< April 26	April 28 >

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 speedy delete as unsalvageable nonsense

Pranker[edit]

This article has no encyclopedic quality, and should be posted in Wiktionary. Tigerclaw81 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not encyclopedic enough, fails notability. Dwilso 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vandalism, unsourced, and made up. Recreate as redirect to Prank as the normal definition of pranker would be 'someone who performs pranks'. -- saberwyn 01:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Redirect to Prank. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:56, 28 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 delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ConQuest NW[edit]

Non-notable convention, no claims of notbility, no sources to prove notability. Corvus cornix_talk 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Udonknome (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ConQuest VEGAS[edit]

Non-notable convention, held every April since 2008, meaning, what, there has been one? No references to provide notability. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as it stands, and nothing in Google that can make it notable. 9Nak (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not seem to be notable Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, Unsourced, non notable neologism. Merge proponents could certainly add a sentence or two to customer relationship management with a soucr, without a merge. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer assisted selling[edit]

Non-notable neologism. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]--neonwhite user page talk 03:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge with customer relationship management, an established buzzword which this is trying to supplant. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge with customer relationship management. Agree with Dhartung. As a marketer, I've heard of the term, but would always categorize it under CRM. PRasmussen (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly: "a new emerging trend in sales systems," i.e. a non-notable neologism. Seems obviously promotional in intent. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orphaned article has blog editorial as its sole cite source. It's clearly a neologism. Orphaned articles are usually orphaned for a reason. B.Wind (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A mention in CRM might be suitable, but I don't feel strongly about that. Frank | talk 23:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn by nominator after the article was speedied at author's request. Gwernol 23:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Bonneau[edit]

An upcoming songwriter who has not yet achieved notability. Does not meet our criteria for notability of musicians. There are no independent, reliable sources that would allow readers to verify the claims made. The author removed the Prod notice without comment, though after adding a couple of references that do not meet WP:RS since they are neither independent of the subject nor published. The author appears to be the subject of the article and has a history of rather unpleasant vandalism. Gwernol 23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete . Feel free to create a dab or redirect page as appropriate. Sandstein (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wood's March Around Lake Lanao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wood's March Around Lake Lanao

Notability and Verifiability in question. This is not a formal campaign in the Philippine-American War. See Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Special:Contributions.2FKennethjaensss for verifiability issues Lenticel ^(talk) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and WP:N. Significance would seem to be found in anything referencing this somewhere on the USDOD web, and there's nothing at all. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further see for example Named Campaigns of the Philippine Insurrection (as the Army continues to officially call it). Nothing about a Wood and the only commanders discussed in relation to the lake are Baldwin, Pershing, and McCoy. Pershing's dispatch of his mopping up effort makes no mention of this. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even in a rather detailed look at Wood's military career in the Philippines it is barely noted. Sorry, I can't link to article as it's listed as spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzonman (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, there may actually be something here. The march was commanded by Pershing under Wood's roders. But it is really a campaign, not a battle, and is inclusive of at least the fort at Bacolod, Lanao del Norte [8] (I think that's the right one) and the Battle of Taraca.[9] It's also known as the Marahui Expedition after the intended target/rally point. Possible redirect or dab page? --Dhartung | Talk 22:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions at WP:TAMBAY regarding this plus it's unnotability. -- Felipe Aira 02:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions, apart from RGTraynor's, are completely unpersuasive in the light of the various policies and guidelines cited in the discussion.Sandstein (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox[edit]

Non-notable website, no claims of notability, no reliable sources. I would have tagged this for db-web, but it's been here for quite a while with a lot of editors. Corvus cornix_talk 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have any reliable sources, per WP:RS and fails WP:WEB for notability. Gary King (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources in the article and no reliable sources coming from google, doesn't demonstrate notability. Someone another 12:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although searching revealed a huge amount of Youtube videos, blogs, wikis and forums on the subject, I couldn't find a single reliable source to meet WP:N or WP:V. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 143,000 google hits, 4000 youtube videos and 300000 accounts should be enough to establish a minimal level of notability, above that of many other videogame-related articles in WikiPedia. There's precedence demonstrated in similar entries such as Adventure Quest -- whose references are circular and Star Sonata, with similar quality references and which has 1/3 the audience size of ROBLOX. --Shedletsky (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, an article cannot be kept purely based on the argument that other articles exist. There are articles on WP which should exist and do not, just as there are articles that shouldn't exist and do. It's why an article is discussed for deletion it is examined on it's own merits, based on the source material available. Additionally, Google hits and Youtube video counts are a form of Search Engine Test, which are not recommended for examining concerns surrounding notability or verifiability. It is why coverage is requested in the form of third-party reliable sources in order to assert this. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 18:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that level of internet activity does speak to a non-zero level of cultural relevance. My point in drawing attention to the other entries isn't that I don't think they should have articles, but rather that the guidelines that work well for WikiPedia at large may not be entirely suitable for emerging online games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.151.58 (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of incorporation were filed in Delaware in 2006, if we have to we can change the entry from being about ROBLOX the game to being about ROBLOX, the studio that makes the game ROBLOX. --Shedletsky (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC) — Shedletsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Third party link/reliable source: http://www.altosvc.com/team_anthony_lee.html
- Comment- Previous entry was wrongly attributed to me. It was in fact added by User:Antialiasing. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 23:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you on the right AfD here? What does that link have to do with Roblox? Corvus cornix_talk 22:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, if you click on Portfolio -> Current, Roblox will be in the list. See http://www.altosvc.com/port_current_roblox.html
Keep Third party link: http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/minisite/team.html under Dr. Morgan McGuire and http://www.thealarmclock.com/mt/archives/2007/02/sfs_virtual_wor.html and http://fucc.blogspot.com/2007/02/roblox.html Palmfreak (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC) — Palmfreak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What makes those reliable sources? Corvus cornix_talk 23:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The flatworld page has a chunk of Morgan McGuire's CV copied into it. He's a prof at Williams who has worked on ROBLOX. His CV is here [[10]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shedletsky (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't make it a reliable source as to the website's notability. Corvus cornix_talk 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the articles you've started, you don't know anything about online games. So what's it to you? How did you happen to come across this page? I'm suspicious that you may actually be a competitor who has ulterior motives here, or some other vested interest that you have not disclosed. --Shedletsky (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way to assume good faith. I never even heard of Roblox until I saw this edit, which violated Wikipedia's copyright rules, and so I removed the edit and read the article, at which point there were no reliable sources, I went looking for some and couldn't find any, that's when I did the AfD. I have nothing to do with computer games or any other vested interest, as you would have been able to tell by looking at my edit history. Corvus cornix_talk 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please remember that when engaging in debates to assume good faith and not make personal attacks. Additionally, please note that knowledge of the subject does not restrict an ability to analyse the content of the article to meet Wikipedia's policies for submission. The references listed in this AfD fall short of what is required as a reliable source. Sources should be from third-party organisations unrelated to the subject. Please see WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N for more information. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know the whole article has no refrences because I wrote almost the whole article myself. B y the way, the user above me, Sheldsky, is actually the game developer. And I know he isnt an imposter because he was the one to create the article on Roblox. Anyways, I wrote the whole article using my own game knoledge, so I dont know anyway to give a refence to that. But after I wrote it, many people decided to vandalize it and change the article into a stub. But I digress, I dont know how to refrence the article, and I cant find 3rd party sources. --Briguy9876 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QED. Corvus cornix_talk 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. You wrote "Keep" up front, but then proceeded to point out that the article has potential issues with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability. Pagra shtak 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Isn't this a full on admission that the article is not-notable, original research, with a conflict of interest, and totally unverifiable? Holy smokes. This is practically a textbook case for a deletion-worthy article. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that there Aren't any reliable third -party sources. Most are so tiny they dont help, or they were written by another user, such as this article now and the biggest one on Great Games Experiment. I know that I said that I wrote it, butI said Keep becuase there arent any 3rd party sources that can create the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what would YOU consider a "reliable" source, Corvus Cornix?

Have you read WP:RS? Corvus cornix_talk 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, you might as well delete half the articles on this site. --69.210.112.167 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself, Corvus. The article has alot of authors. And what you dont know, is that about 80% of those edits didnt help the article at all,and 15 of the rest were minor. Now, I say this because thats alot of vandalism, for something that has hardly any media attention, nor has lot of 3rd party sources. THats why I say for the article to keep, purly because the game is popular,and the article is popular, so removing it would be bad in my eyes. --Briguy9876 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ROBLOX Has over 300,000 members, but isn't allowed to have a wiki article? I guess ROBLOX doesn't have many 3rd party things, but it is new and hasn't yet had time to collect such things. It is growing rapidly, and if you delete it now it will be ready to be re-made very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.120.40 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — 70.177.120.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Correction You can't vote "strong keep" and admit that the article cannot be supported by 3rd party resources. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THeres just one more thing that we can point out: Since the few 3rd-party sources we do have gives enough info to make a stub , cant we at least save the article and turn it into a stub IF we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask the people for deleting this page what would constitute all those rules (not-notable, original research, with a conflict of interest, and totally unverifiable) in the context of an online game? I'm not exactly sure how someone would go about finding a strong source that would support all this. Things like magazines and books generally don't include things about online games. In addition, how could we verify that the facts were true? I can understand how Wikipedia needs to know it has factual information, but the simple fact is, we lack that material. But does that mean we shouldn't exist until someone decides to write a book about it? Palmfreak (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement of verifiability is not negotiable. Corvus cornix_talk 01:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to negotiate. I am simply asking for clarification. Palmfreak (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another source: http://connollyshaun.blogspot.com/2008/02/roblox-redux.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmfreak (talk • contribs) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will repeat. Have you read WP:RS? Blogs are not reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 01:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment People voting keep are admitting this article breaks every rule and still vote to keep it. The rules are not context sensitive. The rules for notability, reliable research, verifiability, and neutral point of view apply to all articles regardless of whether it's politics, movies, history, or games. Game articles aren't compared to each other. Game articles are compared to Napoleon. If you want to create a wiki for a random online flash game, there are other gamer exclusive wikis with much lower standards than wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Alright, I know, I know. But there comes a point when the tide is high enough to lift the boat past the WP:IAR threshold, and I think this is one. No, there aren't any third-party, independent, published sources that I can find, and yes, the article should be edited to conform to POV standards. But ... we're talking a subject that has over 800 unique Google hits [11], and that's huge; by contrast, "United States of America" has only 930. Plainly there's a significant buzz out there. RGTraynor 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, we can't write an article without verifiability, and we can't have verifiability without third-party sources. How do you propose to overcome this? Pagra shtak 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe external traffic stats would help? We're somewhere around the 30000th most visited site on the internet, according to compete.com and alexa. For comparison, any number above 10000 would be considered a "hit". [Compete.com Roblox Rank ~35000th] [Alexa.com Roblox Rank ~25000th] --Shedletsky (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to be addressing notability (although please note that notability is distinct from popularity). I'm talking about verifiability. Pagra shtak 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright, I'll bite. Let's concede that the article needs to be trimmed dramatically (as it would were there a dozen copper-bottomed sources). Beyond that, what do you challenge? That the game exists? The basics of what the game is about? That it plainly has a lot of people interested in it? That it sports a respectable Alexa rank? WP:RS does not forbid (and, indeed, concedes) that self-published sources can be used for certain elements. Plainly some of the elements are sourceable: the existence of the corporation, that it is rated "E," for example. RGTraynor 19:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Would game reviews by prominent websites/rating sites work? 63.204.151.5 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        For sure. That's exactly what a reliable third party source is. So long as the website was prominent and it wasn't just a user generated review, it would establish notability, and provide verifiable information about the game. Randomran (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RG, I'm not challenging anything, I'm simply stating that we can't write an article if there are no reliable third-party sources. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In your keep statement you say you can't find any third-party sources, so I'm asking you to justify your statement against Wikipedia:Verifiability. Pagra shtak 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. That you don't like my rationale is plain, but I'm not going fishing for another one just because of that. RGTraynor 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above delete !votes. While I'm of the opinion that WP should allow for more articles than it does, unless reliable, secondary, sources can be found, this article fails the policies of verifiability and reliable sources. And just my opinion, but 25k Alexa is nothing. --Izno (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability via verifiable reliable sources independent of the topic. Agree with Izno that 25k Alexa isn't really that impressive. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Deleteall. Tyrenius 23:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polmont F.C.[edit]

Fictitious team; believe me, if they were a real team, I would know. Also no such league as the League of Polmont. Keeno 11:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are about the fictitious league and national association with which Polmont FC is associated:

League of Polmont
Polmont Football Association

Delete. It does exist, see [12] but it fails on notability anyway, Also suspect much of article is nonsense. --Richhoncho 12:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all part nn village football, part hoax Oldelpaso 13:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Even if any of this was true, it ocmpletely non-notable. - fchd 14:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Fails WP:ORG and WP:V, even if not WP:HOAX. --Satori Son 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as WP:OR. Sandstein (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Theory of Natural Systems[edit]

Let us just say "original research" and leave it at that for this long article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly OR. Nakon 22:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An excellent example of original research. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. GlassCobra 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Makes me wonder if this isn't a paper submitted at uni. PRasmussen (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Will Geist might like to know of fora that cover this topic - comments on the talk page please. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete . Sandstein (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Ballestrini[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Doesn't seem to be a notable singer. Only sources are unreliable (myspace), primary, or trivial. She has not charted a single yet, and hasn't released an album yet either -- nor has she done anything else that meets WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was previously deleted back in September too. Oh yeah, and I realized that it says she charted on the Music Row chart, but that seems to be a small indie chart, even if it is national in scope. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, possibly speedy as re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. While she has been listed on a chart, it doesn't seem a particular noteworthy one. Beyond that, though, there's no indication in any sources I can see that indicate she passes MUSIC. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not on a notable label, no chart history. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, there's not much there there. The source most frequently cited is a local bi-monthly free promotional paper, the so-called "Music Row country chart" has a pathetic thirteen unique Google hits [13], leaving one to wonder how and by whom this "chart" is tabulated, the label is only a year old and I could find not much in the way of albums to its credit. Beyond that, could this be a previously deleted article? The creator is an SPA for whom this article and related ones is the sole Wikipedia activity, but while this article was created in March, there was an image of Ballestrini uploaded by the creator in August 2007. RGTraynor 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Music Row is a country music chart. MusicRow.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.183.234 (talk) — 76.18.183.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Strong Keep:~~ It is a great article. The Music Row chart isn't a big chart, but it is still a chart, and people still listen to those radio stations. She does have over 5 million views on her Myspace page, so people may wonder or want to know more about her, and they may search her on Wikipedia. I say definitly keep. —Preceding unsigned

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FK Makedonija 1970 Berlin[edit]

Non-notable local football club which doesn't appear to be involved with anything that would pass WP:N. PeterSymonds | talk 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 22:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 04:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FK Makedonija 1970 is a traditional football club in the multiethnic municipality Kreuzberg of Berlin and is the second oldest football club in Berlin founded by immigrants (first being Türkspor, established in 1969). so it is a notable football club. Cukiger (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not a professional club; thus it is not notable. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No policy states that only fully professional clubs are notable, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of articles on WP on semi-pro teams, however this seems to be a really low-level completely amateur team, whose only supposed claim to fame is that they were not quite the first German team to be founded by immigrants........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 17:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would help if we knew what the 'Jugoliga' was - that would make deciding this team's notability a lot easier. I haven't found anything on Google yet. Bettia ^(talk) 15:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the name I would estimate that it is a local league run by immigrants from the former Yugoslavia. Giant Snowman 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the article specifically states "The league was established by Yugoslavian expatriates and collapsed when that country broke up." It's not very surprising that Google turns up nothing on a local recreational league which folded over a decade ago ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as a non notable band. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilizer (Music Breakbeat UK)[edit]

Seemingly non-notable music group. Because of the name, I had trouble looking for sources, but the searching I did turned up nothing. Further, the article's external link redirects to some other artist's page. GlassCobra 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. --neonwhite user page talk 03:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

York Central Ball Hockey League[edit]

Article purports to be about a non-notable league, however the contents reflect a particular team. Team name is a hard search due to Shoeless Joe, but amid false positives there's no evidence of the team's notability either. Claims, yes. Evidence, no. Creator is an SPA with a COI. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no references, article even has a slight POV. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable league, seems like a hoax to me. I've heard of Sydney Crosby's jersey, never heard of Rob Berenguer's jersey which is surprising if Rob's jersey is selling #2 next to only Sydney's. Sure it is. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not a hoax, but we're talking a local beer league. Fails WP:ORG going away. RGTraynor 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well that would explain Shoeless Merchandise was flying off the shelves & with great reason. "Paolo Pannozzo", "Rob Berenguer", "Anthony Notarfonzo" & "Steve Celebre" jerseys became every kid's stocking stuffer. In fact Rob Berenguer's jersey was # 2 worldwide in Sales next to Sydney Crosby's of the NHL. , someone was drunk. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no sources, unverifiable, POV, OR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as non-notable. Feel free to create a redirect to a "List of minor characters in..." article, that's how we usually deal with such articles. Nothing sourced to merge here, though. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Weser[edit]

Fictional character without evidence of notability given; article is entirely unsourced. Tagged with ((notability)) since February 2007; redirected to article of broader scope in November 2007; redirect deleted per CSD in March 2008, but later restored; reverted to full article in April 2008. I'm sending it here to sort the matter out. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge into Left Behind series article. Renee (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable character in a NY Times bestseller book. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable character in real world terms. Merge per Renee. JuJube (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Left Behind (series). No claim of real world notability in article; non-wiki ghits aren't coming up with notability. Valid search term, so redirect. --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Google returns about 140 outside of Wikipedia which appear to be only passing mentions. Very unlikely that notability can be established or that real-world context can be provided. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Mother is a Tractor[edit]

Completely non-notable vanity-press book. The author paid for publication through the notorious Canadian vanity press, Trafford. Google kicks up only blogs, author's own website, and wikimirrors. Utterly fails WP:BK. And this is also very disturbing: Someone with an Australian ISP has been going around adding wikilinks about this book to a weirdly wide variety of articles: [14]. The book's author lives in Australia. Hmm. Now someone will have to volunteer to go through all of those articles and remove his awful spam. I'm going to start on it now. Qworty (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paper45tee (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity-press book from a non-notable author. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not from the folks who brought you My Mother the Car Mandsford (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the title gave me some laughs, there's zero evidence of notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to assert the notability of the book; while it doesn't bother me that it's published via a vanity press, it does bother me that there's nothing written about it outside of blogs and the author's own website. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Herostratus (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N in every way imaginable. ArcAngel (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author notes: I was directed to this page for comment. If you choose to delete, fine. I know I cannot stand in the way of a tidal wave of wiki opinion but just wanted to add some notes.

I'm originally from Australia but have not lived there for 8 years, hence those edits are the work of whoever - but not me. Upon checking Qworty's link I see they were added on June 6, 2006 - one of the busiest weeks of my year (exam week in Shanghai).
It may be self-published but, if you follow the Amazon sales, it's usually only outsold by "Learning to Bow" in the pantheon of 'JET' books.
Notability does not seem to matter much to Indiana University and Dokkyo University who utilise it as a standard text in courses WP:BK - Point 4
It's archived by both the National Diet Libary (Japan) and Library and Archives (Canada) WP:BK#Threshold_standards
This book has been independently reviewed by Japan Visitor, The Crazy Japan Times, Rocky Mountain JETAA and Rough Guide Japan WP:BK - Point 1
As for personal non-nobility that's not in question here, and neither would I ever assert it - although some have alluded to it. FYI I have had other work published in major media such as The Japan Times, Shanghai Daily, Fukuoka-Now, Asia! and Voyage.
Lastly if anyone have ever written a book one would realise the path of 'vanity press' is much easier one to tread than the continual slog of agents and publishing houses. Qworty obviously doesn't like POD/"Vanity Press' Talk:Trafford_Publishing and has deleted all other references without waiting for judgement here, so one must presume deletion a fait accompli

Given the last point I have therefore I saved a copy now as a last hurrah, expecting the worst. Good evening ladies/gents and good luck. Comment added by Nklar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 01 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Nklar has posted this commentary to a number of us !voters here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. I think we get his point TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You mean, there has been s p a m m i n g ??? Somehow I find that hard to believe... Qworty (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The funny thing? I've read his book and it is a good one about the teaching life in Japan, however it's just not notable. If we weren't being spammed, I'd probably quite like a conversation with the author TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks like we can converse with him on nine different pages. It's considerate of him to make it so easy. Qworty (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Got your message Qworty and apologies to all above - I'm not really familiar with how wiki works. I saw entries on people's pages and presumed that's how it's done. The curse of a newbieNklar (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ann Catholic Church (Bartlett, Tennessee)[edit]

Coverage limited to false positives and events (weddings, funerals, etc.) that took place at the church. Sole claim of being one of the largest in the area, is dubious notability. Churches tend not to be notable and this is no exception. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, individual local churches are generally not notable unless they have some exceptional reason to be. No evidence this one does. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. If we keep this article, we might as well have an article for every church and religious building in the world Ijanderson977 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep per consensus. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seung-Hui_Cho[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Does not meet the standard of WP:BLP1E, as the subject of the article has no notable accomplishments other than his involvement with the Virginia Tech massacre. From the policy, noted in multiple situations (including from Wikipedia legal and ArbCom cases) as being key to the project: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ONEEVENT was intended to keep people who do silly and stupid things out of the encyclopedia, not mass murderers who receive international coverage. Again and again we have these forced rituals. Why? --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep through WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The massive media coverage of the VTech shooting definitely ensures that Cho, the central figure, gets an article. Easily passes WP:BIO. GlassCobra 21:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-referenced and far too long to be merged into the main article. We should avoid glorifying this person, obviously, but deleting the article would do more harm than good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I know that there are people who are concerned that we are somehow "honoring" a murderer if an article is written about that person, but sometimes people want to know more about Lee Harvey Oswald or Charles Manson or Seung-Hui Cho and they look in an encyclopedia for the answer. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. He is not only the purporter of the biggest school shooting, but is responsible for the biggest single handed shooting spree in United States history. Reliable sources thus cover him in more than one context. WilliamH (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-sourced biography of someone who is undisputably notably. The driving force behind WP:BLP1E is to ensure that articles on living persons are NPOV compliant, and don't give undue weight to one event. However, in this case, we have a substantial amount of biographical information that lets us say more than "this person went on a shooting spree". Bfigura ^(talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keeep. Subject is ridiculously notable. Even though most of his notability can be tied to one event, there is a lot of coverage about the subject beyond the simple acts that he did; i.e, his history, psychological issues, etc. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable, the perpatrator of the worst school shooting in US history and linked from a featured article, as well as mentioned internationally should have an article. ~A H1^(TCU) 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep. If Seung-Hui Cho is not notable, then let's delete John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and everyone else who is primarily limited to one single incident of crime. While not every criminal perpetrating every major incident is notable, sometimes the personality behind the incident is such that notability becomes established. The coverage of Cho, with his behavior and his psychological issues, established his notability. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone, and also because I think it's dangerous to read our policy on biographies of living people as applying to content on people that aren't, you know, living. Maxa megalon 2000 05:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If his article was short, he could be considered to be merged back into the VT shooting page. But his article is not short, it is also not bad (quite the opposite), so this article should obviously be kept. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete, whole article was a copyvio added by one user.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Anne's Church, Corstorphine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St Anne's Church, Corstorphine

Non-notable local church lacking sources required for WP:ORG. Also copyvio of somewhere "we can observe" but I can't find the source -- only partially from here TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there probably are sources in the architectural press. Anyway, the real problem is that the text is copied from this, the kirk's website. That won't do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion as a blatant copyvio of http://www.stannescorstorphine.org.uk/history.html and http://www.stannescorstorphine.org.uk/history2.html Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Doric[edit]

This is a non-notable artist who's exhibited his work in a handful of places but whose real "claim to fame" is that he once made some collages, then paid the notorious Canadian vanity press, Trafford, to publish a book of them. Clearly, these are not the qualifications for a notable article, as he fails WP:BIO and his vanity book fails WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no sources.Renee (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the choice of a book's printer/vanity publisher should be a consideration unless the work is being presented as anything other than self published. Significant references or reviews by mainstream or (more likely) reputable industry/trade pubs meeting WP:RS would contribute to establishing notability for this person, but how the book got published shouldn't matter unless it's notable in itself. However, as Qworty says, there are no independent published sources (at least none easily found online) to establish artist's notability. Flowanda | Talk 01:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable so far. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NES-on-a-chip[edit]

Prod contested by anonymous IP without leaving a reason. Non-notable piece of electronics; unverifiable article. Chardish (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some better sources can be found. They probably can, but I don't see them. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If this gets deleted, can someone userify it for me? Also, If there were an article about CMOS console remakes, this would belond there. It doesn't appear to me to be the case. If someone has a better search string or knows where the article is, it belongs there. Some of those remakes truly are notable (although the ones I'm thinking of literally encompass more than one chip and so might not count). Protonk (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stiven Petruševski[edit]

Non-notable footballer, has never played for a professional side and therefore fails the notability guides for sportsmen. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. On a side note, is the club he plays for even notable? GiantSnowman 21:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline, and Google comes up with little but local details. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FK Makedonija 1970 Berlin. PeterSymonds | talk 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NOTE and WP:BLP. PeterSymonds | talk 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete player fails WP:Bio#Athletes --Jimbo^[online] 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 16:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes, WP:N and WP:BLP

Delete per nom. BanRay 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Can we find any references to back up these Honours? Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Championships of extremely minor youth leagues won when the player was as little as 7 years old? I doubt it very much. And somehow I don't think that having won such honours would qualify him as notable anyway. And if it does, I'm going to create an article on my workmate's son whose team just won the town under-11s championship..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Sole delete preference was WP:PERNOM, topic has non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Skomorokh 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeveloped Buffy the Vampire Slayer spinoffs[edit]

Fails WP:FICT as these are all proposed spin-offs that never were actually developed. Seems more a page for rumors and what ifs than encyclopedic content. Mostly sourced from various Buffy fansites and other unreliable sources. The two notable ones already have main articles that could be mentioned in summary style in the main Buffy article without this extra step. Collectonian (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned above - Chardish (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while there are some sources to fansites which should be better-sourced if possible, sourcing also includes such solidly reliable sources as TV Guide and the BBC. I don't agree that the article amounts to "rumors and what ifs." Otto4711 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only part sourced from TV Guide is the Spike movie, which would be better served as being a short paragraph in his article as part of his reception section. Collectonian (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the parts sourced to the BBC include parts of the Ripper section and the SLayer School section. Other sources seem reasonably reliable as well. Otto4711 (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be notable Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as organized, notable, and well-referenced article. The topic as a whole is covered in published sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is perfectly notable. Dismissing established sites that contain direct, detailed quotes from the people involved as 'unreliable' is unwarranted. These are clearly more than rumours (a significant amount of work has gone into several of the potential spinoffs).Further references could be added (e.g. today's BBC interview with Head contains a new reference to 'Ripper'). Rdwperl (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as not notable per WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOT#NEWS. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Goosey[edit]

He has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:ATHLETE as there's no evidence he's ever played at the fully professonal level and he is of 'local fame' TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:ATHLETE is only a guideline, but you could argue his contribution to his field is "enduring" and as you say there are some RS. As a football fan on the other side of the country I know who he is, so it's not just local fame.The-Pope (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was a direct quote from the article, "Mornington Football Club in the Mornington Peninsula Nepean Football League of local fame for having kicked over 1,500 goals including 10 seasons" (emphasis added) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semi-pro footballer at best. Never played in any fully professional competition. The rather overblown comparison to Gary Ablett is risible. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE as not being a professional player, and the sources provided about him aren't especially compelling. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep, although he fails WP:ATHLETE, the guideline there is meant for us to figure out when we can be lazy, and presume the person notable, even if it has not been shown WP:N is met. There are however several mentions in newspapers, and though most are trivial mentions, I believe this just scrapes by WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Mattinbgn & Lankiveil. Five Years 11:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was The result was delete as non notable. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC). Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Playa (wrestler)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Playa (wrestler) (2nd nomination)

Non-notable wrestler with only two references. iMatthew 2008 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources appear to exist. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with the others, there is no assertion of notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third-Party reference included. He is mentioned near the bottom of the article, which was published by The Herald (South Africa). Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a TV listing page, that is not a good third party source. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find any sources establishing his notability. Multiple searches have turned up nothing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Nikki311 22:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalahari Boerboel (wrestler)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kalahari Boerboel (wrestler) (2nd nomination)

Non-notable wrestler with one reference. iMatthew 2008 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any independent sources, never mind any reliable ones. Also, article doesn't assert notability. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tried a variety of searches, but I haven't managed to find any information at all. Notability is not established. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Nikki311 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. While it's difficult to call two opinions a consensus, I agree that the policies and guidelines referred to in the opinions are applicable and persuasive in this case. Also, while certainly not grounds for deletion, the almost complete lack of third party WP:V sources after over a year and a half of development is also a factor. Pigman☿ 04:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ba Sing Se[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article was previously nominated for deletion, but was kept with no consensus. I believe the article should still be deleted. Though, as some users argued, the article discusses some notable points with relation to the show (Avatar: The Last Airbender), this article is way too detailed. When only a short summary would suffice, whole sections are dedicated to encyclopedic information. For instance, there is a three-paragraph section dedicated to the royal palace, when only one-paragraph describing what happened in the royal palace would suffice. In addition, the article is nowhere near properly sourced. In fact, it could be argued that there is a lot of synthesized original research in the article (though I will not particularly make this accusation, as I have not fully analyzed the article).

To place what I just said in better terms: A lot of the article does not fall under WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:FICTION; A lot of the article does fall under WP:DUE; There are few reliable sources and even fewer third-party sources; The article might have some WP:SYNTH. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Avatar: The Last Airbender WikiProject has been notified of this discussion. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article absolutely fails WP:PLOT and WP:FICTION. There are two pieces of sourced real world content, neither of which provides real world context for Ba Sing Se without violating WP:SYNTH. One of the sources is about real world China and makes no mention of Avatar. Making the claim that the two are directly connected is original research. The other bit of real world content is about Avatar as a whole, which does not justify an separate article under WP:N. In this case not only are we lacking sources with sufficient real world content about Ba Sing Se, we're lacking sources that even mention Ba Sing Se. The rest of the article is overly detailed plot, so there's no point in a merge. Jay32183 (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Tape[edit]

prod request disputed. Notability concerns per WP:Music being a mixtape Wolfer68 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources. None provided, none found. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Can Get Them for You Wholesale (film)[edit]

There just aren't enough sources to write an article on this film. We can't evaluate it through reviews, we can't provide context, all we can have is the limited information which is here. If you've seen the film, you know more than we do. If you haven't see the film, we can't tell you anything about it which doesn't amount to advertising. Hiding T 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to We Can Get Them for You Wholesale, the source material of which this appears to be a non-notable adaptation. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The info was added to that article but consensus was it was extraneous. It was then that a separate article was created. Do we include information on all adaptations of works in an article on that work? Hiding T 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, thanks for (not) mentioning that previous discussion (which, such as it is, appears to be no more than two comments by the same unregistered editor). If consensus is against a merge, that's fine by me, but it was a reasonable thing to suggest. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My apologies for forgetting to mention that in the nom. I hope you accept that it simply slipped my mind. Yes, there was one anon, but I took silence of other editor's self included, to indicate assent for the removal. I may be wrong in that assumption, granted. You test consensus best through asserting it. Hiding T 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to have been made by an amateur film company [15] and brings up no results on google other than this Wikipedia page. (Note that there are results on the short story that the film is based on.) Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was struggling to find an IMDb entry for this when I tided it up, and based on comments above it doesn't seem to be notable. Or redirect, as also mentioned above. Lugnuts (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of stand-alone notability. Wouldn't be opposed to a brief mention at the short story's Wikipedia article, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable minor project which hasn't received significant coverage. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 16:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hattingh[edit]

Non-notable, no external sites, Google search turns up a MySpace page... 21 655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links added by Eastmain. Still NN? 21 655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 00:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem notable. Not much more I can say. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:COI Derek Andrews (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article about an individual that doesn't contain any personal information doesn't meet WP:RS, I think. This seems to be a coatrack for his companies. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as COI/OR. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found some external links and added them, but I'm still not very happy with the article. --Eastmain (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. I don't think the source of any of those links or references are sufficiently removed from the subject to be independent or notable. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per earlier comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a bit of a no-brainer to be honest. I myself am an internationally published poet. Who isn't? GetDownAdam (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I'm not. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy-sounding fluff w/ no sources to back it up. -- Naerii 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tagged it for WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck murphy[edit]

Seems non-notable, as far as I'm concerned. 75% of the links are red. 21 655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof of notability. Nick Graves (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The way I see it: The guy is a non-notable person who is the creator of two non-notable websites/companies. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know if the company might be notable -- I tend to doubt it -- but an article about an individual that doesn't have any personal information about that individual doesn't meet WP:RS or WP:N. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Chuck is non-notable. ~~Redirect to Charlie Murphy.~~ Nick Graves (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is Charlie Murphy actually known as Chuck, or is that just an assumption? --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just being goofy. Nick Graves (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smartwebs is marginally notable and Murphy could be covered in a future article on his start-up, but he isn't individually notable. Also, Geogre's Law applies. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, probably could have non-controversially speedy deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Red links aren't a deletion reason. (No opinion on the notability). --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, if most of the projects this guy's been involved with are red links, that does seem to support the presumption that he is non-notable. Nick Graves (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle Laverne Grinds[edit]

I do not believe the article passes the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. The minimal notability is strictly connected to the unusual aspects of the subject’s death. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Signficiant coverage in multiple, reliable sources is needed. I don't see that here. Nick Graves (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overall, she just makes the mark for notability, but the parts of the article that make it notable have no sources. Seems a bit far-fetched, though if there are sources anything is possible (well, almost anything). — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only reason people would look this up is because her unusual death inspired a scene from Nip/Tuck otherwise I believe this needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belazekial (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Cheryl Sarate. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 12:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylloc Server[edit]

This article does not state it's importance whatsoever, or any kind of encyclopedic relevance. Tigerclaw81 (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't it go speedy? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention whatsoever of any notability at all. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Just forget the AfD, this article falls under WP:CSD#A1. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. It should go to AFD, because we know what the article is talking about. The only question is whether the subject is notable enough or not to deserve its own article. Gary King (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear notable enough to deserve its own article, per WP:N. I could not find any reliable sources that covers the subject. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article was less than 20 minutes old when it was AfDed and included ((underconstruction)) when they created it. The odds are extremely high that they plan to expand it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I'm with JeremyMcCracken. I've never personally heard of this and I don't personally know if it's notable. But a quick google shows the topic is at least legitimate. It's not pushing an agenda or an advertisement or a POV. You could have waited at least a few weeks before trying deletion, if not a few months... no? Let the creator of the article have his/her chance to make it work. Randomran (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As per Gazimoff. I don't want to stonewall this one. Randomran (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After giving the article a fair amount of time, I've done a search for sources and can't find anything to help with notability. Article appears to be an entry for a quite mundane game server. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Penny Game[edit]

Non-notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. — ERcheck (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable game. There are 11 unique Google results and none is relevant except for this Wikipedia article. ... discospinster _talk 17:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, not even claiming to being anything other than a game someone made up at one school. Don't understand why it's not a speedy. Canthusus (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NOT. No signficiant coverage proving notability. Nick Graves (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, another game made up in school one day. Delete. - Chardish (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't for non-notable games made up in school one day. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NFT. I believe this has already been deleted once - speedy or otherwise. Booglamay (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's here, and use title as a redirect to Two-up which is a notable game sometimes called "the two penny game". Grutness...wha? 00:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, I used to play exactly this game when I was at school, so (at the risk of committing an act of original research) I can verify that this was not in fact invented in 1996. AndyJones (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont sports network[edit]

Notability. Website has Alexa rank > 1M. — ERcheck (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creator is new editor whose edits solely revolve around promoting VSN. — ERcheck (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Fritzl[edit]

The result was Keep, closed early per WP:SNOW. Notability is clearly established by the massive international coverage of this case. There may at some point be a case for renaming the article, but that does not require an AFD decision, and there is clearly a strong consensus to keep this article. Discussion of any proposed merger or renaming should take place on the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP, subject's only claim to notability is being the victim of an alleged sexual crime. Yes, it's published in major papers, but out of respect for the dignity of the victim, I'm recommending Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If this goes, there are plenty more to remove (including Kampusch and pretty much all pages related to criminals and their victims)CreamCrackers (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, WP:BLP1E is a long outdated guideline. Wikipedia in actual fact is a newspaper amongst many other things. By now, all the things lots of oldtimers have listed wikipedia "is not", would mean we would soon have to delete about a million articles, including Natascha Kampusch. ephix (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above/WP:BIO1E. Until this deletion happens, I've added the ((current)) tag. Booglamay (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is already being compared to the Natascha Kampusch case. The article will just have to be recreated in a few days. This is much more than an alleged "sexual crime". HtD (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can't believe this has been nominated for deletion when there is an article on Kampusch on Wikipedia. Unless there is an influx of similar stories, this needs to be kept. If it must be deleted then we will need to delete Natascha Kampusch as well. And the article on Priklopil. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a lead story throughout the world. --Tocino 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article on the event. The existence of one article (NK) is not a reason for the existence of another. Kampusch has gone on from the kidnapp event to perform other media roles which are worthy of documentation. If, in the future, Fritzl does this then no doubt she will get an article. Furthermore it has emerged that there are other people who were kept in the house; Elisabeth may not yet turn out to be the most prominent person within this story. --Pretty Green (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being at least and see how things develop. This is no different in many ways than other articles which detail miseries that have happened to various people.I think this may be best served with an article about the event rather than the person but we can see what happens as things develop. To suggest deleting it on the grounds of respect for the victim would be akin to asking the various media covering the event to stop reporting it and to purge their archives. I know it's not Wikipedia's job to act as a news agency but this event is likely to be examined or studied in future, so I believe there is merit in recording it here. IrishPete (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep/merge. May best be rewritten into an article that covers a chronological history of the event more than the person, but deleting this content certainly isn't going to bring us any closer to that goal. For the time being, it should be kept, at least until something substantive can be written regarding the event. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E, privacy concerns, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, etc. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There are many crime victims who have articles on this site (see Kidnapped Children, Hostages, Kidnappings, among others) whose notability is derived from being a victim, and this one is no exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILuvTea (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe iprtance depends on the crime. go read the article. DGG (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -- It is important for others to be aware of what is going on. As someone already mentioned, there are plenty of other crime victims stories published on Wikipedia, why should this one be any different?
Strong MERGE The particular event is notable and deserving of inclusion in a larger article on kidnappings, etc. This particular article is WP:BLP1E. 75.1.243.237 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge , maybe keep as is, but certainly don't delete. This is comparable to Kampusch's situation. Noble Story (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This even is especially notable due to its comparisons with the Kampusch story and the length of time involved versus the Kampusch story (24 years of captivity versus 8 years along with her children being held captive as well). There will be many more details revealed in the coming days and it is beat to keep this article on it's own so there is a coherent place to put all the information. Merge can be discussed later (though I believe even after all the facts come out this story deserves it's own entry). Diemunkiesdie (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Taking aim at the first call for deletion, there are a lot of other people listed in Wikipedia who's main claim to fame is that something happened to them. And they should be here. This is an encyclopedia. It should be as inclusive as possible, as the aim is to provide information. We should not judge the information we provide as to it's worthiness to be included, but only on it's accuracy and readability, and any judgment on either should only be made with the aim of improving the article. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For now. I am all for deleting articles which are merely a news item, but this is one of the most bizarre stories of the late 20th/early 21st century. The nominator grossly misstates the facts by claiming it is merely a one time sex crime. It is alleged incest over a 24 year period of imprisonment, probably a world's record. It has had widespread coverage so far. If it is deleted as a mere current hot news story, and it turns out to have the long lasting significance it seems to have, we could certainly re-create it. Defies belief. And the alleged imprisoner's wife had NO IDEA there was anything hinky going on. Edison (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to let you know, I understand the enormity of the crime we're talking about. My objection is that (a) the story is less than 24 hours old, and (b) we don't have any real standards for inclusion based on type or magnitude of crime involved. I know it's newsworthy and it's attracted a lot of attention, but then so did the Corey Delaney article (which caused no end of drama. I decided to play it safe and recommend deletion, and I stand by my reasoning. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BIO1E is not really relevant, this article is about an event, not a person. It just happens the person's name is the best name for the article. SeanCollins (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I would consider a move to Joseph Fritzl, given there are numerous victims and only one perpetrator. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Also I do wish folks would be so considerate as to cut out the insider jargon that permeates pages such as these. WP:BLP1E? WP:BIO1E? Whatever happened to plain English? Peripatetic (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, a) it's tiresome to type out "biographics of living persons who are known for only one event" every time, b) it's a wikilink so people can figure it out if so inclined, and c) Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can read, Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! states that it is best to avoid using too many acronyms, and isn't a justification to use more. I know that Articles for Deletion isn't the ideal place for new members of the community to begin, but we could probably do more to help make this easier to understand, especially when the deletion notice is (currently) as big as the entire article. --Stozball (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is good practice to type out an acronym in full, with the acronym in brackets, on the first use in an article. This isn't too painful, it assists those who may not know (and shouldn't have to look up), and is general practice in all 'serious' writing. And it's good manners, too, unless you wish to discourage new active mebers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heenan73 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A point- I would recommend always wikilinking these (e.g. type [[WP:BLP1E]] rather than simply BLP1E). These are already wikilinked at the top Peripatetic, so follow those links to see what the posters are referring to. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E. Also, the names are not published in most news papers, as far as I can see. mabahj 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep and consider the possibility of renaming the article so that it clearly is about the crime, and not about one of the victims. There are after all, at least eight more people involved in this bizarre story. The relevant inclusion policy here is more likely to be NOTNEWS than BLP1E, but even NOTNEWS does not rule out the possibility of articles on current events. (NOTNEWS mentions "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", something this is not.) Apart from the very horrific circumstances which has turned this case into a major news story, the case also has called into question the role of authorities which should have stopped this, so it's an event with a significant aftermath and investigation. Clearly, care should be taken to write the article in a conservative, and non-sensationalist manner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this article is deleted, then the all articles on people who have been imprisoned and abused should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.168.104 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the nomination, and its worth discussing. But as an internet based encyclopedia, some times the speed at which we can react to news and create an article, which against definded standrads may seem trivial; needs to be judged against other similar stories and then reviewed after a bit of time. This potential scale of this one needs a bit more time before it can be reviewed properly. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. meets notability criteria in spades. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:BLP1E is irrelevant here, except as an argument to rename into the name of the story rather than the ame of one individual involved. But the affair - to my knowledge - does not really have a name.--Noe (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we wrap up this discussion? Can we remove the deletion tag from the page, based on the rather strong majority of keeps above, and the lack of specific suggestions of something to merge with or rename to?--Noe (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Amstetten kidnap case of 2008, as a specific suggestion. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really suitable as the alleged case took place over 24 years and only came to light in 2008, so to have a year in the title would be misleading. Also not so much a kidnapping as an imprisonment. Perhaps The Fritzl Case‎ would be better. But this alleged crime began with the alleged imprisonment of Elisabeth, so I think it's the best place to start. We can look at merging later once more facts are known. HtD (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second User:Noe's suggestion. Merging it to Amstetten will be confusing a few years down the line so if anything that page should be merged into this one PRasmussen (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amstetten kidnap case of 2008--GazMan7 (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Other than plain old fashioned censorship, there is no basis for removal. It's not a nice story, but 'niceness' is not a useful editorial criterion.
Merge with Amstetten kidnap case of 2008 Tovojolo (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP absolutely! --78.54.65.59 (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under whatever title is appropriate for the case as a whole; we have a (now fully admitted) case of kidnap, confinement, incest, neglect, and who-knows-what-else over a 24-year period. In western Europe, people. Absolutely notable, to my mind. Radagast (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic case of Privacy of Names. Besides that, according to §7 Mediengesetz (Austrian Media Law), publishing such details can end in fines of up to 20000 EUR. --90.146.131.50 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then there are a lot of Austrian, British and other European media outlets that are going to be fined, not to mention the Austrian police who have released details of the alleged crime and confession! HtD (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is nothing more than a news event for now. If, in time, notability rises rather than falls, then we can evaluate a new article and consider what its title should be. Powers ^T 14:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a news story, not an encyclopedia topic. Deli nk (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly rename at some point. Half the things in Category:Kidnapped children were just "news stories" at one point.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP very relevant and valuable. --Mike551 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ack KleenupKrew [[User:A

The result was no consensus to delete defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Interested editors are invited to discuss a merge on the relevant talkpages. Skomorokh 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Moon[edit]

Seems marginal, especially for such a small part of his workl. I have already merged what he is "most notable for" into the Chand article, and that seems to work. The other two tidbits can probably be merged into the seperate articles as well. Seems marginal, and the subject requests deletion on otrs:1501807. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's a leading attorney in the largest Terrorism investigation in Canadian history, one which made headlines across the world - and was referenced by the administrations of both Tony Blair and George Bush as a grave threat and tremendous operation. He's not the attorney for one of the lackeys, he's the attorney for the alleged leader of a group that intended to storm Parliament, behead the Prime Minister and hold Cabinet members hostage until their demands were met - as well as purchasing Ammonium Nitrate to blow up various targets across Southern Ontario...the allegations may or may not be true, but it's certainly the equivilent of the "OJ Simpson" case - and the attorneys, whether they like it or not, are "public figures", especially the ones who speak to the media.

The article has seen 64 edits by 14 distinct users, including both Moon and Mubin Shaikh, and he's chosen to not only take this case, but involve himself in the Supreme Court hearing of Omar Khadr. Certainly not a non-notable lawyer we're dealing with.

Not that it matters, but if we are going to use an edit analysis for notability, lets do it properly.

User statistics for these edits: Number of users: 17 33.33% IP/anon edits (22 edit(s)) 62.12% other users (41 edit(s)) 3.03% administrator edits (2 edit(s)) 1.52% bot edits (1 edit(s)) Time range: 212 approximate day(s) of edits \|\| 212 approximate day(s) since first edit Most recent edit on: 12:28, 27 April 2008 Oldest edit on: 20:47, 28 September 2007 Current time: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:42:10 UTC Analysis: Notable edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0 edit(s)) Significant edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0% (0 edit(s)) Superficial edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 24.24% (16 edit(s)) 48.48% marked reverts (any) (32) 42.42% probable reverts of vandalism (28) Unmarked edits: 27.27% (18 edit(s)) Averages: 66.67% edit summary usage Average edits/user: 3.88 0.312 edit(s) per day (current) 0.312 edit(s) per day (since last active) 0.151 marked revert(s) per day (since last active) 1 : 0.94 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV) 40.91% edit progess (non-reverts/reverted edits) (27 edit(s)) 9.09% of edits by IP-only users are non-reverts/reverted (2 out of 22 edit(s))

Then we ought to include a piece in that article. I don't think this one is notable enough for an article based on the small amount of his work. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me exactly what point the nominator wanted us to conclude with these statistics, above. Geo Swan (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the above comment by Sherurcij, when s/he said The article has seen 64 edits by 14 distinct users. The point was, there is nothing to infer about these stats, they are meaningless. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "...but if we are going to use an edit analysis for notability, lets do it properly..." No offense, this does not look like an attempt to "do it properly". Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None taken. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The edit analysis means nothing, and should not be used in this debate. That was the point I wanted to make. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the "subject's request for deletion", he actually trolled WP and threatened to sue its "close-minded, ignorant Wiki-fascists", and has been blocked twice, and called the blocking admin a "closet fascist" who "wants to advance terror". He then proceeded to announce that he was reporting people who work on his article to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (Canada's version of the CIA).(evidence). Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does the subjects behavior on Wikipedia have to do with this deletion debate? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who said he "requested his article be deleted", I'm merely pointing out the context - this wasn't a polite "Excuse me, I believe this article should be deleted", it was a hyperbole-fuelled rant that led to him being blocked twice for threatening users and threatening legal action against WMF, as well as involving Canada's domestic spy agency...people who vote presumably deserve to know the context of his "request". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not pee in the water. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{this article has been included on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism}

Merge and redirect to 2006 Toronto terrorism case. Though it's a prominent case, his role is ultimately not as an actor but as an advocate, and almost all the sources are about the case rather than him. --Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, not to harrass you - but I want to point out that the majority of lawyers and judges who have articles on WP don't have articles "about them", but about the case in which they're involved. Whether it's Leonie Brinkema or Dennis Edney. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I don't see where this nomination suggests that this article violates any policies. Let's only nominate articles for deletion when they violate policy, OK? What troubles me about this nomination is that it seems to assume that merging related articles is a good idea. One of the most powerful features of modern hypertext systems, like the wikipedia is that they allow readers to wend their own path through the universe of human knowledge. Merging related articles, and then arbitrarily deleting some articles, is, IMO, a very grave disservice to readers. Nominator has no way of knowing whether readers go to the Moon article are going there because they are interested in Chand, or interested in Erhun Candir, or interested in his role in the Omar Khadr case, or interested in his article for himself. Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally include biographys on marginally notable people. A good way around this is to merge the article into the notable event, rather than have an article on a non notable person. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't merge them into other biographies. If a "non-notable person saved Mariah Carey from oncoming traffic", we wouldn't include an article on that person - but if a lawyer becomes a public figure in an international terrorism investigation, giving interviews to the media and such, he's certainly not "marginally notable". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Dhartung. Source 1 is about him but there's almost nothing there, like at 6. 5 doesn't even mention his name. I don't have access to 7 and 8, but from their titles they also don't seem to be about him. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-27t20:59z

Merge and redirect per Dhartung. If we keep it as is then I would have to question a lot of the articles that have been deleted about e.g. business people who have had a much wider ranging impact on the lives of people. This guy, in reality, has impact on the life of 1 person, who may, or may not, be the ringleader of a proposed terrorist attack, but that in itself cannot be considered enough to establish notability. PRasmussen (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see at least 4 major cases with great news coverage. Leading in such cases is what makes lawyers notable. DGG (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, insufficient sources independent of the investigation, subject requests deletion, WP:NOTEVIL. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Papadopoulos[edit]

Difficult to verify the assertions, and this one is marginal notable. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe I looked in the wrongs spots, but I failed to find coverage of the article's subject in a reliable, secondary source (or in a primary source, for that matter). fails WP:BIO. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very nearly a speedy as a non-notable biography. The closest thing I see here to an assertion of notability is that he's the "author of a number of legal articles", and that doesn't really say much - plenty of people have written and published papers, but relatively few of them are well-known for having done so, and Mr. Papadopoulos doesn't appear to be one of them. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability at all. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The notability depends on the articles, the number and importance. It cant be assumed from a Wikipedia bio like this that the work either is or is not significant, and I wouldn't be prepared to !vote without looking for myself. Actually looking, in this case in Google Scholar, as a preliminary, I find 4 or 5. (there are 3 as ssrn) There's an alternate form of the name: . Ioannis Papadopoulos - I don;'t think he's notable yet. As he apparently is 24 years old, that seems reasonable. DGG (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author had blanked page within a day of creating article, also fails WP:BIO. Paste (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classic film lines[edit]

An unencyclopaedic list which could never be comprehensive and could never be neutral depending as it does on subjective interpretations of what is "classic", "well-known", "iconic", "ironic" and "witty". Wikiquote exists for a reason. nancy ^(talk) 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exactly what the nom said. This list could never be comprehensive or neutral. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably written by someone new to Wikipedia, so I don't want to be too mean about this. One of the toughest concepts to handle for a newcomer is the bar against "original research", where one creates their own list of items, or comes up with their own theory. While it may seem like a harsh rule, it's one of the better ones here; if everybody compiled their own list of what they consider "classic" anything, the results would be widely different. Even if one were to quote from a published source of "classic film lines" (say, for instance, a top 100 compiled by Entertainment Weekly), it's not a very good topic. We encourage you to contribute. Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay on Wikipedia. Don't get too upset when this gets deleted, it's nothing personal. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of quotations. --Lu Ta 15:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total POV, no way round it.--Tefalstar (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Probably someone mistaking Wikipedia for Wikiquote (but nonetheless, who decides what lines are "classic" and what ones aren't? Because of that it's also WP:OR) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can you handle the truth? What we've got here is failure to communicate. Well, nobody's perfect. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons previously stated, although the author of the article should be thanked for citing the sublime Carry on Cleo on the list.Ecoleetage (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no possibility of this list ever being complete, comprehensive, or neutral. - Chardish (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to judge in an encyclopedic context what "classic" is. This is why we don't have anything at classic songs, classic movies, classic TV, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate list with POV / OR problems. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the AfD lists in all the wikis in all of the world, this article had to walk into this one. Delete - hardly an encyclopedic list at present, and with the current title, hardly likely ever to be. Hell, any list of "classic film lines" that fails to mention "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" ain't worth a damn. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're gonna need a bigger Delete JuJube (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article can serve no purpose Delete - per everyone. Lugnuts (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know what we're yelling about! JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over the seven jewelled hills, beyond the seventh fall, in the cottage of the Seven Dwarfs, dwells Snow White, fairest of them all... WilliamH (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of objective criteria and in-depth analysis of such quotes. Wikiquote is more suitable for this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to TravelTalkRADIO. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TravelTalkMEDIA[edit]

nn web site related to nn travel radio show Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: we already got to articles on this subject. Dwilso 15:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TravelTalkRADIO] which is the logical, notable place for this information. - Dravecky (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. TravelTalkMEDIA has been merged to this article apparently.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TravelTalkRADIO[edit]

nn travel radio show Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean it up. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's both apparently notable and the subject of independent direct coverage by reliable secondary sources. Needs cleanup and a few more sources would be nice but it crosses the threshold for verifiability and notability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~TravelTalkRADIO~~ TravelTalkMEDIA --Rtphokie (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Um, huh? - Dravecky (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: sorry, typo, it's been corrected above.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Ah, on an ironic note, I just recommended that TravelTalkMEDIA be merged into TravelTalkRADIO before reading your reply. - Dravecky (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) The consensus below is that the article subject is verifiably notable. Darkspots (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Dhuyvetter[edit]

nn host of travel radio show Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the TravelTalkRADIO article. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject hosts internationally syndicated program, is the focus of reliable secondary sources, and meets notability and verifiability tests. - Dravecky (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough, well referenced, DHS committee membership helps this article meet WP:BIO.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable sources exist to establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable EMC Personalities[edit]

Poor article title, will not be more than a stubby list, not a notable topic for WP, irretrievable stub (?) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very short list and most likely irretrievable. Four of the five entries are red links and the fifth is most likely a dab page. No context either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. As it stands now, the article is not useful at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry the Lizard[edit]

Children's book. The author of the article denies that the book is either of two already in print, but does not provide an ISBN or other reference. So I assume it is MADEUP. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that a book by this name, by Patrick Schiller and Max Newton, has ever been published. It may well have been "created", but it certainly lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. --Lu Ta 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lu Ta, I can't find any evidence that the book exists, nor can I find any online store that sells it. No ISBN number, looks like a hoax. Trusilver 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is cruel to call it an hoax. I am perfctly willing to believe it exists - just one copy - the original! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The book doesn't exist, as state above. Dwilso 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. What's intriguing is that there have been lots of authors who thought of creating a character called "Larry the Lizard", decades before "the idea was first thought of during the early year of 2006 by authors Patrick Schiller and Max Newton". This shows that it's been done, with Larry being either an allegorical amphibian, or a human "lounge lizard". None of these books seems to have had any impact, so "Larry the Lizard" keeps getting re-invented. That's interesting, albeit not interesting enough to merit an article. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non existant book. Soxred93 (u t) 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't matter whether the subject exists or not; the question is whether or not its notable enough for inclusion; obviously, it isn't, given the severe lack of sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bad photoshop book cover tells me 'hoax'. JuJube (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same reasons above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable if not a hoax. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 00:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Employment References[edit]

Nonencyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. Unreferenced, original research. Evb-wiki (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is largely a copy of this, but in the edit summary the originator claims that he is the author and it is his website, so copyright issues should be resolvable. However the article is original research, citing no independent sources; and Wikipedia is not a how-to manual or guide. JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Nothing encyclopedic here. JJL (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original research. Pushing an agenda, leaning towards spam, and factually incorrect WRT UK law. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Source: http://jobsearch.about.com/od/referencesrecommendations/a/referencetips.htm Dwrjr (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much original research, doesn't even seem accurate. --Tefalstar (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 12:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dumitru Copil[edit]

Previously PRODded, now recreated. The subject is a Romanian youth player currently contracted with Hearts of Midlothian (Scotland). The subject clearly fails WP:ATHLETE per lack of professional appearances. Angelo (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - straightforward non-notability in Wiki terms as he has not played professionally. Springnuts (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Jailbait (disambiguation). Sandstein (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jailbait[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete simple dicdef. Possibly redirect to ~~Lolita (term)~~ Jailbait (disambiguation) after deletion. Previous keep arguments three years ago were based on the idea that the article could be expanded, but it has not been and doesn't seem to be expandable. See old VFD here [16].Ave Caesar (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is Wictionary stuff. Springnuts (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...and it's already in Wiktionary. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not simply redirect to Jailbait (disambiguation)? There are a number of movies with this title in the disambiguation page. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge There is lots to say about this as the sources indicate. Much of it may be covered by articles such as statutory rape but the sources seem to cover other aspects of juvenile delinquency. Anyway, it is an obvious search term and so should be kept as a redirect at least. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the disambiguation page. (And add Lolita (term) to the disambig page). Bfigura ^(talk) 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per Bfigura. JuJube (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important concept, isn't covered exactly by either Lolita or Ephebophilia. Maybe expand article to discuss age of consents.Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; disambiguation seems to be the best way to go here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to disambiguation page. —Qit el-Remel (talk • contribs) 10:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see how this article could be expanded in sensible way. RockyMM (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Black Kite 22:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Brink[edit]

This appears to be an advertisement for a minor program on a Hobart radio station. I can't see anything notable about it. Grahame (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article and a related entry on Ben Waterworth appear to have been conceived by the same author, appear to be self-promotion and are not notable. Murtoa (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article and the related article on Ben Waterworth as this is as relevant as any other page on a radio show, it is a show that serves the community and is relevant to the city of Hobart. The citizens of Hobart rely on it for information. In no way has the author written this as an 'advertisement', simply as a biography on the show and one of the hosts, which is completely relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.9 (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this and most of the articles on contemporary shows at Category:Australian radio comedy appear to be self referent with little or no reasonable third party sources - I would suggest a short close of this afd - and a review of all the arts - as to whether the others get off scott free sets a precendent where bias against one and there has not been a look at the others within the category - Satu Suro 05:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable show, cannot find online sources. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A program on a college/community radio station cannot have sufficient notability without independent coverage from reliable sources. I see none here. Similarly, I see a lack of coverage of Ben Waterworth; so that article needs major improvement in a hurry before it also goes through AfD. B.Wind (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Closed as speedy keep -- bad faith nomination by a competitor. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.com[edit]

procedural listing of incomplete AfD; article was tagged for AfD by IP. I may comment later. Darkspots (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be deleted as the content is self-promotional and external links are not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.101.40.60 (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin: 137.101.40.60 has been blocked repeatedly for spamming a blacklisted domain. I believe this is a bad faith nomination to delete an article that is considered "competition."¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep --JForget 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Baby[edit]

This article is about a one-time supergroup that performed a single song in 1993. While both U2 and R.E.M. are both notable groups, the fact that the played one song together in the past and called it "Automatic Baby" is not. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the song is not notable, the supergroup is per WP:MUSIC, #6. In addition, the group's performance was "aired" globally on MTV, garnering independent coverage worldwide. B.Wind (talk) 06:34, 26 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, Davewild (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - As per WP:MUSIC, point 6. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 12:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - As above, point 6 should cover this. --Tefalstar (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with comments above PRasmussen (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fraser (DJ)[edit]

Non-notable, unreferenced one sentence article with external links that anyone can create. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Not compliant with WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC whatsoever. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 12:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs some work, but it shouldn't be deleted, and certainly not speedied. A Google search shows that Fraser is notable. He has a biography on, among other sites, Australian Music Online, and a profile of his album on Music Australia. Deletion is not the next step. PeterSymonds | talk 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Bduke (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly having a profile on Australian Music Online does not establish notability for Wikipedia.--Grahame (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8monkey Labs[edit]

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines. It amounts to an announcement that this company will soon release Darkest of Days. That article, in turn, amounts to an announcement that Darkest of Days is a game which will soon be released by 8monkey Labs. Neither of them has any real content. 007bistromath (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 21 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, Davewild (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per john Potatoswatter (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Added Darkest of Days to this newly relisted debate. Delete and log links point to 8monkey Labs. Potatoswatter (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Comment Darkest of Days has already survived an AfD only yesterday. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops. Best luck to them getting their first game out. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - company not notable as yet, whereas Darkest of Days should be kept as there seems to be a large amount of interest in this game from the global gaming community. The company could be deemed notable if the game becomes a large sales success and they're able to follow it up. PRasmussen (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkest of Days for now. If the company achieves notable success the redirect can be removed, but for now it should redirect to their initial title.
Delete per WP:NOTABLE. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havards[edit]

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is original research, verging on advertising. I can find no independent confirmation. The link provided is to a web-site run by the Warren Ward who is said to have discovered "havards"; I can't find any mention of "havards" there, but the website has pages for various diseases, the cure for which turns out to be "ActivSignal^TM Sodium, a new invention of Warren Ward". JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to WP:PROD and article only an hour old created as a first edit. But yeah, far as I can tell this is of dubious merit. Potatoswatter (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional sounding original research. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations added. This activity of ducts is well known to biologists and the name is descriptive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montepoeta (talk • contribs) 09:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reference to Ward and web site reference removed to avoid suggestion of advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montepoeta (talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and neologism. Active homeostasis exists, but the references do not appear to support the usage of this term in anatomy or biology. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only appearance in Medline is as a typo for hazards. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and the comments of Eldereft and Espresso Addict. No mention of this term seems to exist anywhere in the published scientific literature. Medline and WoS produce no positives and GoogleScholar produces only false positives as well[17]. As a test, I downloaded the first reference listed, the article of Tomas Ganz in "Nature Reviews: Immunology". The term "havards" is never mentioned there and the word "duct" does not appear there even once either. Apart from WP:OR there are basic WP:V problems with this entry. Moreover, even if one or two published reliable sources are eventually uncovered, it is clear that the subject fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW -Djsasso (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global censorship of Youth's books[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Global censorship of Youth's books

Global censorship of books for children. The ugly title could easily be fixed. But is it oroginal research? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a original research essay. We already have a few similar articles that says the same things slightly better Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Doc Strange -- clearly a rambling OR essay.Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. — scetoaux (T|C) 21:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a total rowing utensil. JuJube (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete This is a draft for course. Please leave unaltered until May 15, 2008. Thanks. pvh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.9.9 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone hasn't read WP:Wikipedia is not a place to store drafts for a courseDoug Weller (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - As obvious OR material. Enigma ^message 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. While it is a student's project, this seems to be beyond cleanup at present. (No prejudice against a well-written and policy-compliant recreation though). Bfigura ^(talk) 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article, in its present form, should probably be deleted. Nothing to say a well referenced and article-style section couldn't be included in Censorship though. Avruch^T 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Nakon 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is clearly synthesis, which, while entirely desirable in an academic essay, is not permitted on Wikipedia. Aleta ^Sing 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not compliant with wikipedia policies, specifically WP:OR. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pay for your webhosting Like the rest of us. Smite and salt. ThuranX (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good as a class essay, but not as a Wikipedia article. There's just not enough prior (read: non-original) research on the subject. --clpo13_(talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an OR essay. Grsz ^talk 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I say! WP:OR and all that. X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, as original research. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's snowing. Bfigura ^(talk) 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and redirect to Bible Quiz. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MACSA Bible Quizzing[edit]

Unsourced, apparently non-notable local quiz competition. Black Kite 10:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and Merge to Bible quiz. That article already has several summaries of such organizations. Quick Googling turned up many participants and no news articles. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Downsize and merge per above. It will be a welcome addition to that article. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 13:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above. Probably some content worth keeping, but not enough to justify a separate article. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Some of the earlier "delete" commentators do not seem to have taken into account the sources provided before the relisting. Personally, I find DGG's assessment as a librarian persuasive and recommend that it be taken into account in any later deletion discussion. Sandstein (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votescam: The Stealing of America[edit]

Book and its authors are not notable It is me i think (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete It is me i think (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references provided, and also too much personal opinions. Dwilso 06:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources and a non-notable book. The article claims "The book was banned at major book chains", but does not list which ones to back up the statement. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...and who published the book? Does it have an ISBN? Did some book chains resist the conspiracy and sell the book anyway? Etc. Mandsford (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Publisher and ISBN are now in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable references are provided.--Berig (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable self-published book. I am about to nominate Kenneth Collier for deletion too. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. already covered above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: The mass market paperback doesn't crack four MILLION on Amazon's rankings (http://www.amazon.com/Votescam-Stealing-james-M-Collier/dp/B000W3V93M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208875955&sr=8-1). RGTraynor 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, for what it's worth, it's ranked #463,361 [18]. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I make that 9 editors so far who can't even be bothered to do a simple Google Books search before commenting. In the very first hit Gore Vidal devotes 5 pages to discussing this book - non-notable books don't get that sort of treatment - and the other hits also show substantial coverage. And what have Amazon ratings got to do with this? How many books did they sell in 1992? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This book was not on any bestseller lists in 1992 either, nor published by a major publisher, nor the subject of widespread coverage in WP:RS such as The New York Times or CBS News. Mention in 7 fringe conspiracy books doesn't cut it. Nor does Gore Vidal particularly meet WP:RS. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find anything in the NYT or CBS, but The Miami Herald had a 1401 word article (I hope that writer got paid for the odd one) in 1993 and I found another reference in a book by Douglas Kellner. I don't accept the statement about Gore Vidal not being a reliable source. We're not arguing the merits of the book's thesis here, but notability. The fact that major writers such as Gore Vidal and Douglas Kellner have noted the book makes it notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 25 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, Davewild (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to allow editors to discuss the sources found by Phil Bridger after other delete opinions have been made. Davewild (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Gore Vidal thinks it's woth five pages, I think that establishes notability. Klausness (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since deletion process commenced, this article has been improved with sourcing which meets WP:BK. IMHO, Gore Vidal, Miami Herald, and Douglas Kellner meet WP:RS criteria. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my view hasn't changed and remains delete. This is a self-published book that has never had significant sales or influence. Gore Vidal and Douglas Kellner are notable in their own right but do not meet WP:RS as a source on unrelated topics. The Miami Herald article was a one time human interest story on an unknown congressional candidate from 1970 and his continuing quixotic crusade to claim vote fraud in his 1970 primary loss to Claude Pepper, which is what this book is. The book has never been the subject of widespread nor continuing coverage or relevance. I also notice the Miami Herald article is dated 1983, while this book was not published until 1992. KleenupKrew (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course it is NOT going to get such coverage. From the article, "The book was immediately banned by the major book chains, who listed the book as "out of print" and actively worked to prevent its sale." IT IS A CONSPIRACY. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The coverage cited shows notability. Nick Graves (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content with appropriate article regarding US voting system (especially about election controversies) SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the editor who has done the most to defend this article I must say that even a delete decision would be better than such a merge. This article is about a book, not about the subject matter of the book. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources given. I'm kind of disturbed that editors participating in a deletion discussion can't be bothered to check the notability of the subject. In any case, there's plenty of material written regarding the subject, and that constitutes notability for me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established. Hope all those previous delete editors take note and learn to use ((find)) rather then repeating parrot fashion what has gone before, it rather brings the Afd process into disrepute. SunCreator (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the overall subject of vote fraud may be notable, but not the book. I am unwilling to believe in the reality of the suppression of the book--according to OCLC WOrldCat, its in about 60 public libraries and about 20 academic, but not the really major ones. That's too many for suppression and not enough for importance. Just what would be expected for an attempted popular book that didn't take off. There's no reason even to merge the content--even the supporter of the article opposes that-- not significant enough to be even mentioned at Wikipedia. I note the "publisher" Victoria Press is an apparently unsuccessful volunteer group trying to raise money to become notable--named after an actual Suffragette printer of the earlier 20th century. Like the book, they apparently didn't succeed. Phil, could you summarize just what Vidal says about it (not that his use of this for some reason makes it notable any more than any other reference he might choose to use.) I'm pretty open minded on book articles but this is way below the bar. DGG (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I also note that the only source in the article, the MySpace link, is broken. Pigman☿ 04:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Pictures[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Based on the text in the article, this fails WP:MUSIC as a non-notable song that should be redirected to the album article. I attempted to do so but was reverted. I therefore put this to AfD. Erechtheus (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2008

Keep - She has confirmed that this will be a future single. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 12:42, 25 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, Davewild (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable song, apparently yet to be released (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), only citation is a MySpace page. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt or Redirect and Protect. No proof of independent notability, and not enough material to justify a separate article anyway. Nick Graves (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Operation Backfire (FBI), which seems to have been done already. Although the consensus is not entirely clear, this seems to be most in keeping with WP:BLP1E and would address most arguments made here. Sandstein (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Dawn Gerlach[edit]

Negative BLP for single-non-notable crime. Sources all discuss crime. Not seeing lasting notability. MBisanz ^talk 10:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, not otherwise notable KleenupKrew (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect salient details to Earth Liberation Front. Black Kite 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 15:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Earth Liberation Front as failing notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The crime is relatively notable (though likely not enough for a separate article), but the criminal as an individual is not. If a whole article on this individual in a reliable, national publication were cited, I would begin to reconsider. Nick Graves (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ELF. The information here is probably worth keeping as a bullet point or two in that article. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple major crimes, significant "environmental protection" arsonist. There was a single trial on multiple counts of destrucction of unrelated facilities in several different states. Not ONEEVENTDGG (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple events and can't merge into one article since she was a player in two organizations as well as the FBI program to capture her. She has internal links to three articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton . Edison (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every perp deserves a fan page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Arthur and DGG. This isn't BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I still only see one event mentioned in the article. Multiple crimes, certainly, but all part of the same spree. What am I missing? Nick Graves (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: -- Richard Arthur Norton merged this into Operation Backfire (FBI) several days ago. I completed the process by placing a redirect in the original article. -- Tom Ketchum 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge -- I suppose the above makes me vote this way -- Tom Ketchum 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Merge to the Operation Backfire article. WP:NOT#NEWS is pretty clear. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, the article only contains materials about the crime; there is no biographical info or at least some expected info about activities as an environmentalist (I'm also unable to find any online sources about this). So, merge and redirect to Operation Backfire (FBI), which is fitting better than the organizations' articles since she is associated with two as pointed out above. Should new references (about the person) come up in the future, we may discuss resurrecting the page then; right now, it is only an events-article, not a biography. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect, action taken by TheslB was perfectly reasonable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern U.S. earthquakes of 2003[edit]

Non-notable topic (the two earthquakes that occurred in 2003 in the southeastern United States are unrelated), not useful as a disambig page since the earthquakes can be directly linked, and no article uses it as such (no links to this article for disambig purposes). TheslB (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both articles were originally on one page, and it was split into two, with the result that the history is at the original title. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be a way to integrate the history into one of the other articles? Edits on the article prior to 01:35, 10 May 2006 could be prefixed to 2003 Virginia earthquake's original version without chronology problems, if technically feasible. TheslB (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably what should have been done, as the page is not useful as a disambiguation page (because the earthquakes are unrelated). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:52, 22 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, Davewild (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No article space links here except alternate spelling redirects. If you're worried about history then randomly convert to redirect, noting at talk pages. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to List of earthquakes in the United States. Any objections? If not, I will go ahead and note at the two earthquakes' talk pages. TheslB (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. One incident does not make someone notable, per WP:NOT#NEWS, and the sources are suspicious. (For the record, a correctly-formatted Google search for him returns only 37 hits, but that was not a factor in my assessment of consensus.) - KrakatoaKatie 04:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj[edit]

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

'Deleteweak keep No sufficient or verifiable claims of notability except for the self published sources. Guru advertisement with references to own sources. Wikidās ॐ 09:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you changed your vote from Delete to Weak Keep due to this individual's criminal record, then I do not believe it is a worthy arguement. A person's criminal record and/or the accusations against them have little weight as there are many criminals and/or persons accused of crimes. Aside from this point, I believe that this individual is non notable and that the sources are very suspect. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've never read an encyclopedic article about someone who was famous for being accused of a crime. And in this case, it doesnt satisfy wikipedia notability. 38.99.101.180 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Strong & Speedy Delete - All references are self published and materials are WP:OR. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my opinion to Strong & speedy delete because a google search redirected me to videos & nonsense self published results, hardly 10 ghits, I dont know why it has survivied so long. He is also a notorious rapist as accused of it by a follower. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedia articles are only for nice, pleasant people? Better get rid of the article on that Mr. Hitler fellow, then. You say he's a "notorious" rapist, which, if your statement is true, would ipso facto make him suitable for an article. "Hardly 10 ghits" - funny, I see a bit over 700. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he is a notable rapist guru, I would have changed my opinion. He is not only non-notable, but also notorious in one incident, an accusation of a nn rape incident either. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a Strong and Speedy Deletion. Anyone disagree? 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article no longer quotes self published material~~. 74.85.13.60 (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Delete. The common consensus is that the page isnt suitable for an encyclopaedia and that its sort of an advertisement. There are some minor references but they leave alot of primary issues unanswered. I have some Hindi news articles but they are not online. We should consider the suggestion of starting an article in the hindi language section? 74.85.13.60 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harjk, Can you stop vandalizing the article? Otherwise you should say which part you consider refers to self-published material or original research... If noone can give a reason to delete the article, its not being deleted.
I am removing the tag. No one has yet given a reason for deleting it. If the wiki page needs changing, then change it yourself, or say whats wrong with it. What is the protocol for repeated abuse of the deletion tag? 86.40.100.198 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

74.85.13.60 (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting your edits. Dont remove AfD tag until the discussion is over. That's our policy. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - The person does seem to be somewhat notable at least in the sense of being a sort of "spiritual teacher". Although ghits != notability, Google Searches do show him to be mentioned in connection with several (religious and social) organizations. I think the we should give some opportunity to let the article be improved with some WP:RSes. He also seems to lead an organization that has created hospitals in India. I've been hard pressed to find any news articles on him other than this which looks like an editorial/opinion piece of some sort. If more reliable sources can be found, then the article might merit inclusion. --vi5in^[talk] 15:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changing to Keep. As the sources show below, he is definitely notable. However, the sources need to be examined to see if they meet WP:RS. --vi5in^[talk] 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Changed my opinion to Kill with fire. see the reason. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin's notice: All references below are not independent of the subject. Many of them doesn't even saying about him. It is more or less lying. This swami is only notable for his rape of a fellow follower. It seems User:Vivin is trying to mislead participants getting more favourite votes for keep. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say I'm trying to mislead people. I've stated my opinion and provided my reasons for doing so. I have no vested interest in this article I don't want to get involved in a pissing match. I'm not going to respond to anything unrelated to this discussion from now on. --vi5in^[talk] 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

noticeThere could be a simple case of misunderstanding on what is notable and what is reliable. Just because someone is notable and a disciple of some guru, that does not make that guru notable. In all the sources I have seen he is mentioned, not as a leader, head of something but as guru - there are thousands gurus, how does it make him notable? If he was 'actually' what you say about him, you will see many articles about HIM personally, not just about his friends who happen to mention his name (that appears to be written differently every time). Show us ONE reliable source that state: Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj is supreme acharya of this age, called supreme among jagatgurus. One link to a reliable source stating this simple fact will clear it up. So far its just an ad. You of course should understand that Archives of Kashi Vidvat Parishat, Kashi, India is not WP:RS. None of the sources, even TV ones checks out. So far nothing checks out to prove him what the article claims, except that he is a guru, which in itself not WP:NOTE. Maybe if the article is deleted, it can be created again, this time using what is actually WP:RS. I mean one link to New York Times or Indian Times article supporting the claims will do for me. Wikidās ॐ 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. He is not my Guru... I support a quick and speedy deletion. 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- I would suggest the following:

It resembles a fan site. Tagged since April 2008. -

remove honorifics, move it to Swami Kripalu Ji with explanation that he also is using honorifics.

Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since April 2008. Somehow it was deleted

write less about his titles and more about what he said and what was 'exactly' said about him in the above list of references (some of them can be reliable, I did not check all). Academic sources and major newspapers are preferential, see WP:RS.

It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since April 2008.

As long as you actually link every paragraph to relevant WP:RS there should be no dispute.

It may violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Tagged since April 2008.

Controversial material should be ONLY reliable sources, no your own words or quotes without RS.

It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since April 2008.

Its mainly because the tone. One also needs to address the issue of completely original spelling. Such as Krishn instead of Krishna, Jeev instead of Jiva - wikilink them to the articles.

It reads like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tagged since April 2008.

Tone it down, comparing him to Vallabhacharya or Ramanujacharya should be (if at all) done in a neutral tone, even if his is your guru.

It describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style that may require cleanup. Tagged since April 2008.

His philosophy should be referenced and linked to relevant pages and/or have proper references. He did not create it - but it appears he did.

It is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to NPOV policy.

Remove the items that are partial and keep it in a sober encyclopedia tone.

It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since April 2008.

Remove references from his own books that support claims that are not supported by other evidence.

These are my suggestions as far as the article. I have not changed my opinion on the article as it stands. Wikidās ॐ 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly notability has been shown. The newspaper articles quoted mostly predate the allegations. Otherwise, the article is sourced correctly. I am confused why this issue is even being discussed. 86.45.206.161 (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'note Found some evidence of notability, mainly due to rape publicity. I do not believe that he was ever proven guilty, but there is a lot of media about it, and I do not think that at 85 he 'can' rape, so that is notable. I have changed to weak keep, based on that and some of book references and that the article should be moved to 'Kripaluji Maharaj' - Jagatguru is a title and makes it hard to find notable reference in google if run by it, mainly fan sites, it should be explained in the article and redirect will work fine. Wikidās ॐ 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone submit your vote (YES or NO) for a deletion: 205.240.11.90 (talk)

Yes. 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 86.40.196.166 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. His name may be mentioned here and there, not enough to warrant wikipedia notability though. I haven't heard of him. 74.85.13.51 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are not votes. You must provide policy and guideline-based rationales for your opinions. Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non notable individual. Also, sources very questionable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. It is difficult to know this guy's name from the article entry, as two of the four words are honorifics and/or titles, and even the links point to several different names for him. If he is notable, let's start with what is actual name is, not his titles. It may be that independent sources can be found that support notability, but several different searches in university databases under "philosophy and religion" and "quick search" yield no hits. I'm prepared to change my opinion, but I'd need a real name. Presidents, prime ministers, senators, etc. are listed under their own names - not their titles. I'm not saying he's not a great guy with a bunch of followers. There's a local rabbi who has been the leader of the congregation since 1978, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page. He is well-respected, a great guy, smart, accomplished...and no wikipedia article. He's just not sufficiently notable...and the same applies to the article referenced in this AfD. In response to the box at the top of this article, I was not solicited to view this page; it's on the list of the 10 oldest AfD articles. Frank | talk 00:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally i have heard of him. My only concern is that he appears to go by many different names by different people, even in the links on the page. If there are pages in other languages (like hindi) that clear up this confusion, there should be an article in the Hindi wikipedia. My conclusion: delete for now, but of course if someone else can come up with a reliable article later on, they can contribute. And no, i wasnt solicited to say this. 38.99.101.180 (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as erroneous dab page now superseded by Poynting. Unlikely search term, so no redirect. Sandstein (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poyting (crater)[edit]

This is a disambiguation page which is disambiguating between nothing and nothing. Disambiguation pages are meant to allow readers to find an article from a group of articles we have, and we have no articles on any craters called Poyting. I can't find any evidence, via a google search, that there even is any crater anywhere named Poyting. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't have disambiguation pages when there's nothing to disambiguate. --Lu Ta 08:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There appear to be lunar and Martian craters named Poynting (after John Henry Poynting) rather than Poyting. The lunar crater has its own article, but the Martian one doesn't. I'm not too familiar with the guidelines on dab pages; should there be one when there are two entries and one is a redlink? Alternatively, does the Martian crater deserve its own article? AnturiaethwrTalk 10:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to first question) No. Disambiguation pages are for navigating between existing articles. --Lu Ta 10:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It seems we have a number of pages relating to John Henry Poynting. Poynting vector, Poynting-Robertson effect, Poynting effect, Poynting's theorem, Poynting (lunar crater), 11063 Poynting. It would be reasonable to have a disambiguation page on this. It would obviously not be named Poyting (crater), or anything-crater. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a disambiguation page for this purpose: Poynting. --Lu Ta 10:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature shows Anturiaethwr is correct. The title of this page should be Poynting (crater), if it is kept. I'm not sure whether the Martian crater should have an article, I need to trawl through the journals again. MER-C 10:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poynting (lunar crater), which I just did :v) . If someone creates the Mars crater article, it can be redirected to Poynting instead, which also includes an asteroid. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#R3 (a recently created redirect from an implausible typos or misnomer) now that the dab page issue has been settled properly elsewhere and the article under discussion has been turned into a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, default to Keep as not a BLP; I managed to find a few brief non-poker references whilst looking at this (i.e. [19]) which leads me to suggest that, although on the borderline of notability, this one just scrapes in. YMMV, of course. Black Kite 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Hawbaker[edit]

Overall fails WP:N as her "notability" derived from her infamy due to several controversial events involving poker professionals (i.e. (BLP REMOVED) sexually assaulting her, scamming Gavin Griffin, getting paid by Full Tilt Poker for a picture of their logo over one of her breasts, posting nude pictures of herself online). Considering Brandi committed suicide there is no chance of notability increasing beyond these drama-fodder events that have largely played out on internet forums. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another crime/gossip article on a non-notable person. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources included in the article indicate notability. Rray (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable sources? A blog, a "mob poker database", and cardplayer.com? KleenupKrew (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, those are the reliable sources I was referring to. CardPlayer is the oldest and most respected magazine in the poker field, the Hendon Mob website is a well-respected source for poker information that is used in hundreds of poker articles, and the blog is a news feed from Bodog, a large corporation. (i.e. It's not just some personal blog.) Your lack of familiarity with those sources does not equate to them not being reliable sources. Rray (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of those sources is notable enough to establish the basis for an article in an encyclopedia. Searches on "Brandi Hawbaker site:cnn.com", "Brandi Hawbaker site:nytimes.com", "Brandi Hawbaker site:washingtonpost.com" all come up with 0 hits. A general Google search on Brandi Hawbaker has the top two hits on YouTube and the next two on Blogspot, almost all other hits on poker gossip forums and blogs, and nothing that I can see from the mainstream media, a sure sign of being Not Notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I appreciate the point you're making, but I think the consensus about what constitutes notability differs somewhat from the rather strict interpretation you've provided with your examples. (I'd say that what comes up first in Google in a search has little relevance to a subject's notability, for example. A lack of coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN doesn't disqualify someone from being notable in their field either.) And one of the principles of Wikipedia is that we combine a traditional encyclopedia with the concept of specialized encyclopedias; it would be difficult to build a specialized poker encyclopedia without considering Cardplayer, for example, to be a reliable source. Rray (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The sources are clearly reliable. CNN isn't an issue here, or with most niche-famous people. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The sources are reliable, but they do not illustrate notability. Nearly every poker player who has ever cashed in a live poker tournament has a page on hendonmob, the cardplayer article refers to her as a cult figure on online poker forums which is not indicative of notability either, and the third (written during her life) simply states she is a controversial figure and that the only source for the controversies are her own word. Yes, these are standard cites for poker articles, but that's because nearly every other poker article is about the persons notable contributions and accomplishments in poker, this articles notability derives from a girl who happened to be a poker player that caused drama. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Cardplayer.com is a pretty solid source; the other two aren't particularly useful for establishing notability. However, this woman's antics were widely noticed in the poker world, so that pushes it over the bar for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep I am on the fence on this one and could go either way, but I lean towards "keep" because the subject is noted in secondary sources relevant to the subject matter. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepbecause it is not only the person, but also the reaseon for her death, which is kind of important. I guess it is a wake-up call for many to pay attention to mental illnesses. I plead strongly to keep it.(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If she had not committed suicide it would probably be a delete, but she clearly meets the WP:V and WP:N. The article has three reliable sources, with one unquestionable. Additionally nominator incorrectly posits that "infamy" is not notability. This is false. Policy has nothing against Paris Hilton-like infamy. Silly, weird, crazy or eccentric drama-magnets can be notable by the same criteria as more sensible people. Finally, there is no doubt she is notable in the more general sense -- there are thousands of non-relaible mentions, and forum threads concerning her have hundreds of thousands of page views, as well as being a very popular google search term. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To me (and the way I believe WP:N is meant to relate to) this all adds up to something that should be on encyclopedia dramatica, not wikipedia. Do I doubt the reliability of the sources? No, but just because something is verifiable, or even true, does not make it notable. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The operative guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (people), which makes clear that "dramatica" is perfectly acceptable: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough..." Unuusual certainly covers this person, and also obviously huge numbers of people find the events "interesting", even if some of us don't. She has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Not everyone peculiar deserves an article, but if a person achieves near Paris-like levels of independent notice, then dramatica can merit an article. One other comment, Lid, for WP:BLP reasons I'd suggest you remove the name before "sexually" in your original nomination and say "someone". 2005 (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except it goes onto include this section "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." –– Lid^(Talk) 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And the article does exactly that. It doesn't go into the various weirdness. It says though she committed suicide, which a reliable source quotes the Coroner's office to confirm. 2005 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And the article does not seem to include any real notability outside that fact. Yes she committed suicide, but committing suicide does not make her notable when she was unnotable for the same acts while still alive. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        She meets the guideline. I'd agree that the guideline could be tougher, and that thousands of relatively trivia bio articles really should be deleted from the encyclopedia, but that is a discussion for the guideline page. But then also, perhaps a person suffering from mental illness may not have deserved an article when alive, but suicide is a significant development which does impact here. The phenomenon of weird behavior - extremely nasty societal over-reaction - suicide... there is a whole story here, not isolated parts. 2005 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The whole story doesn't really add up either. Cutting out the poker association, which did not make her notable while alive, the article becomes "Mentally ill girl commits suicide after being taunted on the internet". I do not think an article of that description really has a place here. Yes, I know I am seemingly being contrary to everyone else here in this discussion so far but I am not trying to overturn the notability guidelines - it's a controversial deletion and such controversial discussions are going to end up having arguments from both sides interpretting their side of the debate. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator. I know it sounds odd, but the nominator has just given tons of information about the subject, all of which is verifiable in reliable sources. All of that suggests, to the contrary, that she is quite notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit, out of all the possible keep points I expected to occur during this afd, this wasn't one of them. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, seems to just barely meet WP:Notability (people). Lots of google hits too. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per SmartGuy - Very borderline Notability that just falls under (removed previous comments)▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and weak mainly because it's just my opinion that Brandi is nothing more than gossip fodder for an audience limited to participants in a couple of popular online poker forums. Based on wiki's own guidelines - small amount of coverage in Cardplayer, etc. - meh, it's REALLLLY borderline. Have any of the accusations that she made against various poker pros every been validated by sources other than poketfives, twoplustwo, or random poker blogs? If not, then I say nuke it. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. It's information. There is no such thing as bad information, it's just some is better than others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.42 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's about the weakest argument possible. Wikipedia has notability guidelines specifically so that we can avoid becoming a collection of random fringe articles. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Notability 'within the poker community' is quite irrelevant as is mostly not WP:RS and/or not mainstream publications. I thought she might pass per google news hits which are reliable, such as the Guardian, but that only has 2 sentences about her, and the rest of the 9 articles about her are passing mentions. Having said that, if this article survives, we owe it to her memory and family for the article to mention more about whatever accomplishments she had, and not only her health problems and death as at present. Merkin's mum 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:N as 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.' Weak because her notability comes from the controversy she caused in the poker world, and from the unfortunate manner of her death; she was not a professional poker player. A Sheep (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bbut the article as I read it earlier this afternoon didn't mention any of the controversy, as I recall. If we don't include it, it's pretty unencyclopedic/uninformative. I still wouldn't know what it was, apart from what's mentioned in the nomination at the top of this page. The article just said she was ill and killed herself...oh and she used to go on some internet forums:) Merkin's mum 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is because most of the controversy surrounding her "eccentric behavior" stems from postings on poker forums twoplustwo.com and pocketfives.com. Some of the gossipy issues were confirmed or substantiated by others involved, other issues were not. Examples that I remember:

she accused Tom Franklin of stealing her money, touching her innapropriately, cheating on his wife, expecting sex in exchange for poker coaching/mentoring, etc.
she accused other well-known poker players of cheating her/stealing/all manner of other stuff
one pro accused her of emptying out his PokerStars account of some $30k
some other guy accused her of moving in with him and then trashing his place/stealing all of his valuables/etc
and so on and so on

of course, to my knowledge, none of this was ever reported outside of twoplustwo, pocketfives, or Internet blogs, which are dubious sources of information at best. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the way Wikipedia asks for notability in regards to Poker players is skewed heavily towards people who play in tournaments, mainly the large EPT/WPT/WSOP "festivals." No one gets a Wikipedia article for winning one of the minor tournaments that occur during these festivals (unless its for a substantive amount). So why should someone whose best cash was for $20,000 and highest placement relative to the field was 55th out of 1500+ in a $2000 buyin event? We are attributing her relevance on Wikipedia to her being a poker player and her tournament results do not really qualify her as a notable poker player. Strongsauce (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on her poker stats alone this article would be grounds for speedy delete (CSD A7), But in fairness I don't think it was suggested by the people who wish to keep this article that she was ever a notable poker player, clearly she was not, but rather the her bio meets WP:N by way of being a minor celebrity, as it is now somewhat borderline Celeb/News figure at best, but not quite enough to keep.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 04:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the article interesting and informative. I think I would still find it so 20 years from now. So it's not just news, it has encyclopedic value. I think it ought to be expanded with more information, if more information is available. Jlawniczak (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INTERESTING. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:VAGUEWAVE. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Touché - what I meant was just because it is interesting does not make it encyclopedic. The other part of the keep, the addition of new information, I have addressed above as the person involved is dead so there is pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's quite a huge assumption, especially in an unnatural death. There is a very good chance more coverage will be forthcoming. And of course it is no argument for a deletion. 2005 (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That is quite speculative, what evidence is there that more coverage is forthcoming? –– Lid^(Talk) 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are the one making an absolute statement based of course on no evidence at all. It's obvious there could be further coverage if somebody plays up the "gambling can be tragic" angle, or if criminal charges are filed around any of the various incidents, or if someone writes a "poker characters" article, or if there are details we have no idea about currently. So "pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person" is very bad thing to flatly state. 2005 (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am making the statement as the contrary argument is the same as someone saying a non-notable bands article on wikipedia should remain because "they may become more well known... later." It holds little to no water as it avoids the notability argument by stating that their current notability is to be ignored on the basis of hypothetical notability. If Brandi does become more notable through more sources, outside of forums and niche poker news, then it can be re-created then, but in the here and now these sources and coverage do not exist and can't/shouldn't be used as a rationale to keep. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not what you said, and no one suggested anything about her possible future greater fame being reason to keep the article. You stated "there is no chance of notability increasing". That's plainly false, and certainly no argument for deletion. I assume you see that now so let's move on. 2005 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's what I said in the original deletion reason, yes, but this discussion is derived from this comment and reply: "there is pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person" followed by "There is a very good chance more coverage will be forthcoming. And of course it is no argument for a deletion." That reply is quite contrary to "and no one suggested anything about her possible future greater fame being reason to keep the article." –– Lid^(Talk) 10:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please. I said nothing about that being a reason to keep the article. Clearly people can become more notable or famous after their death. That's no argument to keep an article. I only stated it because your "no chance of notability increasing" statement is obviously not true. 2005 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that "interesting" to the consumer shouldn't be considered at all. I'm new to Wikipedia and there are a lot of guidelines, that are often cited in the first instance as gospel to be followed religiously. But take a step back and consider the ultimate question. Here that question is whether this article belongs in this encyclopedia. The guidelines are there to help answer that question, but it can't hurt to focus on the ultimate question itself in the discussion. And whether the article in interesting to a reader of an encyclopedia is an importart fact in that discussion. And that's the context in which I meant my "interesting" observation. The example in the guideline is that whether I have pencils in my nose would be interesting but wouldn't make a good encyclopedia article. Of course not, but because is in not interesting to someone reading an encyclopedia. I don't go to an encyclopedia to find out whether you have pencils in your nose. An editor of a commercial venture better consider whether the product is interesting to someone who is considering buying (using) the product or the editor will be out of a job shortly. I would hope that we are doing the same at Wikipedia: considering the ultimate "customer." Jlawniczak (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that interesting should not be considered, it's that interesting should not be used as an overriding reason to keep the article when it fails in other more important aspects (namely notability). Most articles on wikipedia are interesting in one way or another, but they have to fulfill other criteria to be articles, not just the topic being interesting. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:INTERESTING is not a valid "keep" argument. A one-time participant in the World Series of Poker falls short in the notability department. Her suicide or her boyfriend's description of her behavior and/or mental illness doesn't add to it. Apparently the article has been "sanitized" since the beginning of this discussion, thus eliminating some potential evidence for keeping (if it were indeed supported with reliable sources). B.Wind (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as non-notable neologism nancy ^(talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flash dropping[edit]

No assertion of notability. I couldn't find any sources for this activity. nneonneo ^talk 08:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. Citations will be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyallman (talk • contribs) 08:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a neologism. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone manages to find sources on this, fails WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO.--Berig (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO or WP:MADEUP. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Proper procedure is not being followed here. Article was started by a newbie editor and four minutes later entered AfD. WP:PROD is the process for ensuring an article is improved or eliminated. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are tagged for deletion minutes after they've been created all the time, frequently using speedy deletion tags which results in their removal hours or even minutes later. We do not have a policy which says that Proposed Deletion must be used before AfD. In fact, the primary purpose of proposed deletion was simply to lighten the load from the AfD system, not to give a better chance of articles being improved. Stopping an AfD process and replacing it with Prod, so that if the Prod tag is removed the article must be AfD'd again, would be ridiculous. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedy works for obvious violations, and prod works if the author doesn't care enough to remove the tag. If the author cares, then the article should be given a chance for a few days. It's rude and silly to randomly run authors through a bureaucratic wringer. If the author removes a prod tag, then presumably the article is being improved in the same timeframe as the AfD discussion would be taking place. Discussing in-progress articles is a major waste of time. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Providing more time for improvement or reference, i can't find anything personally but it should be given longer under WP:PROD --Tefalstar (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROD does not give an article more time than AfD. Both of them result in an article being deleted after about 5 days. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article was AfDed when it was less than five minutes old. It's less than a day old now. The creator has asked for time to work on it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are still 4 1/2 days left to improve the article (provided this nomination doesn't snowball). I tagged this article for AfD because I didn't feel it could ever assert notability, and a cursory Google search turned up nothing. If reliable sources are found to establish the notability of this activity, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. nneonneo ^talk 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP doesn't have a policy requiring articles to be perfect within five days of creation. I'm not in favor of waiting forever, but five days is a bit ridiculous. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't have to be perfect at all. All it needs is a reliable source to prove this activity has some notability. If even a single reliable source comes up, then I will certainly reconsider the nomination. nneonneo ^talk 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: neologism with no evidence of notability. -- The Anome (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a technological neologism, one would expect there to be copious Internet sources available. However, a Google search for "flash dropping" yielded no relevant hits in the first few pages besides this article, suggesting that either the name is incorrect or this fad hasn't caught on quite yet. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. The only sources found for "flash dropping" relate to the price of memory it would seem. And while nominating for AfD while an article is new may be slightly bitey, it doesn't invalidate the nomination. (Aside from biting, we usually leave articles alone long enough for sources to be found, but in the case, it doesn't look like there are any to be found). Bfigura ^(talk) 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep for now, to see if it gets improved. It is true, as said above, that articles often get nominated for various forms of deletion immediately after they've been started. It's a bad practice, hostile to new-comers. The thing to have done with this one is to have placed tags for notability and sources, and given a friendly advice to the author. Obviously, if nothing gets improved, it will have to go, but it's unfair to a newby to ask for it by an AfD, rather than a tag and a note. In my personal opinion, doing so should rank as BYTE and failure to AGF. I know that wasn't the nom's intent--I'm not blaming him, but the practice. DGG (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. No reliable sources. I vaguely recall something about some band leaving flash drives with their songs in the bathrooms of their concerts (or something like that), but it wasn't called "flash dropping" and hardly constitutes a movement of any kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Coller[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to this subject. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable and completely unsourced, and looks to be self-promotion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable references, seems like it's made up. Dwilso 07:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: references provided, good article. Dwilso 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a rehash of the skeleton biog on the company website [20] - notability not asserted -- Ka renjc 09:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the references provide sufficient notability.--Berig (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep If he is head of Coller Capital, & if the company is the largest in its market, both he and they ought to have an article, and their official page can be accepted for the routine facts of his career. COI is reason for editing, not deletion.DGG (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I declined the speedy on this because the article did, in fact, assert notability in that it stated he founded a major financial firm. A search for references regarding him turn up his presence on the Financial News Top 100 list of the most influential people in the European capital market; there are some profiles of him in magazines (unfortunately, the majority of that article is behind a paywall, but here's a cache of another one in Global Investor magazine). Google News turns up a fair number of hits, as does Google itself. I think there's enough to indicate notability out there. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Presence on such lists alone does not establish notability. I did not get a hit on Google News for either "Jeremy Coller" or Jeremy Coller, and he gets fewer Google hits than I do; in any event, Ghits alone do not establish notability, nor does cursory mention in magazines (and I think being on a list qualifies as a cursory mention) - but unfortunately he may be more prevalent in British print media, something my access to is essentially nonexistant. Apparently he pioneered private equity secondary market related stuff, and I found an article to that effect. If someone can find some articles and assemble a reasonable article about him, I'd change my vote. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got 85 Google News Archive hits for "Jeremy Coller". The two articles I point to above are both profiles specifically about him. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tried to improve the article. --Eastmain (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Eastmain, you tried and succeeded. I think it passes the notability test. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Cap'n_Crunch#The_Soggies. Black Kite 22:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soggies[edit]

Easily fails WP:N, has no sources, orphaned, highly unlikely to ever be expanded. Previous attempts (by another user) to PROD and redirect have been reverted. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - per [21]. There seems to be some non-trivial mentions that may meet WP:NOTE for these cereal villains. I'm not sure how substantial this is though, hence the weak. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to Merge. See below. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Content merged to Cap'n Crunch#The Soggies, where it can live happily ever after. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Now merge and add some references. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article provides no content, context or evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cap'n Crunch#The Soggies per Potatoswatter. I have reverted the redirect that was disrupting the AfD process, but it should be restored upon closing of this discussion.B.Wind (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cap'n Crunch#The Soggies now that content has been merged. Not sufficiently notable on their own, but worth including in the Cap'n Crunch article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Pereira da Silva[edit]

A youth international but not yet a professional footballer. Matthew_hk t c 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated Rafael Pereira da Silva (born 1990).

Delete per nom, no professional appearances. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nomination --Jimbo^[online] 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus. The COI issue has been addressed, the article is leaning further and further towards NPOV, sources seem to show Notability, therefore passing CORP. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Partners[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by a user with a WP:COI. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Urbanrenewal has provided references, which are at Talk:Landmark Partners Potatoswatter (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*: Would you mind cutting that out and pasting it on a page or section in your userspace, then linking that back to here? I'm not saying it isn't helpful information, but it would make it easier for those of us patrolling AfD to scroll by without seeing large amounts of text that isn't really related to the debate over an article. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete sources should be mainstream news outlets. Tickers and press releases don't count. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Validation of Notability AND Objectivity where I lay out the same argument for articles for Lexington Partners, Coller Capital and Landmark Partners including substantial third party sources Urbanrenewal (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some articles fom the New York Times related to this company. --Eastmain (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's equivalent to saying they're notable because of a corruption scandal where they bribed an official for business. One of your articles is a police blotter. I can make it to the police blotter. They're directly about Ben Andrews anyway. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
”Verifiability”???? these are subscrition links.. the others; Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Verifiability -- I raised this issue at the Talk page there. Just because it's hard to access a source doesn't mean it's not verifiable, I believe, but you can chime in. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 10:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Specialized newsletters and trade publications can be reliable sources. In particular, I note that Private Equity Analyst is published by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., better known as the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, and therefore I expect that the newsletter is as selective and careful about what it includes as a daily newspaper would be. I note that the newsletter's content is available only to subscribers. There is no requirement that a reliable source's content be available free on the web. --Eastmain (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These guys are in the business of raising capital and publicizing it. Does it sound notable to you that they borrowed 1.x billion USD from various people in order to lend it to someone else? I think a lot of this is more akin to business advertisements. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's more significant is that the sources are unbiased. I can't access the one referenced, but reports on the business they do are likely to be based on their own press releases. The preview lead paragraph looks like "business is still humming along, as you can see these guys are borrowing and lending!" Potatoswatter (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account. Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with spam articles.

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#private_equity_firm_Spam_articles
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Check the WP:Spam noticeboard for these users and domain names. Protonk (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The page isn't unduly promotional now that it includes a discussion of the bribery scandal, and I am not sure that it ever was a conflict of interest. Perhaps the article's creator thinks that venture capital firms are interesting, the same way that other editors like to create articles about trains. --Eastmain (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wrote this page and can attest that I have no conflict of interest. I think everyone will agree that the page is now substantial in content and fairly balanced. I also think given the references to third party articles and other sources this should be considered a notable topic and worth of keeping on the site. Please see my work on similar firms in the same space Coller Capital, Lexington Partners and a work-in-progress User:Urbanrenewal/AlpInvest Partners. i appreciate all of the comments and do not expect to make substantial further additions and would much prefer to let other users comment and adjust the page as necessary. Urbanrenewal (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In its current (and, presumably, cleaned up) version, the article clearly shows the notability of this company and its role within the private equity sector. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with 'Strong Keep' in cleaned up version. The article is very helpfull for people interested in the private equity sector. boblenin 17:51, 29 April 2008 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.172.48.134 (talk)
Keep clearly notable company and well sourced. Hu12 is totally wrong that subscription sources are unacceptable. DGG (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Eastmain/DGG. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 10:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant improvement. Sources verify notability now. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article that is significantly improved since the beginning of this discussion. Sources are in place; notability well established. B.Wind (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches reveal press releases, not independent newsworthy items. Frank | talk 00:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. (Similar rationale, same consensus, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landmark Partners Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington Partners[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; as of right now, no evidence of notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comments on Coller Capital and Landmark Partners.

See Validation of Notability AND Objectivity where I lay out the same argument for articles for Lexington Partners, Coller Capital and Landmark Partners including substantial third party sources Urbanrenewal (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Specialized newsletters and trade publications can be reliable sources. In particular, I note that Private Equity Analyst is published by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., better known as the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, and therefore I expect that the newsletter is as selective and careful about what it includes as a daily newspaper would be. I note that the newsletter's content is available only to subscribers. There is no requirement that a reliable source's content be available free on the web. --Eastmain (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ”Verifiability”???? .. the others; Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account. Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with spam articles.

Weak Delete Admittedly, this reads like an advertisement for an important company; it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. A good rewrite would justify saving this article.

Please refer back to the page. I have gone through and made a number of changes to address some of the items cited above.Urbanrenewal (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Check the WP:Spam noticeboard for these users and domain names. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wrote this page and have made substantial further edits in response to the comments above. I think everyone will agree that the page is now substantial in content and fairly balanced, with a section on competitors, etc. I also think given the references to third party articles and other sources this should be considered a notable topic and worth of keeping on the site. Please see my work on similar firms in the same space Coller Capital, Landmark Partners and a work-in-progress User:Urbanrenewal/AlpInvest Partners. i appreciate all of the comments and do not expect to make substantial further additions and would much prefer to let other users comment and adjust the page as necessary. Urbanrenewal (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anothermajor company. sources to show it, and t hat amounts to notability. Most of us perhaps arent too interested in the business world, but that';s not an argument for deletion. DGG (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Eastmain/DGG. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 10:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it's not as clear-cut as Landmark Partners but all the requisite pieces are in place to establish WP:CORP. There's still more work to do here, but on the whole, deletion is no longer appropriate here. B.Wind (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. References are largely press releases; no independent coverage. Frank | talk 00:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. Arguments that this subject is not notable have been made, others assert that this is a notable company. Eastmain has done a good job in finding references, and in that light, comments before that time could be unaware of these new developements. After that comment there was still a call for (speedy) deletion. There is no real consensus either way, which defaults to keeping the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coller Capital[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Recreated twice under different names Coller capital and this curent version, both have been deleted once per WP:CSD#G12. Article was created by a user with a WP:COI. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be self promotion and no indication of notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comments on Coller Capital and Landmark Partners.

DELETED as suggested Urbanrenewal (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Urbanrenewal, your arguments would be much more effective if you distilled your text down to the most notable things. Compare to some other notable private equity groups if possible. Please cut down your huge chunk of text; I can't read it and I doubt anyone else can either. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 07:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you mind cutting that out and pasting it on a page or section in your userspace, then linking that back to here? I'm not saying it isn't helpful information, but it would make it easier for those of us patrolling AfD to scroll by without seeing large amounts of text that isn't really related to the debate over an article. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Urbanrenewal, you should list the assets under management for each of these firms in their page. But I agree that if these are the largest firms in their sector, then they should be listed. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Validation of Notability and Objectivity where I lay out the same argument for articles for Lexington Partners, Coller Capital and Landmark Partners including substantial third party sources Urbanrenewal (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Specialized newsletters and trade publications can be reliable sources. In particular, I note that Private Equity Analyst is published by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., better known as the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, and therefore I expect that the newsletter is as selective and careful about what it includes as a daily newspaper would be. I note that the newsletter's content is available only to subscribers. There is no requirement that a reliable source's content be available free on the web. --Eastmain (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ”Verifiability”???? .. the others; Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account. Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with spam articles.

Weak Delete - It is most likely a notable company, but the article reads like an advertisement. In view of the new additions to the article by Eastmain, I have to switch my original vote to Keep Ecoleetage (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added some references, and I don't think the article is spam now. --Eastmain (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Check the WP:Spam noticeboard for these users and domain names. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wrote this page and have made substantial further edits. I think everyone will agree that the page is now substantial in content and fairly balanced, with a section on competitors, etc. I also think given the references to third party articles and other sources this should be considered a notable topic and worth of keeping on the site. Please see my work on similar firms in the same space Landmark Partners, Lexington Partners and a work-in-progress User:Urbanrenewal/AlpInvest Partners. i appreciate all of the comments and do not expect to make substantial further additions and would much prefer to let other users comment and adjust the page as necessary. Urbanrenewal (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three of these articles are about major companies. The failure to recognize their notability is an example of cultural bias. It isnt the part of the world most Wikipedia people know about, so we are reluctant to admit the sources. In fact, I think some of us who have seen many examples of corporate spam have a certain skepticism about that whole side of life, but it isnt at all reasonable. These are all notable companies, and we include as much information as the sources permit.DGG (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Stargate topics[edit]

This navigational list contains nothing that the two SG templates ((StargateNav))) and ((Stargate Races)) or browsing Category:Stargate couldn't do as well. It had previously only been linked from one nav template (it still is), and hasn't been updated for mergers or deleted pages between August 2007 and April 2008, so I am not even sure how much it is/was used in the first place. Prod notice was removed. My deletion rationale would be "redundance with no added benefit". – sgeureka ^t•c 06:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Nearly all of the non-cast non-episode links in this nav list also already appear in Aliens in Stargate as hatnotes. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If consensus is to delete, please userfy the article at User:Celarnor\List of Stargate Topics. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List itself is non-notable and what it seems to be doing is better done by the appropriate category. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am thinking now that this deletion proposal would have been more appropriate as an MfD, maybe... – sgeureka ^t•c 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Deletion rationale is inherently flawed. I Suggest nominator view CLN guidelines, specifically the parts involving redundancy between categories, lists and navtemplates not being reasons for deletion. There's nothing wrong with having it this way; some users, such as myself, hate the ugliness of categories and would prefer something similar to a regular article to help with navigation, such as a list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It works much better than the category due to its organization. It appears to be very useful for navigation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Celarnor. Also, the page provides a useful listing of topics that is not provided by the current templates. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:CLN. Lists and categories complement each other. They aren't exclusive and should not be nominated for deletion because of overlap. --neonwhite user page talk 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article space is not for lists of this nature; navigation templates are preferred. - Chardish (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to this policy? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant article/list. If you've navigated your way to this list, you already have passed a vast number of other methods of locating the articles listed here. If this page did not exist, could readers still find their way around? Yes, that's the entire basis of wikilinks. This article is therefore redundant. Hiding T 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. You might have arrived here from our table of contents system, which is the main purpose of lists such as these. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it serves the purpose of linking all the smaller lists together in a manner that's easy to navigate. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to many: This list has only been accessible via a navigation template in the first place for the last few months, first ((StargateLists)), now ((StargateNav)) (as far as I am aware of). There is no need to click on a list when the template already gives the same info. Doing otherwise would be like looking up a book's table of contents to learn where to find the table of contents. Redundant. Or no-one missed a page like this in the first place to make it more accessible from other places. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make the fallacy of assuming that people look for information like this only via templates. Other people prefer using the categories navigation system, and still others prefer using the list system. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, which makes them not completely redundant to one another, which is in turn why we have the "redundancy isn't a deletion rationale for categories, lists, and templates" bit in the CLN guidelines. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, in order to find this list, a user would have to use a template and/or the category system first. And if they do they latter, there is no point in this list anymore. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I search for topics list by name; if I want the basic topics for law, I go directly to List of law topics; I don't muck around in categories because I think they're ugly as hell, and I don't like nav templates because that already requires I know enough about the topic to find a page with the navtemplate on it. This method doesn't require me to do either of those, which is one of the reasons I prefer topics list over the other two. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe this illustrates it even better: Per stats.grok.se, this list has so far been used 67 this month. Aliens in Stargate, which basically (but admittedly not fully) serves the same function but gives more context for each link, was visited 7083 times. The top level category path has been visited 294 times so far this month. The main nav templates are always accessible from almost every Stargate related article, and Stargate has been viewed 60846 times alone. So not only is this list redundant, it's also pretty much unused, or no-one at least really missed it for finding his way. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I think the numbers are non-arguments. Per PERFORMANCE, it's not our place to worry about disk space or bandwidth, and that's really all that boils down to. As this page is perfectly in line with the guidelines on stand-alone lists and the general guidelines for topics lists, the only things you've cited thus far as reasons for deletion that isn't outright against guidelines is that "few people use it", and I really don't think that's sufficient reason to delete anything, let alone serve as the sole deletion rationale. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepjust as good as all the other lists of topics. This is one of the accepted types of navigational articles. Various ones have been proposed here from time to time,. and always kept. How large the usage is is totally irrelevant. that's not our standard of deletion. Paper encyclopedias cant afford to give the space to seldom used material, but that's paper. DGG (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the only real problem here is that not enough pages link to this topics list. The list itself is not at fault. The central Stargate articles ought to be linking to this topics list directly. The problem is the lack of links, not the article. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fostertopia[edit]

Make-believe "nation" created in high school. Completely non-notable. Tan | 39 05:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Page was previously speedied per Gogo Dogo four minutes before recreation. Should now be speedied; placing a tag as such. Tan | 39 06:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom; non-notable and no indication of notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on I agree that it should be deleted; let's let it run full-AfD so that it can be speedied G4 if it's recreated a third time. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and absolute horse shit. JuJube (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be speedied really. WP:MADEUP. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come over to My House[edit]

This article is a stub about a book by Dr. Seuss; I redirected it (to Dr. Seuss) but it was reverted by MJBurrage, so I'm bringing it here. Seuss wrote over 50 children's books, and as this one is not particularly notable in his body of work, and as it contains no third-party sources, I believe it fails WP:FICTION. The book is already listed, along with its publication date, author, and illustrator, on Dr. Seuss#As Theo. LeSieg, so other than plot information, it doesn't reiterate anything new. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not notable enough for its own article, and it seems highly unlikely it will ever be anything but a stub. Lack of secondary sources to establish notability hurts it as well; Wikipedia articles about books need more content than mere plot summaries. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the nom made it a redirect previously, that goes against deleting it now. I would recommend a Request for Comment or a Third Opinion request be used instead, for consensus to keep it a redirect. It can always be protected if someone goes against consensus, but there hasn't been a discussion on redirecting it as yet. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm somewhat confused... as far as I know, AFD proposals can end with a vote of Redirect. I don't believe this article should be deleted—only redirected—but there needs to be a consensus as it has been reverted once already. Mr. Absurd (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly- AfD is for deletion only, not proposed redirects. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I'm not really proposing redirect—I'm waiting for a consensus. WP:AFD says "The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per Titanium Dragon. If an article has nothing to say beyond what's already being said in its parent article, it shouldn't exist as a separate entity. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering Dr Suess' notability, there should certainly be a nice List of books by Dr. Suess which could merge this article in. In the meantime, don't see the point in deleting this. It's really not that bad. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a list of books, located at Dr. Seuss#Publications; that's where it was originally redirected. The problem is that there are about 35 articles about Dr. Seuss books that contain about this level of detail—no sources, and nothing but plot information. This book clearly fails WP:N, which states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right - so all details from that section, and the 35 stubs, can be merged into a WP:LIST. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you mean a more detailed list than at Dr. Seuss#Publications?
      - Yes. Generally following WP:LIST. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Such a list would have a section for each book with as much detail as the page being discussed, unless the book had a much more extensive entry in which case the list would have a brief summary and a link to the related article. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge simply redirecting this to a list of titles on the author's page is inappropriate. The entry may be brief, but it is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not paper, and is not restricted by a page count. Any book by Dr. Seuss is notable enough for this much detail. As for whether it should be its own page or a section in a page giving similar details on his other books is semantics. (Since there would still be a redirect.) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, any book by Dr. Seuss is not necessarily notable enough for an article. As specifically stated on WP:Notability, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As for "Wikipedia is not paper"—I didn't nominate this article because I thought it was taking up server space, I nominated it because it has no sources, and the title, publication date, and illustrator are already located in the main Dr. Seuss article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Picking and choosing which books from this undeniably notable author to include violates WP:NPOV. If someone wants to include a source with this, simply track down one of the biographies on the subject and include the source so that for those who don't believe it exists, there's their proof. WP:SOFIXIT 23skidoo (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh... no, this doesn't violate WP:NPOV at all. As I've stated multiple times already, the notability policy indicates that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Many Dr. Seuss books are notable under these guidelines, but this one isn't—the article has no sources, and a biography that simply mentions or lists this book doesn't count as "significant coverage". The source isn't just a matter of "proving that it exists". Also, per WP:PLOT, the article needs to contain more than just plot information. Mr. Absurd (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, by the general notability guidelines, just because there are not critical/review sources easy to find online does not mean that there are not such sources that could be found else ware. All of Mr. Absurd's criticisms are not valid reasons for deletion, they are valid points to consider for article/section improvement.
Second, as a book; Wikipedia:Notability (books) is the more appropriate guideline, and by its standards (See #5) any book by Dr. Seuss is notable.
—MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, any book by Dr. Seuss "may be considered notable". I wouldn't normally have such a problem with a stub, except that this really never going to be anything but a stub—it's a children's book, and even though it's by Dr. Seuss it's not really notable or exceptional in any way. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you know that it's never going to be anything more than a stub? We have lots of full articles about books for young children - just look at Pat the Bunny or Goodnight Moon, for example. Some people evidently enjoy working on that stuff, and sooner or later they'll presumably get around to the Seuss back catalog. Far too often here on Wikipedia, it seems like people say "no one will ever expand it" when what they really mean is "I'm not interested in expanding it". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would expand it, but I'm researching for a bunch of Dr. Seuss-related articles and I haven't yet found anything concerning this book—which only proves my point. Pat the Bunny and Goodnight Moon are good examples, but they are both exceptions to the rule. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I beleive that by only including part of reason #5 and by bolding only certain words you are changing its meaning. The Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says that a book is notable if it meets "one or more of the following criteria:, and #5 reads "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.". #5 clearly applies to Seuss making all of his works notable without separate sources. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not changing its meaning at all. The guidelines don't say that all books by a notable author are "automatically" notable, but that they "may be considered" notable. I'm merely emphasizing this fact, because I think this is a case where the book is considered not notable.
      - You are misinterpreting the meaning of "may". For example "may have permission" means "do have permission" not "might have permission". —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I did realize that, but it does say "consider". Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all books by really major authors are intrinsically notable. Since when are articles on children's books impossible to expand--given the author, there are inevitably going to be reviews. There is no requirement for something clearly notable to have full sourcing immediately. And considering children's subjects uninteresting or unimportant for an encyclopedia is inappropriate. DGG (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're putting words in my mouth. I have never said that children's subjects are uninteresting or unimportant for an encyclopedia, and I certainly disagree with those statements. I also agree that Dr. Seuss is a very major author, and many of his books are completely deserving of articles. However, although this book is by Dr. Seuss, it is not one of his more notable or exceptional books, and as such, I personally hold the opinion that it's neither particularly notable nor deserving of an article, especially as it doesn't contain any pertinent information. However, it seems I'm in the minority here. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets WP:BK as the book's "author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". Skomorokh 00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Yes, many strange POVs are at times exhibited on Wikipedia, but I think very few of us can come to grips with the notion that there can be such a thing as "a anti-Orcan and anti-conservationist POV to slander Orcans". Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orca attacks on humans[edit]

Delete: Extremely POV article and collection of five non-notable incidents. Wikipedia is not soapbox. These five incidents do not deserve for a separate article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very POV, two dozen incidents, over 30+ years, for all killer whales, is really nothing special or notable. nneonneo ^talk 05:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't find it POV so much as simply not noteworthy; Orcas attacking humans is not inherently notable, and people regularly get attacked by lots of other animals, which makes the news, but we don't list all dog attacks. One of the incidents is noted in the appropriate orca's article, and the other two don't seem to have involved anything particularly noteworthy, so I endorse the deletion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I simply do not understand this nomination. What POV do you think the article promotes? How is it different from the other articles in Category:Animal attacks? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on Orcas. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC) In light of being informed that this was spun out of a parent article, changing to Keep. Has WP:RS, passes WP:NOT. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created by spinning it out of Orca because the Orca article was both too long and gave too much weight to the rare phenomenon of attacks on humans. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like an okay split from orca; the only POV I could possibly see would be that it's giving undue weight where attacks are more rare, but that can be fixed by putting more emphasis in the sentence that points out the rarity. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orca attacks is not much notable to have its own article. An article under this title is certainly POV pushing and soapboxing. An article titled Human attacks on Orcas will be more notable bacuse the threat they have from humans. We cannot have an article with four incidents. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of articles that document a single incident. What is your minimum number of incidents that an article has to cover? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since merging does not seem to be an option. Also per Clayoquot. Garion96 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is still such a small part of orca to be spinning off. Why not pull out all of Orcas and humans? Potatoswatter (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering that we are talking about Killer Whales it's actually completely reasonable to have this content. Because the main article is lengthy this is perfectly acceptable as a sub article. Sure, the article would benefit from further development, detailing other notable attacks. POV? What POV is this article supposedly written from? Orcan Supremacist? --JayHenry (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written from a anti-Orcan and anti-conservationist POV to slander Orcans. By that sense, Human attacks on Orcas will be more notable. Attack by X animal articles are only notable if the particular animal is will-known for attacking humans. We do not have Attack by X animal articles for each and every animal. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the highest compliment one can receive on Wikipedia is to be accused of having a POV opposite to one's actual POV, I think I've just been canonized. Seriously though, this article presents some verifiable facts that received a fair amount of attention from reliable third-party sources. It is interesting to see how this article comes across because if it comes across as biased then we ought to fix it. Can you suggest a different way to approach the subject matter? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the article was written with the motivation to keep the interest of pro-Whaling lobby groups. Wikipedia is not the place for pro-Whaling lobbying. The article itself states that attack from Orca is not any serious issue, nor it is notable. Only those articles should be written where the attacking animal is well-known and regarded by the scientific community for being dangerous to humans. Orca is not the case. Four isolated incidents do not constitute an encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try some WP:AGF, eh? The author is a long-standing contributor here, with contributions in many areas. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Whaling? Are you kidding? Garion96 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the author has some Colbertesque fear of whales? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By detailing the attacks, Clayoquot is trying to stir up our deeply ingrained Orcaphobia? (We repress it in polite society, perhaps?) You know what? I think she's right! After reading this article I now believe we must kill all the Orcas before they kill us!! But look, all kidding aside, this is a really reasonable "Attack by X animal" because, again, they are known as Killer Whales, and thus readers are going to be interested in the truth behind that. This article could not actually cause Orcaphobic sentiments in any remotely educated or intelligent person. --JayHenry (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"After reading this article I now believe we must kill all the Orcas before they kill us" - it is your personal opinion. Wikipedia does not run on the basis of your personal opinion. Orcas never be so dangerous to humans that humans should kill them all. Because Orcas are not regarded threat to humans by the scientific community. Four isolated incidents do not deserve for a separate encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious I was joking. The claim that this was written for "the interest of pro-whaling lobby groups" does not stand up to a shred of scrutiny. Is that even a serious accusation? How would publicizing an Orca attack at Sea World help the pro-whaling lobby? People don't support whaling for purposes of revenge. --JayHenry (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to think that if there is a prospect for the article to be expanded beyond merely listing the attacks it would make a feasible article, but it should otherwise be deleted. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where WP:SOAP comes into this, but is there any prospect of expanding the article so that it is more than a simple list of attacks, providing some cultural, biological or historical context for these attacks? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or... just copy&pasting a larger section, orca#Orcas and humans, to create the new article, which would then be inherently balanced. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:YFA states that just because both Fact A and Fact B are true does NOT mean that A caused B, or vice-versa. This article is giving a totally wrong impression of Orca as if they are known for attacking humans and humans are vulnerable to Orca. In fact the opposite is true. Environmental degradation and human activities are threatening the existence of this animal. The article Orca clearly states that Wild Orcas are usually not considered a threat to humans. This article documents some isolated incidents. Here is a source which documents some isolated cases, even these are not by wild Orcas, these are isolated reports of captive Orcas attacking at marine theme parks. This little fact should be mentioned in the article Orcas, the isolated cases are not worthy of having an article. Should we have List of Europeans killed in plane accidents involving the United States, List of American killed in the European Union, List of Asians killed while traveling in American airliners? This article in its present form is WP:TRIVIA because the subject of Orcas attack against humans in not inherently notable. Many general references on Orcas do not mention this trivial fact that there are some isolated cases of attacks invloving captive Orcas [22], [23], [24]. This article is one-sided, gratuitously biased and misleading. WP:INDISCRIMINATE states Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. This "article" violates many of the policies. There should not be any article under this title because the topic is not inherently notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oto, the very first sentence of this article says "Wild Orcas are not usually considered a threat to humans." How can you claim it's misleading people about the danger of orcas when it acknowledges this in the very first sentence? The third sentence acknowledges that the documented attacks are from domestic orcas. How is it misleading when it directly acknowledges these things in the first paragraph? Nobody here is trying to engage in pro-whaling lobbying. --JayHenry (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said that the topic is not inherently notable to have its own article. I don't want to repeat it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Referencing could be improved, but the article actually shows how rare these incidents are, contra the nominator's unfocused ranting ("gratuitous, biased, and misleading"). --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oto, these debates can come up with any kind of solution to the issue. The information in this article belongs somewhere in WP because it's referenced (hence WP:N), orca is too bloated to accommodate it, and the present article is obviously (somewhat comically) one sided. There's gonna be a compromise between erasing it and keeping as is. If we stay cool. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this appears to have enough references to be verifiable. Further, the fact that orca's rarely attack humans would seem to make those rare orca attacks more notable, not less. (And really.... an anti-orcan POV? Seriously? The first sentence of the article says that orca attacks are rare.) Bfigura ^(talk) 23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs work but a significant topic and reasonable list. JJL (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see there is systematic bias in wikipedia. The "Keep" votes would have turned into "Delete" if the title of the article was Human attacks on Orcas. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otolemur, please see:

When humans attack whales it's called whaling. Wikipedia has literally about a hundred articles on different aspects of humans attacking whales. People are arguing to keep the article because it's covered in reliable sources and hence "notable". Absolutely nobody is trying to push a pro-whaling POV. --JayHenry (t) 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm totally confused by the POV accusations. Sure orca attacks are rare (it says as much in the article), but it seems sensible to catalog the ones that do occur (and get loads of press coverage). Just last week I read a case in my employment law class about the Sea World secretary who was mauled by Shamu (she was trying to claim that Shamu riding was outside the scope of her employment and thus was not limited by workers' compensation damages; she lost). Interesting to see that this isn't the only time it has occurred to orca handlers. Mangostar (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe POV claim is strange. The attacks are well documented. Edison (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -events are rare enough to be notable and counted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 13:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Defiants[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and N. One claim of notability that is not sourced, as there are no sources. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim to notability is now cited correctly, making them notable. Atyndall93 | talk
Delete. One article does not establish notability, and a quick Google search doesn't encourage me as to how notable they are. They have fewer hits than I do, and other than the BBC article, I don't see anything really reputable to establish them as noteable. The coverage of them seems trivial and too short-lived to warrant an article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable band. All the bluelinks in the article go to unrelated people and topics. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Doctor Who characters, monsters, and aliens[edit]

Unfinished navigational list which is redundant in light of List of Doctor Who serials, which enables the reader to navigate to each episode/serial article and find out about the characters and monsters in each story. Lu Ta 04:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because its an incomplete table of Doctor Who characters, monsters, and aliens--Lemmey talk 04:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete useful, but a separate page for organizing every show in all these different ways would be unwieldy. People can click a couple more times instead. JJL (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, unsources and lacking most of its information. Atyndall93 | talk 04:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --OZ OO 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is redundant with List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens Potatoswatter (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have all this information, this is inappropriate. --Tefalstar (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discrminate table. If it is incomplete, then Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Consistent with Wikipedia:Five pillars as verifiable and notable information found in a specialized encyclopedia on Doctor Who of which there are many published variations. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And Wikipedia already has this information, organised in a similar manner. Best, --Lu Ta 17:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then we would redirect without deletion in order to keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this should just be deleted. There is no reason to redirect it. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopelessly incomplete, and wouldn't be remotely encyclopedic even if completed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. Several editors have expressed concern that there may be a systematic bias problem here. Others have put forward that there is no significant coverage found in indepent reliable sources. Others again express the opinion that we may presume this subject notable on its merits, without having found those sources yet. In the end there is no consensus for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saurashtra Janata Express[edit]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide and there's no evidence this is a notable train. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why is this? It it because it's Indian? ----DanTD (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly it. Well that and because its a completely unsourced article about a non-notable subject, totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Lemmey talk 04:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why is it listed on the India related board? Yes, in case there's something in the local press and/or one of the languages of India that established notability. Why is it up for deletion? Precisely as I said in my nom and as Lemney echoed above. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Searching news.google.com turns up nothing, not notabile, fails criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 05:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All named trains are notable. References are probably out there in some form or another, even if a Google search doesn't turn up much. There are a lot of books and magazines about trains that may not be indexed by Google, including material intended for different specific audiences such as railfans, vacationers, business travellers, travel agents and railway managers. After all, rail transportation represents a significant part of the economy of India. --Eastmain (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All trains in India are named, like US counterparts and unlike Euro. Names can be obscure and inconsistently spelled in English. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment No, not all named trains are notable. This appears to be a run of the mill train. The train line I commute on to work every day is named, there's no evidence it's notable either and that's in a large US city. If it's for travelers, then it's travel guide information. Railway service in general is important and some particular train lines might be for historical reasons -- there's no evidence this is anything but a runn of the mill train TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. We do not bet on future notability, and I disagree that all named trains are notable. This is apparently a good example of a non-notable one. There is nothing to indicate it is notable in any way. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Western Railway (India). As for comparison to US train articles, see Carolinian and Piedmont, and then browse to that article from Amtrak by clicking through Northeast Corridor. When we have that volume of information on Indian trains, there can be an article on this. For now, progress is very respectible but keeping structure cohesive will help. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - might I offer a British comparison Pines Express? This appears to be a railway service, rather than a particular train. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The difference is the Pines Express actually appears to have a notable, albeit currently unsourced, history that has been covered years after it last ran. This appears to be nothing more than a travel listing, no evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think all named trains should in fact be considered as notable; but if not, it should at least apply to major inter-city expresses such as this. That a WPedian happens to ride one regularly does not make it any the less notable. We'd expect that notable trains are ridden by many people. DGG (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but what is notable? The article as it stands, which does not appear to be improvable due to a lack of information, is simply what you'd find in a travel guide. There's no evidence this is anything other than a train that runs between two cities with some stops. It had a death and a robbery -- probably not uncommon for Indian trains either. This train exists, but I don't think a name makes it notable. Just my .02 TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A very important route in India between two major metropolitan areas (that's one of the reasons it's named). We're getting into systemic bias if we start deleting articles on a certain topic in one country and yet never had any problem with equivalent US article topics.--Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all trains in India have names, like in the US. This information could be just as nicely presented in Western Railway (India), which is already better integrated with other articles on Indian transportation. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Disagree, I'd support deletion of a non-notable train in the US as well. Trains connecting cities are not inherently notable. They exist, that doesn't mean they're notable. No one has proved any evidence this train is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of trains throughout the world TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trains connecting major metropolitan areas aren't notable? Thanks for your opinion. And deleting named trains articles in one country when named trains in the US are considered notable is in fact a classic example of systemic bias. Your single (and sudden) "I would support deleting US named train articles" opinion is irrelevant. --Oakshade (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you of Wikipedia's notability: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. Has nothing to do with bias, there is no evidence this train is notable and if a US/UK/Mars train had the same lack of evidence of notability, it should be deleted. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I think what the nominator is looking for here (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is the historical significance of this service. A historically significant railway service will have references that list more than just departure/arrival information. The search results linked in the nominator's original statement lists several pages that mention this service, but I'm not seeing links that list much more than timetable information. There are two news links dating back to 1999 that were added to the article as references, and that kind of information is closer to the historical significance that we need to assert on this service, but their connection to the subject appears to be on the order of "this event had a connection to the train service" rather than "this train is notable because...". It's entirely possible that this service is historically significant, so our task is to find reliable sources that say so and add that information to the article in order to keep it. I'm holding my opinion on the merits of this nomination until I can do a more thorough search through resources that might not yet be indexed on the net. Slambo (Speak) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're getting at, Slambo. But I still don't like it. The whole thing seems like we're just ready to ditch the article just because it's not from America. I may not know of every named passenger train in India, the UK, or France, but that alone shouldn't give us the right to trash it. Maybe you remember when somebody tagged all South Korean subway stations for deletion, and I mentioned that doing so would give the appearence of bias towards American railroad articles, and against railroad articles from specific countries. ----DanTD (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge into Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. KrakatoaKatie 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Constabulary crest[edit]

The crest appears to exist, but ghits are solely wiki mirrors, flickr and ebay with no infrmation about the crest. Article is apparently sourced to the Scottish Police but there's no evidence that it's a notable crest. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, no reliable publications can be found, fails WP:N criteria, not notable. Atyndall93 | talk 05:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added as a reference a statement by John Reid (politician) in Hansard. --Eastmain (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't question that the crest exists, which is all your source addresses. I question whether it's notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable as far as I can tell. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. There is much useful material that we shouldn't lose and the target page badly needs some content. TerriersFan (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TerriersFan, or into Chief Constables'_(Scotland)_Club (organization it was created for originally, according to the article). Not noteworthy enough for an article in its own right. Frank | talk 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exit (2009)[edit]

Delete - Yet-unreleased film of unclear notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Delete - no one can deny the greatness of Johno Faherty's film that hasen't yet started filming, or can they? --Lemmey talk 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Unreleased movie, zero Ghits (aside from Wikipedia) on the producer Johno Faherty (which would be pretty much impossible if the movie was notable), probable Conflict of Interest with the author (judging from the username and the apparent single-purpose nature), no sources (let alone reliable ones), no notability. nneonneo ^talk 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. To quote WP:MOVIE, "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles," and this one definitely hasn't. (I'm not convinced it'll be notable even after release, but that takes me into crystal ball territory.) AnturiaethwrTalk 04:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of being a wide-release film, looks like a student film at best, with no independent coverage, there is no external sources to use to write an article from. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's clearly not notable at this time. If at some later date (you know afer it's actualy done and released for starters) becomes a major cult clasic or something it can be revisited at that time. Delte the movie poster image too while at it by the way. --Sherool (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Crystal ballism regarding something that wouldn't be notable even if it had already happened. Article indicates the film is in post-production yet filming is not scheduled to even begin for another month. This looks like something made up one day; at best a student film in the making, at worst a hoax. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A little digging confirms what I suspected. The author of this article is User:Johnofah5 who essentially admits in this diff to being the same Johno Faherty as is referred to as the supposed producer of this film and the goes on in this diff to admit to being a middle school student. As I suspected: something made up in school one day. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable film. — scetoaux (T|C) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn at this time. JJL (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is an advertisement for a non-notable film. In fact, I'd call it spam. 24.6.157.14 (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the film fails to be notable, and the primary contributor appears to have a conflict of interest in creating this topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Kuwaiti Premier League.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Shaheed Fahd Al-Ahmed League[edit]

This article is supposed to be about a football league, but instead, it is an incomplete list of non-notable facts. Tavix (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It seems that no one helped it over the course of two years (June 2006? really?) so uh, yeah, non-notable, unsourced, and contains no useful information. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could this possibly be an alternate name for the Kuwaiti Premier League? If so, redirect there. But if not, delete this article for lack of verification. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 12:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuwaiti Premier League. Metropolitan90 is correct – the champions listed there match up with the ones in this incomplete article. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you got it -- the champion names coincide. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Oldelpaso Potatoswatter (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Metropolitan90 and Oldelpaso. Giant Snowman 13:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses. (non-admin closure). Article is well-referenced. WP:PROBLEMS with writing style are not sufficient grounds for deletion. Skomorokh 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAM: Significance Analysis of Microarrays[edit]

Was listed on CSD, then PROD, but I've moved it here. Reason given for PROD was violate of WP:NOTMANUAL - I tend to agree, but because it's so detailed someone may wish to take on rewriting it, or it could be tranwikied in some way to Wikibooks or another source. Either way probably too long for a basic prod, so have put it here. Esteffect (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subject, but it needs wikification. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete to DNA microarray. Note that this article is only about dealing with the large volume of data that results from DNA analysis. Well, particle physics and astronomy generate lots of data too, but we don't have how-to articles for their gory technical details. Also it looks like a big stinking copyvio. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDNA microarrays are a sufficiently large & important subject for articles on specialized aspects to be justified. some of the detail does have to be reduced--that's an editing decision, & to improve the article, as encouraged during AfD, I have just removed some of the more obvious. DGG (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject is veriable and notable (there should be plenty of references for data analysis of microarrays in any of the -omics journals. A need for cleanup doesn't result in a need to delete. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should there be a data analysis of DNA microarrays article? Is this the only methodology? Potatoswatter (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably. Not my field of expertise, otherwise I'd take a stab at it. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the computer program and the statistical technique upon which it is based are certainly notable, and it is possible to review the use and functioning of this program in an encyclopedic manner eg PMID 17603887, so the fact that the present article is a bit of a step-by-step guide isn't be a reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just like we have wiki entries for specific computer algorithms (Shor's Factorization, Karmakar's Algorithm etc.) so should we have expository articles on bioinformatics algorithms and SAM is certainly one of the good ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.212.142.75 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delbis[edit]

A non-notable type of bread. A Google search showed 30 results for delbis bread. Tavix (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable extinct brand name, only encyclopaedic if the brand was well known - this one seems only to extend to Delhi - Dumelow (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly not notable.--Berig (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cruzeiro Junior's Teams[edit]

Junior (Under-17 and Under-15) teams of a notable club. I can see no reason why these are notable in their own right. Black Kite 01:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable and no evidence of notability in article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason to have this. Punkmorten (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 12:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination --Jimbo^[online] 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was rediect to Icky Thump. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

300 M.P.H. Torrential Outpour Blues[edit]

not a single, not notable enough for seperate article, should be merged into album article LukeTheSpook (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep notable and contains enough information to warrant its own article. Wikipedia isn't limited in size. Monobi (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAPER refers to topics not articles. --Lemmey talk 05:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good God. It's not even law. It just states that, previously, articles have been kept because Wikipedia isn't limited in size to the number of articles it can have. Second, have you ever considered that articles make up topics? Finally, give me a rational reason saying why this article is worthless and should be deleted. Monobi (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP don't get your panties in a wad. How is the song notable enough to have its own article? What about this article could not be incorporated into the Album? As its not a single, the song and the album are the same topic and should be the same article. --Lemmey talk 05:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability; no indication of WHY this is notable in the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Icky Thump, as a plausible search term. Compare with this recent AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it necessary to have an AFD every time I come across an obviously non-notable album track? Can't I just redirect it to the album myself? indopug (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I would be bold and redirect it. Lugnuts (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i have done plenty of times. It's feasable that the term might be searched for so a redirect is more useful than a delete. --neonwhite user page talk 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect this non-notable song to the album, if there is proof the album is notable. Edison (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the writer of this article. It's a fairly new article and I can't devote 100% of my wikitime to it so I ask that it be given a chance to be written further. Wikipedia:There is no deadline to completing this article. Based to the number of hits in google about this song there are 31,600 hits. Of course you might cite something like WP:GOOGLEHITS as a rebuttle, however, whilst the number of hits might not be an adequate measure of the notability of other subject I believe it is a good measure of the notability of a song. Remember that in this day and age people have easy access to songs over the web and the best selling (and hence most covered by the mainstream press) song/single is not necessarily the most notable. Also, the fact there is such a large number of hits on the web has also made it difficult to find mainstream press articles about this song. There is a cite about the Washington Posts description of the song cited in this article and this shows some degree of notability enough to keep this article. A redirect wouldn't be as good as this song is both on "Icky Thump" as well as being on the B-Side of "You Don't Know What Love Is (You Just Do as You're Told)" furthermore, a redirect would lose the information in this article. Comparisons to Grease Paint and Monkey Brains are not valid as Grease Paint had no cites at all before deletion. Note also that user:LukeTheSpook, user:Lemmey, user:Titanium Dragon, user:Lugnuts seem to have made more or less the same comments in this AFD as well as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I'm_Slowly_Turning_into_You without giving consideration to each individually. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has to meet the criteria which it currently doesnt. I can't see any reason to assume this article will ever be detailed enough to the point of needing it's own article. --neonwhite user page talk 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which criteria are you referring to? WP:MUSIC doesn't actually describe criteria but just rough guidelines. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on working on Icky Thump soon, so I will incorporate any useful info into that article. indopug (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case it works much better as a separate article. If every track had a large description about it then it would make the Icky Thump article too big. So it makes more sense to have it wikilinked inside the article. A separate article lets you wikilink it on other articles like it currently is with a wikilink at You Don't Know What Love Is (You Just Do as You're Told) as well as a wikilink at The White Stripes. Furthermore, there is a nice infobox that let's you navigate through the tracks. This is what wiki was made for. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most tracks on an album aren't notable enough to be the subject of an article, however if there is suffient non-trivial information that is making the album article too long then a split would be necessary but that is not the case here. It's mostly trivial information from a review that could probably be linked to in the review links. --neonwhite user page talk 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble looking through the 31,600 hits to find something notable for inclusion. As I mentioned before, I think that 31600 hits are a good measure a songs notability. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If you're "having trouble looking through the 31,600 hits to find something notable for inclusion", um, doesn't that imply that the song isn't notable (note that a big portion of those will be lyrics sites)? Anyway, the two useful sentences of information in the "300 MPH" article right now would be fine for Icky Thump. indopug (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm having trouble is that there is alot of hits and it's difficult to find the stuff that can be added to the article from such a large number of hits. I submit that for songs, the number of hits can be a judge of notability as I've mentioned above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Icky Thump --JForget 00:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Slowly Turning into You[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'm Slowly Turning into You

not a single, un-notable LukeTheSpook (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No news sources to indicate that the subject is particularly notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable per above.--Berig (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Icky Thump, as a plausible search term. Compare with this recent AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. Nick Graves (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album as a search term. -- saberwyn 21:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belaire Apartments[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Belaire Apartments (2nd nomination)

This is just an apartment complex. Other than the news story of a plane crash, theres nothing else notable about this building since its just apartments! Was nominated before on the same day of the plane crash:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/524 East 72nd Street during its 15 minutes of fame. --Coasttocoast (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2006 New York City plane crash. Both articles contain same/similar information. Tavix (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; per Tavix, subject is only famous for that one incident and most information is repeated there. The only new stuff is a list of residents and a few notes about construction etc - some of the more useful info could be merged there. Not really notable enough for its own article - Dumelow (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.--Berig (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a 42 story apartment house with multiple world famous residents, and would be notable quite independently of the crash. Even for NYC, that's distinctive. "just apartments" is a poor argument--those things notable in any sphere are notable. Incidentally, there';s more to its history than just apartments. I am not sure that everyone commenting has read the article. DGG (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I'm not enthralled by this article but it does meet notability criteria. It's not just (condo) apartments, it's also a wing of the Hospital for Special Surgery. Still... In almost any other city in the world it would be notable; in NYC it's the 196th tallest building[25], well below (literally!) the 82-building list on our own List of tallest buildings in New York City. I'm probably feeling anti-mergist for unrelated reasons today but most of the info is already there. --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with DGG. "Just apartments" is a poor description and article deletion rationale. Besides the crash, the very notable multiple residents here demonstrates notability. There is enough secondary sources to warrant inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This building houses several notable people and has a hospital tenant on its ground floor, besides the news incident in 2006. I scaled back some of the redundant plane crash info; this building needn't be known just for that. White 720 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil nims[edit]

Non-notable musician. User has contested Prod. Made some assertion of notability, so was not tagged. [26] and [27]. Subject fails WP:MUSIC. Also, WP:COI concern. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has no sources and no establisment of notability remotely close to WP:MUSIC guidelines. Were it not for the unsourced claim of a "contract with Uiversal Music Industries"(sic) it would be an A7 candidate. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I see no assertion of notability. Only crystal ballery. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No sources, no reliable Ghits, little assertion of notability. nneonneo ^talk 04:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Fails inclusion criteria. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 12:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bridges[edit]

Non-notable footballer as he has never played a notable league Eddie6705 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Eddie6705 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Same rationale as on the Ollie Stanbridge AfD listed below this one. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 12:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is not notable, doesn't pass WP:Athlete as said above. Hello32020 (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination --Jimbo^[online] 22:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Stanbridge[edit]

Non-notable footballer as he has never played a notable league Eddie6705 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Eddie6705 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not appear notable as I read WP:ATHLETE. The article for the Southern Football League, in which this footballer plays, states that the league is comprised of semi-pro and amateur clubs. WP:ATHLETE requires play in a fully professional league or at the highest level of amateur play. The article on Southern Football League Premier Division, the division in which this athlete plays, states that it is the seventh tier in the English football league system which clearly indicates that this is not the highest level. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Southern League Premier Division is not a notable league? I'm not familiar with English football, but Stanbridge has received coverage TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd have to say I agree with the nom. I like to think that if I'd stayed in the UK I might have played for Brackley myself (I was in a team that was basically a "feeder" youth side)... but it certainly isn't at the level of notability (good to see they finished this season one place above Banbury, though :) As to TC's query, the BGB Southern League is notable enough for teams to have articles (it is three flights below the bottom of the official English Football League, and therefore flight seven in the greater scheme of things); it is not, however, notable enoguh for individual players to have articles. Perhaps a smerge of info into the article on the club as part of a "current squad' section is worthwhile? Grutness...wha? 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the explanation, I don't know too much about the structure of leagues, but that made it clear. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 12:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination --Jimbo^[online] 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep in a speedy fashion. Nom withdrew here. Great rescue. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Gifts (folk and world music band)[edit]

This is a spamvertisement, worked on by at least one of the band members and perhaps more, that is jam-packed with non-notable information and clearly fails WP:MUSIC. There was a very strong complaint about this one on the COI Noticeboard and it's time to take action by going through the formal deletion process. Qworty (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel bad since I helped this article's creator in good faith, but as it stands, they fail WP:MUSIC entirely — no reliable sources of any sort. Note also that the page got moved a lot, so there're a million redirects to nuke as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wisdom89's sources, good work. I didn't have the patience to Google this name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those redirects, by the way: Simple Gifts (music), Simple Gifts (trio), Simple Gifts (folk trio) and Simple Gifts (folk group). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article contains no sources that are up to WP:RS guidelines, and the subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC notability guidelines, either. The COI is just icing on the deletion cake. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wisdom89's sources (nice work, Wisdom89.) Add those to the article and it's good to go. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because there are no reliable sources currently in the article does not mean the article should be deleted. [28], [29][30], [31] are just a few reliable references. Meets WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, edit conflict made my comment redundant, but agreed. This is a case for clean-up rather than deletion. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, edit conflict, RS coverage includes New York Times in addition to papers in NJ and PA -- pretty substantial coverage, more than name dropping. Also if the fact that their CD won an award can be cited, I think that also established notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bigger problem than COI is WP:COPYVIO, and this article is largely based on this. Unless the text is properly released into the public domain by the single-purpose accounts editing the article, we'll have to chop away large chunks to comply with the law. --Dhartung | Talk 02:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. Sources including the New York times establish notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Travellingcari and others. nneonneo ^talk 04:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen Khan[edit]

Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:N or WP:BIO. The article's only reference is to a specialized publication and, by itself, doesn't seem to me to establish notability. A good faith (if far from exhaustive) effort to find additional references was not successful. There are plenty of ghits but none of them appears to meet WP:RS except the single reference already present on the page which is also the only Google news hit that appears to actually be about this person. There are others but they all seem to be about other people of the same name. The single reference just doesn't make the grade in my book. Note that this article was created by a single purpose account called NOREEN222 strongly suggesting a COI is at work here. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. This guy doesn't even have a web page! :-) As for the SPA: its truly pathetic when someone writing about himself is unable to contribute anything reasonably biographical about himself -- not even the basics, like date of birth, leave alone anything reasonably substantive. Bah. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This guy? Did you actually read the article or look at the reference? And here's ~~his~~ her home page. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no indication of notability and article fails to establish notability, nor does the source really help establish notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the verified presenter of a regular weekly show on national radio. Here are a couple more sources: [32] [33]. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a once weekly radio DJ is not encyclopedic material unless there is some broader reason for being notable that is the subject of widespread (not merely incidental) coverage in WP:RS. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 15:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Stellenbosch University. Fabrictramp (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilgenhof[edit]

Procedural nomination. Contested prod, marginal claims to notability for a university residence hall. Notable? Pastordavid (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in adequate evidence of meeting WP:N. JJL (talk)
Merge with Stellenbosch University - article does assert some notability (Africa's oldest university men's residence, 1903), but not enough to stand alone here. B.Wind (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the claim to being the oldest mens residence on the continent can be substantiated, it is a VERY noteworthy article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GetDownAdam (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 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, Cbrown1023 talk 18:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single residence hall at a university is not an encyclopedic topic. If the hall has anything notable about it, it should get a brief mention in the article about the university. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stellenbosch University since this is an integral residence of the university. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any important content into Stellenbosch University. No sources provided to assert notability for the residence hall on its own. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 12:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassendre Xavier[edit]

Fails N, all of MUSIC, and partly V. Google hits for both names yield nothing besides the wiki page, and download sites. Non notable singer. I am also nominating the following related pages because they arethe albums released by the singer:

Delete - albums seem to be self-produced and -issued. No sign of charting. She's proficient, but self-issued CDs don't comply with WP:MUSIC for notability if they don't chart. B.Wind (talk) 07:17, 26 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, Cbrown1023 talk 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Musician with nothing to indicate notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 12:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trip The Light Fantastic Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The tour has been cancelled and it is not notable enough to have its own article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 21 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, Cbrown1023 talk 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has been cancelled and that says it all. Probably should not have had an article in the first place for an upcoming proposed event. Until something actually happens notability is nonexistent. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 12:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N.B./Pocketful of Sunshine (Deluxe Edition)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/N.B./Pocketful of Sunshine (Deluxe Edition)

No sources, and when I tried to find sources all that appeared were blogs and unreliable sources. This article is just based on a rumour. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be provided. --Fritz S. (Talk) 07:40, 27 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, Cbrown1023 talk 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not sure there is much more to say as my reason for delete. No RSS. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prediction of an upcoming re-release of two albums which both already have their own articles. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and in any case there is no reason to have a separate article for every "deluxe edition" re-release of an existing album. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation science fair[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Creation science fair

An article that seems to be a fork of science fair. Not enough material to justify a separate article. Paper45tee (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as forkDoug Weller (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same reason above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but I can just imagine the headlines over at the nutter fundie sites. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. The consensus is that the article meets the standard of WP:N. Darkspots (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Earth History[edit]

An unnotable creationist "museum" ran by a local Arkansas man.[34] Other than some articles about its opening in 2005--three years ago-- there doesn't seem to be any sources that proves its significance/notability. The most recent news on its website is from about a year ago.[35] Paper45tee (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or possibly merge with Eureka Springs, Arkansas.) The fact that the opening attracted attention of the British media (the Guardian), and not just the local media contributes to notability as defined by the guideline. Merging is also possible, for in an article on a town, some description of the local attractions are to be expected. I am a bit unsure if this museum is large enough, or controversial enough, for a separate article, but there is no compelling need to simply delete verifiable information. For a personal opinion, I think I'll say that founding a museum based on creationism and calling it something semi-scientific as "Museum of Earth History", is within the realms of the absurd, but my distaste for the museum's mission has no impact on its notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason we keep Chariots of the Gods? While the concept for the museum is, to me, laughable, it is somewhat notable for simply existing and it has received national news coverage.—RJH (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone find any sources in the last three years? This is located in a town of less than three thousand people and has unsteady operating hours. The only sources are about its opening. This place seems to have marginal importance when it opened and less importance since then. Paper45tee (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable nonsense, though it ought to be brought up to date. Even if the had to close down, it would just be all the more significant.DGG (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nonsense, but notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International mainstream press coverage seems sufficient. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Natural Studies[edit]

Unnotable creationist organization. Had the notablity tag on it since December. Paper45tee (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete Miroljub Petrović(redirect page) Paper45tee (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. All mention discovered to date has either been self-published or from websites of Harun Yahya, for whom this organisation acts as a distributor. Hopes, expressed on article-talk, of input from the "Serbo-Croatian part of the internet" have failed to eventuate. Thus clearly non-notable on existing evidence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as nonnotableDoug Weller (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and Miroljub Petrović(redirect page) as well. Qworty (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 12:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All About God Ministries[edit]

Unnotable creationist organization. A search at google news archive for "All About God Ministries" brings up no hits. Paper45tee (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While Googling "All About God" Ministries does produce a few third-party results, none of them look very reliable or notable. The article also has a very self-promoting POV. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This POV article raises red flags regarding notability/WP:CORP. First, an operation with 77 web sites and only three employees? Not likely for a notable organization. Second, no independent reliable sources. Third, not much turning up in Google and Yahoo! searches. Fourth, about 80% of the article is dedicated not to the ministry but to the founders, with magazine-style (not encyclopedic) biographies of the two of them. Sorry, but this article fails on several counts. B.Wind (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable ministry. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]