' games (though "Big Booty" seems more popular with teens & older). That doesn't mean it isn't notable or that it's a hoax. Is there another reason why it looks "hoaxy"? Without specific reasons, I can't rebut, making "Big Booty looks hoaxy" a non-argument. Note that none of my statements in this response support notability directly; acceptable sources are still needed. Kanenas (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree per reasons outlined by User:Fattyjwoods. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is supposed to be an exercise for actors, then there should actually be sources in appropriate books and the like. So much my field that I'm not going to try,though. DGG (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Big Booty is mentioned in any such books; it may be more of a folk tradition, passed orally. If there are no books, then perhaps the specific statement of Big Booty being used as a warm-up exercise isn't suitable for a Wikipedia article (though I don't accede that that would make the game unnotable). Kanenas (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not need articles on every verbal tag game variations there is in this world. Wikipedia is also not a detailed manual on how to exactly play every single game in the world. Big Booty is simply not notable enough to have its own article. Maybe a sub-heading under “Variations” in another existing verbal tag game article, that would be fine. Or a new article called “Verbal Tag Games” would be suitable as well. But I just don’t see the need for a separate article - 2 of the listed sources are illegitimate, the last two are a bit ambiguous as it lists hundreds and hundreds of the most obscure games. The fourth source provided also contains around 72 pages of verbal, acting games – we don’t have 72 articles on verbal tag games – if Big Booty is allowed to keep its article does that mean that 71 more articles on acting games are allowed to be created? Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 07:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the user Kanenas isn't trying to create 72 articles on verbal tag games, only one. I stumbled across this article while specifically trying to search for more information on Big Booty. Aside from that, what's wrong with having numerous articles on verbal tag games? Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to provide a wealth of information available to anyone? While this field might not provide much interest to you, it could be extremely helpful to others looking for ideas regarding verbal tag games, party games, or warm-ups for theatrical productions and theatrical education. Funkiejesuss (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. As Fattyjwoods said, the sources are able to be modified by anyone. Happyme22 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment YouTube has numerous videos of people playing--does that count as a primary source? Kanenas (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The problem is that youtube is a site where anyone can dump videos on, therefore it isn’t a reliable source. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of videos all with basically the same people surely wouldn't be a good primary source, but in 30 videos posted on different accounts, I counted at least 125 distinct individuals out of 233+ players. Even if the game started as a hoax, by the time that many people were involved, it would be reality (as the criteria for a game not being a hoax is that people play it).Kanenas (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to this page for further info. Youtube is just not a reliable source – no matter how many videos of people are shown playing. If you can show videos of people playing on reliable, third-party independent sites than sure. Also if you want you can check out WP:RS for more info if you want. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only have I encountered this game as a theater warm-up in the states of Washington, Oregon, and New York, but it is also listed on another webpage describing and detailing various improv and party games. As I'm extremely familiar with this game, I will list this as reference, as well as seek out other references. It is not some "made-up hoaxy school-kid game". It works to establish both collaboration and ensemble when applied to theater, and can also be a great way to reduce tension and stress in a party setting. Funkiejesuss (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brand new user, just started today. First edit was around 10-15 mins after account creation – at this AfD. A few minutes later the “new” user decides to add some new references to the article in question. Now usually new users are confused at the start and have no idea what is going on – let alone voting at a AfD. I smell a sock in the air. I would file a report at WP:SSP if I wasn’t that lazy. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I admit that I first started my account today, I am not a new user. I have used Wikipedia for some time now, and decided to officially join when I saw disagreement over the validity of this article. I am also computer literate, not a "sock in the air". Check facebook, my man. I know it's not a reliable source, but there are several fan groups devoted to the game. It exists. Funkiejesuss (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nom withdrawn. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbasalutely[edit]

Procedural afd - I've just restored this article which was prodded and deleted some months ago, but I question the reasons given for the prod which stated "Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Non-notable tribute with no potential to expand and has no in-depth sources to establish notability." Given that the album is a compilation, and that many of the tracks on it were recorded by artists who are considered notable enough for their own articles (Martin Phillipps, Shayne Carter, Tall Dwarfs, Headless Chickens, etc.), on a label that is also noteworthy (Flying Nun Records), I feel that the notability criteria have been met. There are also several in-depth resources, though many of them are paper-only rather than web-based (I shall try to hunt some down). Even so, Abbasalutely -wikipedia yields some 2000 ghits. Keep. Grutness...wha? 09:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC) withdrawn - see below. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Grutness...wha? 09:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of WP:MUSIC does it fail? I can't see any parts of that notability standard not met by this album. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close without prejudice Nominator effectively withdrew the AfD nomination the moment it was posted. I know there's another Delete nod, but this thing just seems weirdly out of process. Townlake (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nothing wrong with procedural nominations and they're not reason for a speedy close. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a general rule, you're right. But the nomination freely admits the article needs better sourcing, the 2000 GHITS reference is problematic (I skimmed through first 200 or so, didn't see any obviously RS), and whether WP:MUSIC is met is a debatable question that requires encouragement of input from people familiar with resources for the NZ punk scene - especially if nom's right that those resources aren't easily web accessible. I'm absolutely positive the nominator is acting in good faith here, but this AfD is premature. Townlake (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anyway, as it was already deleted, shouldn't a person discuss it at WP:DRV rather than here, preferably before restoring? Sticky Parkin 13:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhile it doesn't appear to be policy, expired PRODs are normally restored without controversy at WP:DRV. User:Grutness is an admin so that's not really out of process. No comment on actual notability -- I find music ones to be _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - it appears the WP:PROD rules have been amended slightly since I last restored a prodded article. They now read "If a page was deleted under Proposed deletion, then it should be immediately undeleted by request. However, it may immediately be brought to WP:AFD." At one time I'm fairly sure that "may" read "must". The first sentence implicity suggests that a DRV is unnecessary, but the second sentence also makes it clear that an automatic listing at AFD is no longer required - I only listed this here in the (apparently incorrect) understanding that it was necessary. As such, I withdraw the nom. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl 龱 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jordan Legan[edit]

Non notable writer, zero references. Rtphokie (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a 1.5 year old article on a personality with no WP:RS or WP:V sources. Artene50 (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is no longer unreferenced. I added a reference to an article in The New York Times. Sometimes references appear in the body of an article rather than at the end. The article mentioned an article which appeared pm "the cover of the New York Times Arts & Leisure section", and I added it as a reference. See also this Google News archive search to confirm the Slate and NPR activity. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for finding that reference but a single article on a proposed TV series that never got made doesn't seem sufficient to me to establish notability. WP:BIO tells us that "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability"--Rtphokie (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a large range of small accomplishments, can translate into notability --T-rex 03:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginal figure who has never achieved notability; fails the substantial coverage and all other tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and above. Undeath (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep added easily found references. Did anyone even bother to look? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New your times cover makes notable.Yobmod (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - not if that's all there is. One article, in the least important section of the NYT, is not sufficient, per the multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability language quoted above by Rtphokie --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - however, that is not all that there is --T-rex 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new cites found TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is now reasonably well sourced. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - there's an additional view about the article on the talk page by Richard Arthur Norton. PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That was a "holdon" that kept it from being speedied, speedy is way overused, no one even does a Google search to see if the person is notable. People keep using the notable=biggest or fastest definition, and not that the "media takes note" definition. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Caldwell[edit]

Non-notable autobiography. Googling does not show any related hits in the first few pages other than a MobyGames profile. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the standards for an autobiographical article (no promotional intent, primarily). CitiCat^♫ 02:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Might and Magic and to Midway. MuZemike (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A thorough Google search indicates a number of hits. Including him appearing at the Midway's Gamers Day 2007 as Midway's Exec Producer, accepting a Video Game BAFTA (official page is here 2) for Strategy game, appearing on the Hour of Victory show (and here), responding to comments in the media about new AMD technology and again here, and the original press release from AMD. Theres also some references to him with his involvement on Might and Magic on Gameasutra (one's here, but theres more). He's the Executive Producer at Midway. He has extensive credits as an executive producer, at both Midway and at IMDB. I think his article could use some editing, but theres plenty of media about him out there. I mean if accepting a BAFTA as an Executive Producer isn't notable... what is? Icemotoboy (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hour of Victory is not a "show", it's a game, for which he conducted a press interview as part of his job duties. The BAFTA award was for the game Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War, and the BAFTA webpage inexplicably lists Caldwell as the "production company" which is an apparent error. Caldwell himself was not being awarded for being a producer. All of his other quotations in the press are, attributable to his job title, and are within the context of a game that he was responsible for talking to the press about. None of these sources constitute significant coverage of Mark Caldwell; he is not the subject of any of these articles. If, however, receiving press time in the course of performing one's job duties qualifies for notability, I will concede the point: yes, he has spoken to the press a bit. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's common form for BAFTA "Production Company" credit to contain the name of the key figure(s) listed in production, because the film industry standards are simply applied as they are to the Video Game industry. With the present hiatus of Video Game BAFTA's, we may see a change with this in future. Hence the developer has previously been listed as the "broadcaster". From the 2006 Nomination's you'll note that Sid Meyer was listed in as a production company recipient for Civilization IV Warlords Expansion, which lost out along with Medieval II (quite a noteworthy event given the strength of the Civ4 license) to Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War. I'm not assuming this is an autobiograpgical article, and while I agree it needs work, there does appear to be verifable primary, secondary, and tertiary references to him. WP:Notability (people) guideline suggests a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Whether he is or is not notable would appear to come down to the consesus that we can come too. Producers in the game industry are in some ways similar to producers in the film and television industries. The additional criteria suggests that someone who has won such an award may be notable. While he was not awarded the BAFTA personally, his position on the development team was such that he was chosen to accept the award. The guideline for entertainers suggests that those who "...had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" are probably notable. I would propose that an Executive Producer, as first billed, often highest paid, and usually the major PR representative - is a significant role in game development. Summary: In this case, he had a significant role in the development of a notable game that received a BAFTA, in addition to other sources for other reasons. Icemotoboy (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not-notable. Many hundreds of people contribute to a game, no way to know to what extent he earned the award, or if he is just the least shy from his office of nerds.Yobmod (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW, and meets guidelines. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Daniels[edit]

According to the sources, he is notable only for his early demise. His achievements in football clearly do not merit a Wikipedia article. user:Dorftrottel 00:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. You sure of that? Goalkeeper for a senior Gaelic Football side in the All-Ireland championships sounds like it could well achieve notability to me. There seems to be no mention in the articles as to whether this is a fully professional league, but I would think that would be likely, and if so, he meets the notability requirements. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the amount of articles and length of them speak for notability. Plus, it's a well written article that does not have any problems. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played Gaelic football for Wicklow at senior intercounty level, including the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, the highest level of that sport. He thus meets WP:ATHLETE ("Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.") Both Gaelic football and hurling are fully amateur, even the highest leagues. He would be notable for Wikipedia if he was still alive. Most of the sources are obituaries because obits are often good sources about a person's life. (BTW, I am a major contributor to this article.) Bláthnaid 08:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:N, far as I can see. Also, his death at an early age had put him into the media spotlight in Ireland for quite some time - Alison ^❤ 08:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 08:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass bio and athlete. — _Maggot^Syn 13:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is verifiable and notable, as proven by the reliable sources cited in the article. EJF (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 16:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old 16 Avenue[edit]

Non-notable road. Epbr123 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same reasoning. Ironho lds 00:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The street has 2 houses, a stop sign, a street sign saying "==OLD 16TH AVENUE== Historic Markham Village" and a NO EXIT sign." Which of those makes it notable? The fact that stop signs have an article on Wikipedia doesn't make every road with a stop sign notable. Otherwise, I'd need a Wikipedia article, because I have a gall bladder. Roads are only notable, in general, if they have some historical/political/geographical/commercial importance. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 01:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be speedied--no assertion of notability (and no sources). JJL (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No redeeming qualities. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete because this road claims to have potential. And has references and external links. Whenaxis (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete because the road is real, go visit this: Old 16th Avenue Map. The page is complete. And anyway somebody put a "delete" sign when it had a "underconstruction" sign, and on the underconstruction sign it says do not intend to put a delete sign as this article is being revamped or being completed. 64.231.192.71 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The IP address has only edited Old 16 Avenue and the AFD. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the problem isn't the amount of information in the page or the existence of the road, it's the fact that there is absolutely nothing significant whatsoever about it. The "references" are all either dead links, don't mention the road or freewebs. Read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N to get an idea of what Wikipedia expects of an article subject. Hut 8.5

12:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete Notability is conspicuously lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't deletebecause the road is part of the "Historic Markham Village" which has been around since the late 19th Century. The road has a that special sign "Historic Markham Village" underneath of the street name. 76.66.222.66 (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: IP only voted in this AfD and edited article in question. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't deletesame reason as above. Why would you want to delete an article about a road if the road is historic? Whenaxis (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The road is part of the Historic Markham Village, yes. But it isn't notable enough. From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Geography:

City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally acceptable. Most numbered roadways are acceptable, but should only be created if they can be described beyond the route itself. Major, unnumbered streets and roads beyond the level of a side street or neighborhood roadway may be created, but are not guaranteed to remain, as outcomes have varied. An article that explains the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AFD than one which merely describes the road's physical characteristics.

The article on Old 16 Avenue doesn't describe the road beyond its route, and I don't see any chance of that being possible. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Minor streets are not generally acceptable". A couple of houses that - gasp! - get mail, three road signs and an occasional pile of snow. Minor. Not notable. --Ka renjc 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete because it has a special sign that's part of the street sign that has "HISTORIC MARKHAM VILLAGE". Instead of a regular green street sign it has a brown/white sign, with "Historic Markham Village...since 1896" in brown and "OLD 16 AVENUE" in white. Whenaxis (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The user has voted already. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC),[reply]
  - Addition: Whenaxis created the article. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Historic Markham Village provides some weight but not enough. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the road has two house, and a stop sign and was recently repaved. Mail is delivered, and emergency services may be contacted via 911... --T-rex 03:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Multimap doktorb _words^deeds 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines to ensure a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's something historic about Markham Village, then let's see an article about that topic. In fact, the other divisions of Markham have articles. As far as Old 16 Avenue goes, though, it's a non-notable component of this district. Delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 0.05-km two-house residential cul-de-sac is not encyclopedia-worthy. Delete. Wikipedia is not a place where every road on earth deserves its own article. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farris (mineral water)[edit]

~~The article reads like an advertisement for a brand of mineral water. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn In view of the excessive wikifying that went into this article following the initial AfD nomination, I am respectfully withdrawing this from consideration -- as it stands today, this is not the article that I nominated. I would also like to use this moment to salute the various editors who took the time and energy to improve this article -- and for keeping the discussion civil and pleasant. Have a cold glass of Farris on me! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep or whichever template I should have used I'm a newbie to Deletion Requests at Wikipedia in English and I haven't read this projects guidelines on articles concerning commercial products. Still adding a comment here. I noticed this article being created as a copyedit from Farris (which is about the lake this water is named after) so it is not created as advertising for what that's worth. The mineral water Farris is indeed the oldest mineral water in Norway, and a hundred year old mineral water brand in a country where bottled water (of any kind) were hardly sold before 1990 seems notable to me. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems notable enough, if not to have its own article, to have a mention in the article on Farris. Based on my limited knowledge of Norwegian, the article looks like a translation of the Norwegian Wikipedia article. That article mentions the mineral water in the article on the lake. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 01:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Finnrind points out and from my web-research, the brand is very notable. The text should be improved, but is not promotional. I moved this text out out of the Farris article, where it clearly did not belong. I strongly object to merging it back, as proposed by Bart133 above me. Merging into Ringnes is a reasonable option, but - due to the importance of the brand - keeping is preferred. gidonb (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For additional background see User talk:Gidonb#Farris (mineral_water). gidonb (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks notable enough for me, and not really written like an advertisement. I find no reason to delete. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N, and is not written as an ad. A very popular brand in Norway, I suggest the nominator withdraw this AFD. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 03:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I suggest that the article's author(s) please add some independent references, as per WP:RS, to the article? The Thomson Financial reference is not easily checked, and my own search came up bare. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google book search throws up loads of results. I will add some to the article. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 04:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to suggest closing this AfD per WP:SNOWBALL. Other than the nominator, I do not see one person who proposes to delete the article on the largest mineral water brand in Norway. Also, if no one wants to delete this article through a regular AfD, why was it proposed for speedy deletion before the AfD? gidonb (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has improved and appear to meet WP:N. Good job Ecoleetage and others. — _Maggot^Syn 13:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a well written, sourced, proper small article on an internationally known product. If this is what we're deleting, I wonder what we're keeping? "Reads like an ad" has a tag, and it's not AfD. --Blechnic (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (From a Commons-guy visiting another project) Isn't there anything like speedy kept at en:wikipedia...?? ;o) Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Finn, I believe it is informal, but clear cut cases like this one get closed rather quickly. Sometimes people refer to it as WP:SNOWBALL. gidonb (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blechnic, are you are referring to the ((Advert)) template? gidonb (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, when an article reads like an advert, add that template, and clean it up yourself, rather than proposing AfD if the subject is notable. It doesn't read like an advert to me, though. Also, I cheated and looked it up in Norweigan, it's notable enough. --Blechnic (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Re: cheating: If you by "looked it up" mean no:Farris (mineralvann) that was created by someone at Norwegian wikipedia after this article had been created... ;o) Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Blechnic, thank you! It is not so much the AfD that bothered me, but the unnecessary speedy proposal beforehand. I got into this whole water business by error, as I was cleaning the lake Farris article and stumbled into a section that clearly did not belong in the article. It is a fact that the spammers are a pain - as a frequent spam patroller you scan can my user pages for proof to this fact (lots of vandalism and angry reponses) - but it also raises questions on the flip side: How many good and important texts are deleted through these DBs? gidonb 21:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Finn, some content on Farris mineral water had been in the en.wiki Farris article since its start and in the Norwegian version almost since its start (since August 2005 to be precise). Regards, gidonb (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are so many bad articles that need deleted, but it seems there is a subset of Wikipedia editors who are determined to delete articles, whether they are bad or good or encyclopedic, they just want to delete articles, as if there are points for it. Sometimes it's more effort to nominate for deletion than it would have been to improve the article, this tells me these editors do not have Wikipedia's best interests in mind. Sometimes editors nominate articles for deletion that have over 10,000 google hits, the subject has written a book, has patents, and is talked about in the news. The nominator just guesses the subject is not important enough. It's a monumental waste of time, imo. Yes, how many good and important articles have been deleted through prods, through speedies, through AfDs? --Blechnic (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me disagree this time. Ecoleetage is a very positive contributor to Wikipedia. He made a mistake, as we all sometimes do. The important thing is that we learn from our mistakes. It is true that we wasted some time here, but I am sure that it was not totally in vain. gidonb (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because of this, Sources have been added to the article, which admittingly looked like spam earlier. Therefore it isn't exactly a wate of time. However, I believe this should be speedily kept. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It did not look like spam and was a clear copy-edit. Yet even when in doubt, the rule is do not speedy. Speedy keep - definitely. gidonb (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent response to Gidonb -- but I would like to choose how, where, and when I put my time into edits. I feel that AfD has largely become a place where editors bully other editors into "improving" articles of encyclopedic value under threat that if they don't, the articles will be deleted. I read and researched this in Norweigan--with a translator, I don't even know how to spell the language, much less read any. I could have been working on tropical viral pests of agricultural crops, instead. Wikipedia is missing hundreds of important, world-wide topical articles in this area. Instead I researched this article. This was a waste of time. --Blechnic (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blechnic, please do not give up on the tropical viral pests of agricultural crops. Your contributions are much appreciated! Regards, gidonb (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know no one really reads it, but, in fact, there is some interesting research coming out of African agriculture. --Blechnic (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yes, it would have been helpful if more editors would have elaborated upon their opinion that this fails WP:OR, but consensus seems quite clear that it does all the same. Shereth 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downsizing masculinity[edit]

Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Oh-riginal research~! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original thought and research; the content is also unsalvageablely unencyclopedic, having been written in an essay style that seems inherently POV. —User:Switchercat ^talk_cont 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found no special difficulty in editing the article. Please justify your claim that the article's style is unsalvageable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article isn't especially difficult to read or edit, but I do see aspects of its fundamental tone that are opinionated, even persuasive, in nature. Many of the conclusions that it forms aren't based in hard fact. I'd rather not cite particular pieces of the text here, as that strikes me as being sort of overkill, but these are my reasonings for the vote that I gave. HTH. :) —Switchercat ^talk_cont 19:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR to the max. Townlake (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article cites several references such Downsizing Masculinity: Gender, Family, and Fatherhood in Post-Industrial America. from the journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Work. The presence of these references indicates that the accusations of OR and NN are without foundation. The nomination is therefore either frivolous, careless or based upon some bias. The article could use some improvement but that is just the usual issue of WP:IMPERFECT and is not a reason to delete. We might consider merging the material into another article such as Misandry but, again, this is no reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR Artene50 (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts by referencing the work of Nicholas Townsend which it repeatedly cites in support of the points made. Subsequent passages are based upon other reliable sources. The article thus repeatedly demonstrates that it is not original. Your comment fails to address this in any way and provides no evidence of any kind that the article is original. Empty assertions of this sort, which are not based upon the article's content, should be discounted. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So should knee-jerk votes of "Speedy Keep" ignorant of the contents of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. JuJube (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant disruption is a reason to SK and that's all I'm seeing here. You yourself struggle to come up with any real reason to delete this and have to resort to facile arguments about ducks which are straight out of Monty Python. If just one of you would address the multiple sources cited by this article then you might have a point. But since none of you will address the actual content and sources, all we have is disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could cite sources for almost anything. Yes, the article cites sources. But that doesn't make it inherently notable. If I create an article on my house and use Google Maps to prove that it exists, does that mean that my house is notable? No. If the article were about "downsizing masculinity" in an encyclopedic tone, it might warrant keeping it. But putting citations in your personal essay doesn't make it worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I have some personal essays with citations. Would you accept them on Wikipedia, Colonel Warden? Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a personal essay in the sense that you mean. It does not express a personal opinion as it is written in an objective tone using the third person. It does not advance a position in that it does not say that the effect described is wrong or that political changes should be made to address the issue. The tone is perhaps a little journalistic but it does not go too far in that direction with mawkish anecdotes or case studies, as a journalist would. The tone is therefore as reasonably encyclopedic as we might expect from an early draft. The title of the article comes from a scholarly article in a journal and we can find other articles in other journals with similar titles. I really can't see what more you can expect. And my impression is that the nay-sayers can't put their finger of what they don't like about the article - that's why they give no specifics. All you and they seem to have is a gut feel. But that's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and so not admissable. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious WP:OR which utterly fails the duck test despite inclusionists' assertions of the contrary. JuJube (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR and WP:NEO YrPolishUncle (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the comments above of the form "Delete per WP:OR" all fail WP:VAGUEWAVE which states "While this gives editors a clue as to what your reason is, it does not explain any specifics. This does not actually tell us whether the policy is being violated or not. This can be avoided by quoting the specific parts of policy that an article needs to meet, and why you think it succeeds/fails to meet them. Also, keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted at all, if the specific problems can be identified and corrected.". The original nomination was for notability which was an obvious nonsense as the article already cited 3 good sources and there are many more available. No-one who has subsequently switched to another reason such as OR has provided any evidence or justification as to why they think the policy/guideline is being violated and why the article cannot be improved to address this. This won't do. If you want to justify the extreme measure of deleting such a substantial article then you have to do a little work like reading the article, checking out its sources and then forming a cogent argument based upon them. A vague wave at a policy is not enough. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply First sentence of OR states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." The citation to WP:DUCK above is apt: This article is nominally sourced, but is fundamentally an essay of observations and musings vis-a-vis the male's multiple roles as father, worker, etc. which is arranged in such a way as to make the article a work of original research. Townlake (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main AfD nomination agrument and the detele !votes never back up their original claims of not notable or later ones of OR, since neither article's references nor its context have been considered. Nomination argument is just WP:JNN and WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Following policy and guidelines, AfD can and should be closed as Speedy Keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Townlake for taking the time to expand upon his comments and so giving us something to discuss. His main point seems to be that he sees the sources as nominal. But surely the real issue is whether there is a substantive topic which provides a solid core for the article? The text which we build upon this core is open to editing in the usual way and any digressions or musings can simply be amended or removed. I have surveyed the potential sources and consider that there is such a core. For example, please consider a source not yet used by the article: No Direction Home : The American Family And The Fear Of National Decline. This seems to be discussing much the same topic in much the same tone: "accounts of plant closings and corporate downsizing offered alarming descriptions of a defeated masculinity, descriptions that celebrated the figure of the male breadwinner even as they mourned him.". And there seem to be hundreds, perhaps thousands more sources like this. So we seem to have a solid topic but perhaps this is already covered by another article? I've looked around but can't find it a good alternative. And, in any case, we would just merge if we found one. Moreover note that the existence of these many sources must surely remove the issue of original research which concerns others above. If anyone still thinks that there is something original here, please let them quote the text. I fancy that I can soon produce another source to substantiate this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good back at you for the thoughtful response. As you see it, is the core you've identified in this article mergeable into masculinity? (And to clarify, I don't see the sources themselves as nominal, I see their integration into the article's content as nominal... can expand on this thought if you're interested, don't want to digress too far here tho.) Townlake (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular opinion on merger. A merge is a keep and so is much the same for our purpose here. The issue of the usage of sources is more interesting. Note the furore at ANI where another editor is pilloried for sticking too closely to sources. In order to avoid such accusations of plagiarism and copyright violation, our article editors have to provide their own words and just use sources to back up their general import and the specific facts. This article seems to have been constructed in this way and so seems quite proper. Criticising such writing as OR requires that you demonstrate that the editor is going too far beyond the sources and I've not seen this done here yet. What is supposed to be the editor's original thesis? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm not sure why you're asking about the "thesis"; the essay's topical emphases are not difficult to identify. And, with respect, seems to me discussion of copyright violation concerns here would be a needless tangent. Townlake (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People keep suggesting that something original is being said here. I'm not seeing it so a concrete example is required. My point about copyright is that our expression of the text about the topic must be orginal otherwise we risk violating the copyright of the sources that we copy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply. And the top of the page you've quoted WP:VAGUEWAVE states "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And? The article in question, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is rotuinely cited in AFD and so, in practise, has the status of a guideline. The substantive point remains: it is not enough just to cite a policy without explaining how the article violates it and why deletion is the only answer. It is basic common-sense. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this article fails the duck test. Not only that, but even policies and guidelines, not to mention essays, are not hard-and-fast literal rules. Finding some minutiae in an essay that is often mentioned in Wikipedia to support keeping an article is not enough to warrant keeping it. Something with citations can still be original research. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed duck test is just a feeble resort when one lacks evidence or a coherent argument. It's like saying that someone is guilty because they look like a criminal. The essay containing that nonsense is a better subject for AFD than this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the duck test is just as much a Wikipedia policy as is WP:VAGUEWAVE. Neither is policy, but you can't arbitrarily ignore essays because you don't agree with them. Also, read the second paragraph from the top on the WP:VAGUEWAVE page you cite. "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Just the fact that someone's argument is a bad argument isn't enough to prove the argument wrong. Continuing the trend of analogies, it's like someone saying that two plus two is four because Vilnius is the capital of Lithuania and you saying that, since the reason given was irrelevant, the argument is automatically invalidated. You've said that your vote was not a knee-jerk reaction. There isn't really any sign that it wasn't though.

Also, the article has issues with WP:SYN and WP:NEO. Is there any reason to believe that it isn't a synthesis of OR from otherwise reliable sources? Is there any reason why the term "downsizing masculinity" isn't a neologism? It looks like one to me. See the below comment. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 13:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a lot more than vaguely wave at a policy. In particular, I have referred to the sources and established that there are many sources to back up the article's content. I have edited the article to improve its structure and format and so have had the opportunity to study its text close-up. I don't find the slightest trace of original thought there. I'm still waiting for any of the WP:OR wavers to quote a single piece of text from the article to back up their position. It's quite simple - if there's OR there then show me a piece. Showing me a duck instead is no substitute. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quote: "While the dominant man in the family may occasionally engage in some light housework and carry some of the responsibilities that are regarded as feminine, the main male domain remains in labor and breadwinner. This patriarchal reliance on the male as the wage earner in the family creates a tension and when the father loses his ability to provide for the family the mother, or even the children, must take initiative to find work to ensure stability and survival of the family. When the family must face the challenge of unemployment, several of the distinct culturally accepted gender and familial roles are breached in order for survival. As the mother may have to go out of her domestic domain to find work, the father takes on several responsibilities that previously had only been carried out by the woman. When the man must pick up the slack and cross over to the more domestic tasks, not only does the father start to question his identity as a man but also the children are confronted with trying to understand how their unemployed father is transforming."

That looks like WP:OR to me, or possibly WP:SYN. Difficult to tell, when all three references are inaccessible online. That's not in contravention of policy, but it makes it very difficult to work out whether this and other similarly unreferenced passages are original research or not. Does one of the very few references in the long article covers that passage? If so, then perhaps this is a referencing problem rather than an OR problem, but it seems fair to assume that it's OR until evidence is shown to the contrary. YrPolishUncle (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the first sentence from that passage to start with. I plug this into Google scholar and get back hundreds of sources. Skimming these I soon find one which says much the same. The general point of the passage is made here: Men, Gender Divisions and Welfare. So, it seems apparent that our article is not original. All that is needed is some improvements to the article per WP:IMPERFECT. I have already started this and now I have more good sources will add these too. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google is nowhere near an authoritative source for AFD information, but of the 14 results in a Google search for "downsizing masculinity", only six are unrelated to Wikipedia. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article's talk page for a more detailed links to sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those links don't really help you, as most of those sources aren't relevant to anything in this article. WillOakland (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Irrelevant sources are just that. What matters are the numerous sources which are relevant. For example, consider the first hit from Google Scholar. This source has yet to be referenced in the article but talks about the same subject using the same language. This source alone disposes of both the NN and OR complaints together.

Move to Masculinity and work, which appears to be a well-studied subject, but anyone working on this article needs to understand WP:SYN. As far as I can tell, the Newman source has no relevance at all. WillOakland (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear original research against current Wikipedia policy doktorb _words^deeds 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another assertion of OR without any supporting evidence. If it is clear, as you say, then please provide a clear example. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The first source is a number of paragraphs down, and seems to be a direct quotation. Most paragraphs without sources (and there loads, including the opening paragraph) are written in an essay style without citations. This sugggests an essay built around quoted sources, rather than an article in its own right. This violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:OR doktorb _words^deeds 05:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors such as yourself have made repeated reference to this as an essay as if you are making a substantial point. You seem to be mistaken in that the essay is the preferred form for a Wikipedia article. By this I mean that our articles are best written as paragraphs of text upon a single topic. Such a format is an essay. To support the points made in the essay, citations should be made to support specific facts and the general points made. Sources are required in proportion to the extent to which the material is debatable or controversial. We have an good number of citations already but I do agree that the lede could use a citation to establish the topic. The original author failed to do this but that's ok since this is a Wiki and it is expected that other editors willl assist as needed. I shall add not one but two citations to the lede to establish the notability and unoriginality of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tagged the article requesting some expert attention, and created an AFD section at WP:WikiProject Sociology#Articles listed for deletion. It would be useful for more sociologists to join in here to address the questions of notability and original research. YrPolishUncle (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good idea. I'm still for deletion, but if closing admin wants to extend this AfD an additional five days to improve the odds of getting comments from Sociology Project participants, I'd support that. Townlake (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the directly cited portions into masculinity. The sources provided generally seem to generally support the overall topic of the effects of downsizing on masculinity, but it's not clear to me that this is the preferred term for discussing this topic. Although the lack of thorough inline sources makes it difficult to separate sourced statements from original research and synthesis, I think there's a good amount of cited content that could be useful elsewhere, and a merge would leave the history visible for expansion down the road. And in the interest of full disclosure, I'll add that I was alerted to this AfD by a message on my talk page from User:Colonel Warden, but considering that the good Colonel and I rarely see eye-to-eye on deletion matters, I certainly don't consider this canvassing. --jonny-m t 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard PHP Library[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Almost one-year ago this article was nominated for deletion. "This could be expanded into a good article", people said, and a year later, no one has actually been bothered enough to do this. Abandoned articles are highly error prone as the Seigenthaler incident demonstrates. Further, I still stand by all the arguments I made last year. The Standard PHP Library isn't developed independently of the language as the C standard library and C++ standard library - it is part of the language. As such, this article no more deserves to exist than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BCMath, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHP Data Objects (2nd nomination). Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too small, too non-notable, too unreliable... Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this article had more information, I says merge into PHP, but it's too small. And, per Misterdiscreet, PHP library is part of the PHP language and don't presents a new solution or approach. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:DICT and this 3.5 year old article is only a stub. Artene50 (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no content worth mentioning, if anyone genuinely feels they can write a worthwhile article on the topic, they can do so just as effectively with this deleted as with it not. --Stormie (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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