< April 12	April 14 >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article has been improved and camera notability asserted. Canley (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minolta TC-1[edit]

Unreferenced, non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a Minolta catalog. Wikipedia is not a camera guide. Listing for AfD after prod was "Removed deletion proposal based on tens of thousands of Google matches". Mikeblas (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - WhisperToMe (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added references. Minolta no longer makes cameras, so there's no worry about this making Wikipedia a Minolta camera catalog. The TC-1 was a notable product. It deserves an encyclopedia article. Fg2 (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone seems to have changed the article to imply that the camera is a current offering. Not wanting to get involved directly with the editing of the article I thought I'd mention it here. As it stands at the moment it looks very much like an advert even if only a very short one. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Mainly leaning towards delete as the article is more of an Ad type. It has potential information if expanded, however, I don't really think this is needed for an encyclopedia. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~If the TC-1 was a notable product, it would be nice to see why in the article. Was there anything unique about it among cameras? any problems in manufacture, controversies, etc?Protonk (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Protonk, thanks for suggesting adding unique characteristics. The TC-1 had a circular aperture. This is different from the aperture on most cameras, which is formed by curved blades (typically six or eight of them). The article now mentions this unusual feature. Also, the camera won the Camera Grand Prix of the Camera Journal Press Club of Japan in 1996. I've added this information to the article together with a link to the Camera Journal Press Club's Web site. This establishes the notability of the subject and takes care of the unreferenced issue. Fg2 (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)(edited 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Changed to Keep See, thats kind of cool. :) Good luck with further sheparding of this article. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks to Fg2 for improving the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) strong argument made that article subject is notable. Darkspots (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egalitarian dialogue[edit]

Seems to be an original philosophical essay. Author removed prod tag without addressing this issue. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmm, not a good article is it? I have fixed some of the more egregious formatting errors, given it some cats, tagged it etc. The nature of the way it was formatted is indicative of something cut'n'pasted from somewhere but a Gsearch doesn't produce an obvious source. The subject is perfectly encyclopaedic - Egalitarian dialogue takes place when different contributions are considered in terms of their arguments’ validity, rather than assessing them according to the power positions of those who carry them out - I guess I better add that as the lead :-) BlueValour (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having had a good look around, there are plenty of sources available, in addition to those in the page. I have added a linking section from Dialogue. Unless this can be shown to be a copyvio I don't see a good reason to delete it. What the page needs is a thorough cleanup by someone expert in the topic (which I'm not :-)). BlueValour (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a notable subject with plenty of sources. I must congratulate the nominator on his/her ability to work so fast: to be able to read and evaluate the article content and check the sources in the two minutes between article creation and prod tagging is pretty impressive. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep subject is notable, most importantly as being a partial response to the quintessentially 20th century critique of power politics--a subject that is clearly notable. Subject is listed in multiple peer reviewed journals. But the article does need some work.Protonk (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep appears to be sufficiently substantiated Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely rewrite I will take Protonk's word that the subject is notable, but I agree with the nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drahcir (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977-1999); by keeping it as a redirect editors can easily go in and pull out anything that needs to be appropriately merged other places. . - Philippe 14:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athach[edit]

Article about a fictional character that fails WP:NOT##PLOT. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. Constructive attempts to cleanup or merge this article with another topic have failed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and close debate; at User:BOZ/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters I have been actively working on a page to merge monsters like this to. I expect this page to go live before this AFD is even completed. I will voluntarily merge and redirect Athach to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977-1999) ~~(currently known as User:BOZ/BD&D Monsters#TSR 1071 - Rules Cyclopedia (1991)) once I have created it~~ if that will satisfy the closer of this AFD. BOZ (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. This is an ongoing work (the merging) and an AfD at this time seems out of place. Hobit (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. The AfD is unwarrented given the work that BOZ and others are undertaking.Shemeska (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a work in progress and Wikipedia should not bow to Gavi's timetable. Web Warlock (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ and Le Grande Roi. McJeff (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Delete and userify in BOZ's userspace so he can work on his list. There's no secondary coverage, so it fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted; that a user is "working on a list" isn't sufficient reason to put up with it in the meantime. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Were it to be userfied, then the simplest thing to do would be to just move it using the move feature rather than delete and the restore under a new name. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At which point I would just merge and redirect back into the list, making doing anything else seem silly at this point. :\ I'm 99% done with the lists and will be going live with them today or tomorrow. BOZ (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And, there it is, no more waiting or "working on a list". This article now has a legitimate merge destintion, if merge is what is to be. BOZ (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. Vote changed, and well done for putting the work in. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated (the "pat on the back" moreso than the vote changing, which is also cool). :) BOZ (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977-1999). Not sure there would be much to merge. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Who woulda thunk it?. - Philippe 14:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thong Girl[edit]

What to say? Fails about every standard we have and certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable, seems to be all made up, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sadly, not only is it not made up there is whiff of notability. I'm neutral at this time pending further investigation (yes, I said that with a straight face). Xymmax (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My vote is hanging by a thong on this one. A mayor got into hot water for allowing Thong Girl 3 to be filmed at city hall. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has a crack at notability, but may not have it tied up. Needs better sources, which are at present rather thin. --Dhartung | Talk 01:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion on the matter, however what I present is the websites self proclaimed media section[1]. Yanksox (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it no decision until we can see the pictures of itFlutterdance (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The entry has a link to a website and it seems like a legitimate comic character. Why wouldn't it be included in this wikipedia? Dwaltzwriter (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kind of erupted into a local controversy when the mayor let it be filmed in his office...trust me...there are TONS of sources...I just don't really want to search "Thong Girl" at work... --Smashville^BONK! 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go...[2][3] --Smashville^BONK! 03:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep sourced movie. JJL (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep judging by the sources. DGG (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zoughbie[edit]

Not notable – Jrdioko (Talk) 23:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a small flurry of news coverage in May/June 2006 about Mr Zoughbie's work with "micro-clinics" in Bethlehem and the D'heisheh Refugee Camp (and one a year earlier).[4] However, the coverage is not enough to constitute evidence of sufficient notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Mukadderat (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was CSD G3, blatant vandalism. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reservoir Frogs[edit]

This is a hoax article with most (or all) of its content copy-and-pasted from the Quentin Tarantino article. Anthony Rupert (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3, so tagged. Vandalistic cut & paste of Quentin Tarantino's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSB Lost Theory Board[edit]

Non-notable, suggest merge with Lost if it contains relevant information. Kironide (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article is on a nonnotable messageboard. Aiden Fisher (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sombrero Man[edit]

Fails WP:RS and WP:V; in addition, Napalm, the band that apparently performs this song, also fails these guidelines. Anthony Rupert (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would agree, unless somebody can present reliable sourcing to verify that it meets the notability guidelines for songs. I've checked AMG looking for any kind of verification. One band called Napalm offers no information at all. Another band called Napalm does not have a song of this title in their song list. A google search for Napalm + "Sombrero Man" was not helpful. I got a few more hits for Napalm + "Holy Cow", but nothing helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete per A7 - No assertion of notability. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myah OS[edit]

Entirely non-notable Linux distro - the creator has extensively edited the article and he states (in regards to sources) "Well the info that someone asked to be cited is information that is not on any site. It is information right out of my head. If you want to create a website someone else and cite this information there then cite that information back to this site be my guest." and that "Like I have tried to say several times there is not any real documentation on Myah OS since it is so small". Fredrick Dayton (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In trying to re-write and source this article, I have found that while this looks like a nifty little Linux distro, it has scant evidence of any user base and is noted mostly routinely on websites which list Linux distros, which is why the name gets so many Google hits. Historically, the OS's developer has been trying to use the article as a promotional tool. When one skives off the unsourced content, nothing much is left. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and comments by Gwen. X Marx The Spot (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried to clean up, but despite many sources, few if any are reliable. The maintainer of the project, User talk:Jeremiah Cheatham, also has numerous civility problems that make it hard to accomplish much. -M^ask? 23:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't doubt that there is information to be found about Myah OS. The thing is: it's not notable. Mere existence (as well as mention on Linux distro-watch websites) does not establish notability. --clpo13_(talk) 08:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are few -if any- reliable independent sources. The author claims to have written some of the sources that have been used for the article, and the author doesn't want those sources used. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, no notability. I'm afraid the author of this distro mis-understood the purpose of Wikipedia - it's not a place to showcase personal projects. Even once/if the distro gains some notability, it would be much better to avoid WP:COI and WP:OWN problems and let others write the article about it. --Minimaki (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, This smacks of promotion. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not notable, a head-ache to maintain due to harassment by the creator. --Haemo (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 09:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Family (prayer)[edit]

This topic is completely unsourced and does not appear to be notable. I can not find reliable sources in a Google search on relevant terms. Aleta ^Sing 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Unsourced claims. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable unless reliable sources are provided. There are some hits on google using the words of the prayer, but can't see any yet that would be considered reliable.--Beloved Freak 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, at least not yet. As the article states, this prayer is "growing in popularity for the pro-life movement," indicating that it probably hasn't yet grown to any significant phenomenon. Lack of sources is also a problem, and would need to demonstrate that the article (particularly the statement I mention) is inaccurate. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The prayer appears to be real and to date back to 1992 (link), but that doesn't change the fact that this article is a coat-rack redundant with Holy Family. Redirect it there and, if this information is verifiable, it can be included in a sourced and neutral form. - Revolving Bugbear 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what that prayer has to do with Holy Family any more than another directed to them? Is there anything particularly relevant there? Aleta ^Sing 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. I just meant that the Holy Family article is a little thin and some information on prayer directed specifically to the Holy Family would not go amiss there. But there's nothing special about this prayer, no. - Revolving Bugbear 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. Aleta ^Sing 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; essentially 'religioncruft'. No scholarly discourse available, no significant news items out of the catholic community. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - please look at the edit history for the article creator. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, no claim to notable. When people are writing about this prayer in reliable sources, it may be a proper subject for an article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster _talk 23:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Tunes[edit]

Probable hoax article. Film has no IMDb entry; there are no google hits on the film. No ghits for people credited in the article for work on the film that associate them with the film. No sources or corrobative evidence for asserions made in the article found whatsoever FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Definite hoax by possible sock. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep. The strongest original reason for this article's deletion was the copyvio, which easily could have (and, in fact, has) been addressed without this AfD. As has been pointed out, AfD is not a place to take cleanup issues. Is the article flawed? Yes. Is that a reason for deletion? No. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posttranscription regulation[edit]

This reads like a set of notes rather than a coherent article, and in fact the individual items have been copied, with misprints, from "A Molecular Biology Glossary" here. The extracts are short enough, and there are enough typos, to make ((db-copyvio)) not immediately obvious; but I have put on the article's talk page a comparison of passages from the article and the glossary.

The first article was input by Salwateama2008 (talk · contribs) about 09:35 this morning; the second, identical except for the title, about 15 minutes later by Ss.hh.tt (talk · contribs), who said when I tagged it "i am the same author sorry for copy and paste".

Delete both as copyvio and as not a coherent article. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 21:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No Way Should Deletion of This Article Even Be Considered With 52,000 google scholar hits on Post-transcriptional regulation the only question should be why there is no article on the topic in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's MCB and genetics articles are few and far enough between and missing in some major topics as to be embarrassing. Please just close this AfD now. Thank you. I removed the copyright violation text, and left a stub.--Blechnic (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please close under Wikipedia:SNOW. --Blechnic (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is clearly notable and material exists for the creation of a fine article (without copyvio - thanks Blechnic)). A temporary redirect to Regulation_of_gene_expression#Posttranscriptional_Regulation may be justified until sufficient material is generated to require a spinout article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I considered the temporary redirect, but that area's pretty sparse, also, and the topic is so prominent it is probably better to just keep the stub (it's listed somewhere, too, as a stub), rather than get it lost in the redirect, in my opinion. It is a more valid option than deletion, though. --Blechnic (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable, just needs an article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (and redirect for now) - Yes, a very notable subject, though it does need some substance. That'll be taken care of soon enough, I think. – Clockwork Soul 01:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This material would be excellent to have in Wikipedia, very notable and currently has terrible coverage! That said, I think a visitor to wikipedia would greatly benefit for the expansion occurring within the regulation of gene expression page—I fear they'd miss out on the improvements if they occur on a separate page. :-) If it does get too big, you can certainly make a separate article out of it later. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as nomination reasons have been fixed.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 02:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. AfD is not forced cleanup, and the only issues you seem to have with this article can/have already been fixed by normal editing. In the future for such things, consider BOLDly FIXing it yourself or referring it to an entity such as WICU or the ARS. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was all redirected to their respective albums -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate This & I'll Love You (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hate This & I'll Love You (song)

Included in nomination:

Before I get accused of hating on this band, let me first say that I think Muse is brilliant. Okay, that's out of the way.

That being said, these songs are entirely unnotable. They aren't singles, and they don't have anything that particularly distinguishes them. They may speak well to Muse's style, but that does not in and of itself make the songs notable. That makes the style noteworthy, and that can be discussed in Muse's main article and in the articles of the singles / albums that these songs appear on.

Apart from the bare essentials -- track name, musicians who play on the track, and what album -- there is nothing to say about these songs that is not original research. These songs, unless something happens to make them notable, will never be full-length articles. - Revolving Bugbear 21:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bugbear, does this mean that you are willing to delete every article that you do not consider notable? There are very many articles that have a similar layout to this one (track name, musicians who play on the track, and what album). ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 22:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't possibly have an article for every single song in creation. For a song to have its own article, outside of the album it's on, it should have some measure of notability. It's my understanding that a single by a band considered notable is probably notable. But if there's nothing to say about the song, why have an article for it? - Revolving Bugbear 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe I got all the non-singe Muse songs here (aside from Citizen Erased, which has a legitimate claim to borderline notability from the Muselive campaign -- if that article is AfD'd, which I will reserve judgment on, it shouldn't be bundled with these). If I missed any, please add them. - Revolving Bugbear 21:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-single Muse songs with articles (except Citizen Erased): Blackout (Muse song), Endlessly, Falling Away With You, Hate This & I'll Love You (song), Micro Cuts, Nishe, The Small Print, and Space Dementia (song). - Bornfury (Talk) 22:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I guess using the cat would have been helpful. Oops. Will add these. - Revolving Bugbear 22:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 21:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I had actually tagged one of these already and just forgotten to add it here. - Revolving Bugbear 22:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep Micro Cuts or Space Dementia because it's the most notable non-single song from Muse, but its just my opinion. - Bornfury (Talk) 22:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to splitting Micro Cuts and Space Dementia from this nom, since they arguably have a higher profile than the other songs. - Revolving Bugbear 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hope that all bands of note one day have pages for each of their songs. That being said, the space dementia page at least needs serious fixing. Incorporate the trivia section into the article, for one and also re-write the article so that it's well...well written? My vote is definitely a don't delete though. -Asdfaeou.

Redirect all to respective albums. No sources given other than YouTube and MuseWiki. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of which are also copyvio. - Revolving Bugbear 22:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to respective albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Dukes (radio personality)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Relisting this AFD for this non notable DJ. This article lacks reliable sources. The seemingly reliable ones (Baltimore Sun and Washington Post) are about the show which replaced Dukes show when it left Baltimore, not Dukes or his show. The Big O and Dukes article was recently deleted due to copyright concerns and lack of notability, this article should be deleted as well. Rtphokie (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Rtphokie (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, my apologies for closing the last AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. I cant find any mention of this person in any news searches. The football player yes, but not this DJ.--66.0.46.122 (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A Google News search for '"Chad Dukes" radio' turns up several articles about the subject, including the very first one in the search. In addition, there are sources cited in the article (like this [5]) even if your personal search was inconclusive. - Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject has received direct in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources (like [6]), this is the 3rd AfD for this article in a month. Even ignoring the aborted 2nd AfD, there's no reason this should be up again so quickly. - Dravecky (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable --70.147.248.118 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for making this "vote" your first edit in almost three months, anonymous editor. - Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The purpose of the notability guidelines is to ensure we have enough verifiable information from reliable sources to write an article. The notability guideline for people states "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." My search for truly independent sources found only the articles linked by Dravecky above, but I believe these do constitute sufficient source material to write an unbiased, verifiable article. Information from dependent sources, such as information from the radio stations' websites, then fill out the article even more. Dukes has worked at three different radio stations in two separate markets, and I suspect a search in local Washington, Baltimore, and Phoenix area libraries would turn up more independent sources. DHowell (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I haven't looked for any sources myself, and I don't need to. I find it extremely unlikely that the nominator couldn't find any, considering this is a host on WJFK, one of the largest FM radio stations in the United States. MrPrada (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well that adds a lot to the discussion, now doesn't it. Largest station how? Biggest building, widest coverage, largest audience? None of these are true. Sources have been found but they are from extremely small newspapers and I'm having problems with their reliability. If you've got some better sources, that would help this discussion.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject satisfies the criteria suggested by WP:BIO guidlines. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mungyodance[edit]

Would being a slightly-well-known Stepmania-based game inherit its notability? Sorry, its worth a mention on the Stepmania page as how far you can go when you mess with StepMania, but sorry guys, I'll let you decide its fate. ViperSnake151 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the reason why the entry should be deleted is .. ? Magi 08:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.165.166.21 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 21:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not cite reliable published sources, thus it doesn't assert notability, which is grounds for deletion. ViperSnake151 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to confirm: Did you research the subject, or act entirely on the basis of the article's current state? --Kiz o r 01:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game would certianly be the most notable of the Stepmania based freeware games. However, is a freeware game of this level truly notable for Wikipedia? I would honestly say yes, if only at the bare minimum, but I can see why this would be up for deletion. Is this truely any different, however, from In The Groove? In many ways, no: It simply is designed to be freely available, adverse to ITG, which was designed as a commercial product. Also, as a developer of a similar freeware stepmania based project, I know the effort it takes for a person to actually create something original based on it: This being the best example in the non commercial sector: and for that it is notable enough. Nothing else may rank, but I think this does, if ONLY by a tiny ammount. KurisuYamato (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one single reference or proof of notability. — flamingspinach | (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. The upcoming third game was featured on the Bemanistyle, quite literally the largest Rhythm/Dance/Music game site in the world. --ToyoWolf (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This is an excellent example of a free, yet commercial quality game coming from a high-quality, up-and-coming independent record label, and is also from a well-known "furry" DJ. Just my two cents. ~Ark =^-^= (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, article tagged for Rescue. May also add sites and references.

Delete Only citation leads to a message board log-in, lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability. A search is turning up nothing. Someone another 09:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster _talk 21:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey's Treasure Island[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mickey's Treasure Island

Probable hoax, zero Ghits. nneonneo^talk 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A hoax.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 Clearly a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Taishan[edit]

Is this professor sufficiently notable? Based on the publication list, I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no third-party sources.--Aervanath's signature is boring 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure I am unsure about this one, although, with the current state of the article, I am leaning towards delete. Aside from the fact that the article is in a pretty bad shape in terms of providing references, a GoogleBooks search returns 21 hits [7] (although some may be false positives) and a GoogleScholar search returns 25 hits.[8] Granted, that is not much, but since GoogleScholar is very bad in tracking citations in humanities and since we are dealing with a scholar who primarily publishes in Chinese, these hits are an indication of something. I may be inclined to cut some slack here, if the creators of this article add some verifiable sources regarding the claims made in the article (e.g. regarding 92 papers and 6 monographs). Incidentally, the link to his personal homepage given in the article appears to be broken. Nsk92 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently U of Penn has thought enough of them to have them translated--see [9] for an example. DGG (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, per nom. Atyndall93 | talk 13:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not independent sources to support WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Article asserts that he is an authority on Central Asian history, but there nothing there demonstrating it besides the titles of his publications. B.Wind (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster _talk 21:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which Way[edit]

Hoax article. Not only unreferenced and unsourced, the article is about an alleged Disney film that produces no Google hits, which is a tad unlikely for a Disney feature film. The film has no IMDb entry, nor are there any mentions of the film on the entries for the people who were supposed to have starred in the film, which, again, is a tad unlikely for what would be a major Disney film...if it existed. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Clearly a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:N and is a hoax.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, TenPoundHammer, RyRy5.--Aervanath's signature is boring 21:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as non-notable nancy ^(talk) 11:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Liqing[edit]

Is this assistant professor sufficiently notable? Based even on the list of publications, I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no third-party sources.--Aervanath's signature is boring 21:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks searches produce next to nothing. In general, I am inclined to cut a bit of an extra slack to scholars from non-Engslish speaking countries to avoid systemic bias. But we do need some positive evidence that the work of this scholar has substantially affected their field, and in this case none seems to be available. It is also true that it is rare for an Assistant Professor (in any country) to be academically notable. The bottom line is: fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn by nominator after article clean-up and references added. Metros (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Masterson[edit]

This subject doesn't seem to be notable based on WP:BIO's standards for athletes and the baseball Wikiproject's standards of inclusion. He has never played at the AAA level of the minor leagues nor has he appeared in any all-star game nor is he on the Red Sox's 40-man roster . Metros (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn now that sources have been found; article has shown notability per standards since this AFD opened. Metros (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not state that he has played in an All-star game or has played in the AAA anywhere. He was invited to go to spring trianing, that is why he is on Red Sox template.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 21:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know he hasn't been. This is why he fails the standards. Metros (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But this article has been here for over a month and has been checked already by an admin. There are many more articles like these that hav been around for over a year.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 21:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because there are other articles doesn't necessarily mean that those articles should be here too. Metros (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - While you're there, you might want to read all of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It explains why you shouldn't vote "per nom" like was brought up to you recently. It also will provide other things to avoid because your rationale to keep it contains a few of the no-no's. Metros (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, admins have neither the job nor the power to ok articles. --Yooden ☮

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable at this stage of his career. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing at AA is not the highest level, therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE. He's a prospect, can be re-created when/if he plays in MLB TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Neutral I don't agree that minor league baseball is the highest level when it's not the top, but if that's how it's applied per consensus to baseball vs. other sports (i.e. European footballers) than so be it TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while he may well not be considered notable, it won't be because he fails WP:ATHLETE. "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league ..." - that's what he's doing right now, and what he did last year, and for part of the year before. The requirement to have competed at the highest level applies to amateur athletes, not professionals. Mlaffs (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The standard for WP:BIO requires that a person has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, and Masterson meets that standard. The standard for WP:ATHLETE requires that a person has played in a professional league which Masterson has done. One of the standards for notability by WP:BASEBALL standards is selection to a minor league all star team. He has met that. What specific standard is this person not meeting? Kinston eagle (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kinston. This are tiny nuances that can be overlooked. The whole concept of bio and such is to keep people whom have done pretty much nothing towards their own notability. Masterson is a touted prospect and the subject of works, been to the majors, etc. Nothing here that really merits deletion like a independent league guy. Yanksox (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per Kinston. After reading his/her comment, I see really no reason to delete the article.--Ryan (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kinston eagle. --Borgarde^talk 06:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, may fail WP:ATHLETE, but meets WP:BIO. BTW–Go Yankees. MrPrada (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation Union of South Ossetia[edit]

Unsourced. Not notable. A google search only yields two hits that aren't wiki mirrors and one of those hits is a general timeline of 2006 which gives this organisation minor mention and the other hit also gives this organisation minor mention. The article was created and written by a user indefinitely blocked for copyright infringement (with minor copyedits by others) so it might also be a concern that this article is a copyright infringement. This organisation fails to meet WP:ORG as there is insufficient coverage in secondary source.

Delete. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable: only two references included in the article, one which barely mentions the party, and the other which doesn't mention it at all. ~~This probably should have been prod'd.~~ (It was speedy'd, then prod'd, and now it's here. Silly me.)--Aervanath's signature is boring 21:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know what Google search was done above, but mine returned the following; [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. --Россавиа ^Диалог 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a search on "Salvation Union of South Ossetia". I guess your search picked up other variants such as "Union of Salvation of Ossetians". I'm sticking to delete given the circumstances behind the original author indefinite block and the fact that the article is unsourced. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You haven't found it on google because you were not searching in Georgian. If this is the political party/movement of the former Prime Minister, there's bound to be sources etc. that establish notability. Find them and fix it, don't delete because its received poor coverage in U.S. papers. MrPrada (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the English Wikipedia. How many editors are going to be able to search in the Georgian language?--Aervanath's signature is boring 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seems to be some confusion over the actual name of the organization, a quick google search for Union, Salvation, Ossetian gives quite a clear picture that this is a relevant and notable party. --Soman (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, try a Russian google search, [20]. BBC has coverage on the party. --Soman (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable organization which unites ethnic Ossetians who want reunification with Georgia. The party has also organized "South Ossetian people for Peace movement" which yields no less than 600 hits via Google Search [21] [22]. User:Pocopocopocopoco has long been targeting the articles which deal with pro-Georgian Ossetian movements. His rationale for deletion is fake.--Kober^Talk 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because I nominated another article in a similar topic area over six months ago you then conclude I am targeting the entire topic for deletion? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, stop pretending Poco. Everybody knows what you do. (PaC (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per Kober. —Nightstallion 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kober. (PaC (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per Kober. This deletion request is POV pushing. Iberieli (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duan Lianqin[edit]

Is this professor sufficiently notable? I don't think the article provides enough information to indicate that he is. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no third-party sources.--Aervanath's signature is boring 21:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable information related to him having made a substantial impact in his field is provided in the article. A GoogleScholar search produces a single hit [23] and a GoogleBooks search produced 3 hits [24]. Absent significant new information, fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:N. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Pastordavid (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect[edit]

Self-published book, failing WP:BK. Notability not asserted. Was "published" first on a website and then through a vanity press. Qworty (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Huh. The article does quote one review - can you tell the rest of us about the steps you took to confirm that there are no good sources or other indications of significance? --Kiz o r 22:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- my normal check on whether a book is notable -- whether any libraries hold a copy or not -- does not hold here, since the book was never published in print. Needless to say, no libraries have it in their catalog (per worldcat). I double-checked the IEEE article and it is a review of this book, in the context of examining dystopic AI fiction. Cutting out Amazon & WP mirrors don't leave a lot of obvious external hits on Google -- but nonetheless, its publishing history is interesting, and I'd say offhand it's difficult to determine notability for this one (without knowing that particular corner of SF more intimately than I do). -- phoebe / (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Some print copies are available, but only through vanity press Lulu (publisher). Qworty (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many people have read and enjoyed this book. Regarding it as not notable because it's not listed in libraries or bookstores, is obviously not something worthy of an encyclopedia existing only in cyberspace. Should we delete wikipedia itself then? Sure, there are lots of texts on the Internet that doesn't deserve their own wikipedia page, but this one actually does, being a well written novel with interesting ideas that people are still discussing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snekker Andersen (talk • contribs) 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the edit history, this is cleary not a promotional piece written by an author or a fan. The novel is borderline notable, but it's a significant work in a small field. As others have pointed out before me, our notability criteria don't work well for that type of work, and the novel still manages to meet them – albeit just barely. One independent review is mentioned in our article. The book was the subject of a review featured on slashdot.org which qualifies as a reliable source per WP:NP. The book is also mentioned as an example in Open Life: The Philosophy of Open Source. Rl (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia itself serves a good example on notable literature without being printed. Another means to measure 'notability' might be in order. --82.93.172.114 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no independent evidence of notability presented. Mukadderat (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is the IEEE review not independent? That review contains a table of six "influential works": The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (1969), The Adolescence of P-1 (1977), True Names (1981), The Diamond Age (1995), The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect (2002), Singularity Sky (2003). I doubt that this list should be in the article just to establish a notability claim, but the article already says that the reviewer "ranked it as one of the more important works of fiction to deal with the idea of a technological singularity", which I believe is a fair summary. Rl (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Opinion of a single unknown reviewer,a Marc Donner, is not enough evidence. No surprize at least one person liked this book. So what? I like stories my 6th grade daughter writes. If it is so great as the reviewer says, why no one else haven't heard about it? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Mukadderat (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book's publishing history alone is odd and unique enough to deserve mention. JCCyC (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see what's so unorthodox in the fact that no one wanted to publish it until self-publsihing arrived. And obviously no one wanted to buy its e-version, since the text is free to read now. Mukadderat (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonnotable self-published book of nonnotable author. `'Míkka >t 15:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, all those present here, for a discussion that took the time to considered the circumstances and especially acknowledged our own limitations. In the parts that I haunt acronym shouting matches are the norm, and this seems to give better results across the board - and you have no idea how good it feels.

Keep. The above is what I came here to say today, but as the one-line misspelled deletes have started their pile-up I'm !voting. The book squeaks by the requirements, and it does appear to constitute a significant work in its small field. Rl, can you get the specifics for a citation of Open Life? --Kiz o r 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given all of the talk about the book's publishing history, and the lack of any discussion of that topic in the article, I've added a short piece about the subject. In sourcing this, I noticed that the coverage in the Open Life book was quite good, and that there is a reasonable degree of coverage in other sources, such as Slashdot (a front page review) and Boing Boing. I'm not sure they're sufficient to account for notability on their own, but I'm happy to agree with Rl that it is borderline, but on the right side of the border, and there is room for expansion given that nature of some of the discussion that is floating about. - Bilby (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I forgot to add: as of 2003 (one year after publication) the author calculated that there had been between 5,000 and 10,000 readers. This puts it beyond the level of standard vanity press works, and would be considered a reasonable success in print from an otherwise unknown author. I'm not sure how well this speaks to notability, nor how well the novel has gone in the intervening five years (either as downloads or as print through Lulu), but it might have some relevance to the discussion. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author himself cannot of course be considered a WP:RS in a matter like this. What he's saying about himself isn't verifiable. Qworty (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agreed. Which is why I say that I don't know if this speaks to notability - only that it might be worth mentioning in terms of the discussion. - Bilby (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the book were truly notable according to WP:BK, it would have received reviews, and many of those reviews would have been archived for all time on GoogleNews--and yet we find that the historical archive provides exactly TWO hits for this thing [25], and both of those are blogs. Blogs of course don't meet WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reviews mentioned here have been in Slashdot and IEEE, (both RS), with very good commentary in Open Life. So yes, it has received reviews. I'm unsure as to what other reviews it may have received, which is partially why I still regard it as borderline notable, even though technically it has been the subject of discussion in multiple reliable sources. - Bilby (talk)

The result was speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Mob[edit]

Looks like a hoax. Not only is the article lacking inline citations, but a number of the assertions are untrue on their face. Grahamec placed a hoax template on the article because, as he says, "The bit on Canberra is clearly untrue, a city founded in 1913" could not have had Mob activity since the 19th century. Furthermore, the lede is copied, word for word, from the Irish Mob article, with only the city names changed. Other factual assertions, for example, those involving the Winter Hill Gang in Boston, have no relation to any so-called Scottish Mob. The two titles listed as "references" are both by soldiers of the Boston Irish Mob. Delete as unreferenced, speculative, most likely a hoax.-RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Pure vandalism, so tagged. Clearly a copy-paste of Irish Mob with a few names and numbers switched around. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete per nom, no reason to believe it's not a hoax ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Philippe 14:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MILF Hunter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Milf hunter

Articles for deletion/MILF Hunter (2nd nomination)

(procedural) Completing nomination by User:Johnthepcson. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I can see no reason to keep this article. In no way is it notable, except in the fact that it is a huge advertisement upon Wikipedia. It is mostly self-sourced and the only other sources are reference sites and a one-off mention in Rolling Stone not even about the website itself, but about someone who was in some way connected with the website. If a film is placed upon imdb.com and then an unknown actor has a small article written about him in which it mentions, once, that he appeared in that film, then that film would not be considered notable whatsoever. This analogy applies to this website. Furthermore, you shouldn't use alexa.com as proof that it is notable - for all we know this Wikipedia article is an advertisement for this website, generating all those hits. We need much more proof that this website it notable and so it should be deleted immediately. Johnthepcson 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnthepcson. Not a notable website per WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an advertisement for another run of mill porn site. Gwandoya^Talk 20:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Site is notable, barely (pardon the pun) ukexpat (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked up the AVN and XBIZ websites (the two main trade journals of porn) to find articles about milf hunter and only found 3 non-trivial articles. However 2 of them look like they're elicited by a press release about the same topic.[26][27]. The other is about taking legal action against imitators.[28] However I normally regard AVN articles with suspicion since they take in advertisement money from the companies and products they report on and review which is a conflict of interest. I suspect the same applies for XBIZ. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing has changed since the first nomination in December '05: there is still no claim to notability, and it still reads like promotion. Reading through the original AfD, most of the keep votes made no attempt to actually answer the charges that were made, and a great many of them came from single purpose accounts, and one from a user who was subsequently banned. The keep rationales this time will have to be looked at very closely, as should the users who make said votes. By all rights, this should have been deleted back then. At any rate, delete it now and be done with it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Site is notable, is the subject of many written articles and media coverage. Subject is part of the "Bang Brothers-Capt. Stabbin-MILF Hunter" Miami-based gonzo porn scene that has been covered in the media for years. Furthermore, overall "policy" consequences are not at issue in this discussion -- simply the notability of the subject. If you are voting to "delete" simply to voice your views on pornography or pay-sites in general your vote is not relevant here. Please Srong Keep. JeanLatore (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you give some examples of the independent written articles and media coverage that give significant coverage to MILF Hunter specifically? Vinh1313 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found to prove notability. Current sources completely fail to do so.--Aervanath's signature is boring 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The name is definitely well-known, but establishing notability through reliable and independent sources may be a challenge. It's in a scholarly article (one of nine adult websites studied), but unlike some other porn names hasn't, uh, penetrated mainstream media yet. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without much stronger sources. The sources listed aren't enough -- one is a review on a porn directory, one is an Alexa ranking, and one -- the Rolling Stone article -- is not about the site at all, but about a dude who works there (and yes, I think commercial porn sites like this should all be held to more stringent standards to prevent the allure of free advertising and, er, enthusiastic original research, but anyway). Anyway, I don't have access to the Men's Studies article mentioned above, which could count, but without that and other sources I'd say there's nothing showing that this is any more notable than any other porn site. Relying on Alexa's fairly unreliable data -- and only placing in the top 4000, at that -- shouldn't be enough alone to justify an article. -- phoebe / (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 Reasons: (i) notability not established; (ii) it's an encyclopedia, not a place for ads. --Abrech (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Personally I believe that this website is notable, but that said it still needs to pass our standards for verifiability and at this point it does not. If proper sources can be found then of course I will withdraw this motion and endorse the article inclusion. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as a article which in effect duplicates, and is less comprehensive than, the category Defunct sports teams without adding to the understanding of the topic. nancy ^(talk) 12:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct major North American sports teams[edit]

Unnecessary duplication. See Category:Defunct sports teams - there are lots of more informative articles in this vein. Corvus cornix_talk 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one needs to go defunct ASAP It's actually worse than a category, because it incorrectly describes teams that moved as "defunct", and most of these teams are ones that moved: Quebec Nordiques (Colorado Avalanche); Hartford Whalers (Carolina Hurricanes); Winnipeg Jets (Phoenix Coyotes); Houston Oilers (Tennessee Titans); Washington Senators (could be the Twins or the Rangers); Baltimore Bullets (Washington Wizards); Montreal Expos (Washington Nationals); Cincinnati Royals (Sacramento Kings); St. Louis Browns (Baltimore Orioles); Seattle Pilots (Milwaukee Brewers); New York/New Jersey MetroStars (Red Bull New York). There's no attempt even to distinguish NHL from MLB or NFL or NBA teams. A good "list of defunct teams" would be overly long anyway, and a list of teams that moved or folded would be even worse. Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there were two unrelated NBA franchises known as the Baltimore Bullets. The first one went defunct in the 1950s, and would qualify for a list like this. By the way, we already have a complete list of defunct NBA teams here. Zagalejo^^^ 03:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL@Tool2Die4.... just trying to step on my toes again.... anyway, go ahead and delete it.... I did not realize a similar page existed. I looked for one but didnt find it. That said, I will disagree with this statement:

It's actually worse than a category, because it incorrectly describes teams that moved as "defunct", and most of these teams are ones that moved: Quebec Nordiques (Colorado Avalanche); Hartford Whalers (Carolina Hurricanes); Winnipeg Jets (Phoenix Coyotes); Houston Oilers (Tennessee Titans); Washington Senators (could be the Twins or the Rangers); Baltimore Bullets (Washington Wizards); Montreal Expos (Washington Nationals); Cincinnati Royals (Sacramento Kings); St. Louis Browns (Baltimore Orioles); Seattle Pilots (Milwaukee Brewers); New York/New Jersey MetroStars (Red Bull New York

I am well aware of this and those teams cannot be found on the Defunct sports teams page since they have moved or changed names. I thought it would be interesting and I also think that if someone expanded it and other editors added to it it would be a good article. My hope was to nudge the snowball downhill and see if it grows. If not, so be it. Regards. Wjmummert (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, but rename to List of defunct sports teams and expand based on the category. Subject is notable and verifiable by sources provided on the articles regarding said teams. Categories and lists are not to be considered in conflict with one another simply due to redundancy. Relevant guidelins can be found by reiewing WP:CLN, specifically the parts regarding synergism between lists and categories. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read what I said? We already have more extensive articles on this subject. Corvus cornix_talk 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although one can say that the Houston Oilers team no longer exists, defunct generally means a halt to operations, or completely going out of business. Few people consider a team that has moved, or changes name, as having gone "defunct". It's a matter of honor for the big leagues-- it's been more than fifty years since an NFL or NBA team went out of business, more than 100 years since a National League baseball team failed. The original 8 American League franchises exist in 8 of the 16 AL teams, or however many there are now. The capital of the United States is no longer in New York City or Philadelphia, but it isn't defunct. The Haloid Corporation did not go out of business when it changed its name to Xerox. You'll find, however, that tracking a team's moves and changes of name are a daunting process. You cited the Cincinnati Royals. Before that, they were the Rochester Royals. After they left Cincinnati, they were the Kansas City Kings (and briefly, the "Kansas City- Omaha Kings") before becoming the Sacramento Kings. Generally, it's not a good idea to start an article just to see if it grows. There are, literally, hundreds of examples of teams that have come and gone or moved or changed names. Mandsford (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The category is sufficient. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 02:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as POV-ridden. For one thing, this defines as "major" only five sports leagues. It makes no attempts to categorize teams from other leagues considered "major" by the sporting community (the World Hockey Association, the Pacific Coast Hockey Association, the American Basketball League, the All-American Football Conference, the Federal League, the North American Soccer League ...), and that total would run this list to a couple hundred anyway. Ravenswing 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good list to have. Many of the delete arguments above deal with content problems, not notability, verifiability, etc. If there concerns with POV, missing teams, etc., fix the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. Why fix a deficient article when we already have better articles which cover this material? Corvus cornix_talk 22:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only see a category cited, not any articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you understand the purpose of a category? It's to categorize articles. I pointed to the category to indicate all of those articles which are covered by the category. Corvus cornix_talk 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do understand the purpose of a category, but categories and lists aren't mutually exclusive; see WP:CLN, which Celarnor has already pointed out to you above. You're also getting borderline uncivil with your responses, both to Celarnor and myself. There's no need to take it as a personal insult if someone doesn't share your personal opinion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for at least two reasons: (1) Many of the teams listed are not defunct, they simply moved and/or changed their names, as an editor noted earlier; (2) There is no new information in the article that can't be had from a category. If the original editor wants to discuss teams that moved and/or changed their nicknames, he could invent another category. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renford Reese[edit]

This a very detailed article on an American university professor who who sounds thoroughly worthy, but also does not appear to be notable. (The article appears to fail both WP:BIO and WP:PROF).

There are plenty of references in the article, but they are all to primary sources: to Reese's own homepages, to his Colourful Flags program, to his own publications, and to a UN program with which he may have been involved.

The result is a very detailed article which does not at this stage offer any means of verification other than to sources which are closely linked to the author: for example, there is a lot of biographical detail, but no indication anywhere that anyone other than Renford Reese himself has verified any of it.

Apart from some minor edits, the article has been written by two editors: Crcolorfulnails (talk · contribs), who has no contributions to any page other than this article; and by Mr4sh0wz (talk · contribs), all of whose contributions are either to this page or to related pages. Given the amount of unverified biographical detail, I am concerned that there may be a COI here, and that the article may even be an autobiography.

The work in which Reese is engaged sounds thoroughly worthy, but worthiness is not the same as notability, and at this point Reese appear to be one of the world's many decent and worthy socially-involved academics whose work has not yet achieved sufficient attention to meet our notability thresholds. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the week since this article was created I've been waiting for the notable achievement or contribution of this individual to be added to this article that establishes his notability. Unfortunately nothing has been added that indicates the required standard for inclusion of an academic under WP:PROF. If evidence could be found I'd quite willingly change my opinion but as it stands its just another academic, albeit an interesting one. - Galloglass 20:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am less concerned about notability than about autobiography and the ensuing POV. The content has been provided by four editors, Mr4sh0wz (talk · contribs), Crcolorfulnails (talk · contribs), Noblescholar (talk · contribs), and 71.105.215.64 (talk · contribs). At the time I wrote this, all but the first have edited this article alone (the first also uploaded images related to the article and added the article as a notable faculty to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona). The article contains unreferenced statements that, if true, and truly unreferenced, could only be supplied by the subject of the article. So it seems clear that it is an autobiography, and, almost in its entirety, violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two more sockpuppets have appeared: Baileydog7 (talk · contribs) and Rubesj (talk · contribs). Mr4shOwz has started to reference the article, which addresses WP:NOR, but WP:NPOV and WP:COI are still issues. No editor who (1) had an edit history prior to the creation of this article, and (2) has edited any other article has added information to this one. I find it interesting, too, that none of these editors has ever directly addressed any of the issues raised either here or on the various talk pages.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to say delete at this point. I took a pretty good look for third party sources and couldn't come up with much. Some coverage in Pomona periodicals, but that is not independent enough for me. A passing (negative) mention in some right wing blog is all that I dig up and that wont cut it. Considering the high level of single purpose accounts editing the article, conflict of interest and autobiography issues are a big problem, unless multiple quality third party references are provided I think deletion is the only option. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have read all four books by Dr. Reese, and was inspired to learn more about this man. I am a fan of his, and article of Wikipedia are usually started by fans of the subject/persons. Google or yahoo search his name and you will see more than the small handful of Pomona references I used or the few right wings blogs. Type in his names and there are thousands of hits. Renford Reese is not a typical name thus the many pages that shows up on Google and yahoo demonstrate his notability. I understand that Wikipedia is concern with reputable references thus if you use “scholarly” search engine such as Proquest, JSTOR, Lexus Nexus, etc. you will see the many links on him, thus notable. By simply searching his name in the many search engines and going pass the third or fourth pages on yahoo or google, it is clear there are tons of information about his life and works. Furthermore, if you go to the WorldCat website you will see that his first book is a classic because it is found in hundred and hundreds of libraries world wide. I am new to the Wikipedia community and this article on Renford Reese is a work in progress like most of Wikipedia articles, so please do not rush to judge and condemn. Rushing to judge and condemn to delete any articles/information will only deprived the people who are seeking knowledge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.233.223 (talk • contribs) I really appreciate the community’s’ concerns or suggestions; and I will try my best to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and Renford Reese. I have added many new references from LA Times, CNN and other third party sources. Nevertheless, after researching about this man, I strongly believe that he is a notable man and thousand would agree with me thus if this article is delete today, sooner or later some else will create another article on Renford Reese. Reading testimonies, which I did not mentioned in the Wikipedia article to maintain the neutrality, found on ratemyprofessor.com website, you will see that Reese is one of the favorite professors at Cal Poly Pomona. Thank you again for all you help- Mr4sh0wz.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr4sh0wz (talk • contribs)

Please see my response on your talk page.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to change my vote to a keep, but it doesn't look like any of the references you have provided establish notability, neither the LA Times article that can be viewed nor the CNN piece that is linked mention Mr. Reese. Establishing notability is simple, a multiple reputable sources that are not affiliated with the subject must have written about him in some detail. Once those are provided then the deletion debate will end, but things like ratemyprofessor or the number of google hits don't change anything. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: My intentions was to create this article on Renford Reese to inform the world about this man so that they can too be inspired by his work and to go out and make a positive differences in our society. This is a man who is not only a beloved professor at the university he works at, but an internationally renowned author and lecturer. I tried following the suggestions of the Wikipedia community as best as possible. As a new user of Wikipedia, I never thought the complexity of the Wikipedia community would actually hinder the integrity of Renford Reese. Furthermore, being a new user I wish there would of been more help from the community rather qucik condemnation to delete. Though, I do not agree with notability issue since adult actors can be found on Wikipedia but with the pressure of community to delete this article, I am going to delete this article within 24 hours. It is ironic and contradictory to see that pornography prevailed over academia in this community. The issue of notability is just like the issue of beauty that is “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The recently added referneces are numerous, valid and accordingly. This article on Renford Reese, has more respectful references than on many other biographies in Wikipedia's database that community deemed notable. I strongly believe that if any person were to take half the amount of time I took to learn about Reese, they would agree that this man is notable whether they agree with his work or not. Again, as I said before I strongly believe that after my deletion of this article, sooner or later someone else would create another article on this notable man, Renford Reese. Thank you all for your help and opinions.

DELETE; First, I am confused at the authors' use of citations labeled, "<ref>12</ref>". Secondly, the sock and/or meatpuppet issue, the COI issue, and the autobiographical issue concerns me. There is, however, minor notability claims within the athletic accomplishments of the subject. Notable references are at a premium. Unless the author(s) can show notable, verifiable third-party citations, I must say delete. (The article does look pretty, however).--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:IAR. It appears a very well written article. Even though it may not be notable, it's still a decent article. What's the harm in keeping it around? Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:IAR again. If we allow all "pretty-but-false" articles to exist then it deminishes the respectability of this encyclopedia. So to keep it "just because" is a very poor reason indeed.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venketa Parthasarathy[edit]

This person is not notable, he has a PhD in ChemEngineering and appears to have done nothing exceptional nor be recognized as anyone exceptional. Just an ordinary researcher who has published some papers. Smokefoot (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a quick Google search brings up nothing to indicate notability. The only accomplishment the article lists is "ground-breaking work on chlorine-free bleaching chemistry" which while groundbreaking does not seem particularly important. -Icewedge (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A PhD is more often then not likely to be notable because their work has been reviewed in third party sources. I do not believe that the nominator performed a google search in Indian, where much of the material to assert notability likely exists. As it stands now, the primary sources are enough for me, not enough grounds to delete here. MrPrada (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: 25,000 PhD's are granted each year in the US alone, and each is expected to publish work that "has been reviewed in third party sources."

Delete. Article provides no evidence of notability. Publishing articles, presenting at conferences, and/or obtaining patents is the normal job of any researcher and does not confer notability. The least that would be required are articles about the researcher written by independent sources, as is the case, for example, for scientists who received major awards or made it into the history books. --Itub (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just having a PhD, while a laudable achievement, is well below the notability bar for academics. And I don't think there's any need to look for sources in "Indian", which, as Mr Prada will discover if he clicks on the link he provided, is not a language. Any sources showing notability for a scientist educated in India, Norway and the USA and working in the USA would almost certainly be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --using the right standard. Although "Publishing articles, presenting at conferences, and/or obtaining patents is the normal job of any researcher", it is still just that which makes researchers notable. Researchers become notable from their research, and "making it into history books" is WAY beyond the Wikipedia standard of notability in any area of human endeavor. But the notability depends on how many papers, patents, etc. and how important they are: 3 papers, 1 conference paper, & 1 patent are not nearly enough./ . Similarly ""ground-breaking work on chlorine-free bleaching chemistry" would, if true, make one notable--all fields of activity are potentially notable, regardless of one's personal interests. But there is no evidence he's done anything of the sort. It takes more than one patent. DGG (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Deletion per CSD G7 Author requested in good faith that the page be deleted. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Alexander Reyes Soto (Airsoft player)[edit]

I can't find any references online that the team the subject is claimed to be a member of exists, much less that the subject of the article is as described. The article seems to be unverifiable. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User requested deletion (diff)–so tagged. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Ty 09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tjaša Iris[edit]

A non-notable Slovenian artist. Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable, though clearly a working pro artist. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ty 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or userfy, I guess, should someone want to) Doesn't appear to be notable. Some g-hits, but nothing beyond her leading some workshops. Nothing in news, books, or scholar. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Standard self-written artist resume. Some day she may come out of those "Group Exhibitions" and someone (well, a few "someones") will notice her enough to write a few significant critical articles on her, but we are not there yet. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, defaults to keep. Editors are are entitled to merge or take other editorial actions independent of this result. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Middle School Program[edit]

non-notable middle school, doing what middle schools are supposed to do Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn middle school. JJL (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see many other middle schools in Wikipedia. Can you give me some guidance as to what makes a middle school notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned? User:Mr.flesher —Preceding comment was added at 18:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I read more about notability. How much time do I have to add information to the page? I believe the school is notable. Given adequate time, the page will reflect that. User:Mr.flesher
- Comment generally, coverage in reliable courses demonstrating that the school has notability in its own right. Of course it may be mentioned in passing often, but these should be stories explaining why it's noteworthy, not just covering its sports teams or school board budget meetings. JJL (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment an AfD usually runs for five days. Good luck! JJL (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Independent, reliable sources have been added to the article. I believe the coverage of the school is substantial; it reflects the unique character of the program. User:Mr.flesher —Preceding comment was added at 00:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (not just a redirect) to a new section Academy School District 20#Summit Middle School Program. I am not seeing quite enough, at present, to justify its own page (and I haven't been able to extend the sources sufficiently). Having said that there is definitely encyclopaedic material that should be preserved. Hence I am suggesting a merge to a new section. This will allow it to grow and can be broken out again if circumstances merit it. TerriersFan (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge precisely as per TerriersFan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Woody, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Stoosh[edit]

Contested PROD, was proposed for deletion with the following reason: "A single album does not indicate this passes WP:MUSIC". I agree with this reason, as it does not seem to be sufficiently notable. Also note that none of the page's references or external links seem to work, so the information is not properly verified on the page. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have commented out the broken links on the page, but you can still see them in the page history. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 Absolutely no notability whatsoever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Dreadstar † 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recaffination[edit]

Potential hoax, Google seach turns up 7 results that aren't useful. Seems like WP:OR, and (thus) not referenced. WP:BOLLOCKS? Booglamay (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If anything, this article should be Recaffeination (see Decaffeination) - but (again) Google turns up no relevant results. Booglamay (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax or WP:OR to me. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nonsense. Also, article creator is a confirmed vandal. TheProf - T / C 17:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Author is now blocked (indef.). Booglamay (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there seems to be a patent (or similar) for this process here - but before I eat my hat, I'd still class this as trivial and not a third party source. Booglamay (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost certain hoax, at best OR. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CMT Girls' Night Out[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/CMT Girls' Night Out

Well, this is a strange one. The subject is apparently a TV special which aired only a couple times, and CMT produced an album for it. Although the album apparently charted on the Top Country Albums charts, I can't find a single verifiable source for the album or for the show. Nothing at all. Therefore, I think that this is a non-notable piece of media. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it did exist. You could probably add refs as well at $3 a pop.[29] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC as an album, and fails WP:N for being an unnotable single television special. Most refs seen above seem to be more about the individual performers than the special. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per AnmaFinotera. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no concensus. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Ionians[edit]

Article consists almost entirely of WP:OR from a Mr. Faucounau, seemingly advocating a theory of his which doesn't seem to reflect a scholarly mainstream view in the field. I do not see why Wikipedia should have an article on this. henrik•talk 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, else merge into a brief note at Proto-Greek and/or Ionians. WP:OR doesn't apply, these theories are published. What does apply is WP:NOTE. It's a fringe theory that has received some (minor) academic attention. The background of this is that this Faucounau was trolling the Phaistos Disc article, and we ended up giving him his own article because he kept harping on how he did get some (less than enthusiastic) academic reviews. dab (𒁳) 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
: Point taken about OR. However, anyone sufficiently motivated can pay to have their books published. The publisher for at least Le déchiffrement du Disque de Phaistos is L'Harmattan, which seems to be a low-cost, low-quality publisher leaving much of the fact checking and editing to the authors themselves[30]. henrik•talk 17:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to merge this elsewhere. Notable enough for Wikipedia, maybe not for its own article. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is notable into another article.--Berig (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, L'Harmattan is a well-respected, noted French publisher. No opinion on the article. Rhinoracer (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into appropriate article with note - not WP:OR but fails WP:NOTE. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR. Yahel Guhan 02:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Despite I also must disagree regarding L'Harmattan (I recoil with horror at the thought of what would Francophone African studies be without them) I also agree that this topic here is pretty fringe. Also, by my knowledge, L'Harmattan points mainly to offer a vast choice of titles, which makes it the first French publishing house for titles put on the market, but also means that they don't make a strict selections of the manuscripts submitted.--Aldux (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Pinecrest Public School, redirected to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board just after discussion started; Cedarview Middle School, keep; All others, no consensus - consider individual consideration. This is one of the more complex AFDs I have closed, and the result is a little complex but I think is fair. There is no consensus for any immediate straight deletion of any of these articles, however many commented that they should be merged/redirected as appropriate individually. "Consider individual consideration" can mean boldly redirecting/merging these articles, discussing the merging/redirecting of an article on an appropriate talk page, or bringing any of these articles back to AFD individually. Cedarview Middle School stood out strongly from the other nominated articles as highlighted in the discussion, hence why I have given it a different result. No valid reason was actually given in the nomination for deletion of this article, as it does cite sources - a few others did as well but not as strongly. Also note that it was kept in a previous AFD in January 2008. If any user still thinks this article should be deleted, please re-nominate it in a individual AFD. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. H. Putman Public School[edit]

This is a group afd. None of these schools are notable. They all fail to cite sources. Some of them are only one or two sentences. Delete GreenJoe 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- J. H. Putman Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sir Winston Churchill Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rideau Valley Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Emily Carr Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Goulbourn Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- D. Aubrey Moodie Intermediate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Henry Munro Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- A. Lorne Cassidy Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bridlewood Community Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Castlefrank Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jack Donohue Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Roberta Bondar Public School (Ottawa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sawmill Creek Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vincent Massey Public School (Ottawa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- York Street Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pinecrest Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cedarview Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fisher Park Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Greenbank Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Glashan Public School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featherston Drive Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of English public schools in Ottawa. Current practice for schools which are deemed non-notable is to redirect them to an appropriate target, such as a list of schools or the article on the school board that oversees them, not to delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to consider all these schools at once. Some are very short and already had merge-school tags on them, one I'd redirected before this AfD and, as of this time has not been tagged for this AfD, some are of reasonable length and include references. My suggestion is to merge those with merge tags to their district or locality, keep and tag appropriately the remainder. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - each school deserves individual consideration which they cannot get in a mass nomination. Non-notable elementary schools should, in any case, be merged and redirected tot eh district. TerriersFan (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - School don't often get deleted from an Afd. There is to many to investigate there in one go, especially when you consider each school normally has several other schools with exactly the same name somewhere else in the world. They are not tagged with ((notability)) at least not all of them and Pinecrest_Public_School does not even have Afd tag on it. Raise the issue with the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools and the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada projects first.
- High schools typically survive AFDs. Elementary schools generally don't. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TerriersFan and SunCreator that these articles deserve individual consideration, not bundling. In my view—after re-reading the examples at WP:BUNDLE—this is an inappropriate use of bundling at an AfD. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep all — someone is using these articles to try to promote an agenda, rather than considering them in their own right. Schools are notable as public institutions, many of these articles do have a significant amount of content, and they have been take up by other Wiki projects. Please let's consider the articles (and all the work that's gone into them) in their own right, and not use them to try to prove a point. David (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - (untrue — Fisher Park Public School, for example, does cite sources, and did so long before the AFD. David (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Prove that they are notable. They aren't, and there isn't anything anywhere that says they are. GreenJoe 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have not helped your case by showing a certain insouciance in forming your nomination. You stated "They all fail to cite sources." Let's take Cedarview Middle School, for example, which clearly cites sources that comfortably pass WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And contrary to GreenJoe's blanket claim, some of the articles are fairly lengthy and well written. In any case, I'd argue that as large and expensive public institutions, schools are notable by default — at least, the WikiProjects seem to think so, and that seems to be the consensus here so far as well. David (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The consensus from many AfDs is that high schools are notable but elementary/middle schools are usually not. However, each school article should be considered on its merits since some elementary/middle schools are notable and those can only be identified if there is an evaluation of the sources available on a case by case basis. TerriersFan (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Some people argued the same thing about airports a few years ago, especially if they didn't have airline service. Now, fortunately, it's no longer an issue — even a tiny grass strip with no airline service, buildings or fence is considered notable by default, since (as the cliche goes) Wikipedia isn't running out of paper. David (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relist any articles you have a specific problem with, but this type of a nomination is much more trouble than its worth, especially given the contention regarding this particular subject. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all under the snowball cluse: for the same reasons that schools are ineligible for speedy deletion, they require individual consideration. Also most elementary school AFD's will result in keep or merge closure so this would become procedurally untenable. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Jerry. The schools that are truly non-notable can be redirected to an appropriate target. I find deletion en masse distasteful, and good objections have been raised above. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close this and continue merging , but i am not sure this was a totally wrong combined nomination---they are all pretty similar, and all from the same area. I'd have done the primary and secondary schools in separate groups, going school district by school district, if for some reason I didnt want to merge and redirect, or if for some reason that were opposed. Terries Fan in my opinion has the present consensus correct. DGG (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, due to crystal ball and notability concerns. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Nightmare[edit]

A 'rumoured single' that appears in reality to be nothing more than a demo leaked to the web. Beyonce herself has commented so at http://www.beyonceonline.com/ (click 'news') and stated that "It is not my time to put out new music". Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Mediabase, it IS getting airplay but on Top 40 formats it was played a grand total of two times - on on station in New Jersey. Two Rhythmic formatted stations are playing it (one listed under leaders right there has it played a total 13 times, and the other under starters 3). Right now it's just a curio, getting played a total of eighteen times. For the record, on the Rhythmic chart, the #50 track has 417 plays. So 13 plays right now is hardly notable. Has no reliable sources that this is even a single and most of the article is original research. 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Strange (talk • contribs)
Delete Good research by Doc Strange (talk · contribs) there. This is clearly not a notable song, and probably won't be until it charts (if it charts). Right now, it's nothing but a rumor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable song. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is recieving airplay and it just needs a cleanup. - Motion-In-The-Ocean (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It might be receiving airplay, but that doesn't make it notable. Please review Wikipedia:Music#Songs for details. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep Nomination withdrawn. Darkspots (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Simpson[edit]

It was discussed here that the articles nominated for deletion in that AfD should be put into their own seperate AfD's. This AfD is for the wrestlers mentioned there. It was agreed in the previous AfD that the articles: Shaun Koen, Johnny Palazzio, Steve Debbes, and Steve Cohen (wrestler) should be kept as they are notable. All of the other wrestlers appear to be non-notable. iMatthew 2008 15:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are all included in this AfD as well.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. - iMatthew 2008 15:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split up into smaller chunks - Currently, my vote would be: Keep Shaun Simpson and Jean Paul Whittacker as redirects. Keep Jason McGinn and Nightmare, who are mentioned in several articles (McGinn at here, here, here and here, and Nightmare at here). Delete the rest as non-notable with no third-party sources for verifiability. As with the last AfD, I believe this is still too much all at once and should be relisted with a maximum of five (please see my comments near the bottom of the other AfD for the five I mentioned). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Mark Beale should be kept, since he has been mentioned in numerous third-party sources (I've included them in the article). Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination or keep The original afd was a horrible mess and this is yet another horrible mess. The nominator notes that Shaun Koen should be kept and yet nominates Shaun Simpson for deletion even though Shaun Simpson is apparently nothing more than a redirect to Shaun Koen. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is the appropriate place to nominate any redirects for deletion though I strongly doubt that there's any valid reason to delete this redirect. Another person has already voted keep for some of the articles and delete for others. This is simply not acceptable. Please withdraw this nomination, do some google search, tag articles with ((notability)) where appropriate, nominate individual articles one at a time where warranted and do not nominate redirects for deletions here. I'm really trying to avoid calling a spade a spade but if I see another large amount of articles being nominated all at once here with no evidence that the nominator had even bothered to look through each individual article, then I am not going to refrain myself any longer from calling a spade a spade. --Bardin (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made this AfD because many said that it needed to be made at the other one, and since nobody else did, I did. I guess I withdraw the nomination.. iMatthew 2008 19:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete or move, default to keep.

As a first approximation, we have 8 "keep" and 4 "delete" opinions, as well as 5 "move", 3 "move or delete" and 3 "move or keep" opinions. This does not include two "keep" opinions that I discount as spurious. There is no core policy issue here that compels me to keep or delete the article without regard to consensus. It has been alleged that the article violates or violated WP:BLP, but it is unclear to me why such problems, if any, cannot be fixed through normal editing. Instead, this is essentially a discussion about the notability threshold, in which almost all participants enunciate a more or less strict, but generally defensible interpretation of this threshold. Accordingly, I must look again to the head count and hold that there is at least no consensus to delete the article, which leads to a "keep" verdict by default.

Many people are of the opinion that the subject would be best covered by moving the article to The Big Bang Never Happened and refocusing it to be about the book. However, because the issue of outright deletion has complicated that discussion, the consensus for such a solution is not clear enough for me to impose it at this stage. Instead, the move option should be discussed more thoroughly at the article talk page. Sandstein (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lerner[edit]

WP:BIO states that

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.

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

It is my opinion that Eric has never received such attention never having been the point-of-fact subject of a sourced biography. Sure, he received a limited amount of notoriety from his book, but the sources written about his book criticizing the ideas aren't really about him. I also don't think that his book would satisfy WP:BK and so we shouldn't have an article about that. His company does not satisfy WP:ORG, so we shouldn't have an article about that. What is more, there is no source that I have found which focuses on Eric as a person: no secondary-source biographies written about the gentleman, no film biographies, no autobiographical reviews, and very little in the way of independent sourcing about his life in general. There is only bits and pieces here and there: an article in New Scientist which mentions Eric briefly, a quote from him in a book on Lyndon LaRouche, and brief paragraph-length biographies associated with his alternative cosmology conferences and an interview on Space Show (itself lacking a Wikipedia article and perhaps not worthy of one?): hardly enough to warrant notability. I might also refer you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Peratt for a similarly "giant figure" in plasma cosmology whose page was deleted on notability and sourcing grounds. I believe that any content worth including from Eric's biography page is actually better found at plasma cosmology, aneutronic fusion, or nonstandard cosmologies. He, as a person, simply shouldn't have a Wikipedia article.

WP:PROF may also be applicable here, but, of course, Eric is not a professor. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, disruptive nomination due to a content dispute as clearly shown in the page history; ScienceApologist actually admits that "The notability of Eric is not in question."[31]. John254 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your advocacy caused me to look carefully at WP:BIO. I now believe that I was wrong in that assessment. Eric is not notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, um, in the nearly four years you have been editing Wikipedia, you hadn't "looked carefully" at WP:BIO? In any event, Eric Lerner's notability is established by

(1) His book, "The Big Bang Never Happened", which was reviewed extensively in some nice reliable sources like The New York Times and the Skeptical Inquirer, as described in Eric_Lerner#Reception_of_The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened, thus establishing a presumption of notability per the general notability guideline

(2) His efforts to use the dense plasma focus to produce aneutronic fusion via a hydrogen-boron reaction, his technical writing, and the awards he has received from the Aviation Space Writers Association, as described in Eric_Lerner#Professional_activities. John254 16:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book did receive some reviews, but as WP:BK#Criteria says, it isn't just good enough to have a minor tussle at NYTimes and Victor Stenger criticize you in the Skeptical Inquirer to establish the notability of the book. By that criteria, Lerner's book is not notable.
The Aviation Space Writers Association is not a notable award and his efforts to achieve aneutronic fusion as ignored so much that there was WP:COI and WP:SOAP issues brought up about it. Again, this does not establish notability for Eric.

The best you can do is say that some of the things surrounding Eric are notable. Again, I suggest that merging useful content into plasma cosmology (including, perhaps, the tussel in the New York Times regarding the Davies-Lerner-Penzias letters-to-the-editor debate). But this is a biography and it must be notable per WP:BIO to establish the need for a singular article on the subject. I am of the opinion that this article should not exist because the subject of the article has not received the note that is required for a decent biography to be written. We can't even find adequate sources for his political involvement, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2008 (

[ec] John, WP:BLP has become a lot stronger, and a lot more rigorously enforced, over time. As the debates on the talk page show, there are very few independent reliable sources primarily about Lerner. Kudos to SA for stepping back and checking his perspective - "we need to rebut this kook" is a poor reason for having an article on a barely-notable person who runs a non-notable company and has received a non-notable award from a maybe-but-likely-not-very notable group. For a biography of an individual asserted to be a notably controversial person, we would need good quality secondary analytical sources that discuss the individual and the controversy in detail. I see no such sources. All we have are directory-style biographies and some discussions of his book, some of which give a bit of background information on Lerner. If he was writing mainstream pop science then this would not be a problem, but he isn't. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So, basically, ScienceApologist has been editing this article with the purpose of "we need to rebut this kook", by focusing excessively on criticism and unreasonably excluding favorable material, in a massive violation of Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism. Do you propose that, instead of banning ScienceApologist from the article, we should actually reward this misconduct by granting his request to have the article deleted in its entirety? John254 17:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or repurpose as an article on the notable book. Lerner is not a notable academic, and we should not have articles that go to great lengths to describe how much of a kook someone is. Independent coverage is almost exclusively about the book. I'd call this a WP:BLP1E case, basically. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refactor that comment Guy. You often evince concern for BLP's and that is a good thing, yet you use a derogatory term to describe Lerner. That's completely unacceptable even in Wikipedia space and you should know better. Maybe the k word is not a bad word in the UK, but it certainly is in the US. I find it intensely ironic that while ostensibly supporting the deletion of an article because much of the content defames someone you yourself make a point of defaming said person. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he was a kook, I said that "we should not have articles that go to great lengths to describe how much of a kook someone is". Guy (Help!) 07:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split hairs if you like, but obviously your comment can easily be read in the first sense (i.e. that you are describing him that way) and that is how I first read it. Even if one reads it as you say it should be read you are still making a defamatory statement about a living person. What possible harm does it do to simply refactor your comment to say something like "go to great lengths to explain that someone's work is not respected by the scientific mainstream"? You already supported including inaccurate information about Lerner which stayed in the article for a couple of days, so I think it would be courteous of you now to reword a sentence you wrote that many would read as a personal attack against him. There's absolutely no reason not to other than sticking to your guns for the sake of it, but our BLP policies are a bit more important than that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's conceded that the book is notable, deletion is unjustified in any event, as it would be far more efficient to retain the description of the book in Eric_Lerner#Reception_of_The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened than to delete the article and completely rewrite the description. John254 16:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the book is notable in any case. WP:BK seems to indicate that it probably isn't. We can cover the one-time interest surrounding the book adequately at plasma cosmology. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage of the book in The New York Times and the Skeptical Inquirer, as described in Eric_Lerner#Reception_of_The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened, establishes its notability per criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (books). John254 17:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Eric+J+Lerner%22 shows about 850 ghits, most of them about the book. Searching for Eric Lerner gets a lot of hits about other Eric Lerners. Most of the material supportive of Lerner seems to be written by Lerner himself, e.g. on Focus Fusion or Lawrenceville Plasma Physics' sites. First hit on Amazon is another Eric Lerner altogether, but the book is cited by others and is at the 45,000 mark in Amazon's sales rank. I think we can have an article on the book, with sources, but I am much less convinced that we can safely have one on Lerner. I don't think a deletion debate is inappropriate, even if the outcome is to rename, redirect, or refactor. Is the subject, Eric J Lerner, independently notable, is the question here, and I am not convinced, per the "more toruble than it's worth" test as much as anything else. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete Since Wikipedia is not paper, we could include marginally notable biographies, but I'm not even sure Eric Lerner is marginally notable. We don't want articles on all the people that have their own (unsuccessful) company, or that wrote one book that caused some discussion several years ago, or that won some award once. Lerner at least did all of these things, but still, he's just not very important. (Based on secondary sources. Of course, if you personally believe that he will achieve economical fusion or that plasma cosmology will eventually surplant the Big Bang theory, I can understand your frustration.) --Art Carlson (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking "weak". I guess I should have read WP:BIO before I voted. I can't find any criterion under which he would qualify. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this has turned into a three-way choice between (among) delete, keep, and change it to talk primarily about the book. The high-water mark of the book is an (unfavorable) review in the NYT shortly after publication. We can't seriously want an article on every book that was ever reviewed in the NYT, can we?! I think the case for notability of the book is weak, but not so weak as that for Lerner, himself. In the three-way contest my choice is: deleting everything is best, changing it to an article on the book is a poor idea but an acceptable compromise, considering that no clear consensus has yet developed. --Art Carlson (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Based on the letter of the policy it would appear that this individual would count as non-notable, but the book that they authored may. It seems to me a fairly good plan to delete the article and have a minimal amount of bio info at an article about the book. Jefffire (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as repurposed article on the book, at least. With reviews in both the New York Times and The New York Review of Books, as well as Science & Society, Sky & Telescope, and Skeptical Inquirer, his book is most certainly notable. Probably keep an article about Lerner himself as well, as he seems to be a fairly prolific pop-sci author. InfoTrac shows many articles in Laser Focus World and Aerospace America, at least one in Discover and New Scientist, and several in Esquire. Besides the NYT kerfluffle about his book, it generated controversy in Skeptical Inquirer and New Scientist, and there was a second back-and-forth in the NYT regarding J. Richard Gott [32] Jfire (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Jfire (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate to see a guy abused on Wikipedia, so personally I'd rather see it deleted. Guy/JzG is right that only the book, according to the source we have, is notable. The article can be re-created as about the book. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on this, and will change my vote if this happens. So send me an email or talk page. It's all about the sources. But I urge you to think about exactly what purpose putting Lerner -or his book- on WP has. To me, it may serve some good purpose in warning people against the book, if the book is wrong (I have no idea). Yet, Wikipedia will not give it a neutral or open-minded evaluation, because the sources probably don't. Thus, we can't. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for deletion you suggest would have the effect of rewarding ScienceApologist and JzG for their WP:BLP violations. Not all reliable sources concerning Eric Lerner's work are negative -- the problem here is that ScienceApologist insists on blanket reversions to remove most favorable material with factually incorrect edit summaries -- see, for example, [33], which falsely asserts that there was "no indication on talk why John did this", even though I provided a detailed explanation of the edits at Talk:Eric_Lerner#Van_Allen_review. Other inappropriate removals of favorable content include [34], which incorrectly removes material attributed to peer-reviewed journals, including The Astrophysical Journal, which even ScienceApologist acknowleges is a reliable source, as described on Talk:Eric_Lerner#Description_of_Eric_Lerner.27s_research. This exclusion of well-sourced positive material, and excessive focus on criticism, violates WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism, the latter of which provides that

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Rather than rewarding ScienceApologist for his disruption by granting his request to destroy the article completely, I would ask editors here to assist in the effort to bring this article into compliance with our biographies of living persons policy. John254 18:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given me one really mainstream source just to establish Lerner's notability beyond the book, and you have a cut and dried case. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has written a number of articles and papers appearing in mainstream publications -- see, for example, his articles Laser Focus World [35], Discover Magazine [36], and Esquire: "Radio radiation threat breeds controversy" (May 1985) and "Mending marrow with magnetism" (Jan 1985) (excerpted from InfoTrac search results provided by Jfire). John254 20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can someone with so many references from so many different sources, including at least two different online biographical statements, not be notable? In my mind, this guy is way past the minimum threshhold for notability. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The case laid out above by Guy and SA seems to me both clear and unequivocal. Eusebeus (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only to the extent that "please delete this article because there's some resistance to turning it into an attack page and a coatrack for criticism" is considered to be a valid argument. John254 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unsure~~ This appears to be a difficult case and I'd appreciate more sourced information, especially from those advocating "keep". It seems that the book "The Big Bang Never Happened" is clearly notable. I am not sure about notability of Eric Lerner himself. One possibility is to consider him under WP:PROF. However, he never completed a doctoral degree and never held what is generally understood as an academic position. A GoogleScholar, WebOfScience and Publish-or-Perish searchers under his name produce very little, with h-index seemingly around 6-7 or so. On the other hand his position at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics could be characterized as a research position and he appears to be frequently referred to as a "researcher" in connection with reviews of his book. So one could try to make a case that he is an academic with a highly non-standard academic career. Still, I have not, so far, found much in the way of citations of his work in scholarly publications. His book and his views did receive a fair amount of coverage in conventional mass media, but it would appear that this coverage is mostly negative rather than positive and that his opinions are mostly cited as those of an "anti-expert". So it is not clear to me that he satisfies WP:PROF. I think that a stronger case could be made that he satisfies WP:BIO, if there is a substantial amount of coverage related to him in conventional media. (I disagree with the ScienceApologist that a full blown biographical article in the newsmedia or in a scholarly journal is required to satisfy WP:BIO. Significant amount of nontrivial coverage related to him specifically would be enough.) However, when I tried to do various searchers, I did not find very much here either. A GoogleNews search (all dates) under "Eric J Lerner" returns 22 hits[37]. A GoogleNews search for "Eric Lerner" returns 193 hits[38] but almost all appear to be false positives. Further filtering such as "Eric Lerner" cosmology[39] or "Eric Lerner" physics[40] return hits in single digits, with "Eric Lerner" big bang scoring 16 hits [41]. I am quite perplexed by these low results as I had expected many more hits, especially since he is said to have written up to 600 popular science articles in conventional media (where are they, by the way? and why don't they come up when doing these searches)? All this makes me suspect that this is essentially a BLP1E case, but perhaps I am not looking in the right places. Nsk92 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could try an InfoTrac search, as described in the comment by Jfire above. John254 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more details based of an InfoTrac search:

Contributing editor to Laser Focus World: [42]
Discover: [43]
NY Review of Books: [44]
Skeptical Enquirer: [45]
Esquire: "Radio radiation threat breeds controversy" (May 1985) and "Mending marrow with magnetism" (Jan 1985) Jfire (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just did an InfoTrac search, but the results were not substantially different from my earlier searches. I found 18 hits in "academic journals" (several are articles by Lerner and the rest are reviews of his book), 10 hits in "magazines" (3 articles by Lerner and 7 reviews of his book) and 9 hits in "news" (1 false positive and the others are the NYT review of his book and NYT letters to the editor regarding that review). If anything, these results reinforce the BLP1E impression. For me the real issue here is if there is enough coverage of him other than the reviews of his book. The Discover and Skeptical Enquirer articles mentioned above are certainly valid references but they do not appear to be sufficient. The NYT Review of Books reference is a review of his book. I would also like to know where the 600+ publications figure is coming from, if the figure is valid and if yes, what kind of publications we are talking about. One of the claims to notability is as a prolific popular science writer and I'd like to be able to verify the "prolific" part. Nsk92 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the book reviews are sufficient, combined with the authorship of the articles, and the awards for technical writing in the archives of the article. The history of this article in its archives, and some related pages Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience , User talk:Elerner gives reason to think there might be some personal animus involved here. DGG (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and now a current request for Arbcom, [46]. Deletion of the article is not the solution to this sort of content/personality dispute. DGG (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, after writing a statement claiming that my request for arbitration was completely without merit, Nick restored the request on purely technical grounds.[47] Since consideration of the matter is now active again, I invite editors to review my description of the WP:BLP violations by ScienceApologist and JzG at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#ScienceApologist.2FJzG. John254 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a breach of WP:CANVASS and I invite you to redact your comment forthwith. Nick (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The request was mentioned by DGG in the comment above, so I'm afraid that editors viewing this discussion already know about it. Moreover, the fact that the comment was only posted to one page, and that this is a relatively neutral forum (not all editors here agree with me by any means) both weigh in favor of a finding that this does not constitute disruptive canvassing. Sunlight is the best disinfectant -- the current disposition of the case must be quite incorrect if my single comment at AFD could alter it. John254 22:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:PROF — a regular academic with a single possibly-notable published work would not be kept, and I don't see why we should hold fringe scientists to any lower standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lerner has written a great deal of work in printed in mainstream publications, as described above. Also, the book is clearly, and not merely possibly, notable due to the extensive reviews published by reliable sources, as previously described. John254 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've expressed your opinion already. Repeating it after every other comment here comes across as tendentious. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is fair. First, tendentious is an essay and the points you might be referring to are unhelpful. the purpose of his argument is not to convince the principals of its legitimacy but to convince an audience. Protonk (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:BIO1E applies here. Lerner was not covered only for one event, his political activities have been covered, albeit briefly, here and in other reliable sources not freely available online. His past political activities (involvement in the Columbia student strike in 1968 and the civil rights movement) have been covered in not-so reliable sources (and possibly some reliable ones as well, I don't know). As I said below the material on political activities was deleted from the article by ScienceApologist.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep when I scrolled over that article history, I see the Science Apologist guy had edited it. If you partook in making the article but now you want to delete it, I'd like to impeach his motive and suspect he is trying to retaliate against people who did not like his edits. Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at the very least move most of the content into The Big Bang Never Happened (the book easily passes the notability criteria for books by being the subject of multiple reviews). Lerner wrote what is probably the single most well known book arguing against one of the more famous scientific theories in human history - I think that combined with the coverage in secondary sources makes him notable. Yes, I know, most people in the field do not respect the book and it is considered dated, but it created a significant splash at the time. Part of the additional criteria at WP:BIO is "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Even works in a given field which are generally believed to be wrong, but which had enough impact to be discussed, are a contribution and are "part of the enduring historical record" whether we like it or not. I would note that Lerner's current political activities on behalf of immigrants have also been covered in multiple independent sources (more sources than those that were listed in the article in past versions per a Nexis search). ScienceApologist deleted the political activities section because other editors, including myself, thought it a violation of WP:UNDUE to include a mention of Lerner's involvement with a Lyndon LaRouche group. Lerner's involvement with the NJ Civil Rights Defense Committee adds to this individual's notability, but I don't think we'll be able to mention that since ScienceApologist does not want it in the article. I strongly encourage the closing admin to investigate ScienceApologist's massive conflict of interest with this article when evaluating the various arguments. SA was in an on-Wiki dispute with the real-life Eric Lerner which went to arbitration. SA also added inaccurate and defamatory information about Lerner into the article without bothering to do enough homework to learn that the information was questionable. ScienceApologist strongly disagrees with Lerner's scientific ideas and personally I think he has no business editing this article at all given his past conflict with Lerner on Wikipedia. Under the circumstances, it's extremely difficult for me to assume good faith with respect to this AfD nomination, but aside from that I feel Lerner passes the notability guidelines at WP:BIO.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info about Lerner's political activities. I had seen some links related to New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee when first doing GoogleSearch for Lerner, but filtered them out assuming they related to a different person. But it is now clear that they do relate to the subject of this article (I've just watched this vido clip[48] to make sure). I don't know if the article will be kept, but if yes, I think that at least a couple of sentences regarding his political activities can and should be included. I don't see a problem with WP:UNDUE here. I don't know, though, if his political activities add to his notability. Would he be notable per WP:BIO purely as a political activist? Almost certainly not. (Here are the hits[49] I found in GoogleNews regarding his political activities). The cases for notability as an academic or as a popular science writer are stronger than the case for notability as a political activist. Two weak deletes in very different categories do not really add up to one keep. However, I am beginning to lean towards keep anyway, based on wide notability of his book. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I do disagree with your statement that SA has a conflict of interest in relation to this article. I've just re-read the WP:COI policy and don't see how it applies in this case. Lerner's views on the Big Bang theory can be fairly characterized as fringe views and there aren't many people who share them. So the fact that SA strongly opposes Lerner's views and had a dispute on WP with Lerner does not, by itself, constitute a COI. Otherwise we will not have too many people who can edit articles on such fringe views as Flat Earth or American Nazi Party. Nsk92 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether or not SA has a conflict of interest by the letter of our policy, but certainly by the spirit of it. If he simply disagreed with Lerner's views that would be fine (the vast majority of scientists do). However I think it's extremely inadvisable to be editing (and then putting up for deletion) the bio of a person with whom one actively disputed on Wikipedia (and not a minor dispute, one which went to ArbCom where both parties were sanctioned or cautioned). As I said SA recently inserted inaccurate information about Lerner (claiming he was a follower of Lyndon LaRouche when this was not the case) which could have actually done real life harm to the subject (since association with LaRouche is viewed negatively by many in the US). Since we are talking COI here I should have already disclosed, as I did on the article talk page, that I met Lerner a couple of times several years ago (though I don't really "know" him per say) and had a phone conversation with him regarding the LaRouche issue which ultimately helped to resolve that. Understandably, he was quite upset that someone he had been in a dispute with on Wikipedia was adding inaccurate and (by his view) negative information to his biography. Given that I asked SA to leave off editing this article but he refused and now he has put the article up for his deletion. Sorry but I don't think that looks good at all considering that we are talking about a BLP. As to the political activities, they are probably not notable in and of themselves but I think they do prevent this from being a WP:BLP1E as I argue above. The argument about undue weight was that Lerner's association with a LaRouche group should not be included because it could not be properly contextualized with sources and was only a small portion of his life-long political activities. Because a couple of us did not want it included, ScienceApologist deleted all of the political activities paragraph. I did not think that was necessary but it seemed like the only way to put the issue to rest. I doubt SA will be amenable to putting in a sentence about the NJ Civil Rights group and I'm not really interested in arguing with him about it anymore. Hope that clarifies that issue a bit.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder now if it may be better to merge this article, with most of its info, into the article on "The Big Bang never happened" book, if only to make it easier to deal with various BLP issues and controversies. It is clear that lerner's main claim to notability is his book, so his views could and would be properly covered there. On the other hand, it will be easier to contain various BLP battles and controversies that seem to be behind the past and the current ArbCom cases. E.g. the LaRouche issue would go away since it would certainly not belong in the article about Lerner's book. I've looked up the discussion regarding the current ArbCom case and it appears that much of the case is driven by disagreements about BLP issues (there was, apparently, even a recent legal threat by Lerner himself regarding this). Articles on fringe views are bound to attract controversy and zealots from all sides, so some kinds of battles are probably inevitable. But at least in an article about the book it will be easier to contain these battles and to confine them to discussing ideas rather than the person. Nsk92 (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage of the individual and of his book are clear claims of notability. These independent reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG, it is evident that his book has been reviewed by countless third party sources. MrPrada (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Big Bang Never Happened and prune irrelevant biographical details. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Big Bang Never Happened per Relata refero and delete irrelevant biographical details. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Big Bang Never Happened per Otolemur crassicaudatus and Relata refero. Essentially, this is still a BLP1E case. By moving to The Big Bang Never Happened the essential info regarding the book and regarding Lerner's views can be retained and much of the BLP-related controversy can be avoided. Nsk92 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A mere superficial remedy such as changing the title of this article will hardly moot the WP:BLP problems created by ScienceApologist and JzG's editing of this article. To the extent that an article on The Big Bang Never Happened conveys the misimpression that Eric Lerner wrote a book full of pseudoscientific nonsense, it would cause harm to Lerner's career as a plasma and fusion researcher. Any treatment of Eric Lerner's book would therefore still implicate WP:BLP concerns, and would need to be written in a fair and balanced manner (as, indeed, all articles should, per WP:NPOV). This does not mean whitewashing criticism, or covering up the fact that Eric Lerner's theories lack mainstream acceptance. It does mean, however, that the treatment of criticism should be balanced by a clear and coherent description of the theories and claims being criticized, and that the favorable review of the book by a notable expert in this field, James Van Allen should not be unreasonably excluded on the basis of conjecture as to the manner in which it was procured. Merely stating that Lerner disputes the Big Bang theory, and providing two short quotations from the book, one of which is meaningless when abstracted from the context in which it appears, does not constitute such a coherent description of Lerner's theories. Indeed, moving the article to The Big Bang Never Happened would actually worsen the WP:BLP problems, as most of the information concerning Lerner's professional activities would be removed, giving significantly undue weight to the fact that Eric Lerner wrote a book with which most cosmologists disagree while ignoring the fact that Lerner wrote numerous scientific articles printed in mainstream journals and magazines, as described in the comments by Jfire above. John254 00:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that while Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight would prevent a detailed discussion of Eric Lerner's theories in an article concerning a mainstream or general topic such as the Big Bang or Physical Cosmology, this policy provision does not prevent an extensive treatment of Lerner's theories in an article concerning Eric Lerner:
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
(I take no position as to whether Eric Lerner can be mentioned at all in our article concerning the Big Bang) John254 00:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend, far extends any reasonable interpreation of WP:BIO guidelines. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with relevant content being merged to The Big Bang Never Happened. Notability is not temporary indicates that the article on the book should probably be retained. Lerner himself, however, appears to be notable pretty much solely for writing on a topic roundly ignored by the scientific community. Explaining this notoriety in TBBNH should suffice. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable for what he did based on how well sourced his biography is. Yahel Guhan 05:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep .... notable ... J. D. Redding 12:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes most of the WP:PROF criteria, for whatever that's worth, noting that it is not relevant whether other PROFs regard him as a kook, only that they have discussed him at great length, as demonstrated by the article's sources. I will echo the above suspicions that this AFD merely attempts to weasel out of an ongoing edit war. That's not how we solve content disputes on Wikipedia. — CharlotteWebb 17:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG, others. Multiple third party sources. Even a lot of the people voting delete say his book is notable, which is an obvious claim of his notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Against deletion but I'm undecided whether to Keep as is or Move to The Big Bang Never Happened. To incorporate all this information about Lerner and his book into the Plasma cosmology article would clutter that article and give this aspect of the subject too much attention there. Although I therefore disagree with ScienceApologist's suggestion, I consider it important to note also my strong disagreement with the personal attacks made upon ScienceApologist. An editor having once concluded that a bio subject is notable is certainly entitled to reconsider that decision, and ScienceApologist doesn't even arguably have a conflict of interest here. I also disagree with this statement by John254: "To the extent that an article on The Big Bang Never Happened conveys the misimpression that Eric Lerner wrote a book full of pseudoscientific nonsense, it would cause harm to Lerner's career as a plasma and fusion researcher." I don't share John254's opinion that that conclusion would be a "misimpression", but my opinion is no more relevant than his. Our article (whether on the person or the book) can accurately report the consensus opinion of scientists in the field; that's not an opinion, it's a fact about opinions. From that fact, many readers will indeed conclude that the book is full of pseudoscientific nonsense. If the dissemination of that knowledge impairs Mr. Lerner's efforts to make money from people who aren't aware of the scientific community's view, too bad for Mr. Lerner. Accurate information that inconveniences a living person is not an ipso facto BLP violation. JamesMLane t c 07:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to an article about the book, and trim biographical information to the bare minimum (per BLP). Fails all WP:PROF criteria, and the book is clearly more notable than he is. (As an aside, the book being notable does not imply the author is notable, per BLP1E. If he had written more than one notable book, that might be different.) And, if the book is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community (or such of it as has commented on the book), it's not a BLP violation to say so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a single source to support the claim that Eric Lerner's book is "pseudoscience", or that any qualified scientists have ever described it as such. Though Eric_Lerner#The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened provides an extensive treatment of the criticism of the book by cosmologists, all the sources support is the claim that a number of researchers in this field have criticized the book, often quite strongly. Accordingly, we don't use the word "pseudoscience" in the article. The problem, of course, with the article is that it nonetheless tries to imply a claim that it can't state, by means of an imbalanced presentation of content, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP:

(1) It excludes the favorable review of the book by a highly respected space scientist, James Van Allen, on the basis that it was sourced only to the back cover of Lerner's book, while using a blog post as a source of criticism. If we can use a blog post as a source, we can surely use a book cover. (please see Talk:Eric_Lerner#Van_Allen_review)

(2) It fails to provide a coherent statement of Lerner's theories, but instead strings together a pastiche of quotations without context in order to make the theories look nonsensical. Do we not trust the reader to evaluate the merits of Lerner's claims that the Big Bang theory relies largely upon hypothetical and unobserved phenomena, such as cosmic inflation and dark energy, and that plasma cosmology provides a model of the universe more consistent with observable physical laws than the Big Bang?

(3) It excludes the fact that, contemporaneous with the publication of his book, Eric Lerner wrote a number of papers concerning his plasma cosmology theories which were published in peer reviewed journals, and that one such paper appeared in the highly respected Astrophysical Journal, which, as even ScienceApologist acknowledges, is clearly a reliable source for cosmology. (please see Talk:Eric_Lerner#Description_of_Eric_Lerner.27s_research)

Though WP:BLP1E has been advanced as a rationale for moving the article to the title of Lerner's book, to claim that our biographies of living persons policy actually supports "trim[ing] biographical information to the bare minimum" applies the policy in a manner manifestly contrary to its purpose, which is to protect the interests of the subjects of our biographies, not to harm them. Is it seriously contended that removing all information concerning Eric Lerner's numerous scientific articles printed in mainstream journals and magazines, and describing only the fact that Lerner wrote a book which has been the subject of extensive criticism, actually results in a more fair and balanced treatment of Eric Lerner? John254 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bergmo Basket[edit]

This club doesn't appear to me to be notable. It was just founded 2006 and the number of Google hits isn't impressive either. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guideline. Not much else to say. PeterSymonds | talk 15:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even a claim of notability, but I wish them well and hope they become notable for huge success in their sport. Springnuts (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this club can satisfy the notability criteria.--Berig (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here. Punkmorten (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student Senate of Wabash College[edit]

Non-notable legislative body of local student government. All original reserach. No reliable secondary sources. SevernSevern (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —SevernSevern (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Miniature aspects of college life could mentioned on the school's article, but surely they're not notable by themselves. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Something tells me the three related AfDs should probably have been bundled, then again technically they're referring three different AfD categories. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note related debates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Body of Wabash College and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution of the Student Body of Wabash College --SevernSevern (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —SevernSevern (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of the Student Body of Wabash College[edit]

Non-notable student government constitution. No assertion of notability. No reliable secondary sources. Original research. SevernSevern (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —SevernSevern (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Miniature aspects of college life could mentioned on the school's article, but surely they're not notable by themselves. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete constitution of a nn org definitely does not deserve its own article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note related debates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Body of Wabash College and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Senate of Wabash College --SevernSevern (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student Body of Wabash College[edit]

Non-notable local student government. Makes no assertion of notability. No reliable secondary sources. Original research. SevernSevern (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —SevernSevern (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note related debates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Senate of Wabash College and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution of the Student Body of Wabash College --Orlady (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Miniature aspects of college life could mentioned on the school's article, but surely they're not notable by themselves. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete baring third party sources being produced. That said, I suspect that as (~~the last?~~ there are 1 to 3 others depending on how you count.) all male College in the US that there is probably something notable about this organization. But I've no clue where to look. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn org. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —SevernSevern (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. - Philippe 18:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candela (band)[edit]

Delete- Band has nothing to assert its notability besides an advert bio in a latin perc mag, and an article on a latin music mag. Band is unknown and irrelevant Gregg Potts (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:MUSIC. Band frontman may pass guidelines if he's appeared on records/toured with the people asserted. However, notability is not inherited and so this band shouldn't be here. Booglamay (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC or perhaps Speedy Delete A7 for lack of notablility assertion. Either one works. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they have an album on AllMusic.com, the same album is for sale on the iTunes Store, and a Google search brings up quite a bit of independent coverage. They're not extremely well known, sure, but certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Hux (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, band leader is a notable musician, marginally notable band. References from reliable independent sources are provided. Does satisfy several WP:MUSIC criteria: independent coverage, notable musician, radio rotation. `'Míkka>t 21:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The references are all trivial coverage - ie press releases, and links to the bands personal website. CD is sold independently and is not notable. However, perhaps an argument can be made to make a page for the band leader, as he does look fairly notable.Gregg Potts (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not only press releases. There are two bio articles referenced. However they are predominantly about the musician, so the latter suggestion sounds reasonable. I have thought about this myself. There are also San Francisco and Santa Cruz newspapers articles, no longer available online. `'Míkka >t 04:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a side note Mikkalai, I suggest you read Wiki's guidelines regarding self-published sources (namely the bands website) WP:SELFPUB.Gregg Potts (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a side note Greg, I suggest you read Wiki's guidelines regarding self-published sources (namely the bands website) WP:SELFPUB, section "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" `'Míkka>t 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mikkakalala. I think you need to re-read it. See point 3: the source can't be self-serving: "it is not unduly self-serving;" remember this is a band website - a self-serving promotional tool, and should not be used a s souse beyond band members, and instrumentation details. References need to for unbiased. This is a pretty basic wiki guideline. See for WP:RS for more details. Gregg Potts (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to wiki guidelines on notability, a band must satisfy a least one to the criterion on the list. SEE: WP:BAND (Criteria for musicians and ensembles). Unless someone can find that this band has satisfied one of the criteria listed, there is no reason to keep this article beyond opinions reaching past the scope of this bands notability.Gregg Potts (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent references exist: Latin Percussion and Latin Beat Magazine are respectable sources for Latin music info. I will try to find more. Laudak (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's one: it's reprint of an article from Latin Beat magazine. I get the impression that this magazine is a fairly high profile source in this genre, but I don't know enough about Latin music to know that for sure. -- Hux (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response But this is an article about Edgardo Cambon, and is not relevant as a reference for the band Candela. Considering nearly all the references are really about Edgardo Cambon, this seems like a case for a redirect and best. Thoughts?Gregg Potts (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to where though? "Edgardo Cambón" redirects to this article. If you think that Cambón himself is notable enough then maybe it would make more sense to just move the article to Edgardo Cambón and do a minor rewrite. -- Hux (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- response the one 'independent' reference is for one a member of the band, and don't involve Candela at all. Also, the reference is actually an advertisement and is hardly an appropriate source for unbiased information for a wiki article. This article is most likely written by one of the band members and is nothing more that self-promotion, and Wiki is not that place for this. Clear delete.Gregg Potts (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - It's obvious that you believe this should be deleted, but there's no need to keep restating that opinion and rebutting every contrary claim. You need to accept that possibility that you might be wrong on this. Let's at least wait and see if more evidence shows up. -- Hux (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - response If I have something to add, I will respond. This is a debate. Also if you read my response, you would see my response contains counter information to the claim of 2 references. It is important to state the facts here. Gregg Potts (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. WP:MUSIC is but a guideline and cannot be applied to borderline cases, where common sense must rule. IMHO a band which played for 20 years with relatively notable artists and several CDs and aired on radio and TV, and info about it is verifiable is rather notable if considering how many people encountered it and might be interested in it. Mukadderat (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep - bad faith nomination. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBTI Type Articles[edit]

Okay. It is time for the silliness to end. I have edited under an IP for a while, and under a UN for a few days. It has already slapped me in the face how unencyclopedic and petty these MBTI articles have become. Most of them are full of partial copyright violations from type sites and the listcruft of 'xxxx people in history' that accumulates is unbelievable and often unsourced. Redirect all to the main MBTI page. Wikipedia is not psychological counselling, nor is it a place for pseudoscience. Polmorry (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you think the MBTI is one of the most used personality assessment tools in HR within the commercial and public sectors, and its components are notable enough to have books published on.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles don't even have a concise, contiguous format across all of the types! It would require a massive effort to clean them all up. A small section on each on the main MBTI page will suffice. Polmorry (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also, you have an MBTI box on your userpage, which means that your comment smacks of WP:ILIKEIT. Polmorry (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if I didn't like it I wouldn't contribute anything to Wikipedia, which is the case for 'all Wikipedia editors...--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that while it is correct that a degree of homogeneity would be nice across the types, with the MBTI article already at 40kb, merger of all 16 types into it is likely to push it to 100kb necessitating a split!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalidating people's comments because of what's on their userpage smacks of Ad hominem. Erik (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just looking through the articles, if they are kept they require massive cleanup by someone with access to the appropriate sources, there are pages and pages worth of original research. Guest9999 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These deletions are opposed (keep) due to the articles being representative of reference to specific types in the much used HR personality assessment tool (MBTI) in commercial and public application. They are reference article to specific types as developed from theories by Carl Jung. "Madness" maybe all of the proposer's!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I moved your comment here. I believe you mean to !vote "keep". Katr67 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Not hopeless. Passes WP:NOTE: the basic info is cited using reliable sources, though the uncited original research and/or copyright violations certainly need to be removed. Needing clean up is not a criterion for Afd, nor is "pseudoscience". And to the nom, having an MBTI box on one's page doesn't automatically indicate that someone commenting here is using WP:ILIKEIT as an argument. Only the comments on this page should be taken into account. Katr67 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; cleanup, yes, but they are very well known hence notable and verifiable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, all. I came here through ENTP and it looks like a perfectly fine article and comparable to other MBTI-related material I've read over the years. Also, the people in history are not "listcruft"; many articles written on MBTI types include similar lists for descriptive purposes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they should cited, either to the testing occasion or more likely the person whose opinion it is that they fit. More than a few people based on opinion alone isn't really necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the ENTP page, they are. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all of the lists of famous people, which are not and never will be sourced properly (the ENTP page links to a page about ENTP where the author speculates on every single person listed being an ENTP). It grossly violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. JuJube (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; doesn't violate WP:OR at all. It would be much more accurate if the article stated them as opinions not fact, and that could be argued as a violation of WP:NPOV, but I don't think having a few examples around hurts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It completely violates WP:RS, at the very least. Do you see the website doing the analysis? This is not someplace we should be citing here. Who knows, maybe someone scholarly somewhere makes these speculations, but I'm skeptical we'll find anyone (especially considering that MBTI isn't well-respected generally)... Mangostar (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the articles are pretty bad and need to be cleaned up (and I hate the lists of famous people), but the topics are notable and reliable sources exist. Pseudoscience or not, MBTI is used throughout the world. That a "massive effort" is needed to clean them up is not a reason for deletion. Somno (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is plenty of research on the validity of the MBTI, and while there is speculation on who falls into each individual type that may be original research at best and silliness at worst, the main parts of the articles are not. The MBTI itself is highly notable, and so are the individual types. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup is not grounds for deletion. The MBTI is notable. MrPrada (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that it's pseudoscientific nonsense, but it's notable pseudoscientific nonsense. The articles all need a lot of cleanup, but as others have noted, that's no reason for deletion. Klausness (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel the article still provides a reasonable amount of value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.50.76.130 (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as the lists of famous people go, most books about the MBTI written for the popular or business press have similar lists. I'd suggest walking into any public library if there's a question about published sources. Also the whole nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And they are all just as speculative. What's your point? JuJube (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because then it's speculation from a reliable source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most definitely notable, whether or not they are valid.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. User:Pedant (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only things that need to be changed are the "Myers-Briggs Characters" sections, which need to be trimmed, and the "Notable (Personality Type)s" should be deleted. Otherwise, the articles should stay. -Jayinhar (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not psuedoscience and it is notable. And since they are individual pages each attracting their own interested individuals, it does not take a "massive effort" to clean them up, merely the same collective effort which goes into the rest of Wikipedia. --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Jeffrey.Rodriguez (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.76.199 (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I found them useful. If you need to fix them for some reason then do that, but don't take out detail: it's ok if articles are long; that's just more info 206.248.128.5 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

206.248.128.5 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the originator clearly and obviously has an axe to grind. frankly, I don't care if he feels these tests are pseudoscience. They are used (as has been mentioned before) by Hr departments around the country. there are more than a dozen books written about them, more than a hundred newspaper/magazine articles and plenty of websites. there is a wikipedia page on Phrenology, another clear pseudoscience. There may be some rationale for cleaning up these articles but there is little to now rationale for deleting them en masse.Protonk (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and require references for notable persons of each type. This is not original research. MoodyGroove (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
Keep, certainly notable, and a list of examples (if properly sourced) will help understanding what type of people we're speaking about. Erik (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what all these acronyms mean, but note that the nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bailey[edit]

The subject of the article does not seem to meet the primary notablity guideline or the specific guideline for people. There is no evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Guest9999 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO no evidence of reliable third party coverage, google bring up nothing. Harland1 (^t/_c) 15:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no assertion of notability ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bailey is a notorious teacher at the Purbeck School, and an important member of The Vavreckas, so people should be able to learn about him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocchoc153 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, fails WP:NOTE. Plus the article does nothing but promote the subject. PeterSymonds | talk 15:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable schoolteacher. Possible candidate for A7 speedy, as a school yearbook award is not much of an assertion of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Probably qualifies for speedy deletion as does the article The Vavreckas. Nsk92 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – no real assertion of notability. ... discospinster _talk 17:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be a vanity article.--Berig (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- seems like article by students -- unlikely to meet notability and would have to be rewritten from scratch even if he did. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — per Discospinster. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 00:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No real assertion of notability, why wasn't this speedied? Edward321 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primeval love[edit]

Essaylike article, which is unreferenced. I am not quite sure which policy this article violates to not satisfy the criteria of inclusion, but I don't think this article will evolve to a meaningfull, encyclopedic article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the references in the article, it appears to be original research. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay, I don't think it can ever be a proper article. Delete it--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless there's anything that can be merged into another article.--Berig (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many encycolpedias that exposes the philosophical subject in their pages, it is called philosophical texts, and the point of view is interesting and useful for studying and also for reading. There are links for that matter, that have been already posted in the proposed page.

The philosophical texts are a matter of study of some content; and it develops intellectual independence because it is possible to rely for your information on the opinions of other ones, as it comes from a concrete historical subject.

Sincerely, The Observer2 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—The Observer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the creator of the article and has few or no edits outside of this subject.

Strong delete, but lovingly. Essay-like, apparent original research. None of the external links, as far as I can tell, deal with "primeval love" in the sense it's used in the article. The existing text is essay-like and unsalvageable. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. With all due respect to the ideas expressed, this is an essay, and not at all encyclopædic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an originally-researched essay. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete less pleasantly than others as obvious OR and damn near pseudoscience. JuJube (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a personal rambly essay, and original interpretation of Freud -- original psychological research, if you will -- good for Intro to Philosophy, but not for Wikipedia. The links/refs have little to nothing to do with the content. Best for publication on a personal website, if the user wishes. As for the question of philosophical texts, we're not big on original explorations of philosophical ideas on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. -- phoebe / (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaundon[edit]

A hip hop artist who has released one album. The references are to a review of the artist on a Blog, or bloglike site, and the artists own myspace page. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Artist must have released two albuns through a major label to become notable. Victor Lopes (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One album is enough as long as there's multiple non-trivial mention of the subject in independent and reliable publications per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. A quick google search turned up a surprisingly large number of relevant hits for an artist with only a stub on wikipedia including this, this, this, this, this and seemingly many others. --Bardin (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge and redirect to Éamon de Valera. I'll do a rough attempt that interested editors are invited to refine. Tikiwont (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Vivion de Valera[edit]

Stub article on a man whose only claim to notability is as the father of Irish leader Éamon de Valera (longest-serving Taoiseach, 3rd President of Ireland, dominant figure of the 20th-century history of Ireland).

Per WP:NOTINHERITED, relationships do not confer notability, and the distinguishing characteristic of Juan Vivion de Valera is that so little is known about him that there is dispute as to whether he actually existed. There is no sign of any substantial independent coverage of him in reliable sources. The two references in the article are a) a brief mention in a book on Eamon; b) a more substantial self-published article on a historian's homepage

Juan is already mentioned in the article on Éamon de Valera, which is quite sufficient for a non-notable person about whom so little is known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Renee (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or did what you link to say that you shouldn't just delete things because they have apparently inherited their notability? IMO the father of Eamonn de Valera is notable, it should be kept.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. The page linked is titled Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. One argument to avoid is that the subject is related to a notable person. Delete per nom. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Éamon de Valera's father is notable for two things: not being Irish, and almost nothing verifiable being known about his life. Both have an effect on how his son was perceived. I suggest merge and redirect to Éamon de Valera. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect, per Sam Blacketer. All of the information in this article is useful, but only notable in the context of Éamon de Valera, which already has a place (in the "family" section) where this and the attendant references could easily go. The two articles are actually somewhat duplicative. The redirect should be maintained though (rather than deletion), in case of people searching on the name. -- phoebe / (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - or else add to Category:Fictional characters as he did not exist, he was made up by Catherine Coll to explain her child and lack of a husband. Quite common at the time actually, lots of women returned to Ireland wearing black, with a pawn shop wedding ring, a child in tow and a dead husband. How convenient! Snappy56 (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - the most famous non-person in Irish politics.Red Hurley (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete all, consensus is that the articles fail the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serrano Street[edit]

Three streets without any notability beyond being mentioned in a poem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guatemala Street for precedent. Huon (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Renee (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale on the other AFD. The articles seem to take the Borges poem as factual claim that this was the original "block" of Buenos Aires, but the well-known fantastist was clearly using allegory. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underneath the Bunker[edit]

Repeating my PROD rationale: "Non-notable web content. Article is sourced to blogs only (WP:SPS)." I'm sending this here for wider discussion, since PROD was contested per a comment on the talk page. B. Wolterding (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, it is understood that Underneath the Bunker may not, in some people's eyes, have received the recognition deserving of an encyclopoedia entry. I believe describing it as a 'hoax' however (as the wikipedia does) is unfair - and misleading. The website is clearly fictional in content (and is all fiction a hoax? I think not). This should, perhaps, be altered. Ultimately I do believe it is of enough interest to be included in wikipedia, as it has been around online for three years or so, with more than a hundred articles published over that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.49.22 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB. Google search finds roughly 50 original hits when searching for "Underneath the Bunker" and "literary" [50] (or "literature"), none of which look like reliable sources (and quite a few of them are about the song of the same name). Huon (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination and comments above. Renee (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable sources per WP:WEB. --Nsevs • Talk 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relating to the google hits, it is understandable that the majority of them relate to the song by R.E.M as this is almost fifteen years old and, though obscure in itself, is by a well-known band. Perhaps there should be wikipedia entry for this song; though whether that counts out the website (not explicitly related to the song, as far as I know) I'm not sure. The line 'none of which look like reliable sources' is charged with equivocal meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.15 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator (particularly relating to the two IP edits above). Wikipedia covers only topics which satisfy the notability criteria; in this case, the applicable guideline is WP:WEB. Roughly speaking, a web site is considered notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Currently, no such independent sources, which must be reliable and not self-published, have been found (via Google search or else). As long as such sources are not presented, the article fails the inclusion criteria. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps this entry should be deleted. The only good use it has is that it serves as a warning to vistors of the Underneath the Bunker journal, pointing out the satirical or 'spoof-like' nature of that site. But if this site is not, as you say, considered 'notable', then such a warning may be redundant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.12 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was There were plenty of good arguments on both sides, but prior AfDs on similar articles push the balance towards keep.. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Lindsey local elections[edit]

Non-notable British local council election list. A national election would satisfy notability criteria, or one local election with a lot of controversy perhaps, but this is a (well organised) list of very plain, NN constituency election results. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

—Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of a series on local elections in the United Kingdom. I have added ~~a couple of~~ several references to the pages including one from the BBC. There are multiple reliable sources on these elections meeting the notability guidelines. This is the basis of an article with some examples of ones that have been expanded into good articles being Slough local elections, Croydon local elections and Lewisham local elections. These clearly show the potential of this topic. Davewild (talk)
Comment Can I ask the nominator which "notability criteria" they are applying which these articles fail, other than a subjective opinion? The articles are well-sourced, so they appear to meet the primary notability criterion. --Canley (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the articles are brilliantly sourced, well laid out and nicely written. But the subject of the articles (a local council election where nothing particularly special happened - no big controversy, international event, terrorist attack, health scare or public outcry for instance) is just not important enough to have a series of articles devoted to it. At most a small table in West Lindsey is justified. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to West Lindsey. "Well-sourced" has nothing to do with whether something is "notable". There is nothing that says that Wikipedia has to accept articles about local elections, let alone an entire series or "project" about city, county or district elections in any particular part of the globe. West Lindsey is a district that has 86,500 residents, somewhat comparable to Geauga County, Ohio. However, I would say the same for city council elections in Birmingham as well, whether in West Midlands or in Alabama. In fact, the minutiae of the number of votes tallied in a particular election in New York City or London or Tokyo are, in my opinion, not worthy of an article. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge per above comment. Non-notable on its own. Renee (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford or delete - Wikipedia is not news. These local elections have been reported in the news and thus are verifiable, but they didn't have any lasting impact and have not gathered any later coverage. Huon (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few points:

There is ample precedent for these sorts of election articles - which have never been deleted at AFD before (except for WP:CRYSTAL violations) - a few examples Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor municipal election, 1991, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norfolk County municipal election, 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007.
There are 888 articles in the subcategories of Category:Council elections in the United Kingdom created by multiple people over more than two and a half years (I created quite a lot but you will find plenty of others have created and expanded them), if we are considering getting rid of the above articles then we are in effect setting all these articles up for deletion and getting rid of those peoples efforts. Are we just going to change our existing practice of accepting these articles which meet all our content policies and have always been accepted as being notable before? (I even received a barnstar for the articles I created on these elections)
This is not just a United Kingdom thing, a quick glance at the Canada election categories showed lots of municipal election articles - again I could not find a single AFD deleting any of them. I am sure it is the same for the US if you check.
Read WP:NOT#NEWS and I think you are stretching it well beyond its wording to apply it to West Lindsey local elections. These articles meet our core content policies WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS and have significant coverage in reliable sources thus they meet our main notability guideline. Every single one of the individual elections has a BBC page on it. Opinions that these articles are 'not notable' are not backed up by our policies.
People are creating articles for the upcoming United Kingdom local elections, 2008. This Category shows the articles (each one created by a different user), all believing that these articles are acceptable for wikipedia. If these articles we are discussing are to be merged or deleted then we should be telling them not to waste their time as there is no difference between those articles and the ones being discussed here (except the ones being discussed here probably have more sources already in the articles!).
Even the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists accepts that "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes", as I have shown above consistency and precedent requires we keep these articles or change our practice and start deleting hundreds (perhaps thousands if you take in other countries) of articles.
I apologise if I sound uptight here and for the length of my comments but having the possiblity that all the articles I and many others have worked on for the past two and a half years deleted or merged out of existence when it has always been believed they were fine... (well you can guess the rest). Davewild (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we have multiple independent reliable sources concentrating on these elections, how can they not be notable? NotNews might have applied to these articles if they had been created 10, 9, or 8 years ago, but the articles aren't news now. As noted above, there's longstanding precedent for having properly-sourced election articles; I don't see how this is any different from any others. Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The election is covered by reliable, independent sources ("multiple" is dubious). This is just routine news coverage, which is exlicitly mentioned in WP:NOT#NEWS: Just as every game of soccer in the national leagues is reported in the news, so is every election. That doesn't make a local election inherently more notable than a single game of soccer. WP:BIO names as notable: "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". Local politicians are not considered inherently notable. So I'd like to ask those in favour of keeping the article three questions:
1. Why is an election more notable than the elected?
2. Why is a game of soccer less worthy of an article than a local election, given that I can probably write a more detailed, well-sourced article about the soccer game?
3. If a local election in the UK, the US or Canada is judged notable, where do we draw the line? Are local elections in India notable? How about local elections in Djibouti? Huon (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I completely disagree that the sources in these articles is just routine news coverage. Secondly an election is more notable because it covers the whole council while each individual councillor only serves their particular ward and generally do not get anywhere near the coverage in reliable sources as an election. For those that do we have the clause in WP:BIO saying "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage".

For your second point I would draw your attention to the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists which points to the fallacy of making comparisons between unrelated topics. But to answer the point anyway, an individual soccer game would be exactly what I would describe as routine news coverage - i.e. they are covered briefly, routinely and then generally are forgotten pretty quickly (a month would be very generous) and have little effect wider. In the exceptional cases we do create articles on the matches e.g. 2005 UEFA Champions League Final. An election decides the people who run, in this case, the council for the next 4 years. As Sarcasticidealist commented in this request for comment Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Edmonton Election Pages they do get coverage by local historians and political scientists. In the UK the national party leaders launch their campaigns for local elections and the campaigns, as well as the results, get coverage in the press. I quickly found an article on this years campaign in West Lindsey even though there are still several weeks of the campaign still to run 1.

Finally if there is the coverage in reliable sources in order to meet the relevant policies and notability guideline for us to write such articles in India, etc, then there is no reason such articles should not exist - WP:NOT#PAPER covers this well. Davewild (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, and I question why it is necessary to "draw the line" at all, as if keeping these articles will result in Wikipedia tripling in size as every editor toils to create the required coverage of every local election in the world. If reliable, accessible sources exist for local elections in India, Djibouti or wherever, then we should have articles on them. If local elections are not notable, then we should have a community-sanctioned guideline stating such, not drawing dubious comparisons to soccer matches or making subjective judgements that if it has "local" in the title, it can't be notable, and WP:NOT#NEWS is not exactly explicit in this regard. --Canley (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West Lindsey and the relevant UK local election articles. Whilst I'm a big fan of articles on elections, I don't believe individual district or county council elections are notable enough for stand-alone articles. The topic should be covered by a combination of United Kingdom local elections, XXXX and a Politics and government section of the articles on the councils themselves. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this is WP:NOTAVOTE I would note that most of those who have argued for merging or deletion have used arguments that are not backed up by policy or guideline and their arguments about notability go completely against the general notability guideline which says that a topic is presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Those who have argued for keeping (myself, Nyttend and Canley) have argued based on policy. The Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators make it clear that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." I fail to see how most ~~if not all~~ of the merge/delete opinions do not fall under this. Davewild (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think any of the nominated articles but West Lindsey local elections show "significant coverage": The yearly election articles have a Times article which, judging from the title, covers all simultaneous elections at once, and the BBC archive of all british elections (except the 1998 election, which has even less). As I said above, that's not significant coverage by sources independent of each other, but routine news coverage, explicitly mentioned in WP:NOT#NEWS. The elected councils don't have articles of their own; the elected councillors are not notable. Davewild claimed above that local elections do get coverage by local historians and political scientists. If such coverage exists, add it to the article and I'll gladly change my opinion. Huon (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out 'if not all' and added 'most' into my comment above, yours is the only such opinion which does base their argument on a policy or guideline, so I apologise for characterising your opinion that way, (which I still disagree with as I and others have argued above) but on the other arguments expressed here. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G. Richard Moore[edit]

This is an irredeemable mess of a vanity article about a vanity-press [51] author, utterly lacking in WP:RS, and flagrantly violating WP:BK, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:BIO, WP:Single-purpose account, and probably a few other policies we could throw at it before we delete it. Qworty (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable selfpublished author. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Komanwel[edit]

NN condo built for Commonwealth Games. Games are notable, building is not. Reads like an advert. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:PNT. JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, with a rename likely. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

65536[edit]

No notability. Article had been PROD, but this was removed by an author who states "65535 (whose main claim to fame is being 65536-1) was kept at AfD" - however, 65535 is classed as notable in its own right for several reasons (Mersenne number / max number in 16 bit binary), and numerous examples of use are given (see 65535 (number)) - so I believe that this argument isn't correct. Also, stating that "because article x (which is similar) was kept, that therefore means this one is also valid" is also incorrect. CultureDrone (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator has withdrawn nomination - see below for withdrawal reasons and discussion of AfD status. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuetral seems to meet WP:NUMBER, but i'll hold off on an actual vote for now. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 10:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to 65536 (number) - can be expanded; fills the gap between our articles on 65535 (number) and 65537 (number). Gandalf61 (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... so I have done some expansion. 65536 now has more information in it than 65537 (number) and is better referenced than 65535 (number). Gandalf61 (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Information" doesn't necessarily translate into notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia:NUMBER#Integers. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and do whatever renaming is required by syle guidelines). The nominator has underlined the fact that 65535 derives its notability from 65536, so if 65535 is notable 65536 must be too. Both being a Mersenne number and the maximum number in 16 bit binary are the result of it being 65536-1 (i.e. ${\displaystyle 2^{16))$ -1). The argument is not "because article x (which is similar) was kept, that therefore means this one is also valid" it is "because article x (which is on a subject which derives its notability from subject y) was kept, that therefore means article y is also valid". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't state that 65535 derives notability from 65536 - actually, I was trying to state the exact opposite. I stated that 65535 is notable in its own right for various reasons, but that this doesn't therefore infer notability for 65535+1. CultureDrone (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Saying that it is a Mersenne number is saying that it derives notability from 65536. A Mersenne number is defined as being one less than a power of two, so it derives its notability from the higher number, and being the maximum number representable by a certain number of bits also comes about in the same way, by being one less than a power of two. Just because powers of two don't have such a catchy name as Mersenne or Fermat numbers doesn't alter the fact that the latter numbers are defined by the more fundamental powers of two. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. And 65536 is not a Mersenne number, but 65535 is. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. The claimed notability of Mersenne numbers is inherited from the more notable powers of two, such as 65536, by which they are defined. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you missed my point. Mersenne numbers are notable because several scholarly papers have been written about them, and about their properties (e.g. some, but not all of them are prime numbers). But 65536 does not inherit notability from 65535 (a Mersenne number). Nor does 65535 inherit notability from 65536. If 65536 is notable because it's one more than 65535, why doesn't 65538 inherit notability from 65535 (a Mersenne number) and 3 (a prime number)? Surely the sum of two notable numbers must be even more notable than either one, right? --Craw-daddy | T | 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really claiming that powers of 2 haven't had scholarly papers written about them? I'm not claiming that 65536 is notable because it's one more than 65535 - the reverse is true. 65535 is notable for being a Mersenne number, whose definition is to be one less than a more notable number. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I support the move to 65536 (number). As the article shows, because it's a power of two (two to the 16th power, or two being doubled fifteen times), it is the upper limit for some computing applications. It's also the zip code for Lebanon, Missouri, although that need not be mentioned in the article. 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep and rename. Per Gandalf's comment above. Renee (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - I look forward to revisiting this article in a few months time and finding out all the encyclopaedic information that has been added :-) CultureDrone (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is indiscriminate info. Note that if we continue with these silly articles on natural numbers, we will have an infinite number of them as one can prove that there are no insignificant numbers: if there were any insignificant numbers then the lowest of them would be significant for having this property - repeat. Information of this sort belongs in the articles on Mersenne numbers and the like. At best, one might merge them into a List of natural numbers. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Comment Let's delete John F. Kennedy, because if we continue having articles on individual persons, we will eventually have one on every person who has ever existed. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Our notability benchmark for having articles on individual integers is the criteria at Wikipedia:NUMBER#Integers. This article meets those criteria. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 60000 (number) where it is already discussed.—RJH (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you do if a "delete" !vote is placed after a withdrawal? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure one of the items added about 65536 is correct. A 16-bit bus can handle binary values of 0000000000000000 (zero) to 1111111111111111 (65535). Whilst this is indeed 65536 combinations, I don't believe that zero is a valid memory address, which implies that it can only directly address 65535 locations, not 65536. However, please let me know if I;m wrong :-) CultureDrone (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, depending on the architecture, zero is a perfectly valid memory address.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 65536 is 2**16, which is a terribly influential number in computers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a separate article, 16-bit for that. Perhaps we should have the binary (10000000000000000) and hex (10000) representations as articles too? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because we have so many people looking for the binary and hex representations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could hardly be less than the readership for this article, which is the smallest I recall seeing for a contested Wikipedia article. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important computing number, 2**16, occurs often 16-bit limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCreator (talk • contribs)

Comment - amazing how much debate can be generated about a single number... Anyway, we now seem to have two articles - 65536 which is the article, and 65536 (number) which is a redirect to the 60000 (number) page where the number has two entries, but incidentally neither of which are clickable links. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once this AfD has run its course we can, if it survives, move 65536 to 65536 (number) where it belongs. Moving an article while an AfD is in progress can cause confusion. Speaking of which, I am confused as to the status of this AfD now that you have withdrawn your nomination. Does that close the AfD ? Gandalf61 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing a nomination doesn't close an AfD where there's others !voting delete. It could be closed as WP:SNOW by someone daring enough, but it's much more likely it will stay open for the normal length.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we let the AfD run its course. As CultureDrone's withdrawal is now in the middle of the discussion, I have added a comment at the top to flag this - in my experience, folks sometimes read the nomination and then skip to the bottom of the discussion, so they could miss the withdrawal. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Philippe 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highschool Football League 2008[edit]

NN kids' football competition in China. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As far as I am aware, the Highschool Football League is the second highest football league in the whole of Taiwan. – Pee Jay 12:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - contrary to what appears on the Highschool Football League article, I can't find any evidence that it is a second level league, just that it is "at youth level" on this link but that wouldn't be what I would call a reliable source either. - fchd (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fchd. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not think much before creating the page because there are articles for 2006 and 2007 seasons as well. When speaking of importance, I admit it might not as important as other top-ranked leagues. However, because there is no football academy or reserve team in Taiwan, senior high school teams are the only sources that future national team players may come from. In fact, some players were called up to national team when they were senior-high students, such as Chung Kuang-tien. I have no objection to delete the page, but I suggest to merge it with other competition results in page like "2008 season in Taiwanese football" (not yet created). The same can be applied to 2006 and 2007 seasons as well. -- scchiang (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, it is a fairly large sporting event in Taiwan.--Jerrch 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability whatsoever. --Angelo (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as copy-vio — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 12:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kismet fire island[edit]

Tourist advert for a NN holiday resort/town. No real context. Need I say more? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of this (albeit with some text inadvertently omitted). So tagged. Deor (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantique Beach[edit]

The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio (non-admin closure). Nsevs • Talk 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advert for a NN beach. Need I say more? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of this. So tagged. Deor (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vista komanwel[edit]

Non-notable building in Kuala Lumpur - I've seen a few of these this morning, there seems to be a sudden influx of articles about apartment blocks and airstrips around Kuala Lumpur. Does not assert real notability, borders on advertising. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:PNT. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The same info exists under the alternate capitalization of Vista Komanwel, which is also up for AfD. If this survives, should be changed to a redirect.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted as empty. (non-admin closure) --Nsevs • Talk 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape macro[edit]

Non notable article on an aspect of cheating from the online game Runescape. Entire content is mostly 'Jagex [company who runs Runescape] bans cheaters for cheating because they cheated'. Any possible salvageable content is already in the Random Events section of the main article. WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 09:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy I deleted this originally, it's an nn howto Jimfbleak (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was going to speedy this, but I've previously been rapped across the knuckles for trying to speedy similar new articles under NN, nonsense or no content/context. I thought I'd AfD just to be sure. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 09:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there doesn't seem to be any article there? JohnCD (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Vanderdecken inadvertently recreated the article (with no content but the AfD tag) by adding the AfD tag at the same time that the article was being speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. I'll tag it with ((db-empty)) and see what happens. Deor (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. Redirect is a solution in line with the consensus here and has already been boldly done.--Kubigula (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorrow and the Terror: The Haunting Legacy of the Air India Tragedy[edit]

This article about a book does not show the notability of the subject. It does not even assert it. PROD was contested with comment: "notable". That doesn't seem a convincing argument to me. B. Wolterding (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the book can and should be mentioned as part of the article about Air India Flight 182, there's nothing indicating that the book itself was notable. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book should be part of Air India Flight 182, but is not notable on its own. Renee (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been redirected in the meantime, which seems to meet consensus, but the AfD is not closed - could someone clarify? --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Even though the list may be acceptable with regard to WP:OR, the introductory prose needs heavy sourcing if it is to be included in the merger. Sandstein (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list[edit]

Delete - This is a clear example of original research and perhaps POV fork. There are no sources that focus on this claim. The inclusion of this article in Wikipedia is WP:SYN - by using this original research as the basis of the page, the implication is that the process is flawed, illegal, or something else. It may or may not be,　but Wikipedia is not the forum for making these claims based upon original research. BWH76 (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding nominator's concern that the article implies "that the process is flawed, illegal, or something else." The deletion policies are quite clear on this -- a perception that the current version of an article contains bias is not grounds for deletion. The deletion policies are quite clear on this. Wikipedians who are concerned because they perceive a bias in an article are supposed to state their concern on the article's talk page; or make good faith changes to the articles. Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What the nominator is concerned is "original research" are merely collation and correlation, it is no different than looking up any information available on a reliable, authoritative source, and quoting it. It is no different than looking up census data from the census bureau, or baseball statistics from the baseball musuem at Cooperstown. The names are either present on one or more of the official lists, or they are not. I do not see how this constitutes "original research" as defined in the wikipedia's original research policy. Geo Swan (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Regarding merging to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees (LoGBd). Several people have suggested merging this article into (LoGBd) I did the lion's share of the initial work maintaining (LoGBd), up until about two years ago. On April 20 2006 and May 15 2006 the DoD published its first two official lists of captive's names. Ideally this article should have incorporate the information in those two lists. Doing so would represent significant work. I didn't do it. I was working on other articles. And no one else has done it either. The reason I am bringing this up is to suggest that this merge would not be trivial, as has been suggested. I predict it would require at least twenty hours to do even a half-assed job. Here are the two lists from 2006:
- OARDEC (April 20, 2006). "List of detainee who went through complete CSRT process" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.
- OARDEC (May 15, 2006). "List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.

The DoD released nine further lists in September 2007:

- OARDEC (July 17, 2007). "Index for Combatant Status Review Board unclassified summaries of evidence" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (September 4, 2007). "Index for testimony" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (August 8, 2007). "Index for CSRT Records Publicly Files in Guantanamo Detainee Cases" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (August 9, 2007). "Index of Transcripts and Certain Documents from ARB Round One" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (August 9, 2007). "Index to Summaries of Detention-Release Factors for ARB Round One" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (July 17, 2007). "Index to Transfer and Release Decision for Guantanamo Detainees" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (July 17, 2007). "Transcripts and Certain Documents from Administrative Review Boards Round Two" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (July 17, 2007). "Index of Summaries of Detention-Release Factors for ARB Round Two" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.</ref>
- OARDEC (August 10, 2007). "Index of Transfer and Release Decision for Guantanamo Detainees from ARB Round Two" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])
Delete As above. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 08:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, with a bit of WP:SOAP thrown in for good measure. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 09:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article List of Guantánamo Bay detainees or Keep. People seem to have done serious work that deserves to be preserved in some form. There doesn't seem to be serious OR in the making of this list of those perhaps not on the official list, only perhaps in the (implicit) claim. The explanatory statements in the article could be rephrased. Some kinds of "OR" are allowable - e.g. simple arithmetic, this "claim" is close to that. The issue is confused by other factors, but if there were say two clear lists, a USGov list of 50 and an ICRC list of 80, it wouldn't be serious OR to have a "list of people on the ICRC list, not on the USG list" although it might not be too sensible. But sometimes it could be sensible - List of unrecognized countries is a similar convenient way of presenting clearly encyclopedic data. Does NOR dictate that is necessary to append it to a bigger article most of which is taken up by fascinating facts like Uruguay recognizes Mongolia? A sensible way to keep this data and be a stickler could be to have a USG list in the main article and a section with (possible) additional names. Another way would be to have a big list with notations. The "possible" - much of the confusion comes from translation problems, translation being another kind of allowable "OR." Aside from such unavoidable, translational "is this name/person the same as that name/person?" problems, it's just a question in how to best present data, not really policy violation, although perhaps we should try to avoid even the appearance of violating policy. John Z (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly have no problem if this was merged and made less soapy. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 10:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. As a stand-alone article, it's not sourced to any published source that identifies these as missing names. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per JohnZ's comments. Renee (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, Depending, if it's going to be merged, I'd like to see BWH do the work of ensuring no information is lost, and simply transferred over to the main article. For the past six months he has been consistently nominating one of Geo_Swan's articles for deletion every week, as soon as the last AfD ends (sometimes keep, sometimes NC, sometimes delete)...looking at Geo_Swan's talk page it's difficult to not see some form of user harrassment going on with the constant "I've nominated X, Y and Z for deletion". Nominator has a very long history of trying to have all Guantanamo-related articles deleted, even those ones that are clearly notable - I would suggest that these AfDs form a WP:COATRACK of their own, an attempt to purge as much collected information about the US prison camp from the internet as possible, with a minimum of effort (an article that requires twenty hours of work to create, can be deleted with thirty seconds of BWH's effort, so simple numbers mean he can effectively keep nominating every new article created) - so it would actually do quite a bit to sway my opinion if the nominator says he is willing to take the time necessary to merge these two articles himself, perhaps showcasing a User:BWH76/gitmoDetainees attempt? If I'm shown that, I'll vote Merge, but otherwise I'll vote Keep simply to stymie what seems to be a personal vendetta and agenda. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's try to stay civil here. BWH is under no obligation to "do the work of ensuring no information is lost", particularly since he/she nominated the article for deletion. There are several hundred of the Guantanamo Bay detainee articles, and there's nothing to suggest that each one required "twenty hours to create". GeoSwan and BWH are both entitled to their opinions concerning creating or nominating for deletion, articles about the Gitmo detainees. One could say, I suppose, that both of them have an "agenda". I think it's more likely that both of them have strong feelings about the articles. Certainly, I don't think that either Geo or BWH is waging a "personal vendetta" Mandsford (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but if one user "has an agenda to create articles about World Cup players", and another user has "an agenda to delete all articles about World Cup players", I'm going to view those two "agendas' differently. If you have "strong feelings" about Guantanamo detainees, go make sure their articles are neutral and don't give any sympathetic bias...don't try to remove all mention of them. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I don't see a POV problem with the title, as many details surrounding Guantanamo are not released to the public, and instead come out in dribs and drubs in the press. As far as "original research", the names are either on the official list or they're not. I don't see any new facts being derived. That said, the main article, List of Guantánamo Bay detainees, already draws on multiple sources and this article could be merged there without too much trouble. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. POV fork, and OR concerns per BWH76, although I do believe it should be kept. MrPrada (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Yes, may be alot of work but worth it for the project. Mikebar (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above XCharltonTilliDieX^Talk/_Contribs 16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.

I believe the perceptions of "original research" are based on misreading of the original resarch policy, as I explained above.

As I noted above perceptions of bias are not grounds for deletion.

There are some passages in the article I wrote in good faith, but which I now think should be toned down. The DoD claimed that three individuals, "Mullah Shahzada", "Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar" and Abdullah Mehsud were former Guantanamo captives, among the first captives to be released, who lied and tricked their way out of Guantanamo. They weren't named on the official lists. These three men were described as Taliban leaders of company, battalion, or brigade sized units. If they were really held at Guantanamo it would be highly significant. But they weren't on the official lists.
Finally I wrote to the DoD, asking for clarification on these three guys. A public affairs officer explained that all three really had been held in Guantanamo. He offered me their official ID numbers. I explained that the wikipedia's policies did not allow me to cite his private email as a reference. I asked him to put their ID numbers up on the DoD website. Maybe he didn't get approval, because their ID numbers have not been made public. I didn't feel I could make corrections based solely on private email, no matter how authoritative the source would be, if it were public.
When I looked at the article yesterday I realized I could take four other names off the list: Murtada Ali Said Maqram, Musa Ali Said Al Said Al Umari, Sofiane Haderbache, Ghallab Bashir. They weren't totally missing from official lists. The summary of evidence memos published in 2006 had merely named them using names that couldn't be reconciled with the names on the official lists. When the DoD released nine more official lists last September, which less obfuscated than the first two lists, it became possible to figure out who they were.
I explained, above, why I regard List of Guantanamo Bay detainees as a poor target to merge this article with.
Approximately one fifth of the captives were named inconsistently. I think this should be the list the article should be merged with -- the list of captives who have been named inconsistently.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The WP:OR upon which this article is based is used to push a point, be it implicitly or explicitly. The inclusion of the article itself on Wikipedia is a WP:FORK and synthesis of facts.

No sources cover this subject. The only source that lends any weight to the fact that some detainees were left off of this list is Wikipedia itself. There are no other sources that lend this subject any weight or importance. I've tried to find even one reference; so far, no such luck.

Giving importance to this subject with an encyclopedic article without any sources making the claim that this is important is WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN).

The inclusion of this article itself is the example of the WP:NPOV error (and the WP:FORK) and is the basis of my nomination of this article for AfD.

Also, out of curiosity, have we done away with the guideline of writing comments underneath the previous entries in chronological order?

Lastly, I responded on the editor's talk page of the ridiculous accusations made against me in this AfD. BWH76 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger writes:

The only source that lends any weight to the fact that some detainees were left off of this list is Wikipedia itself.

The DoD was under a court order to publish all the captive's names. The article clearly stated this. I suggest that a consistent pattern of failure to comply with this court order is notable, without regard to its cause.

The wikipedia is not a hagiography. I suggest it is not the role of wikipedia contributors to clean up the record of their favourite cause, favourite band, favourite politician, favourite nation, by suppressing information they regard as embarrassing, when that material is well referenced, written from a neutral point of view, and otherwise complies with all policies. Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:NOT#ORIGINALRESEARCH if there ever was one. And to boot - WP:COATRACK, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep I'm inclined to agree with the author that this doesn't fall under the definition of synthesis work. I would compare it to box scores in baseball in an article about notable baseball records. An external source is necessary to make some sort of superlative claim ("This was the first time any team did X") but not ANY claim ("More runs were scored in the last 5 innings than the first four").

However, the lack of outside sources that reference the article topic in its entirety is disturbing. I'm not suggesting that such an absence is a sign that the article need to be deleted on face. but it is a sign that caution should be used. Protonk (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I re-read what I've written in this discussion and realized that I may not have clearly explained why this is a WP:FORK. The content of the article is not actually about the detainees that are not on this list. The article is WP:OR on how this list was released - not about the detainees. The only information about the detainees is the bullet list.

And again, why is this WP:OR? The importance lent to this subject is the WP:SYN. Saying that this is important based upon a court order again is OR and SYN. The importance given to this subject only appears on Wikipedia. I think that the baseball box scores are not an accurate comparison - creating an article based solely upon what didn't happen in a baseball game (without any references) would be much more similar - and similarly an OR and POV issue. BWH76 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Guantánamo Bay detainees. This is merely a subset of that list; perhaps the unofficial detainees could be listed in colored cells. There should also be a single section added to the article to discuss this issue.

This clearly is not WP:OR - we have a source for the official list and we have a source for these other detainees. Nor is this WP:SYN - the sources about the detainees establish their detention, and the official DoD source establishes that they are not listed. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a long list, and can appropriately be divided. The sources are reliable for the purpose. The concept of those not on the official list is relevant as a special aspect of the situation. Those who do not like some of the individual GB articles should like this way of doing it instead. I hope this is not a situation where people feel more comfortable with as few articles as possible on the topic. DGG (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is in fact relevant, why are there no sources that claim this relevance/importance? There are no sources (and nothing referenced in the article) that make this claim. The article makes the assumption that this is relevant - which is WP:SYN since there are no references establishing this as being something important. BWH76 (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the detainees are being held at Guantanamo is the thing of relevance/importance. The listed/unlisted classification simply indicates the source. And this classification needn't be notable itself per WP:N#NCONTENT. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Vision International[edit]

Non-notable multi-level marketing company. If the article is to be kept, it must include a "Criticism" section, eg. this by the FTC. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE for reasons stated above. If we add a "criticism" section, it may be longer than the article at this point.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 07:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 07:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look, even though I've been here for a couple of years, I'm not too aware of the policies and stuff involved in creating a new article (as in most of the time I'm simply editing already-created articles); nobody told me I HAD to involve a criticism. In fact, my main focus was the Vemma article (a company I'm currently a rep of), and created this as a reference point/stub since this is the parent company of Vemma, but was forced to expand on it with time I don't have simply because it was recommended for speedy deletion. Now one thing I need to mention: Almost 80% of the Vemma article was typed FROM SCRATCH and not backed up, I spent 6 hours compiling it, just to find out it's been speedy-deleted. Be reasonable, I'll work with whatever suggestions you guys might have, and let other people edit and contribute bit-by-bit instead of me having to stay up every night having to re-compound my work. In fact, this article started out as a stub hoping others will contribute, I tried not to make it seem like an "ad" or whatever is claimed, but yet I feel like I wasted HOURS I'm never going to see again. Give me a break, will ya, please? Edwardw818 (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effort of one or more editors is not a reason to keep an article. You may request that the article be userfied, but that is not always the case with borderline spam. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication this company is a notable business. Adding criticism may mitigate bias, but that won't save it if it isn't notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think the article is properly written(or "it looks nice"), it makes little effort to assert its notability. I'm sorry that you've wasted so much time on it, Edward818, but unless you can make the article meet notability guidelines, it'll likely be deleted. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 10:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 13:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Organization doesn't seem particularly note-worthy. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked but found only one good source[52] which, though independent and reliable, is not a substantial mention because it's a slice-of-life profile of a person who happens to be an affiliate. One would need some stronger sources to prove notability. BTW, I removed the list of counties as irrelevant to the article. Wikidemo (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete both articles. nancy ^(talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These Words Upon Our Hearts, Steven E. Steinbock[edit]

It's a book. In it, the author describes the origins of Hebrew words and explains the difference between the "same" words of different languages. He points out that translations don't always convey the full meaning of the word in the original language. Gosh durn it, I'd never thought of that before! And you hadn't either, had you?

Negligible.

Hoary (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the book doesn't meet any of the 4 criteria in WP:BK, and the author doesn't show any coverage in secondary sources as in WP:BIO. (As a sidenote, I think it'd be better if the nom focused a little more on the deletion policy and relevant notability guidelines than the merits of the articles' subjects.) --Nsevs • Talk 14:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're undoubtedly right there. I don't say there's justification for my irreverent tone, but there is a reason, which I'll divulge IFF asked. -- Hoary (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following both Hoary and Nsevs, little or no independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Idle comment (since it doesn't seem as if its addtion will edit-clash with anybody's "this-is-not-a-vote" vote): The first (surviving) edit of the creator and main author of both articles was the creation of F.A.R.T. the Movie; the most recent was this edit to physics. Not that either proves anything, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Changed to redirect to Amasya Protocol (correct spelling). Fabrictramp (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amasya Protocole[edit]

Article has almost the same text with Amasya Protocol and wrong spelling in the title CeeGee (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence this is an alternate spelling appearing in reliable sources. Only ghits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 07:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly changed to redirect. This should never have come to AfD in the first place.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Fraternities and sororities. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternity and Sorority Pins[edit]

Another good attempt at a good page, but isn't encyclopedic, and is not much more than a collection of a few images, and a list of NAIC members. Jmlk 1 7 06:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fraternities and sororities Colonel Warden (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lead section to Fraternities_and_sororities#Rituals_and_symbols, and the individual pins to their respective organizations. --Nsevs • Talk 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Certainly a specialized encyclopedia on Greek Life would contain this information. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Fraternities and sororities. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternity and Sorority Crests[edit]

Good attempt at a page, but we really don't need an encyclopedic article with not much more than a few images of crests, and a list of Greek associations. Jmlk 1 7 06:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fraternities and sororities Colonel Warden (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge similar to above: lead section to Fraternities_and_sororities#Rituals_and_symbols and the individual crests to their respective organizations.--Nsevs • Talk 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental pedagogy[edit]

This article doesn't make a lot of sense, actually. The first sentence talks about "pure accident" but doesn't really say what could be learned in this way, and the second sentence serves only to disparage LMS. I don't see anything really salvageable here. nneonneo^talk 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Learning management systems. Essentially just a comment about a bigger topic. Nick Connolly (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another user already noted that the article had no content a while ago at User talk:Aneesha. nneonneo^talk 21:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content. Term appears to be a takeoff on a book titled Beyond Accidental Pedagogy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unsourced and doesn't make sense. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prussia's Defiant Stand (board game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Prussia's Defiant Stand (board game)

No assertion of notability, no sources, both the designer and publisher are redlinked. Google search turns up nothing except for catalog listings and a review that looks like it was taken from the game's box: no indpendent, non-trivial coverage. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a reference. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N unless reliable sources are produced to establish notability. The "reference" added by Colonel Warden is just a copy of the marketing text here. Deor (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (by OP of the stub in question). I've no urge to fight to death, as I'm not familiar enough with the finest points of inclusion/deletion. I will, however, make these 4 points: a) I'm in no way affiliated with Worthington Games, the designer, or any other commercial board game venture. In fact, I haven't even played the game in question, but have drawn on my knowledge of 18th C History, board gaming, & the 7YW. b) The game was included in the course of slightly improving the references in the WikiP Seven Years' War article, where only 1 board game around the period was listed, though there are several good ones on the market. This seemed imbalanced, though I happen much to like the board game already listed (Friedrich, clearly more "notable"). So I chose to add an entry for the most recent game around the theme, which also seems the most non-derivative, aimed wider than at hard-core hex & counter wargamers, has been fairly well received by those who *have* tried it, & has the additional, widely valued benefit of being a 2-player-only game. c) The reference listed by Colonel Warden is not entirely trivial. Beneath the "copy of the marketing text" is a passably active user debate, including the following (user, not editor) review: A Solid Entry into the Board Game Arena d) The game is very recent (late 2007) - as is, to my knowledge, the publisher (hence its red ink) & it's not uncommon for good board games on very specific historical themes to grow their following slowly - if at all, but that's the risk to take - or not take . The choice is now yours, but I submit: let the game grow, as it's my best evaluation it will. To my own mind, encyclopaedia means encyclopaedic & as exhaustive as possible. --Nielspeterq (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't even assert notability. I suggest that you read the page linked in the preceding sentence and note that what's required is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." User reviews don't count as reliable sources. This game may be notable someday, but it isn't now. Deor (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided are ample for verification. Deeper coverage would be nice-to-have but it is not required. My opinion stands. This article is a harmless and accurate stub and all we would achieve by deleting it is to make Wikipedia less encyclopaedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had, naturally enough, already read & considered the notability criteria. I've made my 4 points above, & can now only second Colonel Warner's words: "a harmless & accurate stub". I described the game in 2 lines, & in no way attempted to sugar-coat or promote it. It's an interesting recent 7YW period board game, aimed more broadly than existing ones, by being neither hex & counter, nor multiplayer. It's now a Wikipedia decision whether we want to list, at most, a single example of media type (here board games) on any given important historical period. I can live with, if not exactly approve, either decision. --Nielspeterq (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to not asserting notability its also only one source, multiple non-trivial, independent sources are needed to establish notability. Deleting it would not make Wikipedia less encyclopedic, neither the source listed in this article nor anything I could find before I listed it on AfD establish why this game is notable. In response to your other comment, its not spam, and its not sugarcoated in anyway, if notability could be established then it would be a great stub. It isn't policy (yet), but there's a guideline currently under proposal for the notability of toys and it does give a good idea of what we're looking for in articles about games, see WP:TOYS. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for warning about that nascent proposal. That is just one editor's opinion. It has no standing and fails WP:CREEP. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not one editor's opinion, quite a few have contributed. How does it fail WP:CREEP? Reading the discussion associated with the proposal shows that it meets all three criteria listed not to be creep, and there have been a need for guidelines in this area for quite some time, according to the RPG WikiProject. Response to the proposal so far has been mostly positive. Granted, at the same time I didn't mean to come off as quoting it as policy, because it isn't yet, and might not be, but what was brainstormed into that proposal was built upon past AfD precedents was the point I was trying to make. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You ask how it fails WP:CREEP. It falls at the first hurdle because there is not a demonstrable problem which requires fixing. The article we are discussing is a good example. It fully satisfies our primary policies by being verifiable, NPOV and not original research. It is not nonsense nor is it trivial. There is a readership for this sort of thing and the material supports other articles which can be hyperlinked to to it as the author explains. The material is currently slight but equally, it takes up little space - we have already consumed far more resources just debating the matter. If this putative policy encourages more of these resource-hungry discussions then this will be a problem in itself - the cure will be worse than the disease. Bureaucracy is like that - it feeds upon itself. We need less of it, not more. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I want to keep most things about games (in general), the only online sources seem to be fansites and/or press release-type of things and so forth. I can't seem to find significant reviews (that aren't self-published). Of course online sources don't cover it all, and I would enjoy being proven wrong. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(by stub OP) A little against my will, I'm getting drawn further into this pretty inspiring discussion, as I'm coming to realize that this is about more than a puny stub, which I've already repeated you may remove if you so decide. Now: I'm only an intermittent WP editor, & had never before reflected on the wider implications of Creep, but normally, I'm in favour of more rather than less respect for rule. Here however, the rule in question (notability) comes up against a wider requirement. I'll avoid the E-word & simply write: representative & diverse referencing. Again, I created the stub because, in the Seven Years' War article, under "Cultural references", only a single, albeit excellent, 7YW board game was listed. (Remember what y'all are saying about "multiple" referencing? Yet there we're in a much higher-order article, & the damage is greater!) I know game(s), in that 7YW article, are not listed as a *source*, but as an *influence*. But were it about Sherlock Holmes &, say, movies influenced by his character, the writer would automatically aim at variety/diversity - & separate entries would also be found or made for every movie listed. See Sherlock Holmes in other media. Is the war that identifiably triggered the French Revolution less important than Holmes? Are games, a medium on the rise, really less notable than movies? I submit that there should be at least 2 references to a given medium (eg games) in the 7YW article, & that both should be blue-inked, hence the need for making a new entry. If people cannot live with Prussia's Defiant Stand (board game) being that entry, I ask them to find another, more notable & still current, 7YW board game entry. If the entry for that game doesn't yet exist, but the game is more notable, I'll write the new entry myself. I mean all this in earnest. People-- this isn't about existing N-criteria which, sure, are being stretched here. This is about paving a reasonably unobstructed road for alternate media, whenever diversity itself is being challenged within much higher-order topics. --Nielspeterq (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an issue of diversity, or the SYW not being important enough, it is that the game (in it of itself) has not asserted notability. Notability is not inhereted from another subject, typically it needs to achieve that on its own. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom here. The one source is insufficient for notability, in my opinion, and I can't find any other reliable sources. There may be a "readership" for this kind of subject, but isn't there also a "readership" for the non-notable MySpace bands that get A7'd left and right? As I see it, there is nothing in this game's article that asserts notability, even if the article is a stub that meets WP:NPOV (and WP:STUB, for that matter). I would also think that the general notability guidelines would cover pretty much everything, from board games to bands, from websites to brands of pop, from shopping malls to inventors — and as it stands, this game, plain and simple, does not meet the notability guidelines, as it's not received any coverage in reliable sources (at least none that I can see). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could write a harmless and accurate article about myself, but that wouldn't be worth keeping either (sigh). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in the conext of board-gaming, this game is not notable. Couldn't locate any reviews or other sources either online or in my print sources. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics[edit]

This was speedy deleted. The creating editor clearly has a conflict of interest, but this is a peer reviewed journal and we have lots of articles on such journals. I think this should be decided by consensus here. At this stsge I have no other opinion on it. Bduke (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Zero google scholar hits but appears to be a genuine journal associated with a university. Plain ghits is 4, three of which are from Wikipedia! Leaving a grand total of 1 hit - but that hit is apparently for an academic conference at Thai University (On Koh Samui hmmmm). ~~Perhaps~~ delete but without prejudice for recreation once the journal has managed to achieve some presence. Is there a specific policy on notability for academic journals? Nick Connolly (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC) - Changing my erm, not-a-vote-thing to Delete, looks like this journal hasn't published issue 1 yet. Safe to say that currently it isn't notable. nce people start citing papers from it in other journals then it should be welcomed back to Wikipedia. Nick Connolly (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has only published a single issue, a few months ago. I don't think that is enough (without some sort of big media splash) to establish an academic journal as notable. Give it time to build some weight. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find it in worldcat.org, and the article doesnt state an ISSN. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to get rid of it; in the meantime it's good for it have an article so it can easily be updated if a breakthrough paper is published there, or something of the opposite happens. OptimistBen (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep em Nick Connolly I've examine the editorial board of this journal and the Committee of the conference at the Thai University they seems to be some how related. Besides OptimistBen has some sense, also I’ve made some search with yahoo no1 according to alexia.com and found some hits.BlueQ99 (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I for sure search for articles in GoogleScholar rather than journals but that is just me, on the other the editor might have not finished his article. DKNY89 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Worries about conflicts of interest on Wikipedia are overblown. Some people seem to think one should NEVER edit an article about oneself or about an organization that one heads. I think the policies should say only that one should be especially careful in such cases to avoid the problems that can result. As long as the article sticks to what a disinterested party could write, I'd say those problems are successfully avoided. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero 3 cheat codes[edit]

This article is a violation of a Wikipedia policy. (Wikipedia is not a place to post game guides, faqs, or cheat codes) Thisisborin9^talk/_contribs 05:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not gamefaqs.com Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's obviously a violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE. (Though I'm sure its creator made the article solely in good faith.) ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 05:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete Per above.--Liempt (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of trivia. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per clear consensus based on several policies and guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Obama Really Meant[edit]

Non-notable, unreliable sources, synthesis, whatever. --- RockMFR 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, IMAO has been recognized as one of the top 50 political blogs, as determined by Alexa Internet traffic ranks. Though a relatively new acronym, this represents a political issue that may heavily affect the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, which may in turn play a significant role in determining the Democratic nominee.tc2011 (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nneonneo (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, something made up on a blog one day is not a good basis for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Sure looks like a purely political attack. BWH76 (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A More Perfect Union or similar campaign coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as coatrack. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Colonel Warden. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — per Colonel Warden. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with merging, since it implies an endorsement of political attack articles. There is, of course, nothing to stop anyone from adding a counterpoint to the article "A More Perfect Union". This particular phrase is chosen because it can be made into an acronym (WORM). One could make a similar "WHAM" article about "What Hillary Actually Meant". Go do your mudslinging somewhere else. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WORM arose organically, whereas this is the first time WHAM has appeared. Documentation of actual political events does not constitute mudslinging.tc2011 (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no indication the term has entered into general use, and at least some of the sources cited probably wouldn't pass muster with WP:SOURCES. If the term gets picked up by more mainstream media, then let's revisit it. Otherwise I agree, this comes off as an anti-Obama attack disguised as an article. Otherwise let's wait and see if it gains the same sort of equity as Bushism, for example. 23skidoo (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Coatrack with no indication that the subject has entered common use. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search of what obama really meant worm produces 122k results, including the notable sites: oprah.com, politico.com, talkleft.com, democraticunderground.com, imao.us, blogs.abcnews.com, huffingtonpost.com, salon.com, taylormarsh.com, answers.yahoo.com, and others. The subject has a substantial foothold in common use. Recognition and use by the "mainstream media" is not necessary to legitimize Wikipedia articles. I would agree with merging per Colonel Warden, except that in practice WORM is applied to more statements than appear in that speech and its aftermath.tc2011 (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irredeemably POV. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 68.254.173.251 has deleted several votes from this page for some reason, and changed one of the Delete votes to Table. nneonneo^talk 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right. My vote was the one changed to "Table". Looks like 68.254.173.251 is a code for D.I.C.K. It's not too hard to spot when something like that happens, "68". When a page shrinks from 3,496 to 2,896 in size, it's not hard to trace. Mandsford (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The efforts of "68" notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any consensus for keeping this as an independent article. Of the three persons who don't request a deletion, two of them support a merge as an alternative. Perhaps my helper was right in suggesting that we "table" the discussion and let the administrator decide. Mandsford (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, a search of technorati shows that the term is in fact beginning to seep into the blogosphere. [53] --Non-dropframe (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:ATTACK. MrPrada (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Original Research and violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for political agitators. --Abrech (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others on this AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable blog meme. WillOakland (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven McCarl[edit]

Seems to fail WP:PROF. Very few hits/cites in gscholar. The only two papers listed on his home page have 1 and 4 citations respectively. Found no coverage elsewhere. Jfire (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any sources to meet WP:BIO either. --Nsevs • Talk 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost 40 years out from his Ph.D. and still only an associate professor is maybe a hint that his department thinks he has not made an impact. The lack of hits suggests the same thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomonation and per David Eppstein's comments. Very few hits in GoogleScholar and zero in GoogleBooks. Nsk92 (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW--JForget 00:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Innosense[edit]

AfDs for this article:

non notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Was AFD'd in Nov. 2005 but snuck back into being in Nov. 2006. Still as non-deserving of an article now as back in '05 JeanLatore (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't about "deserving" an article. They pass WP:MUSIC criterion #6 three times over, and they pass the primary notability criterion. What more do you want? --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 05:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it passes WP:N and WP:MUSIC.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 05:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 05:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It passes WP:Music so who are we to delete it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:RyRy5: I would disagree that the article satisfies any element of WP:MUSIC, esp. not #6. If your argument is predicated upon Britney Spears once being a member of the band, the element is not satisfied, since Spears was NEVER part of this group. That piece of mis-information must be cleaned up; Wikipedia is, I would hope, somewhere we can have accurate information. Anyway, the band never had Spears, therefore never had any members who went on to notable careers later. Delete. JeanLatore

Comment We have at least three reliable sources saying she was in the band. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the above. Although Britney Spears wasn't in it, other band members (three I think) have their own articles. There are a lot of google hits. What part of this doesn't meet WP:MUSIC? PeterSymonds | talk 15:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see multiple reliable sources, including but not limited to a decent length Allmusic bio. By merit of the sources, I think they pass #1 of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, the articles on the individual members simply re-direct back to the main page on the band, like in a loop. And "Allmusic" is NOT a substantial enough print source to sustain element #1; more like Rolling Stone, Spin, etc., is what the guideline contemplated. JeanLatore (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mandy Ashford and Nikki DeLoach are not outstanding articles, but they are not, as you imply, redirects. --Dhartung | Talk 22:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment. Mandy ashford is notable for being a model; her "fame" has nothing to do with her fleeting association with "Innosense." Nikki DeLoach is arguably not inherently notable enough for her article, and "innosense" in no way had anything to do with her achievements, to wit, acting. The articles on the other members were deleted as non-notable a long time ago. JeanLatore (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to require coverage in the handful of highest-circulating magazines in order to satisfy point 1. Specialized, genre-specific, or online-only sources may all be used as reliable sources for notability purposes, and All Music Guide (one of the oldest and most comprehensive online pop music resources) is no exception. Chubbles (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it meets WP:MUSIC and I believe that it does then there is no real reason to continue this discussion here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:MUSIC criterion 6, so there doesn't seem to be much to discuss here. Klausness (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:MUSIC.
Keep per Ten Pound Hammer. --Bardin (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC passed by a mile. Chubbles (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Keep arguments have not been substantiated. Ty 09:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Owen Halper[edit]

A photographer whose photos have verifiably been used by a maker of camera bags (as have the photos of many other photographers) but whose other claims to significance are unsupported. The article was created by an SPA a year ago, hasn't been significantly improved since, and doesn't seem likely to be improved any time soon. Hoary (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet notability criteria, but could be improved and better referenced. Pinkville (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He seems notable, but it needs some sources. Voyaging^(talk) 19:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lots of professional photographers routinely photograph somewhat notable subjects, but this does not confer notability onto the photographer. The mention of Mensa membership hints that this article is self-promotion. Truth be told, I don't even see much assertion of notability in the mostly unsourced text. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof of any significant recognition to meet WP:BIO. IFEA, Emergency Beacons, and Lowepro seem to be minor "in house" recognition. Some significant critical BIO or review is needed. Lack of sources means "delete" -- if such sources are added, can become a "keep". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several; a non-notable pro photographer. Not even an assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Amato[edit]

Non-notable actress, has been in a few independent movies and that seems to be all AW (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep google pulls up a handful of interviews that seem to be based around her newest movie: [54] [55] and a little chatter about that movie. I'd say borderline notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw those too, but just because somebody is interviewed on some website, it doesn't mean they're notable. I haven't seen any mainstream media or anything. --AW (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note both this and Under the Raven's Wing, her movie, were created by the same person, who has no other edits. --AW (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very, Very Weak keep Found a few bits about her on the web that indicate some notability (albeit minor) within the profession. Borderline, but... New Kind Of Grey (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of weak keeps. There's a few bits and bobs about her in this local news article, but ultimately it's about the film rather than her. PC78 (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If I was to vote first I'd go for a delete but looking at all the refrences and comments above - Ill stick to the pack. Weak Keep. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhante Kassapa[edit]

Can't see what makes this monk notable. No references. Article says "He is the first non-Vietnamese monk in the Vietnamese Theravada Sangha in America" - is that really enough? Camillus (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He does get a few Google news hits [56], one of which says he is "believed to be the first white American senior monk in the Vietnamese Buddhist tradition". He might merit a mention somewhere, (Buddhism in the United States, maybe?) but he probably doesn't need his own article. Zagalejo^^^ 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. No reliable sources, unless someone can prove me wrong. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user who created this article has nine edits: six on this article (including the image) and the other three on the temple where the monk is resident. Ma^t_chups 03:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Testshell[edit]

Non-notable software and apparently no sources except listings in directories and other unreliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Many ghits do not appear to refer to this product. Needs external references to survive AFD.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP 98.172.22.130 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple of non-independent sources say it exists, but there is nothing in the article (or in a search of e.g. Google News Archive) indicating this is notable software. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator is an SPA, and it appears to be orphaned. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited sources, non-notable company. Voyaging^(talk) 19:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as hoax (original article now at Jose Fidalgo will be relocated there). ... discospinster _talk 02:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

José Fidalgo[edit]

Presumed hoax. Entirely created by one author, no references, unlikely biography, some clear fabrications: Cast/crew of L'Auberge espagnole includes no one by this name. TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 Appears to be a fairly obvious hoax; external link doesn't mention this name and there seem to be no other mentions of this name in this context. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G3 per TenPoundHammer's proposal. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Kittie - Nabla (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Candler[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Not notable outside of the group she was a member of. The only coverage I can see is a trivial mention in a Google Books search and directory-style entries telling us almost nothing. Very unlikely to be truly notable. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kittie, no notability outside of the band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kittie, per TPH. Her second project was a nonstarter, and there's no evidence of other notable work or coverage by independent sources. Darkspots (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Pack[edit]

Non-notable. I haven't found anything that makes this person notable. Kingturtle (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's done a lot, but still not enough to meet notability guidelines -- no coverage in reliable sources, for one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources that I could see. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unreferenced. Voyaging^(talk) 16:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L' Aveugle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/L' Aveugle

The only Ghits for this play were created here on WP by the author himself: [57] Like the Allan Castro article, which is also up for AfD, this is a WP:COI violation by a 19-year-old, non-notable kid with no WP:RS. This fellow also created a related self-promotional article that has already been speedied: [58]. Qworty (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear COI at work here, self-promotion for something that's very much not notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Qworty's evidence suggests this may be a hoax. Even if this isn't a hoax, it's a vanispamcruftisement. Blueboy 96 02:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as for the playwright of the play. Non-notable, unsourced, likely written by the playwright. Voyaging^(talk) 16:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Castro[edit]

Appears to be a WP:AUTO and WP:COI violation by a 19-year-old, non-notable kid with no WP:RS. None of the many different Allan Castros who appear on Google appears to be this one. He also created a related self-promotional article that was speedied: [59]. I'm still hunting around to delete the rest of his spam. Qworty (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.((cn)) Absolutely not notable in any way.((cn)) None of the claims in the article can be backed up,((cn)) and he doesn't seem to have received coverage in any reliable sources.((cn)) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire Blatant vanity/spam. Blueboy 96 02:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:COI, is an autobiography. Every other word features a "((cn))" (A new Wikipedia record!). Wikipedia is not a social networking site, kid. Go somewhere else. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and an autobio. I removed the ((fact))'s BTW; that's just excessive. It already had ((unreferenced))! JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-notable, very likely an autobio. Voyaging^(talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. Macy (Review me!) 16:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Hunt[edit]

I don't see how the subject of this article meets the notability requirements for an author (as the subject is only a minor contributor to the book that is being used to assert notability), but there was opposition to a speedy deletion, so I'm wondering what other people think about this. Thanks Rnb (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No assertion or evidence of notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BK. I'm sorry, but one story in an anthology is not sufficient to establish a writer as a notable author. Qworty (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One published essay, even if well received, doesn't establish notability. If anything, it falls under WP:BLP1E. Probably a vanity/autobio case as well, but the creator isn't an SPA, so not a concern. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Completely non-notable, very likely to have been written by the subject. Voyaging^(talk) 16:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per Qworty - no evidence of notability. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 00:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep nancy ^(talk) 13:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Gallaher[edit]

Article claims this is "a major American Contemporary poet," an assertion not backed up by cited sources or anything that can be discovered on Google, Google News, or Google Books. He has published two non-notable books on micro-presses, failing WP:BK. One of his publishers, Spuyten Duyvil, is nothing more than a one-man operation, a guy named Tod working from his kitchen table in Brooklyn. Qworty (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete; "a guy named Tod working from his kitchen table"? Is there something personal here? The article is almost certainly self-written, and I'm having trouble finding anything on his work on Google Scholar, or anything on Google not from the author or book readings. Only four copies of his works are held by LibraryThing users, for what little that's worth. Maybe someone more into modern poetry than I can proclaim him notable, but I don't see any evidence of that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I still don't see it. Nominations to anything but really major awards doesn't really count. It doesn't really look like he's been noted, especially by people writing things that we could use to make an article. I think the emphasis on awards is misleading; the real question is can we produce an article on the subject from good reliable sources independent of the subject, and the answer here is no.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article may well deserve deletion but I find the tone of the nomination a little disturbing: "a guy named Tod working from his kitchen table in Brooklyn." What's wrong with the name Tod, what have you got against Brooklyn and how do you know about his kitchen table? That said, the subject's resume appears fairly thin, although, being a mathematician, I don't know much about the going-ons in poetry. From what I do know, a lot of poetry is published by small publishers, so I am not sure how much to read into that. Here is a link to Spuyten Duyvil:[60] For what it's worth, both books are available from Barnes&Noble:[61] A Google search reveals that Gallaher's second book "The Little Book of Guesses, has been chosen by Henri Cole for the Levis Prize and will be published in 2007 by Four Way Books"[62] The WP article for the subject also says that he is an editor of something called "The Laurel Review". I don't know how much these things are worth, but I'd like to hear from some people more familiar with modern poetry before voting myself. Nsk92 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little evidence of notability. Tone of the prodder is irrelevent. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 03:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, he was the subject of a 840 word feature in the St. Joseph News-Press (St. Joseph, MO). That's about all the significant coverage I can find. Jfire (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's definitely getting published, but he doesn't seem particularly notable yet. The Levis Prize (not this one, but this one) is basically a promotional prize linked to a publisher. I can't find any evidence it's a notable prize. The Laurel Review doesn't have an article, though it's probably notable after 41 years, and is reasonably well-known, but doesn't confer notability to its staff. I say notability to come. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung, an explanation of the way contemporary poetry publishing works: almost all first, most second, and many third books are published through poetry contests. They're not "promotional prizes" but significant and serious considerations of hundreds and hundreds of poetry manuscripts. To win one is in itself notable, especially when it's awarded by a nationally distributed press which has survived for 15 years (a large achievement in America today where there's very little arts funding and where chain bookstores often don't stock anything but the most well-known (often dead) poets.) If you're looking for evidence that it's a notable prize, look at the list of judges, including the judge who selected Gallaher's work - Henri Cole. See here: http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/1083. lyttonjsmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.213.40 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Dhartung's comments. Nsk92 (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Unsure per Espresso Addict's comments. I still do not have much of a feeling about what goes on in the world of poetry and I am thinking of abstanining from further voting in this AfD. The prizes/awards that Espresso Addict mentions mean something, but I don't really know what to make of this information. The Walt Whitman Award appears to be a well-established prize, but for junior poets only, limited to those who have not yet published a book. I personally have no idea what the other awards are (they do appear to be awards for junior writers as well, although I may be wrong here). I did notice that Gallaher is listed as a semi-finalist or finalist for almost all of the wards mentioned in his CV, rather than an actual winner. Again, I don't know how much to read into this. Quite possibly, being a finalist is notable already. As a test, I did compare him to one of the actual recent winners of the Walt Whitman Award, Joshua Clover (he won in 1996, whereas Gallaher was a finalist in 1999 and a semi-finalist in 2000). At first glance, Clover's record does appear to be more distinguished than that of Gallaher. Nsk92 (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. Looks like an autobio. Voyaging^(talk) 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Laurel Review is a long standing, respected literary magazine and the The Levis Prize is a notable prize from an established and well known poetry press. notellbooks (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to his CV, he has won or been finalist in several other prizes, including the Walt Whitman Award (finalist, 1999), New Issues Press Poetry Award, Colorado Prize, National Poetry Series Open Competition & Emerson Award.[63] Two published poetry anthologies, one of which is not from a "micro-press", co-editor of a respected poetry magazine, and winner/finalist in several prizes including at least one well-known one, appears sufficient. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Finalist, even several finalist slots, is not really the same as winning. Winning a notable prize is a slam dunk. Not all of these are notable (I'm really not convinced that the Levis Prize that he won is notable, either) awards, and I don't feel that being a finalist in a non-notable award carries any real weight. Given the vast swathes of contemporary American poets of unquestioned notability on whom we do not have articles I don't see why we should be keeping this one. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing he's the world's most notable poet, but I can't see how deleting biographies such as this one encourages the creation of articles on poets of greater notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete after viewing comments above. Claim of being a finalist in minor awards is found in subject's CV, hardly a verifiable source. No evidence has been produced for significant notability. Publishing verse is a risky business. Success can send one's words echoing down the ages, failure can expose one to the ridicule of a William McGonagall. Both categories are notable, but it is not clear yet if the subject falls into either. Subject needs to make a much greater impact on the world of poetry to be suitable for an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. John Gallaher writes poetry. Shouldn't his inclusion in an encyclopedia be based on his worth on a poet? No-one has yet mentioned the work. The Little Book of Guesses is a warm, funny, deeply thoughtful book about the first days of the 21st century. If you read it, you'd want people to know about the book, and about its author. So how about we keep the entry on, and let people find out about the poet and his poems and decide for themselves about his worth? Isn't Wikipedia meant to be a somewhat democratic exercise in information-sharing, rather than an exclusive, elitist site which only mentions big presses and perpetuates a divide in which the establishment gets attention just because it's the establishment? Given the number of commenters above who've said they know nothing about the contemporary poetry scene, Wikipedia clearly needs more information on it. Let's start here, let's take up the challenge to add bios for other up-and-coming poets, and let's stay true to Wikipedia's informative goals. lyttonjsmith (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the style and the characteristics of his work are irrelevant for determining if inclusion in WP is warranted. It does not matter if his poetry is "warm, funny, deeply thoughtful" or, say, dark, moody and angry. These things can be mentioned in the article itself, if it is decided that it should be kept and if these kinds of characterizations of his work have been made by reliable sources, per WP:RS. For this AfD the only thing that matters is if he satisfies the standard of notability per one of WP guidelines, such as WP:BIO or WP:PROF. This is a largely bureaucratic and dispassionate process where our personal opinions about the value of somebody's work are not supposed to matter. Nsk92 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, the point I was trying to make is that using awards as your mark of significance is really quite limited and not, in fact, dispassionate since it allows you only to consider the passions of a tiny number of people who administrate awards. When you consider the number of people who have managed to publish two books of poetry in this country, I'd say that's a particularly significant achievement on its own. I'd say that any poet who has managed to publish even one book, especially from a major, nationally distributed press like Four Way Books, is significant enough. I admire the attempt to make objective decisions, but a lot of what's discussed above (I don't mean your comment, I mean the comments as a whole) isn't objective decision-making; its surrendering decision-making to the subjective whims of awards-bodies. It's akin to not going to see a film because some people in the Academy didn't give it the Oscar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.213.40 (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a perfectly fine argument and I have no problem with it. Discussing what constitutes notability in a particular area (e.g. poetry) and how best to assess it is what AfDs are for. I was talking about inappropriateness of discussing our personal opinions about the merits of somebody's poetry. What I think personally about somebody's poetry should not matter and cannot be considered a valid argument in an AfD discussion. We still have to stick to some kind of formal and verifiable criteria that can be confirmed by reliable sources. Nsk92 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Nsk92 for the response. I like the fact that this AfD gets to inform the decision, and to inform Wikipedia users on a particular area, in this case poetry. I do see the need for formal and verifiable criteria, while also accepting that contemporary poets are often about bucking conventional criteria. T.S. Eliot, for instance, was an anathema to his contemporaries at first for bucking accepted formal conventions. And below Emily Dickinson is mentioned. It seems that the spirit of inclusivity to which Wikipedia subscribes should allow this post to stay. I'd propose a formal criteria of a book published by a non-vanity press. If Wikipedia wants to confirm whether a press counts, contact the Poetry Foundation, Academy of American Poets, Poets and Writers, or the Poetry Society of American, respected organizations who could inform on what counts as a vanity press versus a respected publisher, whether they're establishment or anti-establishment. That way we get diversity rather than elitism. lyttonjsmith (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.174.204 (talk) [reply]

This is true, many "important" poets did not win notable awards during their lifetime. That shouldn't be a deciding factor for inclusion. Many notable poets writing today are not winning prestigious awards. If we used that as the deciding criteria, the majority of the poets already included here would need to be removed -- starting with say Emily Dickinson. Who wants to be the one to nominate that article for deletion? notellbooks (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... it's pretty clearly not a vanity entry ... re above, what does 'notability to come' mean? If he's on the path then what's the problem? So much activity in the poetry world goes on at the margins I'd argue for erring on the side of inclusiveness, once some minimal bona fides have been established. Stumps (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... as per my most recent improvements. Please add appropriate categories. --Poeticbent talk 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph St. Pierre[edit]

Chess player with questionable notability. It appears he may be locally notable in student organizations, but doesn't seem to have any impact on the game nationally or internationally. Also the Bowdoin Brief reference seems to contradict assertion that he's a current champion. Dougie WII (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither source appears to be secondary. So nothing to establish notability. SunCreator (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm not sure if the chess championships would be notable or not. He has received some news coverage for it, see the g-hits. Article creator is an SPA, though, making me think it's an autobio. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rechecked the g-hits.

Not notable in my view. What shows up are sites that not really independent. A college article of which no doubt he is a pupil, a chess association of which he is a member. A blog report copied from the college report.

There will be local chess champions of every major population and region over much of the world. I don't think that makes any of them notable. Also qxh7 blog reports his name under the section entitled 'Maine Closed Champions'. And closed in chess normally means restricted so the best players can't take part. SunCreator (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"And closed in chess normally means restricted so the best players can't take part." — Nope, exactly backwards. Closed does mean restricted—limited to the best players. Open means anyone can play, so open events are generally weaker. Compare U.S. Chess Championship and U.S. Open Chess Championship. The Open is a much larger event, but only the winner of the closed event is the official U.S. Champion. That said, state chess champions are generally not encyclopedically notable. Quale (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closed events restricted to the best are not often (if indeed ever) called 'Closed' because it conveys an incorrect meaning. The example given U.S. Chess Championship, being such a case, it's not called the U.S. Closed Chess Championship. Closed is used for some local and club level competitions when the tournament is closed to people in that town/city/region or membership of a particular chess club. SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A weak player (weaker than a good number of participants of the WP:WikiProject Chess !), and the Maine chess championship is not strong enough to confer notability to the winner. So no notability. [by SyG]

Comment - And not even the Maine open chess championship but the Maine closed chess championship. SunCreator (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about chess championships, scores, etc., that's why I didn't want to try to make a determination. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. SunCreator has a misconception about the nature of closed and open events in this context, although ultimately I don't think it makes a difference as state chess championships are not normally notable whether closed or open. Quale (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Delete. ~~Article was deleted under CSD before as Joe St. Pierre. Recreated a deleted article. Check the creator's talk page.~~ Article that was deleted was a redirect page, sorry. Still non-notable. Voyaging^(talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Bubba73 (talk), 13:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:N; no significant coverage.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Pelli[edit]

For me Sonya Pelli is not so named to require an article in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifero4 (talk • contribs) 12:07, April 13, 2008

Delete Non notable. An unsourced biography that on searching, lacks significant coverage in third-party sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable person from a non-notable company. Voyaging^(talk) 16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial RS coverage is a name drop. Nothing to establish notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete, NN William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Wakerman[edit]

not notable not a famous actor not even on imdb unlike Bel Powley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeneral28 (talk • contribs)

Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree not a notable actress not even on IMDB like Bel Powley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cibwins (talk • contribs) 10:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it deleted yet?Jeneral28 (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD runs five days. Darkspots (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevant sources turned up in a google search. Fails WP:BIO. Darkspots (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was consensus to delete as non-notable nancy ^(talk) 13:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Nectar[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. There're no reliable sources for this article at all. --Yamla (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~theGeneva (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

This entry has been updated with recognizable and reliable references and supporting information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FilthyMcNasty (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article about a football fanzine and is similar to Abandon Chip!, TOOFIF or War of the Monster Trucks all of which contain less references--Egghead06 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that's more of a reason to nominate those fanzines for deletion than to keep this one. – PeeJay 12:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you believe that the notion of keeping articles on fanzines is valid (and let's face it, there is one on fanzine) maybe it's a reason to define them all as notable and find some good references to support that notability?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can't just say that something is notable and then go scrounging around to find sources to back up your statement. If anything, it should be the other way around. If the former was true, we'd get people publishing articles about their favourite subject left, right and centre just to get a bit of recognition on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the hyperbole. Think actually we are in argeement in as much as we are seeking reliable sources to 'prove' notability not merely 'scrounging around' for anything. There does, however, appear to be a trend on WP to take the easy opton and cry delete too quickly rather than helping an article by finding good references. This places the full onus for improvement on the article creator.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is true. However, the few references I have found that even mention this particular fanzine only mention it in passing. For example, it was mentioned in a number of references where the editor was interviewed, but nothing further. Delete is surely the appropriate !vote in this case. – Pee Jay 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N (no independent reliable significant third-party sources). Btw, I don't really think fanzines are notable. --Angelo (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless they have significant third party coverage, of course ;) – PeeJay 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously, but this is not the case. --Angelo (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]