< July 11 July 13 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Miccarelli III[edit]

Nicholas Miccarelli III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Subject is a candidate for Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Otherwise seems to fail WP:BIO. The closest thing he has is the National Colelge Republican chairmanship which doesn't seem to cut it for me. With notability not inherited from candidacy, hard to see what else can push him over the threshold. Montco (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On reflection and further research, change to Keep. If we read WP:BIO1E, we find that it says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted. Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event." Most of his media sources (including an NPR article I've just added to the list of references) talk about Mr. Miccarelli as a veteran, young leader, talented politician, etc., first, and the particular office for which he's running second. The fact of his candidacy brings him to their attention and adds to his notability, but the person, rather than the event, is garnering the media interest -- after all, how many candidates manage to snag the endorsement of the union to which his opponent belongs? RayAYang (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.

Gillie Da Kid[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gillie Da Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been deleted about a dozen different times, [1] for various reasons (A7, G1, G10, vandalism, et cetera). I feel that this subject still fails WP:MUSIC at present, but perhaps there is evidence to the contrary that I'm not seeing, since it is continually being reposted.

leave it

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

The result was delete.

Rod Janzen[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Just barely asserts notability as lead guitarist for Dierks Bentley (and co-writer of one of his singles). Source is a concert review that devotes one sentence to Janzen. No other sources could be found in a search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Kevin Johns[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kevin Johns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local radio host, article had been previously deleted, only reference is a link to his website Benjaminx (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Alex Hall (skateboarder)[edit]

Alex Hall (skateboarder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia's biographical notability criteria: no information can be found on this subject; after two months, nothing significant has been added. I'm not even certain that this article fails to meet the speedy deletion criteria, but since I've let it sit this long, this seems the more fair process. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For not notable. It could also be deleted speedily per CSD A7 tabor-drop me a line 23:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.

Skinner Incorporated[edit]

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

Page fails notability guidelines for businesses - coverage in references is trivial, it's about works of art that were sold at Skinner with no other coverage. Subject of references is fundamentally not about the page and can not be used for any purpose except where the work of art was sold. WLU (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close, moot now that it's redirected. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pet rats[edit]

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

Opinion piece about keeping rats as pets: fails WP:OR and WP:SOAP. The subject is well covered at Rats; two editors have redirected the article there but the author has rejected this. Ros0709 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article is not now up to WP standards pet rats are a notable subject and should have their own article. I bet pet ferrets do. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fancy rat. My bad. Here is the article on pet rats. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the author learned a little more about how WP works he/she could make a valuable contribution. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elsayed[edit]

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

This article has been awaiting translation for more than two weeks. Prod contested on the grounds that it is not a valid reason for deletion, which goes against established policy (see WP:PNT and Template:Notenglish). Delete. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC, no indication of notability. Chillum 13:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ringleader: Mixtape Volume III[edit]

The Ringleader: Mixtape Volume III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, specifically "mixtapes ... are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". This article is poorly sourced and does not demonstrate any significant independent coverage as required. Ros0709 (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, no evidence of notability. No inherent notability for names. No objection to re-creation when/if sources are found.. TravellingCari 18:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baali (surname)[edit]

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

Utter nonsense, OR Doug Weller (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googled "baali megiddo"

http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/E/EASTON/EBD/EBD/T0000300.HTM

"Baalis - king of the Ammonites at the time of the Babylonian captivity (Jer. 40:14). He hired Ishmael to slay Gedaliah who had been appointed governor over the cities of Judah."

The Baali family is mentioned in the bible dating it back 2000 years. Even if the Bible is somewhat questionable.

talk) 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shinigami: The Death God[edit]

Shinigami: The Death God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is short and unreferenced. The only website I can find referencing this album is a fan's post on MySpace. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protest against western media's coverage of China[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Protest against western media's coverage of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

To the extent it's merited, this stuff already gets some coverage in 2008 Tibetan unrest and is well-referenced in Jack Cafferty. This article is poorly referenced and rather polemical in nature. Indeed, the title too is terribly vague: it should be something like Protests against 9 April 2008 Jack Cafferty remark regarding the 2008 Tibetan unrest, which further underscores the subject's trivial nature. Biruitorul Talk 20:01, 12 July 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.

((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variant texts in Scientology doctrine))

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chord building grid[edit]

Chord building grid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think this actually exists. The only references I found online were either mirrors or in reference to this article. The original author says on the talk that the only reference he'd ever seen for it was on a guitar forum page in another language. Contested prod. —  Music Maker 5376 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, it kind of works. For example, it says that the notes in a G-minor chord are G, D, and A#. It will build a chord, but as a pedagogical tool, it's rather lacking. —  Music Maker 5376 20:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, but not through a speedy deletion process. See: WP:IFD. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Consumer Products[edit]

Omni Consumer Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No citations to reliable sources to verify claims, to establish notability, or to offer real-world perspective (i.e. development and critical reception). --EEMIV (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment There is a delete vote and the nom has not withdrawn, normal conditions of WP:SNOW or WP:SPEEDYKEEP have not been met. I see no reason not to let the debate run it's course for the normal 5 days. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'tan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
C'tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is pure repetition of plot and trivia from the Warhammer 40,000 series articles. It should therefore be deleted. It was also previously nominated for deletion in 2005 and was kept due to many votes which ignored notability and verifiability rules. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but the references listed are primary sources, so they do not establish the notability that I am asking about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above, I clarified it for you. Also, random internet searches mean nothing, and the five pillars in this case support me not you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to notify those who participated in the earlier discussion (from all sides of it) to see if anyone's opinions changed in either direction? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hate to think that the C'tan have importance in the world I live in. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wha? Are you saying that anytime an action figure is made, it is automatically notable? Beeblbrox (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything that appears both in text and in toy format is at least notable enough to be added to a list of such characters that the smaller articles can be merged and redirected to. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a miniature was made doesn't mean it's notable. Simply referencing a catalog or price list does nothing to support notability. (After all, that's how Games Workshop makes money, by selling these miniatures.) By your reasoning, since I can hold my TV remote control in my hand, it's notable (after all, my remote control appears in text format in my TV owner's manual too, i.e how to operate it). --Craw-daddy | T | 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges, my friend. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you personally don't agree with WP:N doesn't mean it does not apply here, LeGrand Roi... Unless you'd also like to toss WP:RS out the window as well. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the third time you've linked me to that essay - do you think I missed it the first two? the answer is still the same - NO. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to wander too far off topic, but does anyone else see the irony in trying to make someone follow the advice of an essay while at the same time openly disregarding an established editing guideline? Beeblbrox (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to throw "cruft" under the euphemism treadmill will only result in another word that means the same thing. --Phirazo 03:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to StankDawg#Binary_Revolution_Radio. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Revolution Radio[edit]

Binary Revolution Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails to establish the notability of this radio program, lacks 3rd party references Rtphokie (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a non-notable web-cast. No mention in secondary sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to Unification Church.  Sandstein  19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successor of Sun Myung Moon[edit]

Successor of Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page seems to violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball since it is speculation about future events. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would reply but WP policy forbids me from making predictions. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Nom withdrawn.--PeaceNT (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor East, Baltimore[edit]

Harbor East, Baltimore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a development project, hardly fulfilles WP guidelines on notability. I quote the guidelines "A sub-section of a human settlement, such as a district of a town, should normally be incorporated in the article about the settlement it is located in, unless it has exceptional notability of its own, or unless it constitutes a unit of local government.", which this does not. Ironholds 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Jean-Pierre Hallet#Pygmy Kitabu. As the only editor arguing for keep has merged the content, redirect seems to be the consensus here. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmy Kitabu[edit]

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

Unnotable book that fails all options of WP:BK. This book has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" (1) and it has not won any "major literary awards" (2). It also has not "been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country." Editors to the article claim the documentary Pygmies is based on the book, though the creator of the film, Hallet, does not actually say that. He says he wrote the book on the Efé Pygmies, then also wanted to make a documentary on them to provide a "visual depiction" shortly before the government planned to ban any photographing of them.[3] Either way, it is not a major film, having only been shown in one or two theaters in San Francisco of unknown commerical status. So it fails option 3. The book also has not he been "the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" (4).

Finally, Jean-Pierre Hallet is not "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Some editors on the article claim he is, however as I noted to them "So historically significant' would apply to people like Mother Theresa, the Pope, Shakespeare, Abe Lincoln, etc. who have are written about in history books Not a single humanitarian in a relatively obscure field who is not himself the subject of multiple books and with significant coverage in reliable sources." The reply was to accuse me of being prejudiced against the Pygmies, rather than provide any evidence this humanitarian is notable. A Google search does not support these claims at all, so the book fails criteria 5. Is Hallet notable? Certainly. Is he is "so historically significant" that all of his books are also notable? No. As such, this article should be deleted.

Additionally, it should be noted that there is an open suspected sockpuppetry case against the three major contributors to this article at -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant to the content of the article regarding the Pygmy Kitabu book. Nutsheller (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sockpuppetry case is relevant to the AfD, in case of a bunch of SPA's coming to say keep and keep. The book may not be trivial, but it is still not notable. The author's notability does not confer to his book. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The book differs in being a scholarly treatise referenced by another review textbook and used in University-level syllabi (cf. below). As such, it has a greater level of relevance than a footnote to the author's biography. Nutsheller (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie was shown in Los Angeles and San Francisco (you claim above that it was shown only in San Francisco). A small run, yes. But don't create false facts. That is unethical. Furthermore, you are asserting a negative as fact. The book Pygmy Kitabu and the movie Pygmies were released in the same year, on the same topic, by the same author, with the same intent. It is unreasonable to contend that the movie was not largely based on the book, even if it is not credited explicitly (which neither you nor I can ascertain or disprove, since the credits of the movie are not before us.)Nutsheller (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create false facts. It was shown one time in LA, per the article, which anyone else can read for themselves. It is unreasonable to "content" the movie was based on the book when the author and creator himself didn't say so. The burden is not on other editor do "disprove", but on you to provide reliable sources backing up your claim that is NOT supported by the very source you claim does. And stop sticking your remarks in the middle of other people's comments. Its rude and makes it very difficult to follow a conversation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not. But Wikipedia criteria does allow for that, espeically concerning the most notable book or two of that historically significant figure, especially if its largely the basis for a scientific documentary. Further, the notability guidelines are based on common sense and reasonability. Failure to satisfy a criteria is expressly not a reason for speedy deletion. However, this book already meets multiple criteria: notable figure, basis for movie, subject of university level courses, and referenced in other independent scholarly works. All these are documented in the Talk section for the article. Collectonion is being over-zealous and hair-splitting in trying to get it deleted. That is known as Wikipedia:WikiLawyering and detracts from reasonably evaluating the content of an article.Nutsheller (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sympathetic to your concerns and might even change my opinion at some point soon. To you I'd recommend improving the hell out of the article and its sources (an endeavor with which I may even help you) and stepping away somewhat from the AfD debate. Accusation and bickering are rarely successful tactics on Wikipedia. And please sign your comments. It shouldn't really effect the credibility of your arguments to other editors but I think it does if only on a subconscious level. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also stay focused. A comment such as (for example) "He has raised millions of dollars for the Pygmies" would be relevant to the Jean-Pierre Hallet article but doesn't speak directly to the notability of a specific book. I hope these comments are helpful. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, an individual that raises millions of dollars to secure a national preserve and receives a national medal for his efforts is historically significant, and that is expressly one of the criteria for notability of a book authored by that individual. -Nutsheller (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing with the person who offered to help you is a pretty foolish tactic. I almost certainly could have saved this article. It's something I do. As is, I am betting it will get deleted. Ciao. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stay focused. You also have made this personal and involved your ego. This isn't about you or me. It is about the article and an extremely important book.Nutsheller (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"September 10 -- 'Pristine' Religions, Animism and Ritual -- [Description of lecture]... The films of Jean-Pierre Hallet." Pygmy Kitabu is listed in the right column.Nutsheller (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today the featured article on Wikipedia is Palpatine, a fictional character in a Star Wars movie or something like that. Your perception of historically significant may be in line with some other users of Wikipedia, I suppose... Nutsheller (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, Nutsheller has merged the content into the author's article and redirected the Pygmy Kitabu. I've undone the redirect, however, until the AfD closes to avoid confusion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ablett[edit]

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

Contested prod. No independent reliable sources to support notability claims, apparent self-promotion. Delete MikeWazowski (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above, another instance where an explanation for the PROD removal would have been nice. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy deleted A7 (web) by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 11:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windward Pass[edit]

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

Unreferenced and tagged for notability since this April. A Google search reveals no mention in third-party sources per WP:WEB. I don't think it's quite a speedy since it claims "significant increase in online internet presence", but it certainly doesn't back that up. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No real assertion of notability, the fact that their traffic went up so they had to give up dial up does not cut it. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 17:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you may be right. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speeedy Keep per WP:SNOW, the other issues brought up here can be discussed at the article's talk page. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC) (non-admin closure) [reply]

Rum Swizzle[edit]

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

Contested PROD to allow editors to discuss whether or not to keep this page since it was submitted by a new editor. –BuickCenturyDriver 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cool. While undermining the Swizzle Inn's claim of having invented it, that mention in Hergesheimer book does advance the arguement for Wiki-worthy notability. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, no kidding! I have about a half-cup of cachaça sitting at the bottom of a bottle atop my 'fridge. I bet it would work just fine. - House of Scandal (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Braslinut, welcome to Wikipedia! The discussion taking place here is very ordinary, so don't be frazzled by it. So far, the opinion to "keep" is unanimous -- that's nothing to complain about. With the improvements we've made to the article, I am confident not only will this article not get deleted, it may be featured on the "Did you know...?" section of the front page about 5 days from how as I have nominated it. That's pretty cool for a first article. If you need any help adjusting to the culture here or interpreting the policies, don't hesitate to contact me or any other experienced editor who isn't a total douchebag. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor but still important point: "National drink of Bermuda" is verifiable, "official national drink of Bermuda" is, to my knowledge, not verifiable. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Or just do this [15] --Braslinut (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*&q=%22official+national+drink%22+and+%22caipirinha%22. What only two links from a country of 186,757,608 for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caipirinha. Thats an invalid arguement! Also no govermnet page and that is a pretty big article!!!!

http://www.google.com/search?q=rum+swizzle&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 now tell me how far you can get with out Bermuda being in the story.

You don't need a web source to know the sky is blue just go outside and look up! Braslinut (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 01:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I dissagree... As far as I can see the drinks here on Wikipedia are acompanied with their Recipe... maybe not in a section... Maybe in the cleanup of the article it can be modifed to conform with the usual format of other drinks using the box to have the recipe in.--Pmedema (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, there's even an infobox to include the recipe. An example can be found accompanying the Lime Rickey article. - House of Scandal (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there is! I took a look at the WikiProject, and moved the recipe to the infobox according to their standards for reliable sources. Live and learn! Jim Miller (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Live and learn!" is the most useful comment I have heard from anyone all day! Wise words. - House of Scandal (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stevanna Jackson[edit]

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

WP:BIO Brianga (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Very fair. This article is being nominated for deletion because the article does not prove that Stavanna Jackson has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Brianga (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for clarifying, and you are quite correct, those are all primary sources Delete. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theriaca (beverage)[edit]

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

Drink concoction of no apparent significance other than it was made by AFDed New-Agey guy Tony Samara (see AFD below). Not far from an advertisement, I really don't see how this warrants a Wikipedia entry. (Though apparently it "will cure and heal everything", according to an earlier version of this article, so perhaps that's a claim of notability of sorts.) No reliable sources provided. R. fiend (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana O'Brien[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Diana O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to have been notable as a model, or for any other reason, prior to her death. Her murder also does not seem to be exceptional so, although there has been extensive press coverage, I believe that the article falls foul of WP:BIO1E. TigerShark (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that this is a valid reason to keep the article. We don't have articles for people or events that may become notable, and we don't keep existing ones in case they do become notable. If the person or a related event becomes notable in future an article can easily be created/re-created then. TigerShark (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The guideline is to "cover the event, not the person." In this case, I don't believe we have an article on the event, which is certainly of some note. Should we move the article instead? RayAYang (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that was done, what do you think makes the event itself notable? Cheers TigerShark (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. Good point. As time passes, I really do begin to think this was a 5 days wonder. Changed my mind to Delete. I'm thickheaded, but data gets through eventually, I hope. RayAYang (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. Are you saying that she is notable, or are you saying let's wait to see if she becomes notable. If it is the latter, then that is not a valid reason to keep. We need to discuss how this article complies with the notability requirement. TigerShark (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Zee[edit]

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

previously prodded, removed as had 'performed top 10 hit' but only a backing singer, so should fail WP:BIO, no sources or references to check facts anyway Tassedethe (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was judicious merge to Emergency medical services. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of emergency medical assistance[edit]

Organization of emergency medical assistance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Article does not meet Wikis WP:N or WP:V as this article has no cites/references, there is no way for one to added ref/cites due to this whole article being of personal opinion Medicellis (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note also can be merged into Emergency medical services in a small cat. but needs alot of help even for that Medicellis (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I would disagree that "scoop and run" and "stay and play" are WP:V or even WP:N. The only place I have ever heard these mentioned are as "teaching tools" from EMS educators. And loose ref. are made in course such ITLS (Internatonal Trauma Life Support)[17] and PreHospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS)[18]. But YOU WOULD be hard pressed (if not pretty impossible) to get verifiable sources were this is included in EMT curriculum. I'm may say to my partner hey this is a "load and go" or "we are gonna treat this with diesel" But this is no way a widely used figure of speech or even notable. Medicellis (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this is a notable controversy for which references exist. I have several medical textbooks mentioning it, and you'll find it in many scientific articles as well (see Google Scholar). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, I had not seen many of those articles, and makes for interesting reading. But as it stands, this page would be much better merged into the already well written Emergency medical service. Medicellis (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Not much of the information in this article needs to be merged, mabe the "scoop and run" and "stay and play" aspects. But most of the information is present in other articles, Paramedics in Germany, Paramedics in Canada, and as you can see the page Paramedic has a section on different countries. As you can see this page is very redundent in 90% of it's information, as well as being present else were in wiki. Medicellis (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. As Hoary notes, suspect content should not be merged.  Sandstein  18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perversion of religion[edit]

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

Orphaned article, previously prodded but contested by the author, which does little more than attempt to define a phrase (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Moreover, the article claims that the term was coined by Kant in Critique of Judgement, but the phrase doesn't appear in Critique of Judgement, at least not in this translation, and Google doesn't think it is associated with Kant. As a title for an article this would be inherently POV unless there's a well-defined philosophical concept with this name, which seems unlikely, so the potential for a good article here is rather low. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 15:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily Deleted by Gwen Gale (non-admin closure) per CSD A7 as web content that failed to indicate its importance or significance. WilliamH (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clubpenguin HQ[edit]

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

This page about a Club Penguin fan site so called "Club Penguin HQ" fails WP:N, is poorly written, and there are traces of original research. No refs after a Google search, so it's a no go for expansion. --Vinni3 (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Vinni3 (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete as a copyvio. no non-infringing version in history to revert to. Resolute 19:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharam[edit]

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

Non notable, possible original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference point[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition, and has apparently been transwikied over to wikitionary already. This was PROD'ed but contested. Note that the PROD was placed on an earlier version of the article with very little text. The editor contesting the PROD restored material deleted in an earlier edit, but despite the additional text, it still remains a dictionary definition. Whpq (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac15 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2Pac Lives The Death of Makaveli / The Resurrection of Tupac Amaru (Volume 1)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2Pac Lives The Death of Makaveli / The Resurrection of Tupac Amaru (Volume 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No WP:notability for Wikipedia, probably self published, WP:SOAP. Brando130 (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Only Pburka has made an argument for keep, and that is contingent on reliable sources which haven't been found.Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parampoojya Shri Kalavati Aai[edit]

Parampoojya Shri Kalavati Aai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharudh Swami[edit]

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

Non notable with no reliable sources and possible original research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability.Kww (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Pranavananda[edit]

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

Non notable, one event and no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment more accurately, if multiple reliable sources exist then notability can or might be established. - House of Scandal (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Therefore anyone who founded any society in a country you have heard of is notable? House of Scandal (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I should have added 'notable' society, which Divine Life Society certainly is in some parts of the world. And no, I didn't say 'any' society, nor did I say any country I 'have heard of'. Your sarcasm and cynicism are also notable, by the way. ~ priyanath talk 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your arguments are incomplete or faulty, expect them to be questioned. Please review Wikipedia guidelines about civility. Me attacking your argument and you attacking me are NOT the same thing. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My 'attack' was against an anonymous unsigned edit that misrepresented my argument. ~ priyanath talk 04:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accidentally added a squiggle too many so it dated but didn't sign. Your response seems disproportionably hostile, but I don't think either of us really meant to offend. I certainly didn't, and sorry if I did. - House of Scandal (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, not enough third-party coverage.--PeaceNT (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-603[edit]

E-603 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable "mashup artist"; only sources are last.fm and 2 blogs (although one is the New York magazine blog, I don't think it sufficiently shows notability per WP:MUSIC). NawlinWiki (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. (A quick gsearch shows the author is not the same Pierre Amiel as the painter.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Amiel[edit]

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

Non notable, only reference is a personal website. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent, no assertion of notability (and WP:SNOW if it's not webcontent). NawlinWiki (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Vapor: The Westfield Files[edit]

Human Vapor: The Westfield Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable home movie: fails WP:NFF. Ros0709 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Recommend adding some of the sources listed in this AfD to the article itself. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Jaya[edit]

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

Non notable religious leader, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of references in an article is not a reason for deletion. The lack of source for a subject is. You may need to re-read WP:DELETE ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm likely to change my opinion after such sources are added to the article. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether references proving notability are in an article or not is irrelevant to notability and AfD, although of course getting content backed up by reliable refs is the ulitmate goal.John Z (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slowrun[edit]

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

No reliable sources to assert notability, seems to be solely original research Sceptre (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organisational informatics[edit]

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

Doesn't describe the subject in a way which can be understood by a non-expert. May correspond to a term created by the sole reference, who may also be the principle editor. ((Prod)) removed by an indescrimnent ((prod))-remover who hasn't left a reason. (It had been 5 days 1 hour when the ((prod)) was removed, so executing the prod might be a valid outcome.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not a reason to delete. In any case, the phrase is obviously well-established since a topic appears under this heading in another encyclopedia over 10 years ago, as my search link shows. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEO policy does not apply to this article. Organisational Informatics is a legitimate, established topic in the Organization Development field. University classes are taught about it. And it is a requirement for certain degree programs. The article may simply need the category changed to Category:Organizational studies and human resource management.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsu Hadeishi[edit]

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

Non notable creator of meditation weblog. Article is also an advertisement for this weblog. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • LOL. Indeed, Mitsu Hadeishi is no one who merits an article unless we all are. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relative location[edit]

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

A dictionary definition that probably cannot ever be more than that. Gwernol 13:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AbidingRadio[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article on an Internet radio station that fails to provide evidence that the station is notable. Gwernol 13:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. The subject has been proven as obviously notable as per WP:MUSIC. There are reliable sources and the subject is notable. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Davis (musician)[edit]

Stuart Davis (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable musician, no reliable sources and possible original research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Ism schism (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Astra Radio[edit]

Ad Astra Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod on article that fails to establish notability of this Internet radio station Gwernol 13:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Migration[edit]

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

WP:N Apparently an idea espoused by a neo-Nazi (?) movement, but the article does not cite a single independent/non-primary source, and a quick search on Google shows mostly separatist organization websites, blogs and forums. Originally PRODed, but contested by User:CCWWuss, who has thus far not addressed any issues raised in the PROD, nor any of the dozens of other PRODs contested. Mosmof (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Seems enough evidence has surfaced that this is a notable BIO. Article of course needs improvements, marking it as such. Keeper ǀ 76 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Deida[edit]

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

Non notable spiritual leader/author, possible original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straight and Crooked Thinking[edit]

Straight and Crooked Thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a book that appears to fail to meet of criteria for notability for books. The external references quoted are brief endorsements on websites, not the substantial reviews in independent, published media required by WP:NB. Gwernol 13:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's moderately older than most books in this category. In fact, as far as books for lay audiences about logical fallacies go, it may well be one of the first. I think it's probably of marginal notability. Minor popular sensation at the time, dimly remembered by academics later. Kinda like the Frontier thesis, only less famous than that :) I run across numerous offhand references to it in various academic and newspaper columns. I believe that notability changes with time ... if this were the 1970s, I'd say it was notable for sure. Now, I don't know. I'm not exactly an inclusionist, but I feel like this may merit a stub. If we do delete, I suggest we redirect to the author, Robert Thouless. RayAYang (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect sounds reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 19:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam D. Herz[edit]

Adam D. Herz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article abut a person that fails to meet the criteria for biographical articles. No independent, published sources to show how the subject is notable.Gwernol 13:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. While several editors have asserted notability, reliable independent sources haven't appeared. If someone would like this userfied to bring it up to snuff, drop me a line with a link to this AfD. Also, please remember civility and WP:AGF are important in all wikipedia discussions. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Godman[edit]

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

Non notable religious journalist, no reliable sources, info from personal website. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your comments are neither civil nor productive. Written references are acceptable. Why don't you go to the library rather than swearing at your fellow editors? - House of Scandal (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do, and I have, which is how I and another saved the Alan Cabal article, but it is pandemic around here that editors nominate for deletion without thinking, vote without researching, and ignore wholly these things called libraries which previous generations seem to have "built." Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and merge to A. H. Almaas. Ruslik (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Approach[edit]

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

Non notable, possible original research with no reliable sources. Possible merge to A. H. Almaas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right, I made a mistake and was about to correct it. This is the better search. 43 gbook hits on almaas's diamond approach without him as the author. The above search gave 117 books that mention him, not authored by him, more proper for his AfD. University press books are usually considered reliable sources, and several pages are devoted to the "Diamond Approach" in that book; this is usually considered quite sufficient, and more than a passing mention. "Fastest growing" is tantamount to this RS asserting that 'the Diamond Approach is notable topic.' "Passing mention" usually means something like part of a sentence, or a sentence or two, not several pages or a chapter in a book. Cheers,John Z (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and merge with Diamond_Approach. Ruslik (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. H. Almaas[edit]

A. H. Almaas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable, possible original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might not. Clicking through reveals a lot of stuff by the guy himself, and almost nothing of any length from reliable sources. The onus is on the article's defenders to provide reliable independent sources. Links to Google searches don't qualify. Ray Yang (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and merge to A._H._Almaas. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridhwan School[edit]

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

Non notable school, possible original research, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't think of the right word at that moment. Perhaps "indisputable" RS? There's no doubt about its independence (third party) and reliability, so "absent" is not correct, just one solid RS is more precise. No time to look at other possible sources.John Z (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Ruslik (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaghan Jette Martin[edit]

Meaghan Jette Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor (in more ways than one) actress, whose only significant role was a made-for-cable movie, 5th-billed. Calton | Talk 12:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


First of all, this "made for cable movie" had 24.5 million viewers in the premiere weekend. It will be premiering WORLD WIDE over the next 2 months. It was not MINOR in any way. There are already talks for Camp Rock 2 and a Camp Rock 3. Second of all, if you took the time to WATCH the movie, you would see that she is 3rd billing NOT 5th. She is the movie's antagonist. I believe that you have not done YOUR research and need to leave articles alone unless you really know about the subject. Third, she has two songs on the soundtrack, which went GOLD in just 4 weeeks. She had a song on the top 100 on itunes for a month. She also sings backup on two more songs. Please research thoroughly before you make statements about a subject!!! Perhaps you have no kids or are a cable snob, that does not make a subject insignificant to other people. WEML Watch the movie if you don't get that reference! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.104.132 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meaghan Jette Martin! Her portrayal of Tess was the whole plot of the movie. If her character had not been in the movie there would have been no plot. That is why she was billed as third lead. Her two songs were the most elaborately choreographed of any of the songs. One has to wonder how someone could think, if they watched the movie, that Meaghan's character wasn't third lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayardxyz (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This cable movie will be a part of pop culture for some time to come. It is known worldwide. It's ridiculous to delete an actress that has had that kind of exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.104.132 (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meaghan! Yes it is true that this young actress is definitely newer on the scene, but in no small way. Meaghan has many credits to her name and third billing in the latest and possibly biggest (as yet) DisneyChannel Original Movie, which to me is not MINOR in any way. It is obvious that this is an actress who has worked hard for most of her life and is now an established actress on her way up! 76.4.251.182 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tvguide.com/PhotoGallery/The_13_Hottest_Young_Stars_To_Watch__1235/2.aspx Listed on TVGuide.com's 13 hottest young stars to watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.104.132 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a very large production by Disney Channel, anticipated for months and watched by millions. This particular actress had a very large supporting role in the movie! Whoever marked this article for speedy deletion should know the background of the material before making such hasty claims. Rswfire (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in mind, my comments here are giving the benefit of the doubt based on past similar experiences. I have no objection to re-reviewing this after a little bit of time, to see how things really turn out. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This performer has sold over 90,000 singles in the month since the CD premiered. There are others on the cast list who have fewer credits, but are not targeted for deletion. Why is this performer being targeted for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.19.149 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete nancy (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Typing with Tones[edit]

Chinese Typing with Tones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod by third party (sidenote: party seems to have just gone through and contested a lot of prods). Anyway, Wikipedia is not a how-to. Article is potentially an WP:ADVERT for the site listed. No sources; fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. None of the arguments to keep have been able to demonstrate notability. That this group exists is not disputed, but that is not sufficient for inclusion. Shereth 21:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian European Council[edit]

Canadian European Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources independent of the organization, obviously doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. Sending letters to newspapers is not sufficient to establish notability. --Filemon (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/association/index.php?ACTION=Rechercher&HI_PAGE=1&HI_COMPTEUR=0&original_method=get&WHAT=canadian+european+economic+council&JTH_ID=&JAN_BD_CP=&JRE_ID=&JAN_LIEU_DECL=&JTY_ID=&JTY_WALDEC=&JPA_D_D=&JPA_D_F=&rechercher.x=35&rechercher.y=6

Also, as mentioned earlier they’re affiliated with THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO’S CANADIAN LAW AND ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION.(CLEA), a fact easily verifiable by checking CLEA’s website: http://www.canlecon.org/CLEA%20members_09mar05.xls

–User: 212.183.134.65 212.183.134.65 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.125.82 (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Grove Fire Department[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Oak Grove Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Brianga (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schtugenfahrterette[edit]

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

Clear hoax, failed prod. Storkk (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs). -- lucasbfr talk 11:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Williams[edit]

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

Declined for prod, probably by subject of the article (username is same as article name; also check the edit summary). Non-notable per WP:PORNBIO (no awards, no mainstream media mentions). I looked for references in reliable sources and could find none.  Frank  |  talk  11:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The images themselves are not being deleted here, and are still available for use in the main article. Shereth 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cruzeiro Esporte Clube colours[edit]

Cruzeiro Esporte Clube colours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just a collection of images, not an encyclopaedia entry - see WP:NOT Dancarney (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Already deleted. This is the product of the confused author of the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterModule has been closed as delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InterModule[edit]

AfDs for this article:
InterModule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete it. Non notable, needs to have more coverage. Juggernaut0102 (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as all are favoring deletion. --JForget 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wellow F.C.[edit]

Wellow F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod (after 6 days...). Club has never played above Step 7 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase,[26] thus failing to meet the generally accepted criteria for English football clubs (for previous consensus on the cut-off point, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 other AfDs on clubs in the same situation). пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep nancy (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chas Newkey-Burden[edit]

Chas Newkey-Burden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(was an incomplete afd) Non-notable and non asserted? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — xDanielx T/C\R 09:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comments are neither civil nor productive. Written references are acceptable. Why don't you go to the library rather than swearing at your fellow editors? - House of Scandal (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do, and I have, which is how I and another saved the Alan Cabal article, but it is pandemic around here that editors nominate for deletion without thinking, vote without researching, and ignore wholly these things called libraries which previous generations seem to have "built." Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 20:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All-Campus Radio Network[edit]

All-Campus Radio Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Original deletion reason: article fails to assert why this internet radio station is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references

Procedural nomination Gwernol 09:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issue of substance - is this radio station notable from proper sources. Thanks, Gwernol 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion in that case, except that the trivia section has got to go. I couldn't tell whether you agreed with the PROD reason. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Needs cleanup but it is verifiable, and apparently consensus is that it is notable enough to include. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kabhi Naa Kabhie[edit]

Kabhi Naa Kabhie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not established and unable to be ascertained. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — xDanielx T/C\R 03:45, 3 July 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) 09:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shereth 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best In Show Radio[edit]

Best In Show Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Original deletion reason: article fails to assert why this internet radio station is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references

Procedural nomination Gwernol 09:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were. I am nominating this because I believe the original deletion reason has enough merit to warrant a debate here. Please address the issue of notability addresses in the deletion reason provided. Gwernol 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I couldn't tell at first whether you agreed with the PROD reason. Delete due to unclear claim to notability and insufficient evidence of independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BJTalk 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense (program)[edit]

Common Sense (program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original deletion reason: article fails to assert why this internet radio program, out of thousands, is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references.

This is a procedural nomination after contested Prod Gwernol 09:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were. I am nominating this because I believe the original deletion reason has enough merit to warrant a debate here. Please address the issue of notability addresses in the deletion reason provided. Gwernol 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion in that case. I couldn't tell whether you agreed with the PROD reason. I note that this program is not just an Internet radio program, but is syndicated to broadcast radio. On the other hand, I can't find verifiable information about how many stations actually air it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Miccarelli III[edit]

Nicholas Miccarelli III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Subject is a candidate for Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Otherwise seems to fail WP:BIO. The closest thing he has is the National Colelge Republican chairmanship which doesn't seem to cut it for me. With notability not inherited from candidacy, hard to see what else can push him over the threshold. Montco (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On reflection and further research, change to Keep. If we read WP:BIO1E, we find that it says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted. Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event." Most of his media sources (including an NPR article I've just added to the list of references) talk about Mr. Miccarelli as a veteran, young leader, talented politician, etc., first, and the particular office for which he's running second. The fact of his candidacy brings him to their attention and adds to his notability, but the person, rather than the event, is garnering the media interest -- after all, how many candidates manage to snag the endorsement of the union to which his opponent belongs? RayAYang (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep and redirect to Chutney. Ruslik (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onion chutney[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Prod removed without explanation, so taking to AfD Gwernol 09:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Carus and The True Believers. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carus Thompson[edit]

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

No notability outside band Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:04, 3 July 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) 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scampenstein[edit]

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

Article about a film that does not show how this subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No reliable sources so not verifiable. Because the film does not yet exist, it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Prod was removed without explanation. Gwernol 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete (G3) as blatant misinformation. —Travistalk 20:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acts 1[edit]

Acts 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

10:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete as a non-notable, vanity-press author; zero Google News Ghits. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Valtieri[edit]

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

The only claims to notability are some plays written by him (but the nearest thing to a review is [27], which is apparently just a local announcement - it gives show times and ticket prices) and a single published novel, for which only personal websites, or sites not mentioning it, are given. It seems that it is self-published through lulu.com (the site is blacklisted but the page is : (...)/content/517623). For what is worth, the corresponding article in Italian Wikipedia has been deleted. Goochelaar (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrivo in italiana, visto che chi propone la cancellazione è madrelingua italiana. Sono state chieste prove che lo scrittore che gli spettacoli citati non siano lettera morta, ma qualcosa di rappresentato. La cosa è stata fatta, nel modo possibile (visto che non si possono caricare le immagini degli articoli e di tutte le recensioni, come era stato fatto, per problemi di copyright. Nell'era di internet, la maggior parte delle segnalazioni e discussioni sull'autore sono in rete, ma non si può perché è pubblicità personale etc. Insomma si è fatto il possibile, consapevoli che non si stava parlando di Shakespeare. Su wikipedia, specialmente quella in italiana ci sono voci che riguardano attori sconosciuti apparsi mezza volta in una puntata mai vista dalla gente. L'impressione generale è che, nonostante l'enciclopedia sia "libera" (questo non vuol dire scrivere la qualunque, ma se non si scrivono oscenità o palesi falsità o scemenze o voci offensive, non si vede dove sia il problema), il tutto sia in balia di "controllori" zelanti a seconda dell'umore, altrimenti non si capirebbe come ci siano voci (di cui nessuno propone la cancellazione) assolutamente inutili. Detto questo (lo sfogo è dovuto all'inutilità di ogni tentativo di adeguarsi alle "regole"), mi scuso se sono un po' stanco di essere politicamente corretto e ti prego di perdonare i toni. Se proprio è necessario essere pubblicati (magari a pagamento) da Feltrinelli, per avere "rilevanza enciclopedica", beh, fate un po' come ve pare (stai a Roma, capisci il romano, no?). Grazie ancora, Smiwave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.224.230.145 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with deletion/Maurizio Valtieri Smiwave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.224.230.145 (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't understand Italian: The article creator is agitated about the article being nominated for deletion and argues that although the encyclopedia is free, there are "controllers" deciding what should be included. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin ( ¡? ) 07:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of James Bond allies in Licence to Kill. PhilKnight (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lupe Lamora[edit]

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

I couldn't help reading the article and thinking, "So what?" It's been tagged for several months as needing sourcing and doesn't even have enough unsourced content (let alone assertion of notability) to justify its existence... Paliku (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John H Graham[edit]

John H Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The text of this article is almost unreadable. Although it gives a long list of minor recognitions received by the subject, none of them appear to imply notability. Looking for information about the subject on the Web, it appears that he has held some off-field management jobs in minor league baseball and was the general manager of a minor league team for a year or two. It also appears that he may have done some writing for a local paper and some local radio work. There's so little information available that it's hard to be sure what he's done. I wasn't able to find any evidence that he meets WP:BIO. BRMo (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now...this guy seems to have achieved notability in several endeavors, especially in minor league baseball. But the lack of citations and the disorganized state of the article - not to mention the curious range of content - makes me suspicious that this article's content was plagiarized from somewhere. Brain Rodeo (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What, specifically, do you think he's done that rises to the level of notability? It's true that lots of minor awards are listed, but it isn't clear to me what any of them are for. And where is the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that's required for notability? BRMo (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The awards themselves suggest notability. The list of accomplishments in the first paragraph of the article suggests some exceptional accomplishments in his field, though his involvement in those accomplishments isn't explained. A number of sources can be found with a simple Google search for "John Graham baseball" instead of "John H Graham" - but it's unclear how many are specific to this John Graham. I think notability would be more obvious if the article were better written. I know that's circular reasoning, but circles can be nice. Brain Rodeo (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the problem. The whole thing reads like self-promotion, maybe lifted from the guy's resumé. Although he was just an office worker on minor league teams, the article cites the teams' on-field accomplishments, giving the impression that he played an important role. I don't see any evidence that's the case. He won the "Dancy award", but the only references to the award on the Web seem to be on a handful of Web sites that he controls. Here's is the only Web site I've found that provides any information on what he actually did in minor league baseball: [28]. Although it's also self-promotional, it suggest that his "17 years Professional Baseball Experience" started out of high school in low level office jobs, and he eventually worked his way up to assistant general manager, then business manager, and finally general manager. But a general manager of a low level minor league team isn't necessarily notable. We need more than this guy's self-promotion. We need some reliable, independent sources. And I can't find them. BRMo (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems more like a personal/family biography of the person or a curriculum vitae rather than an encyclopedia article. I tried reading the thing, but I still can't see why he meets WP:N. There are a lot of links to organizations and the like, but nothing that shows me why this guy is notable. He isn't mentioned in any of the links I followed. If this article meets WP:N then anyone could write an article about one's self and include links to one's high school's web page, college's web page, web pages of employers, pages that describe hobbies, etc. That just doesn't cut it. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Actually, I think the team with the 100–40 record was the minor league Peninsula Pilots of the Carolina League, which were a farm team for the Philadelphia Phillies [29]. Graham apparently was employed by the Peninsula team from about 1976 to 1986 ([30]). I don't know what his job was with them, but since he graduated from high school in 1978, it's doubtful that he held an important position by 1980. Of course, the article is so poorly written that I had to turn to other sources to try to figure this stuff out. BRMo (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete nancy (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerfew[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Article is written by User:Kerfew, so obvious conflict of interest is present. Most of the article is unsourced. This article has also been speedily deleted two times in the past, and has been recreated by the same user. CyberGhostface (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--JD Patel (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green writing[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEO. Mercifully, no trees were cut down in the presentation of this AfD discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. BJTalk 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green search engines[edit]

Green search engines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Curious and unsupported neologism - a Google search of "green search engine" turns up a handful of articles with a different meaning [31]. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. It's not quite "very short" but it's certainly lacking in enough context to identify its fictional milieu. Doesn't seem to be G4 as the previous deletion was speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalgarian[edit]

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

Not sure what this is supposed to be, no sources, no apparent notability, and Google is no help. Unfortunately I don't see any CSD criteria that this fits. I skipped prod because the author would contest it. Oren0 (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to delete it as A1 but I'm not sure it fits the criterion. I'll let another admin judge. Oren0 (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chill (rapper)[edit]

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

Very chuffy bio, sourced to Myspace, ton of red/mislinks.. some grand unverified claims about deals with Sony and Pepsi. Deiz talk 02:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete nancy (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cronenworth Jr.[edit]

Charles Cronenworth Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this individual meets Wikipedia notability standards. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gabaldon was an author and political figure as well as being a medal recipient. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BJTalk 23:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop On Demand[edit]

Desktop On Demand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a discontinued Web service/product that is not notable and has no references. Speedy declined because of mis-catagorization so brought to AfD. Pmedema (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was kept - snowball - just a misunderstanding on the nom's part, I'm sure. ;-) —Giggy 13:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Carrière[edit]

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

I'm tried to search for this, article is confusing and doesn't seem real. I have no problem with being completely wrong with this, but it seems entirely made up by the article creator. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 00:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, didn't you read my references? Smith Jones (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your references? I didn't see any references. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 00:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're there and they check out; he just didn't have them listed anywhere. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
opts, thanks SarcastidIcealist. I had forgotten. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought you were the author? LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It has been rightly pointed out that books by a notable author are not inherently notable themselves, and consensus is that insufficient notability has been demonstrated for this title. Shereth 21:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj[edit]

I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply The lack of notability of this subject is not helped by a review of my edit history. If you have any reliable sources or reasons why this subject is notable - these would be good to add to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some editors do the dirty work of going though non-notable subjects and nominating them, that does not make this a less credible application of the policy. Policy is that if the subject not notable, ie no 3rd party sources exist to prove the claims of notability, it should be deleted. There are no such sources to support this article. Please read what wikipedia is not and WP:NOTABILITY. Check it:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Wikidās ॐ 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many vaishnavite figures with more google hits may be deleted, self published or promotional info is not from reliable sources, that are missing. Clearly not a single academic source that is independent of the subject, that discusses or reviews this book. Books like that can stay where they are - in the book stores, not in Encyclopedia. Wikidās ॐ 22:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they might be hypothetically. But I'm guessing that they won't be. — goethean ॐ 23:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidas claims to have examined "the above links," fifteen minutes after they were posted. He must be really, really fast, so perhaps he overlooked something. Just starting to look at a search on "Nisargadatta Maharaj," I found, for example, in the first page of results, [32], which showed a page of quotations from this very book in Robert Kastenbaum, Encyclopedia of Adult Development, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1993. Given the prominence of Nisargadatta Maharaj, and that this nominated book seems to be the major book about him (or "by" him"), it would be astonishing if it weren't widely quoted. The nomination was preposterous. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is not a ridiculous conclusion for this AfD, but really that should be up to the editors of the main article, and Merge can be proposed and accomplished without an AfD. (It is a variation on "Keep," since the article is not deleted but merely redirected, and that can be undone by any editor.) The present article should be about this book itself, which includes detailed description (which can be sourced from the book itself) and notable comment on it. Notice that, above, with very little effort, I was able to report that I found an entire page of quotations from this book in an "Encyclopedia of Human Development." The book has been noticed in reliable sources. What I don't like about Merge decisions, interpreted as binding, is that the editors of the main article wouldn't have been consulted. What difference does it make, really, if there is one article on the main topic, longer, or two articles, shorter, one being the main topic and the other a subarticle, i.e., specific book description, for a particularly notable publication? This book seems to be, I'm guessing from what little I've seen, the main publication by or about him. ("Not written by him" is an oversimplification. He is the "author" of the words therein, albeit in their original language and verbally. And that is really irrelevant.} No, not "all of them need a separate article." Only those where there is more detail appropriate than is appropriate for a main article, or they, as works, are particularly notable.--Abd (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Allemandtando was an abusive sock puppet of User:Fredrick day, who has at various times (like yesterday) watched my contributions and intervened with reverts or opposite !votes. He has been indef blocked now, this !vote should be disregarded. --Abd (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here Ism schism simply repeats, as if it were a new comment, his nomination statement. That's problematic. And there were reliable sources above asserted, arguably showing notability from where the book has been quoted. Participation in this AfD has been low, one Delete !vote was from a sock puppet and possibly not in good faith, and this AfD probably shouldn't be closed as a consensus, unless the matter is very clear to the editor closing. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over a week of discussion, and there are no agreed upon reliable sources for this article. Most articles need at least 2 reliable sources. It shouldn't take over a week to find them - this is point I was trying to make earlier. I apologise for not being more clear. Personally, I think an article needs 2 reliable sources to back up its claims to notability. It is important to note that these are still lacking after ample time for review. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking from where? My guess is that Ism schism means from the article. They are here, above. Sources showing notability are not necessarily appropriate for the article for other reasons. If there are unsourced claims in the article, those should be removed. Sometimes a topic is notable but the reliable sources that show it don't back up specific facts in the article; in that case, such sources may be mentioned in an AfD or in article Talk. I also have a general policy of not working on articles that are under AfD, I should probably resign from Article Rescue. Too many times I've done the work and actually found reliable source, and the article still disappears because there had already been many Delete votes, the closer didn't look at the new sources and it was still marginal and not worth going to DRV, etc., etc. But, here, if this closes as Delete, I'd consider DRV, because it appears that this is, indeed, a notable book.
I noticed the possible pattern, and it is a matter of concern, but is not really relevant to the AfD itself. If an editor is abusively nominating, and that is clear, the editor could be sanctioned, but this isn't the place to discuss that. Talk, here, would be okay, but.... better if the editors try to work it out directly, then ask for help if they can't find consensus in that way. There is mediation and user conduct RfC and the whole nine yards of WP:DR. Please, both of you, take this elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the subject of this discussion should be the article - and whether it is notable and has reliable sources for verification. Personal attacks against me can be taken to other forums. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I want to save an article from deletion for whatever reason, I make changes, add sources, show notability, and then use this AfD space to call attention to the improvements so that other editors might change their opinions. I've had more success that way that I have engaging in intense debate. Tackle articles, not editors. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable book article, and Merge the contents into the article of the notable author (Nisargadatta Maharaj). Outside the context of the author, his teachings (hence this book) are meaningless to general readers.Yobmod (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge with Navnath into a single article, incorporating some of the sources listed at this AfD. From reading the articles, Navnath seems the appropriate target, but I encourage experts in the topic to assist with this. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navnath Sampradaya[edit]

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

Non notable, original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, merging Navnath Sampradaya into this one. This title seems to be the logical target for the merged article, but I encourge experts in the topic to assist with this. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navnath[edit]

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

Non notable, original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other related articles. Shobhit102 | talk  12:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Shereth 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Madhavnath Maharaj[edit]

Shri Madhavnath Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable, original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No clear consensus to delete, and added sources appear reliable and non-trivial.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DesktopTwo[edit]

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

Article is about software/webware that fails notability guildlines.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the deletion recommendation for this article should be removed.

Desktoptwo has a Google page rank of 6. Presumably Google's page rank algorithm considers, among other things, the number of mentions a page has on the Web plus the number of times users click on search result pages where the corresponding URL appears. Just by this reason it appears that Desktoptwo's relevance is difficult to challenge.

Also, there are countless examples of Wikipedia articles that refer to Web sites or other software products where Google's page rank is under 6 (see article for blip.tv with page rank zero). There also articles about other Web sites in Desktoptwo's space that have the same page rank as Desktoptwo but that are not being submitted for deletion. (see article entry for G.ho.st which also has a page rank of 6).

Finally, the Web as a platform is the most relevant shift in IT of the last few years. Desktoptwo is one of the most important proponents of such model. It'd be unwise, to say the least, to delete from the Wikipedia an article about a Web product that directly challenges the IT establishment by proposing the usage of the Web as a computing platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.206.254 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References have been provided in the article to comply with WP:RS. Those references also support the relevance of the article's object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.206.254 (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that subject does not meet WP:MUSIC and the article does not meet WP:V.--Kubigula (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Jones[edit]

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

Bringing this here as there is a disputed prod in the history. The subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. An overblown discussion at times, but consensus is that she's notable, particularly for her work with the band Rasputina.--Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melora Creager[edit]

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

non notable musician with questionably notable albums, would require serious work to meet wp:n and i don't think the sources are out there Myheartinchile (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question are producers of multiple notable albums notable?Myheartinchile (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I said she was a member of Nirvana? --Bardin (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe someone stated that, yes.MY♥INchile 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me. --Bardin (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Goldston[edit]

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

non notable cello player who's only claim to fame is playing on tour with nirvana years ago, once sentence stub with no opportunity to really expand, also not referenced at all. Myheartinchile (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep due to evidence of third party reliable sources which satisfy WP:V, and therefore WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Japan War Online[edit]

Anti-Japan War Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article appear to lack notability, all Google references come to articles commenting on that the game is supposedly being created. Appears to be vaporware. PCPP (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've discovered a Chinese website [43] supposedly carrying the game, but can't find any verifications in English--PCPP (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it a weak delete per comment below. We should give those who can read/speak Chinese (if there are any out there pertaining to this article) a chance. MuZemike (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:V, sources in English are preferred but not required. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 00:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you visit the Babel Fish translation of the page[46] you'll see that it describes the 2008 download client for the game. Icemotoboy (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was - Keep - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of hard rock musicians[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of hard rock musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated in April. Passed per WP:CLN, i.e. a list may be developed further than a category. However, since then, no changes have been made except new bare list entries. A quick glance reveals REO Speedwagon and Therapy?, definitively not hard rock bands. Category:hard rock groups is appropriate in part because the auto-link from each article (or conspicuous lack thereof) helps filter and develop the proper list. Here however we see a tendency to wp:listcruft with little prospect and no progress of comprehensively adding cross-reference information, blurbs, or such.

Article may be recreated without prejudice after deletion by copying category contents. So long as intent is to add value. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead criterion references hard rock, which says this:

    Hard rock is a variation of rock music which has its earliest roots in mid-1960s garage and psychedelic rock. It is typified by a heavy use of distorted electric guitars, bass guitar, keyboards and drums. The term "hard rock" is often used as an umbrella term for genres such as Alternative, Grunge, heavy metal and Punk in order to distinguish them from pop rock.

    The problem is that this includes nearly all rock that isn't "pop" and then some that is: distorted guitar is mighty popular. Meanwhile musicians are virtually guaranteed to fall into another list, such as List of heavy metal bands—an exemplary list. Are there some bands best typified as hard rock? Sure... Deep Purple, Blue Oyster Cult. Do Boston and David Bowie also belong? Well, technically. But tell a record store clerk you like hard rock such as Pat Benatar, and the guitar distortion will be curtailed. And don't get me started on Bijelo Dugme.
  • Also, many of the Category:Lists of musicians by genre (ie, all of the half dozen I just randomly clicked) are substantially improved or contain redlinks, so I disagree with equating this one to the rest. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, edit history shows over 100 edits since then. Article development isn't stalled, it's flawed. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 03:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two solid reasons to delete. One is that improving this article would necessitate starting from scratch because of the existing cruft. A better way to form this list would be to copy from categories such as Category:American alternative rock music groups. (Does anyone there not belong here? Is that list 100% consistently hard rock?) So this list as-is does not contribute to a potential improved list.
  • The second reason is that it's not maintainable. For almost fifty years hard rock has been the "music of the people" in much of the world due to cheap production/performance requirements and overall popularity. The scope of this list is such that it needs to be broken into smaller, categorized lists, which as it happens has already been done and those lists are already in the improvement stage. Now, a list of hard rock genres would be nice, and could easily be condensed from hard rock. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:51, 17 July 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. 
- Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, request was withdrawn, the copyright violation could be removed without deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amphoe Mae Chaem[edit]

Amphoe Mae Chaem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deletion request for edit after this. The edit includes text from here p.216. Anan 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Question why delete? is this a copyright issue? Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. It must be a copyright violation.--Anan 11:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anan (talk • contribs)

thanks, 2nd Question, I'm not familiar with the proceedure, but must all the article be deleted if a portion that was added later is under copyright? This seems draconian, Would it not be simpler to delete the offending paragraph? Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in fact I am from Jawiki and so not familiar with the proceedure here too. But It seems the all versions after problematic edit are polluted by cut and paste from the copyrighted material. So I just simply thought the all versions should be deleted. However if it is not the way in enwiki, I have to think better of this request.--Anan 11:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks, I found this at Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored.". You should also make a note on the talk page of the copiright, that you deleted the offending text, where the text came from. etc. yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind instruction. I didn't know that rule. It makes me feel Enwiki is far from Jawiki. Anyway, I will cancel this request.--Anan (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. I recommend considering to merge it to Obama family, if that survives AfD.  Sandstein  18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Soetoro-Ng[edit]

Maya Soetoro-Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person is clearly non-notable. Being related to a famous person and the media being aware of her existence does not make for a notable entry on wikipedia. She is a mere teacher - how many of them are there in the world? Are we to have an article for all of them? John Smith's (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You meant to type "merge with Maya's mother's article," I presume.   Justmeherenow (  ) 16:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified - thanks. John Smith's (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to LotLE So what? Lots of people get quoted in the press who don't have articles on wikipedia. John Smith's (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It puts her in close proximity, affiliation, trust, etc., with someone who either will be, or will come close to being, the most powerful person on earth. Of all the Obama siblings - some more distant or estranged - his sister is the one who has worked most closely with him on the campaign. That is probably why the world takes note of her, but whatever my hunch is as to why people are interested it is clear that they take note as evidenced by hundreds of recent news articles about her. Wikidemo (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not lie. I have never said that I am going around deleting contributions of people who might like Obama. I expressed my feeling that certain people are too enthused about him and creating articles that should not be. And as I wrote on the other afd, you are lumping me together with everyone who actively dislikes Obama just because I have a used a term you say they do. I am, if you had bothered to look at my profile, not American and generally not interested in Obama's article on the project. Assume good faith if you wish to have it from others.
Being in a position of trust is irrelevant. If she makes a name for herself in presidential work after/if Obama is elected, ok depending on the detail that might make an article on her justified. But not until - he is still facing an election and simply working on a candidate's campaign isn't enough. Making subjective and vague comments like "his sister is the one who has worked most closely with him on the campaign" is not helpful to deciding what to do with the article. John Smith's (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, why do people keep using the spouse example to justify other relatives? This person is not Obama's wife. Being wife of the president gains actual status - they are given a title. Other relatives are not given status. The "first family" extends to the president, spouse and children only. John Smith's (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a counter-example to the claim that one's notability cannot arise from the circumstances of family relationships. You can propose a standard that an official or common title or position based on kinship makes the kin notable. But that's just an observation or a proposed criterion, not something set in stone. Policy and guideline say nothing about how notability might arise - it just gives a presumptive test based on coverage in reliable sources. Being attacked by, dated with, having a child with, impugned by, best friends with, a child or parent of, etc., a famous person could, depending on the circumstances, result in people taking note of a person's life. Then we have to decide, if various sources thought it was important enough to cover, do we feel it is too? Wikidemo (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge, as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama. Obama family is arguably the target agreeable to most participants. Someone seems to have copied the content there already.  Sandstein  18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Obama[edit]

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

Another non-notable Obama relative. Just because someone is related to him and the media is aware of them does not mean we need an article on them - this person clearly fails notability. I'm surprised the article hasn't been nominated yet. John Smith's (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to disparage editors who you disagree with by calling them "Obama fans". If you look at some of the history of the Barack Obama article several editors coined epithets like "Obama fanboys", "Obama campaign volunteers", and "Obama campaign workers" to taunt people who opposed their attempts to insert negative material about Obama into the article. On the substance "requires" is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia, it's notability. Notability is presumed from the fact that the articles you are nominating clearly meet the WP:BIO guideline by virtue of multiple mentions in independent reliable sources. Thus it's up to you to argue why the subjects aren't notable despite meeting the criteria, or why even though notable they don't deserve their own articles. Wikidemo (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidemo, I believe that you could do with reading those articles yourself. I have not made any personal comments here or otherwise directed to individuals. I have no interest in Obama and criticism of - do not lump me together with those who do just because I made a joke about people writing articles up on his family members when really they are not suitable for the project. That is in of itself not assuming good faith - practice what you preach, please.
As for notability, per the recently closed Afd on Malik Abongo Obama clearly it has been successfully argued that notability inherited through one's relationship to another is not notability in of itself. You may disagree but I think that this is quite a clear-cut case. I think a re-direct merger is best because that way it will stop new articles being created. John Smith's (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to repeat this entire discussion four places - two AfDs and our respective talk pages. It may have been inadvertent on your part, with some humorous component, but as soon as you start talking about people being "Obama fans" you're casting the whole thing in POV terms which, as I said, has been a big problem on the Obama pages. It's best if we just acknowledge that and move on - I'll accept you didn't mean to be there. We both agree that the material from this particular article can be safely merged for now into some other, so there's not a whole lot of point debating the specifics. However, the other AfD does not establish the kind of precedent you propose. There is considerable dispute that the "notability is not inherited essay" means what you say it does, and the closing administrator on the other article made clear it was not deemed a "merge" for that reason. It would be a shame to repeat the entire debate from last time, but clearly people are notable via their relationship to their family members. Otherwise, as I pointed out there, we would have no articles on British royalty, for example, or spouses of famous people, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Royalty is different, because people are notable in part because of their titles and public engagements. Also being related to a monarch is important as they have a place in line to the throne. That said I would not support articles on every minor royal relative. On the other hand Obama's relatives would not become president if he died having won the election and taken office, nor do they have a title - so the two are not comparable. Obama's wife is different because she would become the first lady and has a very high profile, such that people debate whether she is an asset or a hindrance to Obama's campaign. John Smith's (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (apropos above) - It looks like a snowball merge at this point. We don't need to go through a time-consuming AfD process to do a merge, just consensus. I suggest we wait another day to see if there is any opposition and, if not, be bold and just do the merge. If anyone objects at that point they can always revert or object and we can discuss further... In addition, although each Obama family member is different (ranging from his wife Michelle Obama being the most notable to nth cousin Dick Cheney and rumored distant Welch ancestors being remote, I think it might be most productive to centralize the discussion rather than having ad hoc AfD nominations one at a time. Perhaps gestate all new material for any family members on a central page, and spin them off as articles only if and when people feel they're ready. Wikidemo (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this goes back to the points raised in the previous afd discussion. Does being discussed in the media because you're someone's relative constitute notability? Or does it have to be something that the individual has done/knows/etc that is independent of that? My understanding is that it is the latter, not the former. John Smith's (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument and it is compelling, however the argument you propose is a fallacy due to the fact you change the terms for notability due to original research and personal opinion, notability is established by the notability guidelines, and this individual has met these, whether or not you approve of the attention she has gotten, the fact of the matter is, is that it is wholly irrelevant that you have contempt for fact that Sarah Obama has received attention you feel is not merited. Therefore i change my opinion to strong keep.MY♥INchile 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a false dichotomy (I mean that in a rhetorical sense, not to accuse anyone of being false). The threshold question is whether the media discusses a thing, not why the media does so. If the media wants to devote article after article about how someone wakes up in the morning, brushes her teeth, goes for a walk, and tends to her baby, that's evidence the person is notable. The parallel substantive question, whether we think the person is worth noting, can be for most any reason. We don't necessarily have a standard that the person must have achieved great things before we will write about them. There is no policy or guideline, so far as I know, that says that relatives of important people are disqualified in this way. The previous AfD didn't answer that question, it just observed that there was a toss-up for opinions on that article that can't be decided, but that everyone seems to agree that merger is okay. It is up or us to decide whether to cover them or not. Wikidemo (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't take me long to find several news articles from reputable sources (USAToday, BBC, The Nation, AllAfrica.com, The Guardian) all of which have Sarah Obama as either the main subject of the article or as an important part of it. This helps to establish notability. As the election approaches (it's still several months away), more will no doubt be published on her as the media attention grows. I would add this info from these articles myself, but I have a term paper due this month. Again, please keep this article. Scanlan (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as unverifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Davies[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that Eileen Davies existed. I can find no evidence that her album "Down the Drain" existed. Ogg (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wasn't asking for a CSD A7 was encouraging an expedient deletion. as for what incivility, i was simply describing the article content in accurate terms.MY♥INchile 22:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that confusion would arise if you used the term "speedy deletion" not to describe the Wikipedia process for immediate deletion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:42, 16 July 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.
More