< June 10	June 12 >

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 blatant advertising by Tanthalas39. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspace[edit]

Non-notable DaveWF (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted I can't find any record of the term "lightspace" being used in this fashion except by the presumable author of this article. This appears to be jargon used exclusively within the context of Steve Mann's group at the University of Toronto. Also it kind of looks more like promotion of a software project than anything else. In my opinion this isn't a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. -- DaveWF (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as advert. B.Wind (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Rama Yogi[edit]

No evidence of notability of this person provided. No sources listed. You could make the argument that being a "spiritual giant" is a claim of notability, so I'm not going to try to speedy delete it. Anon editors have repeatedly made this article a travesty of NPOV. Failed PROD. eaolson (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the copyvio/advert text from the article. No opinion (yet) on deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete you shouldn't have as it is obviously an advertisement, it is patent original research highly bias, not verified, not notable, doesn't even claim notability, horribly formatted, its junk.Myheartinchile (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's written like an advertisement, its claims of notability are questionable at best, and it has no sources. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM If ever there was a article which is spam this is it. It even gives a phone number to contact the subject. Artene50 (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've removed personal information that shouldn't have been in the article in the first place. It is an advertisement and/or non-notable bio and should be deleted. Whomever included the personal information needs to be made aware that it is against policy/guidelines as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Speedy too An anonymous IP, which just happens to edit on this article, reverted Jaynash2's actions and tried to keep the reference to the phone number here It was countered by another user but this article gives me a bad feeling. I wonder if it will 'pop up' again. Artene50 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, album by band w/no assertion of notability, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First (RedEye)[edit]

Contested prod. Article describes a self-released album that does not meet WP:MUSIC. TN‑X-Man 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete doesn't assert any form of notability. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Album is made by author's band, and notability has not been established. Link to the band's page is here. Fraud ^{talk to me} 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable red linked band with non-notable album, fails WP:MUSIC & WP:COI. Thank you for playing, good bye. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as it has no assertion of notability. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've declined the speedy deletion--albums and creative works are not covered under WP:CSD#A7, and extensive recurring discussions at WT:CSD have failed to come to a consensus to allow them. --jonny-m t 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and WP:SNOW: The user who created this article is clearly a member of the band who made this "album". The band is not notable and neither is the "album" and the whole thing is a conflict of interest that jumps across the border to WP:SPAM with no regards for the rules after numerous warnings. ju66l3r (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Purpose of the article appears to be to get people to download the music making this advertising disguised as an article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Spam links deleted. ju66l3r (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, and possibly WP:COI all fail this article. Soxred 93 11:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuesta Verde[edit]

completely non notable fictional place, this is the town from the poltergeist movies but it should simply be one sentence at the movie's article. this article is a few sentences mini stub with no potential, no sources, it is not verified and is not notable and it should therefore be deleted, quick. Myheartinchile (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, and fails to explain either how the place is important to the films or why it is a notable fictional place. Thetrick (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Poltergeist (film series). The House of the Dead reference does not make it worth a page of its own. JuJube (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relevant information should already be in the Poltergeist (film series) article therefore making this redundant. It isn't notable on its own. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable. Happydazer (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway City[edit]

Non notable fictional place, this is no gotham and it is completely unsourced and lacking any assertion of notability, not even verified. Myheartinchile (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable location in the DC universe, and main turf of one of its three marquee characters, Wonder Woman. Ford MF (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment then why not merge with wonder woman?Myheartinchile (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it occurs in a shared universe, and while important to Wonder Woman, is not exclusive to her. As mentioned, it started out, for example, as a feature of Mr. Terrific comics in the Golden Age. Ford MF (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, but the shared universe which is not verified, but i believe you, is not notable either, it can be mentioned in both wonder woman for which it is most notable and the other dude.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if it is referenced and verifiable that Wonder Woman's Gateway City is the same one used by the other characters than I'd say although it is "no Gotham" it could still be included. The article does need improvement but, needing improvement isn't reason for deletion. And it does have a reference. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Literacy[edit]

Unsourced reference to a neologism. TN‑X-Man 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO. Seems to be a promotion for "carbonliteracy.org", a web site established two months ago. --John Nagle (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Textbook definition of a neologism. The potential of it being spam as raised above is also concerning. Fraud ^{talk to me} 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Carbon footprint, it is a non notable unsourced, neologism and has no place here.Myheartinchile (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, all of the above... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 00:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References Posted. A couple of entries have been posted to show that the phrase has been in common use, especially in the UK where its now taught in the public schools, and professional circles. Thanks for looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarbonLiteracy (talk • contribs) 01:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper WP:NEO. I have been editing many of the environmental articles so I would like to see such an article created when it looses its neologism. status, which I believe it will. The references given do not show that it is not a neologism. CarbonLiteracy has also created the Wiktionary page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Alan, Ok that sounds fine. We'll keep an eye out for it. Thanks. CarbonLiteracy --CarbonLiteracy (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. --WilliamRoper (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Majer[edit]

This article was deleted back in March with a PROD tag on it for failure to prove notability. There are no releases, no tours, and no reliable sources. The article got recreated today with the PROD tag still on it, meaning it was copied from somewhere with the tag attached. Besides being a GFDL violation since the previous edit history hasn't been restored, and therefore a copyvio, there is still no proof of notability. There are only 15 Google hits, none of them reliable. Corvus cornix_talk 23:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no label, no hits, no sales, not notable, not verified, all original research, no potential, possible future success is a crystal argument, so delete delete delete not notableMyheartinchile (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject of the article claims to be starting a line of clothing called Cartune, which is the same name as that of the article's creating editor. It's also part of the subject's website. Corvus cornix_talk 02:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unnotable group. Only sources are to its web site and a myspace site. Hardly notable as of June 2008. Artene50 (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability claimed, no sources found --T-rex 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 19:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Cove (fictional town)[edit]

Non notable original research article that does not establish notability nor provide any references or sources or even external links on a fictional place used in a few works but that may or may not even be the same place. they likely simply share a name. this topic is a stub and has no future. Myheartinchile (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as it stands the article doesn't appear to assert notability really and contains no 3rd party references for verifiability. If sources can be found and included in the article which show the town is notable than I'm willng to say keep. I do agree with the nom that unless a source can be found and referenced stating that the newer use of the town is the same as the earlier one than that section should be removed from the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Neeleman[edit]

Just an average professor DimaG (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete non notable professor, one sentence mini stub that clearly states his lack of notability, not sourced at all, not even a single external link...no brainer.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the references at this Google Scholar search. --Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The foregoing link actually confirms that this person doesn't meet WP:PROF. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The newspaper references show that he was a pioneer in using computer technology in law. --Eastmain (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. On one hand he does hold a named chair appointment at a decent law school, which I ordinarily would consider a sign of academic notability (of course, law schools often have bigger endowments and more named chair appointments than other academic departments). On the other hand his scholarly record appears thin: Eastmain's GoogleScholar search returns a grant total of 5 hits and GoogleBooks does not return much either[1]. GoogleNews (all dates) search gives 5 hits[2], so there does not seem to be substantial coverage in conventional newsmedia either. It does not seem to me that the subject passes WP:PROF based on these results. He does appear to be an active practicing lawer, according to his faculty profile[3], which might explain a relative lack of academic impact. It could be that he is notable as a lawer under WP:BIO but a verifiable case for this has not been made. Nsk92 (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Named chairs at major universities are notable. Always. GS is not even remotely complete. But as Nsk says, given the relative length of time as a lawyer, from 72 to 05 along with the professorship, apparently an eminent tax & estate planning attorney. Now, this wont be visible in the case law, unlike trial or appeal lawyers, so there can be some difficulty proving it. I would thing that for a practicing attorney to b given a named chair at a major law school is an unmistakable sign of eminence in his profession. he apparently also served on some major government service roles, but I cannot totally decipher them from the sources due t o my unfamiliarity with the profession. DGG (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. Happydazer (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified is the reason. Anton Ego (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not meet WP:PROF and seems like an average academic to me. I don't think an endowed chair necessarily indicates encylopedic notability (certain chairs in certain fields at certain universities, because of traditions associated with them and notable previous holders; that's more the case in the sciences). And third-party coverage is very thin indeed, along the lines of passing mentions. --MCB (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's your opinion--I think it equally likely that those universities with the largest number of such chairs have the eminent professors to fill them--its rather the other way round, that because of the manner of funding, the most important of the state flagship universities have a deficiency of named chairs. (I expect this will probably be corrected as they all of them are trying to be more self-sufficient here, via one or another device. ) I'd say that this distinction is a pretty lear way of dividing up the full professors, for t hose who think for some reason that a full professors at a major research university aren't overwhelmingly likely be notable because of the documented recognition of status by their peers. Law is a difficult field for Wikipedia to find good criteria. DGG (talk)`

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G3. (non-admin closure) Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas ss[edit]

Dubious article. Not vandalism per se, so I brought it here. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, not notable. Farside6 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are a bit weak --T-rex 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE per WP:NOBULLSHIT, obvious hoaxMyheartinchile (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No sources, non-notable, may be a hoax. macy^talk 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Smiles and Heartbreak Cures[edit]

Album isn't the subject of any reliable sources. While I could find reviews and sources for her 2007 album Too Far Gone, there doesn't seem to be anything to say about this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta go with a delete, while I worked in a country music radio station and I know about this group, I have to remain unbiased and I performed a news search on google and found nothing. Just going with a general search, almost 600 hits, but most are lyrics to the album. Non notable I'm afraid. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 23:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. If Catherine Britt is considered notable, and by my reading she is, then her debut album should be, as well. If it's determined that this is going to be deleted, I recommend a merge and redirect to her article. Corvus cornix_talk 23:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like a reliable source. [4] - I'm not sure if about.com is reliable, but it seems to be. Corvus cornix_talk 23:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The .au source is only a directory listing. About.com is reliable, but its mentioning of Dusty Smiles... is only trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep a real album from a notable person. Happydazer (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated for ARIA Best Country Album of 2002. Notable artist. Meets WP:MUSIC. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rayo de luna (2008)[edit]

I PROD'd this film article last time it was uploaded at Rayo de luna and it has reappeared again under a slightly different name. It's a 3 minute film released this year that doesn't assert notability, and the only reference provided is youtube. Delete. role^player 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: also included in this is La Llamada (2008), which I also PROD'd for the same reason at La Llamada. -- role^player 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't asserted and the only external link is to youtube, which isn't consiered a notable source. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V If the only 'source' is a youtube site, its likely not notable as of today. Artene50 (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, not nessacarily WP:V but either way, delete. DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep no other delete votes, article was substantially improved and nom indicated improvement. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soda jerk[edit]

All right, this article has been around for four years now. [5]. Time to go. BradV 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who are voting keep simply because there is no reason listed, this is what the article looked like when I nominated it. It was nothing but a dictionary entry, and there wasn't a source provided or any substantial improvements made to the article in 4 years. It was a pretty obvious delete when I nominated it, but a few editors have made substantial improvements and found sources for this since then. (I still can't believe it!) BradV 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish to withdraw the nomination then? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. UE unreferenced nn dicdef. --Rory096 21:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerns seem to be taken care of. --Rory096 00:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any explanation as to why it should be deleted, and I'm confused as to why BradV is saying it's unreferenced. It works for me. Corvus cornix_talk 23:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate term of historical and cultural importance. Why was this even nominated. An article "being around for a while now" is not generally considered criteria for deletion. It's not a neologism, as a quick Google search will attest. eaolson (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator has given no reason for deletion apart from I don't like it. Keep per Wikipedia has no deadline. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the fact that I'm not seeing a deletion reason from the nom, this is a well written, well referenced article that shows notability. Lots of hits in google scholar, if we need even more refs.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleaned up nicely after the AFD.--SeizureDog (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm sure that there are long-time articles on 8-Track, Shinola, Model T, and other obsolete icons of history, but that does not mean that they should be deleted. The Soda jerk was a very important part of American culture. Besides, I checked, the article on the Earth has been around for almost seven years. I think it's time for that one to go. Eauhomme (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep article is of notable historical valueMyheartinchile (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what? Are you saying the article should be kept because the article itself is of notable historical value? --Rory096 01:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO of course not, i meant the article's subject, dork =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs) 08:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

obvious keep. well referenced, important, and historical subject. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it wasn't in shape at the beginning of the AfD discussion, it certainly is now. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep nothing resembling a rationale has been given. JuJube (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can understand the frustration of the nom with the way some people have expressed their "votes". I can also understand the "voters" saying that a rationale wasn't given. Perhaps we can all learn something here. Either way as the article stands now it's a keep. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty obvious keep after the work that's been done on the article since the AfD, but I think it was a keep before. An article should only be deleted if the topic is not notable or if the topic is notable but there's nothing currently in the article that can be salvaged for a decent version. The topic clearly is notable, and the article, while needing a lot of work, was of adequate quality for a stub. The fact that no one has improved it for a while doesn't seem particularly relevant (as others have pointed out, wiipedia has no deadline). Klausness (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see anything inherently "wrong" with this article which makes it worthy of deletion. Improve - yes. Delete - No. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Strong Keep The only thing the nom gives for a reason to delete is because nothing has been added for four years. Wikipedia has no deadline or time limit. Is notable and has reliable sources. I would like to see some improvements here and there, but otherwise, I see no reason to delete. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh - Doc - Did you mean keep? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 20:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Yes I did, silly me. Sorry, my mind wanders. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep per all the keep arguements, they already said everything for me. DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep, disagreement over whether or not the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Budd[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:Bio#Athletes having never played in a fully-professional league. However, previous PROD was contested because he has international futsal caps. I am led to believe that these too do not make a player notable --Jimbo^[online] 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. --Jimbo^[online] 21:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would argue that Darren Budd is notable; Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography states "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" while WP:ATHLETE states that "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." I would say that being an international player in a fast-growing sport gives notability. Giant Snowman 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say the highest level in international futsal is the FIFA Futsal World Championship. However England did not play in the competition (at least not in 2004), so WP:ATHLETE is invalid in this particular case. --Angelo (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to go by Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline and say that a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject means that the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I am influenced here by the complete lack of ghits for "Darren Budd" +futsal in Google news[6]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a quick Google search brings up the Eastbourne Herald and the Argus, which are both independent newspapers, as well as the FA and Middlesbrough Futsal... Giant Snowman 00:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GiantSnowman's argument is convincing. Happydazer (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ben Watson was deleted because it was deemed that futsal caps did not meet the criteria. --Jimbo^[online] 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think there's ever really been a proper discussion outside of that. A couple people in that AfD just seemed to disparage futsal as a sport. matt91486 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it may seem obscure but is this why we should delete this article. Anton Ego (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angelo. Punkmorten (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman. I don't think the Ben Watson arguments are terribly convincing in that AfD either, since a lot of them boil down to just comments against the sport, which seems inappropriate. matt91486 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pocket Studios[edit]

Non notable company, no notable sources that I can see. Only one 3rd party ref that does not seem notable/reliable. Previously deleted under CSD A7 but recreated a matter of hours later. Added a primarysources template but was removed several times by the article's single editor without suitable sources given. Delete. Rehevkor (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't really argue that this article is about a notable business, as there are no references and only one outside source which can be argued as non notable. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G4. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Dusti. Esradekan, this doesn't meet CSD G4, which is for articles that were previously deleted under an AfD consensus. Tan | 39 14:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more like an advertisment for a studio. Anton Ego (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vp.art[edit]

Non-notable, new, art form (see edit history). ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. I nearly went for a speedy request, but thought maybe I was just being harsh. Think I was right the first time Ged UK (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That was my initial thought, but it doesn't quite fit into any of the speedy categories as far as I can see. – ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim of notability. sources are very weak --T-rex 23:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be another NN one-man art movement. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - So these three censors decide what is worthy to be known and what is not? Do you have any particular reason - excepting conceit - to be in such a hurry to normalize the Wikipedia content? If you don't know and never heard about vp.art in the past, you have the vanity to decide that it's not worthy to be known by others. I think that above all you illustrate the weakness of Wikipedia, which is run by a handful of know-it-all, have-it-seen and have-been-there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaa06 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article stands. Article states that vp.art has nothing to do with soundpainting but, uses soundpainting books as references? I can't find anything in google for vp.art - logical extension would be voice painting I think (and that also doesn't come up with anything). Got to go with non-notable and non-verifiable. I believe vp.art has come-up for discussion elsewhere (editors' assistance or the helpdesk) I think if people want to find more on wiki about it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jasynnash2 didn't even read the references in the article. The article states that it has nothing to do with soundpainting as used in another Wikipedia article, while*Delete the books and other references used in the article are talking about experiments combing sound and painting. I sincerely wonder why this small group of censors are in such a hurry to delete an article which informs about a perhaps marginal form of art, but one that is new and has a real potential. Is it vanity or opinion streamlining? A significant fact: NONE of you is even interested in art! At least you don't think it worthwhile mentioning in your profile, where you list yet dozens of rather uninteresting hobbies. --Sanaa06 (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I'm attempting to Assume Good Faith but, accusing people of censorship just because they don't agree with you is a bit.... to assume that people aren't interested in art simply because we don't agree with you is a mistake (just because someone doesn't have a mention of something in their "profile" doesn't mean they aren't interested or that they lack knowledge in that area. You need to review the policies and guidelines around notability and verifiability and discuss the reasons you feel the article deserves inclusion based on those facts. Simply accusing those people that disagree with you of censorship doesn't help the article, yourself, or wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I've also changed your second "keep" to "comment" for clarification purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're missing the point. You just said yourself that the references in the article are about something else, not the article itself. Ged UK (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If you'd taken the time to check the references of the article, you would have noticed that they are not about something else, but about artists and scientists who are all working in this field. Unfortunately you are neither experts, nor are you even interested in the matter of art. You are only interested in petty censorship against unconventional information.--Sanaa06 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - emerging art form that has not garnered coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability and no reliable sources backing-up the assertions made in this article. By way of explanation, Wikipedia is a "tertiary" source of information. That is to say, there a "primary sources" - things that are out there in the real world (works of art, in this case), then there are "secondary sources" - writers and academics who write about the primary sources in reliable newspapers, books or academic journals. Then there are tertiary sources like Wikipedia which draw on the reliable secondary sources. If there are no reliable sources then we cannot have an article on the subject. None of the links in this article fulfil that criterion, and a google search doesn't find any, either. This is not pettiness or censorship - it's one of the core policies of Wikipedia. For more information you should read WP:V and WP:RS. AndyJones (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What else than censorship do you practice, Andy, when you decree that the sources given in the article don't fulfil that criterion? So artistic practice and university research aren't any good? This is an emerging form of art, sources are still scarce. The fact is once again, that you aren't interested in the matter, but in the bureaucratic procedure alone. --Sanaa06 (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Not helping the article or the subject. Please discuss the articles merits or lack thereof using the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. And for the record I'm very interested in the subject and art in general. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply Then why don't you mention your interest in art in your profile, you mention fireflies, blueberries and white chocolate?

~~Keep~~ Although sources are scarce, I suggest to keep the article for a couple of weeks, to see if other readers than the restricted circle of 'wiki decision makers' who expressed themselves extensively find any interest in it. The article is neither political, nor offensive in any other way and you can't seriously pretend that it puts Wikipedia's credibility at stake.--Sanaa06 (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Second Keep from article creator, whose only edits have been to the article and here. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Now, if that isn't censorship, Johnbod, you delete even my comments, so you deny my (Wikipedia institutional) right to defend my article! And you seem to spend your time following this discussion. Is vp.art so important to you? Instead I would have expected you to reply to my proposition. It's true, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but I wonder if I'll get used to your understanding of democracy.

It wasn't me who stuck it through, if you look at the history. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. You've expressed your "Keep" sentiment earlier in the discussion. And although AFD is not a vote, participants in the discussion are not to express these non-votes more than once. You should prefix your comments with '''comment''' -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'm fed up. Delete the article if you want. At least I learned today how Wikipedia opinions are made. I read it not long ago, in a magazine, that the "deleters" of Wikipedia never write their own articles. Now I understand. Hope you had a good time too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaa06 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just wondered how many of the 2.4 million articles in the EN Wikipedia got so many censor comments? Well, you probably think you time has been spent worthwhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaa06 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not particularly notable. It actually is a variety of audio art not a movement or medium in its own right. WP:CRYSTAL applies here, I believe. freshacconcispeaktome 00:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The books listed as references have nothing to do with "Vp.art". Essentially, this is original research and a neologism. This isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. If there were specific, third-party references about Vp.art, that would be different. But as it stands, this is a non-notable art form. freshacconcispeaktome 00:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Happy Place[edit]

A CSI: Crime Scene Investigation television episode that will not air until September 2008. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. The reference is to a fansite that states that the episode information is only rumour. I originally prodded this article, but the prod tag was removed by an anonymous editor without comment. Bláthnaid 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, just fansites and rumors; WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - source is not up to par. Also suggesting deletion for Art Imitates Life --T-rex 23:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any reliable sources, and it also appears to be a little shiny. Soxred 93 03:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. There are no reliable sources about this episode yet. We can create something when they become available. JBsupreme (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Gateways as already seems to have been merged there by the article creator. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Suchard[edit]

Not notable, simply states creation of an organisation, but makes no assertion to that organisations notability, and seems to exist either only as a plug for the person, organisation, or both Ged UK (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Rabbi Suchard is very notable as the founder of the Gateways organization. More extensive information regarding his biography as well as regarding the organization has been solicited and is currently pending delivery. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I added references and cleaned up the article a bit, but it really needs more help. Bstone (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional sourcing added by Bstone, which further shows the notability of this particular rabbi. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's more here including New York Jewish Week that discusses his work with Gateways. Could there also be more sourcing available in Hebrew? Possibly someone can search there? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source/s you cite are only three "ads in print" for the Gateways programs. They are probably getting that press because they paid for pull page or significant ads in other parts of the papers, a not uncommon "professional courtesy" that Jewish newspapers extend to generous advertisers, and Gateways is known for its lavish spending on full-blown advertising in print, the mail, and on the Internet. IZAK (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Gateways. His meeting of the WP:BIO standard is questionable. Gateways, a small article, would be greatly enhanced by background information of its founder. In addition, it looks like his main claim to notability is his founding and leadership of Gateways. Combining the above reasons, makes merge the most reasonable solution. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gateways will be expanded -- it is two days old! Give it some time to expand and increasing its length by combining articles that each have their own merit to exist because of article length will be a moot issue. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the Gateways article because he is its founder and it's his "claim to fame" so that this article not be a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) as a serious rabbi. Outside of founding and running Gateways, he has done nothing notable and has not been noted as such in the media. NOTE: The Rabbi Jonathan Rietti article should also be merged into the Gateways article for the same reasons since he is Gateway's leading lecturer. IZAK (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also fails as a serious rabbi -- are you joking? What is a serious rabbi? Is he a clown-type of rabbi? Your comments are inflammatory -- surely a violation of WP:NPOV as they at best lack fairness of tone and at most incite derision. Please keep your comments civil.

He is the executive director and driving force behind an organization that affects thousands of individuals a year through its programs and lectures series. He is the subject of a number of articles, including at least one in The New York Times. Information will be added to the article as it expands and citations will similarly accrue. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to being the founding rabbi and spiritual director of Gateways, he also serves on the responsa board of Ask The Rabbi. I think he passed the "serious rabbi" test pretty easily. Bstone (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that Also fails as a serious rabbi means is that he is simply not a notable rabbi beyond organizing and running Gateways. He is not known for his scholarship and there is essentially nothing in the media or articles that claim he is anything more than an organizational/admistrative or "executive director" rabbi. Similarly not all Aish HaTorah or Ohr Somayach or Chabad rabbis get listed with articles as they too are just functionaries and are not serious rabbis and this does not mean they are clowns. Kindly assume good faith. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should review the meaning of words prior to using them -- words are, for the most part, objective. As brought from a dictionary, serious can refer to being deeply interested or involved, which I contend Rabbi Suchard is for taking the time, energy and effort to start Gateways. In fact, he even meets the criteria of being of such character or quality as to appeal to the expert, the connoisseur, or the sophisticate, as indicated by Gateways particular appeal to collegiates, young professionals and discerning Jews of all levels, giving them particularly focused direction on such things as Judaism's authenticity and the existence of the Oral Torah. If you had simply meant of considerable size or scope; substantial, I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming both good faith and that you are discerning enough to use a word that both conveys your intent as well as avoids ambiguity. I would hardly agree that serious denotes substantiality over frivolousness. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRosenbach: At this time Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher are the creators and managers of Gateways and without them Gateways cannot exist at this time. Even the information "cited" in the article/s is mostly from Gateways brochures. Wikipedia need not host seperate articles about them, when all the information can be combined into the Gateways article itself. I am not advocating the loss of this information, but that it be moved to the main Gateways article where it belongs. Perhaps sometime in the future, when many more articles and sources emerge, they will merit their own biographies but for now Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher and Gateways are one and the same. IZAK (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK: At this time, Rabbis Rietti and Becher are independant entities. Gateways exists because of them, not [[]vice vera]]. They are each accomplished authors and lecturers, notable in their field of fighting American Jewish assimilation and developing and presenting course material for lecture series focused on establishing the authenticity of classical Jewish thought, philosophy, vision and ritual practice. Your assertion that this information belongs in the Gateways article is inaccurate. These articles are clearly expandable -- they do not currently project the full expanse of information relating to their subjects, and policy delineated both here and here dictates that they be allowed to maintain themselves for further expansion.

As for Rabbi Suchard, he is the foudner of Gateways. He is notable as previously substantiated, and currently supersubstantiated by the sudden switch of focus of your siege to issues relating to bredth of coverage. Once again, as dictated by policy (both here and here), it complies with proper form to allow a 3-day old article to expand. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If, as according to you, Gateways is nothing without its rabbis then perhaps its article should be nominated for deletion instead. You cannot have it both ways. If the rabbis are what makes Gateways what it is then that is where they belong as they have devoted the last decade of their fairly young lives to it and it is the culmination of their careers at this time. They are happy and successful at Gateways and it does not look like they are leaving it any time soon. For the creator of the Gateways article it would have been wiser to put in all the comprehensive information into it, about its founding director Rabbi Suchard and about its two leading full time employees Rabbis Rietti and Becher who work for Gateways and Rabbi Suchard. Then, as the information about them and their whole operation would have beeen expanded with more sources, separate biographies about the rabbis could be an outgrowth down the line. It makes no sense writing one article about a small institution and then creating individual articles about three of its four full time rabbis. Therefore, the current approach of writing up separate articles about the organization and three of its rabbis is redundant, even if the rabbis have a somewhat broader resume, they are presently strongly indentified with, and work exclusively for, Gateways, AFAIK. IZAK (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't work exclusively for Gateways. Perhaps Rabbi Suchard, as the executive director, has only one job, but Rabbis Becher and Rietti have multiple responsibilities with multiple organizations. They are both on staff of the Mesorah Center for Continuing Jewish Education. What is this determination at eradication of articles whose subjects do not meet your criteria for notability -- i.e. that YOU do not think they are notable, when clearly, everyone who is familiar with them does believe them to be notable, and rightfully so? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRosenbach: Personal views are not what matters as that would be a violation of NPOV. What is important is to see how these rabbis measure up with others, as for example in Category:Orthodox rabbis and if you will look it over you will notice the significant and notable stature of almost all rabbis there. It would have been wiser of you to include all the material about Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher in the Gateways article first and then to have sought some sort of consensus with editors at WP:JUDAISM to evaluate the validity of creating separate articles for the rabbis of Gateways, instead of in effect efect creating four articles about the same subject. IZAK (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just it -- these are not my personal views! These are independant sources citing their deep involvement and notability in the Jewish outreach movement. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: See related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Rietti. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His notability appears to be verified. --Ecoleetage (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on sources provided meeting the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per IZAK. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because -- while I'm sure he's a fine rabbi -- he's still only starting to make a name for himself but he hasn't gotten there yet. Not enough coverage by useful media and nothing really notable yet for an encyclopedia. To the extent there's anything notable, it can be merged into suitable articles (e.g., as Izak suggests). Thanks. HG | Talk 08:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Most of Rabbi Suchard's "accomplishments" aren't notable (handing out an award, contributing to a politician), but being selected to accompany President Bush makes him seem somewhat notable. Despite mention of a New York Times article, I searched (using both the Times search and Google) and couldn't find anything. It's a close call, but I lean toward deleting the article until Rabbi Suchard's notability is more clearly established. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malik Shabazz. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Gateways per Brewcrewer. Culturalrevival (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe warrants mention on Gateways page, but NN for separate article. --Shuki (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Becher. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also didn't see the New York Times article that was mentioned. Would it be possible to provide a cite to it? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A New York Times article would be nice, but I don't know where you saw that mentioned. In lieu of that, I have provided citations from two articles from the Jewish Week, which has a weekly circulation of 70,000 homes. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This page has been subject to numerous !votes from new editors and anonymous IPs, most of whom are voting keep. However, sources have since been added, asserting notability. His claim to fame is as a published author, and whether or not it is well presented, it is clear that he has some notability in that area. Now for the deletion debate itself. Going by the number of keeps, there is an overwhelming majority wishing to retain this article. However, this is not what decides it, and several did not add helpful comments to the debate, so have been discarded. However, some of the delete votes were also unsubstantial. When there is notability, and there is a chance of improvement, the article should be kept and improved. This is conditional that the article actually will be improved, and not left. I urge those involved to work together to establish a solid article, with more sources. That way, it would satisfy our policies, and may avoid a third deletion debate. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the lucky stiff[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

There do not appear to be any reliable sources with which to verify the content of the article. Regardless of how well regarded the person is in a community "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (from WP:V). All the sources I can find are blogs or personal websites of people and companies he is associated with, these cannot be considered a reliable base for an article. Guest9999 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost totally unsourced, the only one being page that no longer exists, so no assertion of notability. Most of the article is external links to projects with even less notability. Rehevkor (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NN, WP:RS, & WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Fails WP:NN, WP:RS, & WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain The notion of deleting _why's entry is ludicrous. He is one of the two or three most visible presences in the Ruby community, author of Shoes (see also) and unholy and Camping and the Poignant Guide to Ruby. Tim Bray (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, I do not believe Mr. Stiff is sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. Specifically, he has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. Second, even if this was a case of borderline notability, in such cases we often respect the subject's request to delete the article. — Satori Son 16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain: That was back in January 2007. Also, an hour-long keynote at a conference for a popular web framework is notable in my books. Not to mention the illustrations in a book on a programming language by the creator of that language. Could have picked anyone else to add some illustrations to the book, but they picked _why because he can draw and he's a notable figure in the Ruby community. --OMouse (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I second Tim Bray's comment. I'm not a Ruby developer (I'm a Java developer) and nonetheless I know _why is one of the most influential individuals in the Ruby community. If the article needs to be improved, good. That's reasonable. That it should be deleted is ridiculous. D. Shaw (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh blatant ballot stuffing here http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/info/6n3xf/comments/ --Jonathan Williams (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Because so far the only ballot stuffing I see is the mindless repetition of "WP:NN, WP:RS, & WP:V" over and over again. Whereas the Programming Reddit site is actually full of people who can vouch for the actual notability of the person in question - and are active Wikipedia users to boot. --Jeresig (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reddit link does not solicit votes or encourage ballot stuffing. All it is asking for is for people to find more reputable references and add them to the page. One commenter explicitly says this, "What citations are really needed? Go to his site and download his book or some of his software. It can't possibly be hard to find hoards of people who have learned a lot from him or he's otherwise inspired." No ballot stuffing here and I am upset that I am being accused of this (I'm the original submitter of the reddit link) --OMouse (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should have referred to it as Canvassing; I apologize and revise my comments. --Jonathan Williams (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the fact that it was mentioned on a programming-discussion site led me here to leave comments citing verifiable notability. Bringing a discussion like this to the attention of people familiar with the subject matter (i.e., people more apt to know and be able to explain why a subject is or is not notable) is not a bad thing, and should not automatically be labeled as such. Ubernostrum (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here too, sigh... --Rory096 23:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You say this as if it's a bad thing that people familiar with the subject actually brought up verifiable information and started improving the article. Ubernostrum (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Improving the article is good, coming to AfD and stacking it in favor of keeps with the same reasoning over and over, not so much. --Rory096 02:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain _why is incredibly notable, and influential, within the Ruby programming community. He is a hacker of the purest form - creating works out of necessity and practicality, completely influencing and driving the entirety of the Ruby sphere. He's given a number of talks or performances (and not just random user group talks but major talks at major conferences) Keynote Presentations at RailsConf 2006, Concert at SXSWi 2006, and OSCON 2005 Presentation. Additionally he is the sole (or primary) creator of three separate projects which all have their own Wikipedia entries - each of which have seen considerable press: Hackety Hack (Press), Camping (microframework) (Press), and Why's_(poignant)_Guide_to_Ruby (Press). It would be an absolute travesty to have the page removed at this point, especially considering the sheer breadth and influence of work that he has performed. --Jeresig (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain _why is, as jeresig says, "incredibly notable and influential". A quick look at the sheer volume of pages [7] referencing him should dispell doubts otherwise. Personally, working in a Rails shop, I can vouch he comes up in conversations about Ruby/Rails even though none of my coworkers have met him. --AlanH (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be because you work in a Rails shop ; ) None of my coworkers have heard of him and they are all computational physicists at one of the world's top research universities who know one or two things about programming. Caek (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I don't share Jeresig's enthusiasm, _why is sufficiently notable for an article. From WP:BIO: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Specific important works he's been involved in are discussed on the first failed AfD. MoraSique (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Besides producing original and thought provoking work like Why's_(poignant)_Guide_to_Ruby and Hackety Hack, _why's personality and philosophies have a significant effect on the Ruby community, and also go a long way to forming the "public" impression of the Ruby community. If Wikipedia has an article about Ruby, it should have an article about _why. Klondike (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NN, not least because sourced articles about the author (as distinct from his works) do not seem to exist. Caek (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain per MoraSique. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The thing to do with a poorly-sourced article on a known notable person/topic is to turn it into a well-sourced article on a known notable person/topic. Ubernostrum (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the person is an online author, thus the heavy Google traffic. But not all authors are notable, and any blogger would have thousands of Google hits. The only reason to keep is the claim about being a "major person in the Ruby community." However, this person did not invent Ruby, nor any significant piece of it. The whole thing smells like a vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bex (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you look at the rest of the page you will see that Why has worked on many valuable programming projects. One of his projects is included in the standard library of a notable language. Also, there are many people who are only considered notable by a certain subset of people, should we delete their articles too? OMouse (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The subject of the article is listed as a contributor to the book The Ruby Programming Language and cited as a notable domain expert in Advanced Rails, both from O'Reilly (about as notable a publisher as there is in this field), has been an invited keynote speaker at RailsConf and portions of his self-published book have been anthologized in a notable collection of software writing (The Best Software Writing I: Selected and Introduced by Joel Spolsky, from Apress). None of this information is particularly hard to find for someone who's genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia content. Ubernostrum (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand: Per Ubernostrum, unless there is a wikipedia policy to delete Biographies when requested, per here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabda (talk • contribs) 13:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Deleting an author whose works have three wikipedia entries, You got to be kidding me! Shabda (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - This is just a vanity page and some random guy and his random projects are totally non notable and would never appear in a real encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.51.216.236 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for the fact that, at least, 3 of his projects have dedicated Wikipedia pages (Hackety Hack, Camping (microframework), and Why's_(poignant)_Guide_to_Ruby) - instantly giving him notability. Unless you're arguing that all three of those projects are non-notable. In which case you should probably nominate all of them for deletion as well. --Jeresig (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article is better sourced now. The fact that it hadn't been done before might be related to the fact that _why is very secretive and prefers to promote his work than his own person. Looking at the votes, it seems to me that the people calling the article a "vanity page" are not familiar with the topic at hand (programing, especially in the ruby language). Zorbid (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: why is at least as significant as any web comic publisher and is an important contributor to the Ruby community. Tadman (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and get on with our lives --- This article has 2+ years of edits from a variety of editors with WP accounts. The "delete" arguments say "V*nity", which is not a valid argument, violates a WP guideline, and offers evidence that they haven't even looked at the edit history. Meanwhile, the person who wrote tryruby.hobix.com, which is the first place anybody who wants to learn Ruby is pointed to, has a "v*nity" discussion on REDDIT.COM because of this AfD. There's no chance the AfD carries. Let's close it now. tqbf 69.17.73.234 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per caek - while his projects shown on wikipedia are certainly notable, he is unnotable as a subject himself. Many open source contributers have similar levels of importance, notoriety and contribution, but are also unworthy of inclusion. If someone updates the article so that it includes distinguishing personal characteristics - see Larry Wall or Hans Reiser for examples - keep. --Jonathan Williams (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Distinguishing personal characteristics" isn't an AfD argument. "No assertion of notability" is, but this article clearly asserts notability. "No reliable sources" would be, but this article is better sourced than many other articles now, and obviously clears the bar. 69.17.73.234 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No tangible data supports what distinguishes _why, except his whole production. He does little to promote himself, and he never gives interviews. He's a code artist. Think of him as the Salvador Dali of the coding world, without the attitude. He's as talented, as creative, and as prolific (but not a tad bit egocentric). His discipline is more obscure, and the audience is therefore much more limited. (Yes, I'm a fan) Zorbid (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also please notice that anyone interested in programming instantly recognises _why. I can see at least three people whose views on this should be considered weighty. User:TimBray who is prominent software personality Tim_Bray, Jeresig who is the creator of JQuery and Ubernostrum who is relase manager of Django_(web_framework) Shabda (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but it's also not a valid argument --- see WP:ATA. The reason this AfD should close --- now --- is because the subject clearly has reliable sources that verify notability. 69.17.73.234 (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. _why is as notable as [Mark Pilgrim]. Both are authors of notable computer books. --91.177.137.180 (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish we had ((soaddthesourcesalready)) =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Clearly notable. Not a good article, but the pseudonymous _why_ is a difficult subject. This is the sort of deletion controversy that calls Wikipedia into disrepute. per User:Tqbf. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: _why helped many people learn about the Ruby programming language though his books (the "Poignant Guide" and "Nobody Knows Shoes"), and his 5-10 years of online publishing. His projects seem to always be referenced not just by name "Hpricot", but prefixed with the author's name since it is perceived that this gives the project more authority (_why's Hpricot). He is referenced in real-world books, and has been invited to provide his drawings several books. Dr Nic Williams
Speedy keep Clearly Notable, needs cleanup, but cleanup is not a reason for afd. seems to have more reliable and verifiable sources than most articles --Buridan (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, clearly notable. --Pmsyyz (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: although I happened to come here from Tim Bray's site, I also periodically stumble upon _Why's WP page via one of his many projects, and I often find something new linked to it (such as the 'unholy' meld of Ruby and Python that I found tonight). I continually read the latest postings in the Ruby arena and just as continually run into stuff written by _Why. He is amazingly prolific for someone who isn't making a high-profile career in the Ruby world. DHH and Zed Shaw and Jamis Buck and Defunkt (errTheBlog) and Josh Susser (has many through blog) and Obie Fernandez all have their places on the web and have made significant contributions to the Ruby world, but they clearly have an aim of furthering their own career (OK, except maybe Zed Shaw who does his best to limit his career - but I digress). What is at least as important for me about the _Why page is the ability for _Why (and presumably others) to remain somewhat on the web while still generating significant content. The fact that all the citations are to electronic forums that *could* be faked are forged doesn't mean that they *are* faked or forged. For those of us that know Ruby to any extent it seems clear that there is only one person writing this code attributed to _Why - it has a very distinctive style that gets the job done in a very succinct, even terse, manner - yet usually has huge comments explaining the magic behind it. The code always takes a road-less-traveled approach, often (apparently) just to see where it leads. The Camping framework is not better or worse than Rails - just different; Rails gets the most functionality out of Ruby but Camping gets more functionality per-byte-of-code than Rails. Yes I'm a fan of _Why, but I'm also a fan of the *mystery* of how he maintains his anonymity - which seems like a good addition to the page. It seems like the page in question is still in its infancy - if you don't find it interesting yet, just don't read it.
- Comment The lone fact that a programmer has fans (for his code) is IMO notable (I know the wikipedia policies may disagree, but still...). I wish this was covered in a "verifiable source"... Zorbid (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, missing citations seem to have been fixed. PaulBoxley (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Dude's now famous, well done deletionists--Indiedan (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I dare you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.210.124 (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Published author who has been referenced extensively by notable peers. Jivlain (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the number of infrequent contributers showing up here and the number of SineBot posts speaks to the effect of the canvassing. --Jonathan Williams (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the closing admin's job to sort out valid arguments from invalid arguments. Anybody who's spent more than a week working on AfD's knows how to deal with canvassing. Jonathan, several people have made policy-based arguments for a speedy keep. You're pushing to delete an article that has multiple reliable sources. Can you address the arguments now, please? User_talk:Tqbf 99.132.135.193 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:OR and WP:N. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerasimos Kalogerakis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article has been previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerasimos Kalogerakis. Article does not seem to show much notability. Captain panda 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it may be notable, I say delete until someone can write a decent one from scratch and see if that one can stand on it's feet. Rehevkor (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, original research no assertion of notability, not notable.Myheartinchile (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete May be WP:OR; there is little WP:N or independent sources. Anyway, this article was deleted once before here Artene50 (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although possibly notable there is no assertion of such in the article. There are no references for verifiability and I can't find anything significant to help improve the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7. Article was a listing of the contents of a series of music mix discs or mix tapes distributed over the internet through file sharing. No indication of how this might be a notable subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Times[edit]

Article is a list of file info for a series of internet mix tapes. Only one page links to it. William Graham ^talk 19:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Woah, defiantly delete. Page is just a list of what seems to be illegal file compilations. Probably a candidate for speedy deletion. Rehevkor (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete, nonsenseMyheartinchile (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as blatant advertising for what essentially is an illegal product. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is useful information, please don't delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.118.253 (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to supergalaxy as likely search term for different targets. There seems to be good consensus that the use of the term "Super Galaxy" as presented in this article is largely inappropriate for a standalone entry, but there are also reasoned arguments that some of the content may be appropriate in use elsewhere. The edit history is preserved so that merging of material can be performed as needed. Shereth 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Galaxy[edit]

Contested prod. 'Super Galaxy' is not an established term in astronomy and has no well-defined meaning. For example, while the popular news articles linked in the article agree with - and appear to be the source of - the definition given (a large galaxy), the peer-reviewed papers - which were added recently - are mostly old works and use the term in a completely different context (as a description of large-scale structure in the local universe, outside of our Galaxy). Neither definition is widely used in astronomy today. Cosmo0 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Cosmo0 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say you are correct, and the term "super galaxy" is not an established term, or it is a term that has changed meaning over time. Rather than delete the article, that information could be added to the page, increasing the amount of information available through wikipedia. Of course this places the burden on you, because now you have to provide sources to support your claim, that "Neither definition is widely used in astronomy today."

If you can support that claim, (it may be true, I don't know), then that information is added to the article. If the term "super galaxy" has no well defined meaning, as you say, then that information is added to the article.

So now, rather than the simple "lets delete something", we have an article that informs the curious reader that this phrase has been used in various ways, that the meaning seems to have changed over time, and that currently it is not clear what it means.

That is called knowledge, where rather than finding "no entry", somebody looking up "super galaxy" finds information, not a blank page.

Then there is the other issue, that "super galaxy" is currently being used as shorthand, to describe the C-5M Super Galaxy - the US Air Force's leading cargo aircraft.

Which I was aware of when I created the page. I don't know how to make one of those multiple meaning pages.

But by all means, I understand how easy it is to delete stuff. It takes effort to create and edit entries. Deleting is quick and easy.

But reality is decided by consensus, so I'm sure that the wikiality of the issue will win out. (insert laugh emoticon here, so everybody knows I am joking)

I've never watched a deletion discussion before. How long can you wait before you push the delete button? Is there a hurry? Is this an important issue? Where are the rules regarding such a pressing issue? Thanks. FX (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article as it currently exists does little more than provide a definition of the term, and several sources of information that provide mention of the term in passing. If there is something out there that can better explain the theory here, I'd be compelled to change my mind, but with items in passing and off-hand remarks about super galaxies, there's not much to work on. FX, your arguments are compelling, but you really need to provide more info and flesh the article out if it is going to stand a chance, rather than packing the AfD here full of discussion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR is not a reason to keep --T-rex 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FX's very long comment[edit]

Arguments?

"FX, your arguments are compelling, but you really need to provide more info and flesh the article out if it is going to stand a chance"

I was unaware that argument and debate were required for articles in WIKIPEDIA. I also read that one should leave things unfinished, so that others could take part in creating and editing articles. The thought that people who know nothing about a subject, who won't read sources, or do any research, should have a say in creating an article, or worse, in trying to delete it, is hilarious.

It is one of the things people who make fun of WIKIPEDIA point out. That reality should be decided by a vote, rather than science, research, and evidence.

The criteria for an article is verifiability, evidence, good sources, published articles, credible information, yadda yadda yadda

If this is so, then the criteria for deleting an article should be far higher. Right?

"The article as it currently exists does little more than provide a definition of the term, and several sources of information that provide mention of the term in passing."

True. It is the start of an article. I had hoped there were other people interested in astronomy, who might add to the page. Of course this may take some time. And effort. To find people wanting to delete the page, to argue the term "super galaxy" doesn't exist, is so absurd I think it must be a prank.

Nobody can be that petty, that small minded and ignorant. It must be a joke, somebody is bored, looking for a little fun. I find it funny in the extreme.

Of course, if it isn't a joke, (say it is, please), then the massive amount of evidence and the history of the term must be presented.

And yet, if this isn't a joke, and people who know nothing about a subject have the power to not just vandalize a page, but delete it entirely, then why bother? That would make WIKIPEDIA a joke, and not worth bothering with.

And all the references to super galaxies that already exist will have to be purged.

Like -

Then there are super galaxy clusters which are hundreds of galaxies merged together due to cosmic collisions.

from this page, episode 16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episode_list_of_The_Universe_%28TV_series%29#Season_Two_Episodes

And

The nuclei of the two galaxies are joining to become one Super Galaxy.

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antennae_galaxies

I could go on and on. Then there are the print articles I linked to on the page, which show some of the history of the term. Including the award given to de Vaucouleurs, who was published in The Astronomical Journal, 1953, for his theory and discovery 20 years before anyone else. (This information is in the references provided)

Or the theory by Shapely, The Super Galaxy Hypothesis (1930) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1930HarCi.350....1S

The term is used in Applied Mathematics and Computation Volume 139, Issue 1, 1 July 2003, Pages 23-36 By E.E Escultura, in his article The flux theory of gravitation XVIII: macro and quantum gravity, cosmo waves and applications

It is used here Deconvolution in High-Energy Astrophysics: Science, Instrumentation, and Methods (2004)

The bright blue spot in the center of the image is due to X-ray emission from hot gas falling into a giant black hole at the center of the super galaxy, Perseus A.

http://ba.stat.cmu.edu/journal/2006/vol01/issue02/issue02.pdf#page=2

I could go on and on of course.

The term is used by NASA, in Science, in Nature, in Astronomy, etc etc

examples:

measurable structure arisingfrom the local supergalaxy. .... of the local supergalaxy it is expected that the background increases by an ... http://nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670029045_1967029045.pdf

The role of galaxy destruction by merging, leading to a new supergalaxy, has been underappreciated until recently. http://gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A4.html

Title: The local supergalaxy as the structured aspect of a universal background of ... Abstract: Local supergalaxy as structured aspect of X-ray background ... http://rst.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=505925&id=4&qs=N%3D4294936922%26Ns%3DHarvestDate%7C1

hypothetical Local supergalaxy. In the field of the theory of cosmic ray ..... Local supergalaxy. A. http://rst.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670024503_1967024503.pdf

"local supergalaxy" is likely. to. be anisotropic in X-rays as well... http://rst.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780013097_1978013097.pdf

They even have a picture of one here:

This X-ray image shows a central radiating mass (an elliptical supergalaxy that resulted from merger of multiple galaxies) and a huge cloud of glowing hot gas that is interpreted as under direct control by this Dark Matter, which is estimated to be equivalent to a hundred trillion times the mass of the Sun.

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A9.html

But does it matter? If somebody with no knowledge of something can delete it, what is the point? Just delete anything you don't understand, or know anything about. Let me know how that works out for you.

Now if you just want more information, a longer article, more references, that is another story. What is it you want?

And in what Universe do imagine reality is decided by vote?

Don't worry, the laugh this gave me means it is all good.FX (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one more thing

If you really want a better article, putting something on the delete list is about as bad a way to go about getting one, that you could possibly come up with. No kidding. I can show you a hundred articles that have false information, no sources, or terrible writing. None of them are on the deletion list.

I'm not sure if it appears anywhere on WIKIPEDIA guidelines or suggestion, but it should. Assume good will

If you don't know what that means, I feel sorry for you. It comes from the well, and it is important.FX (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the usage in the article does not match most of the references. Most of the references refer to galaxy clusters and super clusters. The "super galaxy cluster" refers to a galaxy supercluster, which is an entirely different term, and which "super" is prefixed to "galaxy cluster", and NOT where "cluster" is addended to "super galaxy", so is etymologically wrong. The elliptical super galaxy is more commonly referred to as a giant galaxy or giant elliptical, which is of a type gE, cD or D. An argument can be made to have a redirect to the C-5 variant, after deletion. 70.51.8.167 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C-5M Super Galaxy as a viable search term (if the AfD consensus is delete). Or create a DAB page that shows that the term is sometimes used (in error or not) to describe Super Clusters or very large galaxies. In the meantime although AfD shouldn't be used as a means to clean-up an article, cleaning up said article while under discussion is very much allowed and I'd suggest placing an ((expert)) tag to draw those with more astronomy experience and knowledge into improving the article. FX please take note that most of the people on this project work in good faith to improve the project and include information when it meets the policies and guidelines of the project. I encourage you to have a look at the help pages and familiarise yourself if some of them (they helped me afterall and that is no easy task). As far as creating a DAB page use an already existing one as a base and go from there. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jasynnash2. I was adding a comment at the same time as you (see below). What does AfD consensus mean? What is a DAB page? What is AfD? Between the jargon, and the wiki software, I'm pretty sure there is some major miscommunication going on. I don't understand half of what some people are trying to say. And while articles require an extreme level of documentation, it seems opinions don't require any at all. That seems to be a terrible oversight.FX (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start by clicking on Help. It's in the interation box on the left. They have a Frequently Asked Question Section as well as a number of other topics quite plainly listed. I agree it isn't all organised to the best effect but, taking the time to look around never hurts. DAB is short for (a word I can't ever spell correctly) which means the sort of page that lists things (like you asked about above somewhere). AfD consensus simply means consensus at the Articles for Deletion page. We discuss things here based as much as possible on the policies and guidelines which are readily available (again check out the help pages -or- read some of the things that people have already linked to above). Want more help in understanding and finding things than ask people politely in the appropriate places and the majority of the users on here will be glad to point you in the right direction. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note of interest

Added more references and information to article. FX (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't much of a discussion when nobody responds to the points raised. I did note some high level vandalism of the page in question. What do these sort of wikiality discussions get, in user participation? 4 or 5 votes?

Where is the voting system? Is it a secret ballot? How are the votes verified?

This is a game, right? You can't be serious. FX (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for using the header here, I just realized how that works, and why it screws things up on this kind of page. I don't think long term users of wikipedia have any idea how confusing it is, or how much wikijargon is used, that makes no sense at all. And worse, there are no entries for the jargon, making it almost impossible to understand what some people are trying to say.FX (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the discussion[edit]

FX, for what it's worth, this isn't a vote, as such - we basically bring this to consensus as to whether it should be kept or not, and if we can't reach one, we typically default to keep. In answer to the particular question, in this context, yeah, debate and discussion comes around - it's how we come to a conclusion. For a deletion discussion, I highly recommend you give WP:AFD a good read. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep on the basis of the material added to the article and discussed here by FX. I am however not clear whether the standard form is with one word, or two--to be discussed late on the talk page and moved if necessary. We should not hold against him the lack of initial knowledge of the conventions we have here for doing things. We might rather learn how to explain ourselves better. DGG (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- From Google Scholar, the term is most used before the mid-70's, mostly in the 1930's. The majority of instances, "super galaxy" is synonymous with supercluster or galaxy cluster. And much of the remaining refers to a system of central galaxy with satellite galaxies, which is not the mega-sized galaxy that FX refers to (it could be he means brightest cluster galaxy...) 70.55.84.115 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the only consistent use of the term is to describe the system of galaxies around our own Galaxy - a usage that seems to have been started by Harlow Shapley, who believed that the entire Universe was a single galaxy (dubbed the Super Galaxy after it became clear that it extended beyond the main body of the Milky Way). In any case, it's an obselete usage that survives only in the term Supergalactic plane (which no longer has an associated noun 'Supergalaxy'). It has occasionally been used in the literature to described individual clusters of galaxies (e.g. Rood & Sastry 1971) but not in a systematic way. As for the standard form: there is none, because it is not a standard term. It's an ad hoc creation used to describe various individual objects that are in some way 'more/bigger than just a galaxy'. Many of the links in the article relate to galaxy mergers but, as is made clear in the links and in the Galaxy formation and evolution article, most large galaxies are the result of mergers and so there is no need for a special term to describe them. Cosmo0 (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (redirect, see below), per Comso0, because the term is, in a scientific context, obsolete; as the article states, de Vaucouleurs originally used it in 1956 before renaming the concept the local supercluster. Also, the external link references that I've checked are all either not reliable sources (e.g. personal web pages hosted by institutions such as NASA or Cornell, but cited as if they were official NASA or Cornell content) or don't even contain the term "super galaxy" or "supergalaxy". In fact, I see no modern, reliable sources that use the term. ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, for example, this reference (which is cited in the article, as of now) uses the term 'super galaxy' in the headline but not in the story itself. That seems like a headline writer's description of the article, not a recognized astronomical term. ASHill (talk | contribs) 16:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on DGG's arguments above. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the reasoned input.[edit]

I now know more about the term "super galaxy" than I ever thought possible. I agree with the one comment from 70.51.8.167, on the supergalaxy:talk page, "This is wikipedia, it should be super galaxy, not Super Galaxy, according to wikipedia naming conventions."

Isn't that a valid point? The article should be deleted on those grounds alone. Or better yet, redirected to super galaxy, which is either a historical article, noting the different uses in the past, which would include references to several historic astronomers, as well as links to other modern terms, or a redirect to a list of astronomical terms no longer used. That a term is used in several ways, and the meaning has changed, are both part of our human knowledge.

I also found in wikipedia guidelines that articles should be fit to print, which would be another reason to roll the definition and history of the term into one page of definitions, rather than taking up a lot of space for one term like that. The history of astronomy is replete with terms that changed, and are no longer in common use, as we discovered more about them. It's funny, but some of them are still in use, even though they are wrong.

In even more irony, the online encyclopedias/dictionaries that include the word wikiality, use the example of scientist deciding by consensus that Pluto is no longer a planet, as an example of wikiality in the real world. Which is hilarious in this context. What the term 'super-galaxy' means is being decided by discussion. Well, actually that isn't quite true. The talk page for the article is the place to decide that. But rather than use that talk page, or discuss the term, somebody decided it had to be deleted. Leading to this discussion.

Which is against the guidelines for deletions, according to the Adf pages.

Discussions about an article are to be done on the talk page of an article. This has not been done.

Unlike an article, requesting a deletion does not require any sources, references or publications to back it up. As witnessed by this conversation.

Most of the reasons for deletion actually add to the information about the term, rather than explain why there should be no entry at all.

But enough. I already voted for deletion, with the caveats included.

Notes on supergalaxy. While researching this I discovered the term can mean a biclycle Dawessupergalaxy http://www.dawescycles.com/dawes/super-galaxy.htm, a video game Super Galaxy Invader by Bandai, a movie theater, galaxy theaters calls their large theaters super galaxies, the C5 transport of course, as well as a very large galaxy, created by multiple galaxies merging

"More information about the central interior of this developing supergalaxy, and about regions of active star formation appears in this image:"

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A4.html

And of course I also learned why WIKIPEDIA works like it does. FX (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergalaxy

Wow. Now I know even more. A sewing machine? Who knew? The short description that leads to the article in question, actually does a pretty good job of summing it up. FX (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to build a list of definitions, you are looking for wiktionary. try wikt:super galaxy. 70.55.88.44 (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the entry for Galaxy would be two sentences long. FX (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The fact that the term is used for all those uses unrelated to the alleged astronomical term does not strengthen the case against deletion, in my opinion. In fact, the widely ranging usage is evidence that the term super galaxy has no specific meaning that can be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I think that the supergalaxy page (a disambiguation) is more appropriate, with the scientific content regarding large galaxies in galaxy. Therefore, I change my preference to redirect to supergalaxy. ASHill (talk | contribs) 21:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. HiDrNick! 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satwant Kaur Dogra[edit]

Seemingly autobiographical article on a non-notable politician. I was unable to find any sources on the subject apart from a single story in a local paper. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local politician. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local politician.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable, as above. Created by User:Satwantkaurdogra so quite possibly a vanity article. Rehevkor (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless referenced Looks like non notable. OK if referenced properly with reliable and verifiable sources -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep in the event of references add. The article needs a cleanup,wikify and more material -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 04:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a state level politician is not a local politician, and we even have lots of articles on those politicians at that. But we desperately need to verification so that we can verify the notability asserted therein.Myheartinchile (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can your provide us with possible references ? Googling apparently gave Nil results -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Non notable, unsourced. Bidgee (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Article needs more work on sources and cleaned up as per WP:BIO. Bidgee (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week keep~~. I think the references I've put in the article just about do the job by giving coverage of the subject and confirming the positions held by her. These are not local papers as claimed by the nominator. They are newspapers that cover a state with a population of 10 million. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "local" as opposed to "national"; I couldn't even find circulation figures in the paper's website. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see an article improved than deleted any day—otherwise I would have PRODded it or brought it to AfD sooner—but I am still not convinced that this constitutes "significant coverage". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some cleanup done by me... (Diff) I leave the article to 'fate' ;) -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, state/provincial-level politicians don't need significant coverage, its significant that she was even elected, just as any state senator or assembly person in any American state is notable by default. Now on top of that is quite clear that she also has plenty of non-trivial news coverage in multiple reliable sources i.e. newspapers.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no claim in the article that she is a member of an elected assembly, just that she is a leader of a political party (with no indication of the level at which she is a leader), a local trade union organisation and a state-wide NGO. Maybe some US editors are getting a bit confused here; in an Indian context "Congress" is a political party, not a legislature. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated the article, I couldn't verify that she was indeed an elected state-level politician, and I still haven't found Ms. Dogra in the Election Commission of India's lists of successful candidates for recent J&K elections. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've changed my mind. When I saw the references in state-wide newspapers referring to her as a "senior Congress leader" I assumed that that meant she was one of the top party leaders at the state level. I've now found this official list of the 144 state comittee members and she's not on it, and she also isn't on the list of district presidents. Whatever post she holds in the Congress Party must be much more junior than the newspaper articles imply. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Bduke (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club[edit]

The result was withdrawn by nominator, per concensus. However, I plan within the coming days to review each of these articles and nominate at least some of them for deletion. If you have any interest in saving an article listed here, keep it on your watchlist. Hellno2 (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (non-admin close)[reply]

Non-notable organization. Does not contain references to meet WP:Notability requirements, only external links to its own site or those advertising the club. I also added the following articles to the nomination for the following similar reasons:

These clubs pertaining to outdoor activities generally do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines
Though there may be external links, they usually are to the club's own site or to other sites that are not worthy of establishing notability
These clubs are generally localized to one region
Though these clubs may have been around for at least several decades, sometimes over a century, age of an organization, especially without verification from an outside reliable source, does not mean automatic notability.

Hellno2 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hate to be a party-pooper but I would have hoped for separate nominations. Although most of them fail WP:ORG, some of then are "mergable" and some aren't.
~~delete~~oops i meant KEEP(DAMN you dislexia!!!) statewide makes it seem notable to meMyheartinchile (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I too strongly suggest that these be brought here separately. They cover some very different things. Some are possibly not notable, but some might well be, like the British Canoe Union, which covers the country and is not local. They also are in different countries. A combined proposal like this is unlikely to allow editors who are involved to know about the proposal. --Bduke (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist separately. There's no way that the notability of these subjects is linked, so they should be listed separately. Also I would urge you do do a Google Books search before listing the Royal Canoe Club - I don't think that many people would agree that a subject with over 300 book sources including the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Chambers's Encyclopaedia doesn't have notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as a trainwreck. These need to be nominated individually on their own merits. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NPOV, and possible WP:OR and WP:BLP. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant Child Abuse (Renamed: Northern Ireland Protestant child abuse allegations controversy)[edit]

Seems like a hit piece. Neutrality^talk 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence is presented that any Protestant denomination has been involved in, or been involved in covering up, child abuse. This article makes no more sense than one about Left-hander child abuse. For the article to survive it would have to specifically target a particular brand of protestantism IMO. As it is, it just looks like unsubstantiated buckshot. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's the difference between this child abuse and any other? Basically, what Malleus said. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is child abuse in different places, and this article shows that it exists somewhere where others may not otherwise expect it. Sebwite (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Valid, encyclopedic topic, with references and reliable sources. Note that I properly formatted the references. Sebwite (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references relate to the stated topic of the article, however. What is this "Protestant Church" of which you speak? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - attack article. if the Kincora Boys Home scandal is notable enough for its own article it can be on its own. Please also note that there is no "Protestant Church" --T-rex 23:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Malleus Fatuarum. Definite hit peice. Ostap 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per T-rex. JuJube (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But in large part because "Protestant" is sort of a vague catch-all term and because the title's wording is potentially POV. Going by Catholic sex abuse cases this should be titled more like "Protestant child abuse cases" to avoid implying there's a "Protestant form" of child abuse. Although the title "Catholic sex abuse cases" is, in my opinion, far from ideal. Something like "Protestantism and child abuse", in the vein of Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse, would be preferable. Still this wouldn't solve that "Protestantism" is itself a vague term, so it'd be better to have "X and child abuse" articles be by denomination.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above.Counter-revolutionary (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keepchristian science monitor makes it come off as notable and having RS to meMyheartinchile (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is written with a partisan point of view. Given the issues raised above and the lack of any sources that actually talk about systematic abuse within the "Protestant Church", it would be inherently impossible for this article to ever meet WP:NPOV. Indeed there is no single "Protestant Church" as already noted, so this article cannot exist at this title. At least it would have to be retitled something like Evidence of child abuse within some Protestant churches. But given the sources are about child abuse across multiple faiths, why isn't this article Religious child abuse? The agenda here is very clear and is incompatible with the aims and policies of Wikipedia. Gwernol 10:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an article in this content, it looks to be on Kincora Boys' Home. We already have an unsourced stub on that article relevant to The Troubles. Since this article isn't using reliable sources on that material, it wouldn't be useful to merge that content there - let that article be edited by someone who actually has reliable sources to work from. The reliable source [8] is about child sex abuse in American Christian churches generally (Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox are specifically mentioned, and other Christian denominations and non-denominational churches are implied), and probably should be used somehow to introduce some balance to Catholic sex abuse cases - I'll go suggest this on the talk page. If there were an article about sexual abuse in churches generally, or religion generally, the reliable source could also be used there. I don't see any evidence of such an article existing, and one source - particularly a newspaper article focused on a single country and time - can't support one, I don't see anything reasonable to do other than to delete. GRBerry 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NPOV problems, and possible WP:BLP issues as well, with names being named. Apparently author(s) uses one alleged case of pedophilia, which might be notable itself for its own article, to essentially slam the entire Protestant movement by implication of the title. Smells like a backlash to all the attention given on similar problems reported within the Catholic Church. Wikipedia is not a blog page for posting arguments and rebuttals on legal cases, nor is it a battleground or payback site for Catholic vs. Protestant attacks. WP:SOAP applies. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: The renaming appears to be at least a small step in the right direction. Perhaps rename it further to Child abuse scandals in churches in Northern Ireland or something, if it is to be defined as a regional thing that involves some churches. Perhaps mentioning in passing in the main article that the church(es) involved were associated with Protestant denominations rather than Catholic (with appropriate links to related articles), and clean up any POV-pushing that carries the "well they do it too!" soapboxing attack tone, and we might have a neutral article worth preserving. Ideally the article should evenly cover general child abuse scandals in the churches, regardless of the Denomination or branch of Christianity. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 21:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more likely that such a title can work; in The Troubles context Protestant has a specific (and mostly political) meaning. Unfortunately, the one reliable source in the article is totally irrelevant to that context, meaning the article demonstrates no reliable sources. So unless it also receives a major rewrite with sourcing, it still needs to be deleted. GRBerry 22:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 22:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: POV, soapboxing article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite offensive, actually. BradV 18:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, a lot of things are offensive to a lot of people - and as such, articles are not deleted from here for being offensive, per se. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but I don't think articles should be titled or created to offend people. I could write an article titled Lutheran rape and use it to dispassionately discuss various Lutherans who raped people without any context. Even if thoroughly sourced this would be POV in a way, a kind of attack piece. I don't know if that's what the person meant, but it might be.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken, there - then again, such an article would generally fall under WP:ATTACK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be reworked, maybe. As is, delete. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is really a coatrack to talk about one case, which has its own article. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a bad article as it stnads. I suspect that it has been created to imply that Catholics are not the only people with a problem. However, at present it merely gives a few isolated examples. The Christian Science Monitor (being an American newspaper, with a sectarian agenda) can hardly be the most satisfactory source on Northern Ireland. furthermore the assertion that the INLA (a Catholic and Republican paramilitary organisation) were being run by the British intelligence service MI5, is hightly improbable. It is an unfortunate fact that the care of vulnerable children and clubs for children of all kinds attract child molesters, because it provides a relatively easy access to potential victims. I note that the article is tagged for rescue. If it can be rescued and made into decent-quality article within the AFD period, it should be; if not, it should be deleted, without prjudice to the future creation of future, properly written article on the smae subject. Note, I am an English Protestant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegian Pakistanis[edit]

Delete unreferenced subjective list. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per lack of references, poor format, unencyclopediac content, and a bunch of other thins I could come up with. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not needed. Punkmorten (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. This list is not an organized, linked list of people in a common category who have Wikipedia articles, but is rather listed incoherently. Sebwite (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Indiscriminate collection. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:MUSIC. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Savior Of Music Returns[edit]

Future album release, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. They don't even know what month it's supposed to come out. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 00:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 05:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Williams (Singer/songwriter/pianist)[edit]

I declined a speedy tag, but I don't believe this subject meets notability criteria; namely, WP:MUSIC or WP:BAND. Tan | 39 18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you confirm whether Steve's collaboration with Beth Rowley, currently a very significant artist, and his work with Jamelia meet the criteria for notability? And if not, why not? Could you give some indication of what would make him "significant" if this doesn't. Would his broadcast on Radio 2, playing live for the Paul Jones Blues Hour, count if I could get verification?

Many thanks

Did you spend any time researching the policies I posted above? You should read them and use them as a basis for your arguments. Specifically, read this list of criteria and see if this artist meets the criteria. As I read them, he does not. Tan | 39 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, point 9. "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Steve won in the UK Song Writing Competition in 1994 with his song "Need Your Love" and his song "Corners" was a finalist in the BBC's Sold on Song competition in 2005, so he has won or been placed twice in two major music competitions.

Incidentally, does being the son of someone famous qualify you as notable?

Point nine might work. Let's get some input from other editors. And as to your last question, definitely not. Tan | 39 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Just curious as to why Ben Castle's entry hasn't been deleted. Steve seems to have as much going for him as Ben does, except for not being the son of somebody famous.

I have now found an archived web link to the results of the 2004 UK Song Writing Competition and will add it to the article in a mo.

Weak keep Based on the award and the couple of third-party refs, I think he meets notability, barely. Article BADLY needs cleaned up, lots of OR removed, and a better title (something shorter than "(Singer/songwriter/pianist)". Also a question; I was going to suggest the title Steve Williams (musician), but I see that's linked by Power Quest. Is this the same person? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a different Steve Williams. I'd be happy to change the title....just felt the one I went with was a better description of who he is and what he does. Will also clean up the article.....was taking a lead from other similar articles there.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC. IMHO, there is more references for this Steve to be independently notable than the Steve from Power Quest. Give this one a quick tidy up and move the lot to Steve Williams (musician). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid, thanks. Would prefer to keep the singer/songwriter title though if possible.....it's a more accurate reflection of what he does, especially in light of his songwriting competition achievements being the basis for his inclusion.

Move To Steve Williams (songwriter) as that seems to be what he is notable for. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as cut and paste of copyright text nancy ^(talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Sikh extremists in Canada[edit]

Personal essay, not encyclopedic. Rob Banzai (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn; I'll delete the article, and maybe transwiki it to wiktionary if any better sources turn up in the future. · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hand salsa[edit]

Dicdef and partial how-to; sources include Urban Dictionary and other dictionary sites, as well as sources not really related to the term (more like how-tos on cleaning "hand salsa" off pianos and stuff). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I somewhat expected an AFD; I realize it's a somewhat vague term, and one used only by (diehard) geeks. As for the "how-to"ish part, good point; I've removed the paragraph, and put the links in an external links section (while removing the piano ones completely, as it wasn't as relevant). · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There still aren't any reliable sources; just a bunch of dictionaries, an interview which briefly mentions the term, and a review of a mouse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, no reliable sources; only loads of forum posts and comments left in blogs. A few other (non forum/blog-comment) links are these: NetLingo, GamerHelp, Streettech, Dan's Data, Wired (probably the most reliable of the bunch). · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Always nervous of !voting "delete" on new articles, but it's simply an article about a slang term, and I don't see how it could possibly grow beyond that. Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ, however, perhaps you are right that it may be better to move this to wiktionary (and maybe redirect our article there). · AndonicO ^Engage. 23:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not saying I think most of those ought to exist, either. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some of the sources are probably reasonable, the page is a mere dictionary definition, something which Wikipedia is not. I do, however, recommend a transwiki to Wiktionary first. This seems like just the sort of thing they are interested in. It would require only minor reformatting there. Rossami (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What goes on in Urban Dictionary stays in Urban Dictionary. --MCB (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as not passing WP:PROF and WP:BLP; no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Sa'ad Medhat[edit]

This is written like his resume, and is definitely advertising, his notability is also questionable. Google search: Sa'ad Medhat...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Should have been deleted per my original G11 nomination. Clearly spam/vanity piece. ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I declined the speedy. Article can be stubbed to remove COI/POV issues. The discussion here should focus on notability issues. Tan | 39 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some guy's resume. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Move may be enough publications to pass WP:PROF. Should be moved per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) to remove his professional title from the article title. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really want a copy-pasted resume to remain on Wikipedia? Baffling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but AfD is not for clean-up. It probably means there's enough with which to write an article. I have no interest in doing so, but that's not a reason to delete. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This would require a 100% word-for-word rewrite... oh, and a new title too. A cleaned-up version would be a whole new article, and even on the off chance that someone is up for it, there's no reason to keep the resume in history. Wikipedia is not C:/My_Documents Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There. Now it's not a resume anymore. This conversation should be focusing on notability, not material that is easily deleted and sourced. Tan | 39 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it would require gutting, which I was going to do, but someone beat me to it. Now just needs expansion. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF. Eusebeus (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the publications found by _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} have hardly or never been cited (the most cited article has 5 citations). That's not even close to being notable. Unless the claim that this person single-handedly founded a new university can be substantiated, I don't see any evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so far what I've found seems to suggest the program he founded is what may be notable. I haven't had too much time to dig. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Travellingcari's findings. I added a source (a bad one, but it was the first I came across). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi. I'm the author of the original. So, obviously, I'm for keeping. I can understand that some may find the promotion of vocatonal skills in the UK (and beyond) somewhat esoteric. But the numbers of people involved and the amount of money make Sa'ad's work notable. He is widley quoted in the press and consulted by policy-makers and so his career is an important piece of information that many should be able to source from Wikipedia. As for doubts about him establishing Dubai University, this is well documented and recognised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weottelescope (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a CV. --Ecoleetage (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nice that the author asserts accessibility of references, but I'm not seeing anything in the article to justify keeping it. Yechiel (Shalom) 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:N and WP:V. Also possible WP:HOAX. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabahad[edit]

Looks like a hoax. Google for sabahad martial arts turns up nothing. BradV 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete : As per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Hoax or something made up at the dojo one day. I like how the article points out it's "mostly used for real fights". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly a hoax. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either a hoax or something that cannot at this time meet our notability or verifiability guidelines. I tried a few searches and turned up nothing and usually I am able to at least verify the topic's existence. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The topic may exist or may be a hoax. Anyway Somalia has been in a state of civil war with little chance of verifiying the subject. Artene50 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly a hoax. JJL (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly a hoax if real Not notable. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence it's a hoax, but no sign of notability whatsoever. I've had a couple of students come into dissertation committee and earn a good tossing. Maybe the creator of this article could teach my assistant? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G10 (negative unsourced BLP, possible hoax). Vassyana (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visconti triplets[edit]

Non-notable article, is unreferenced, I found no sources [9] that could really be used to improve this article. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to JSON as already seems to have been merged there. Davewild (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JSONP[edit]

Non-notable software function. Fails WP:N Could be merged with JSON but I don't have the detailed knowledge to do so. ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe there is enough information in the article now to merge in with JSON. Arienh4^(Talk) 17:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Merging could be possible, but the article lacks context, so I'm not so sure if this would be possible. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as it's pretty content light, that shouldn't be much of a task. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the page to root page JSON, with redirect to the main page. It might need some polish, I think there should be no problem with the move. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete This article has been given a lot of time. It still lacks evidence of real world notability and adequate sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titans (Crash of the Titans)[edit]

Article has been tagged with notability and sourcing concerns since October 2007 and tagged for cleanup since May 2008. A prod was removed mid-May stating that these discussions are usually controversial. Since then, the article still fails notability and verifiability. It cites no reliable sources from which to draw information. I would also suggest that it also fails WP:FICT, as notability for the individual characters or character grouping is not demonstrated through adequete sources. Finally, per WP:NOT, this article approaches the content in an in universe perspective and would be more suitable for a gaming wiki.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for now. This depends on the notability of the game, partially. I'm keeping in mind, too, that we're not a game guide. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of minor, mostly generic, obstacles from a (marginally notable) video game. Giving an object eyes and legs doesn't necessarily make it a character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a game-guide. It's tagged already to merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters; that article or Crash of the Titans should receive the character bios of the major characters; the minor characters should probably go. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, nothing more than a list of enemies with excessive detail. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world), and passes What Wikipedia is. Plenty of reader interest and editor efforts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Specific details of Titans and enemies in the game do not appear to be related to understanding the game's plot or gameplay (the specifics of what Titans are is already described in detail in the main game article); content is all too much GAMEGUIDE details, and I see no way these characters can be talked about outside of one sentence that doesn't go into guide-type specifics. Transwiki content if possible. --MASEM 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even in a worst case scenerio we would merge and redirect this legitimate search term without deletion to Crash of the Titans, but there's no justification for an outright deletion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it already is a disambiguation, it is not a good search term, though I do notice that there's a few other pages that point here, redirection makes sense only since the term's been used. However it is a good idea to have this as Titan disamb, which I notice it is already there, just needs redirection to the best section in that article. --MASEM 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content is covered in the Crash of the Titans - one-game characters, especially in a game that wasn't very well-received commercially or critically, don't need their own list of characters. For precedence, both lists of characters for Mario & Luigi were deleted, despite both receiving great reviews and selling very well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of content that overlaps from what article to another, but it's no reason to outright delete say the article on Normandy, just because it's covered in the article on World War II, now if all of this article is in fact covered elsewhere, then we would redirect, but not delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not compare a list of characters in a video game to a real-life REGION. Most of the content in the list of characters is awful, and guide content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content should be fixed and revised rather than outright deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly do you intend to fix it? The article needs to be completely rewritten. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but since you're the only one so far who believes the article should be kept, why don't you WP:SOFIXIT? As it says, "If you see something that can be improved, do not hesitate to do it yourself." I doubt any of the folks here in favor of deletion are going to fix it, or think that it can be fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have been. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it stands now. Information about the Titans would fit a lot better into the character article. The Prince (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, then we could move or redirect the article and still keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Voting Redirect counts towards keep. Stop trying to coax people into voting redirect. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which would be an okay thing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't think that harassing every deleter into voting redirect so that the article would get kept (as opposed to redirected). You're basically admitting that you're trying to get people to vote redirect so that the discussion DEFAULTS to keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please do not derail the discussion by taking it into an ad hominem area. AfDs are discussions, not votes, i.e. not simple lists of keeps and deletes. I do not make accusations against those who reply to my arguments (so long as they focus on the argument) in AfDs. Making a suggestion in response to an editor's comment is engaging them in discussion; I never call people out by name or what have you. In discussion we engage and interact with each other about the article under discussion. Engaging those arguing to delete and challenging them on their reasons will hopefully lead us to an actual consensus and the article should be kept anyway, so if we end up with a scenario in which a legitimate search term is kept and thereby allow for a more effective opportunity to continue improving and developing our coverage of Crash of the Titans, it is a good thing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I believe he's trying to convince people to !vote redirect because he feels that it's the best course of action to take. Do you have any indications that he feels otherwise? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not entirely convinced. If he wanted it redirected, I would think he would have changed his "vote" to redirect rather than keep (in fact, he never expressed interest in redirecting in his "vote"). - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll clarify: If someone is bothered merging this article into the Crash Bandicoot character list, I think it can be redirected there. If no one's bothered, or if people think the Titans seem out of place in the list, then there's no reason to keep it, or save the articles history. The Prince (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In regard to this, one-game characters should not be included in the list. It's not an indiscriminate collection of every single Crash Bandicoot character in the series' history. And what's the point in a redirect? Who's going to search for the title it's currently at? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        All of the editors and readers of the article came upon it somehow and since it gets thousands of hits a month, it seems a legitimate search term. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I do believe that's traffic, not searches. That tells us how many times the article was searched for AND clicked on. That doesn't counter the fact that people simply would not search for that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Someone created the article and therefore thinks it is a legitimate search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        They didn't search for it. A user who edits Crash Bandicoot articles regularly made the article. If this article were redirected or merged, there would be very little potential for anyone to search for it. The article would be most likely accessed by means of people searching Titans, or searching simply for the game itself. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you sure they didn't search for it? We could outright ask everyone who ever edited it on their talk page how they found it? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) You seem sure that he created the article after having searched for it. Your argument is basically taking information that can indicate any number of things, and only picking one of those things for it to indicate, instead of another conflicting option. The editor seems to specialize in Crash Bandicoot articles, so assuming he created the article after searching for the article's title is assuming that the less likely scenario is the true scenario. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. Article does not meet the general notability guideline because it lacks independent secondary sources that significantly cover the subject. WP:LISTS notes that lists are subject to the same guidelines as articles. The problem is a lack of notability. Randomran (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can be verified in published game material. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem isn't verifiability. It's notability. Randomran (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The topic is notable, though. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Based on what? I'm not sure I see the notability in enemies that appear in one game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The various sources used. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge if necessary. Gameguidish information (WP:NOT#GUIDE) of little or no notability (WP:N). Crash_of_the_Titans#Characters is surprisingly good however, lowering the necessity of this list even more. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Excessive amount of in-universe detail. I'm not sure how listing what game levels each entity appears on is suitable for a general encyclopedia. The independent references are of dubious reliability; there's nothing here I would even consider merging into the main article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not excesive for a paperless encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure you can't argue that paperless encyclopedias can have as much content as the editors want them to have. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can argue whatever we want, whether it's convincing or not is another matter. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real word significance, an encyclopedia should not contain minute details about every video game ever published that nobody cares about. If this is important, provide reliable sources that prove it, not freewebs hosted sources either. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Will you stop telling people who say to Delete to fix the problems themselves? They're not going to go out of their way to solve the problems of this article for you. If you don't want the article deleted, Wikipedia;SOFIXIT. No one else is going to do your job for you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If those who simply do not like certain articles stop arbitrarily deciding what others who are willing to edit can edit, I will gladly do so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - He does not "simply dislike the article". He gave legitimate complaints about the article, and he's not obligated to "fix it himself". If you don't like his legitimate complaints about the article to stop being legit, "fix it yourself". There's nowhere that suggests that you can just throw SOFIXIT around an AfD at any complaint, it'd be like doing it at the FAC, telling anyone who points out a flaw in the article to fix it themselves. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence is on the editor wishing to retain material, not the editor wishing to delete it. Instead of harassing me, go fix it yourself. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would be nice if others helped per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, especially when the article is consistent with What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cite user pages as evidence for your case... such a concept as "Don't Destroy" basically says that any AfD is destructive. And AGAIN you cited a user page. And regardless, even if we did look at Don't Destroy, the people voted Delete for a number of reasons, which were not addressed (outside of apathy towards them). The people who voted Delete are not obligated to tighten their belt and go to work on the article that they don't think needs to exist. And quite frankly, you've never done anything to address problems with notability or sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can, as we cite user essays all the time in discussions when we believe they present compelling arguments. "Don't destroy" obviously does not include hoaxes, libels, or copy vios that I definitely agree should be deleted, but refers to articles like this one that do not have insurmountable problems. The people who "it's not a vote" to delete are encouraged even by the deletion instructions to first see if they can improve the articles in question. And quite frankly, I've done a great deal to address the concerns about notability and sources. One can ignore that a banana is a banada, but it doesn't chance the fact that it is indeed a banada just as they fact is that I have added sources that do augment the article's notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are irrelevant, when the arguments to delete are policy based. If people spent more time writing policy compliant articles instead of writing whiny essays about articles being deleted the problems would solve themselves. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essay are relevant when the arguments to keep are policy based. If people spent more time working to improve the articles than trying to delete them we would have more good and featured articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#GUIDE. Nuff said. Eusebeus (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been demonstrated for this grouping of enemies-cum-vehicles, via multiple reliable sources focusing on them in detail, searching for sources has drawn a blank. Someoneanother 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As they are titular aspects of the game, they are noable. Sources would be a combination of the game itself and reviews mentioning the Titans. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? There's no guideline that even hints that being a titular aspect of a game makes the subject notable. Hell, there are guidelines saying that if the subject of the article doesn't have any importance outside of its parent subject (in this case, characters in a game), if they don't have any notability besides their notability to that one game, they don't need an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the guideline of common sense. A titular subject would at worst be redirected. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, no evidence of reliable sources, satisfies the (negative) criteria of WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOT#GUIDE. And before it's said, I don't think it's possible to fix it to meet WP:N, WP:FICT, or the proposed WP:TOY. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The games themselves and the reviews of the games are reliable sources. WP:ITSCRUFT is not a reason to delete. The notability is that they are titular aspects of a notable work of fiction. [{WP:FICT]] is still being seriously debated and so it's hard for anything to pass or fail it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrate that they meet WP:N with non-trivial reliable references, and I will be convinced. Until then my vote stays delete. Merely repeating (what I read before I made my original post) that they are "titular aspects of a notable game" doesn't make the "titular aspects" individually notable. And you can say that they are "titular aspects of a notable game" a thousand times, but saying that doesn't make them so (or, more importantly, prove that is the case). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See for example the multiple sources found here. There are non-trivial reliable references there. Merely repeating that they aren't notable, does not mean they aren't. To be specific, such references as this are reliable secondary sources that focuses entirely on characters indicated in the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources show that Stench or Scorporilla are notable? (Just as a couple of examples.) Could you point those out to me please? The mere number of Google hits tells me nothing about the notability of these characters (not the game, but the characters). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this in which a game maker is asked, "How did you come up with characters such as Scorporilla, Ratcicle, Parafox and Shellephant?" And the game maker replies, "First of all, we wanted to create characters that were fun and fresh but also empowering to control, so we incorporated a few different iconic creatures together into one super-mutant-animal – like combining a scorpion and a gorilla to make Scorporilla." Thus, coupled wit the preview source listed above, we actually do have coverage of these specific characters and their creation/inspiration in multiple reliable sources. Obviously, articles titled "Crash of the Titans - A Bestiary: Five of the twisted denizens of Crash's new adventure" focus directly on the characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Just because it's being debated does ot mean that it passes ANYTHING. If the Titans are notable because they're the subject of one single game, that would mean that there would be thousands upon thousands of articles in existence solely because of one significant role. And how do the games or the reviews establish notability in any way at all?
    - Which would not be a problem for a paperles encyclopedia with thousands of editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And just curious, is there any reason why the characters need to have this one separate list? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because contributors and readers believe their is wikipedic value to it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is invalid on its face. "It's notable because the readers and contributors say so"? I'm more interested in WHY they do, not that they DO. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's valid per Wikipedia:Editors matter. I'm interested in retaining people who are willing to expand and develop articles; I believe they are more apt to do so when we allow them to edit articles we sometimes don't like. In this particular case, the article provides some additional coverage not found in the main article. I was able to find some out of universe information and even an secondary source article that focused solely on characters presented in this article. Therefore, I believe the article serves a purpose and one has to assume per good faith that the article creator and subsequent editors think similarly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you keep constantly linking to essays?! They have NO purpose in this discussion. And may I add that even if your source was good enough, we're also looking at a game which did not make the top ten anything in NPD, and reviewed "okay". I see no reason to believe that calling this game a "notable video game" (implying that it's particularly notable) is a farce. I'd say most Crash Bandicoot games are more notable than Crash of the Titans. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because they make solid arguments and because editors on both sides of these discussions link to essays all the time. Just because a game is not a top ten game, does not mean a paperless encyclopedia should not cover it fully. Implying that it's not notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes is a farce. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You can't CITE solid arguments. You can't say "this has to be done per (blank)" just because you like it, it has to be enforceable under ANY definition of the word, and essays are not. If they were good enough to be enforceable, they wouldn't be essays.
        
        And STOP bringing up paperless encyclopedia, as if being paperless means we should have lax guidelines for inclusion.
        
        What am I supposed to do? Without you establishing why Crash of the Titans is an especially notable game, all I can say is that all existing sources for sales information don't mention Crash of the Titans performing well at all. Considering that Crash Bandicoot titles sell at fairly unexceptional numbers and usually get poor reviews, I hardly see why this would be the exception in both.
        
        And no, one-game characters who have one person asking of their creation and nothing else is NOT notable enough for its own article. The article on the game isn't even big enough to warrant splitting to an article on the Titans. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can cite solid arguments. I can say that I think an article should be kept based on these reasonings. Even the guidelines and policies allow for wiggle room. Being paperless does mean that we should have lax guidelines for inclusions. Crash of the Titans is covered in multiple reliable sources. How much more notability can anyone reasonably need? Sometimes poor performance actually leads to some degree of negative notability (infamy, notoriety, etc.). I am not by the way opposed to merging and redirecting this new information without deleting the article per the GFDL if others think it would help the other article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It can't be applied as an argument here just like fancruft can't be. And the guidelines and policies allow for OCCASIONAL EXCEPTIONS, not for them to be arbitrarily ignored when the editor decides that it's in his or her best interests to do so. And let's just say we SHOULD be lax. That'd be nice, if it mattered - I'm pretty sure "we aren't lax" takes precedence. Being lax is the same as being less legitimate than a real encyclopedia - you're basically suggesting that being paperless should allow for the encyclopedia to have poor standards for inclusion. And your claims that Crash of the Titans is ludicrous - no one said the game wasn't notable. They were saying that the characters in the game are not. You keep commenting that "Crash of the Titans is notable" as if that matters enough to say that the characters as well are. And poor performance leading to notability is "extremely poor performance" - ie, BG&E (sales), E.T. (ratings). Crash of the Titans did not have significant marketing, significant sales, or significant ratings. Conversely, it did not have "exceptionally bad marketing", "exceptionally bad sales", or "exceptionally bad ratings". It's not notable in any of those fields - it's only notable in that it's a released game, and it has the basic notability fields covered. A lack of being exceptionally notable - positively or negatively - makes it very unlikely that the Titans are notable characters. And Hell, they're not even characters - they're transportation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's in Wikipedia's best interest to allow for these articles. I saying being paperless should allow for open-minded and encyclopedic standards of inclusion. The characters are notable, bceause they are titular characters and because they did receive the focus of at least one article and because we do have out of universe information on them. There's obviously reader and contributor interest and obviously an effort underway to improve the article. We don't gain anything by deleting here and again, I'm not unwilling to allow for a merge and redirect without deletion, but there's no urgent need to remove this article this week. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You may think that the guidelines are wrong, but they are not. And just a question - you keep mentioning being titular as a reason for inclusion, but I've never heard of any guideline or policy that even suggests that being the titular character(s) of a game makes the character(s) notable. If being titular made a character notable, under your logic, every single main character of every single movie, game, book, comic, etc. would have to have their own article. Looking at Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure, if being the titular character was a good argument, we would have an article on Zack, and article on Wiki, and an article on Barbaros, who are all in the title - Z&W are the main characters, and the plot surrounds Barbaros. And all you've ever shown was A. one person asking one developer one question about the background of a handful of the Titans, and one guide of the Titans' powers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure game guide material with no evidence nor even assertion of real-world notability, see consensus from e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters (2nd nomination). --Stormie (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Such sections as Titans_(Crash_of_the_Titans)#Creation are not game guide and have real world information. Consensus in similar AfDs were to keep. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1. You didn't address the game guide content - in fact, you strengthened it by basically saying "okay, most of it is, but look at this section, no game guide content here!"
    2. And you didn't address the "real life notability" issue.
    3. And you're talking about "similar AfDs"? Similar how? Series? Style? Situation? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I addressed it by saying that the article is in the process of being revised in such a manner that expands on the out of universe context (I'm obviously still trying to do that and it would be nice if say others would help...). As for real life notability, it is a game played by people in the real world with charaters important enough that IGN devoted a whole article to them. Other AfDs on video game characters have not closed as delete, so we can't really claim a consensus either way there based on precedent. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "Creation" paragraph would be a quite reasonable one to merge into Crash of the Titans. --Stormie (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article has been revised during the discussion. Please note nominated version versus current version and that such revisions are still ongoing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid as a subarticle to discuss characters in greater detail than is possible in the main article. References beyond the game itself have been included (but should be used more extensively). Something I don't quite understand is why this isn't crafted as a more general article on the characters in the game, as opposed to covering just the "titans". It might address some of the concerns if the article was reworked to broaden its scope. Everyking (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. size issues suggests this is better standing alone. As a list, notability lies in a parent article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic doesn't have anything to actually hold it up in the area of notability, and it easily be summed up within any relevant articles. TTN (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic does have the fact of reliable source and that the Titans are titular characters to hold it up in the area of notability. Also, articles that can be summed up elsewhere are merged and redirected without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reliable sources, not reliable source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And may I add that one reliable source on the creation doesn't cut it? The entire section is based solely on that one question asking how he came up with four of the Titans. It pretty much just restates what the developer said, and nothing more (even going so far as to name the interviewer). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a start and part of an ongoing process. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You've only ever asserted that the Creation is important, so why not just merge it to the game article and improve it there? You haven't really done anything to improve the content of the characters, but at the same time, use the Creation section to advocate its existence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to renomination. I tend to agree with LGR and Casliber's assesment that the article is worth keeping, however, it is in dire need of cleanup and removal of gameguide content. As I'm unfamiliar with the series it seems to me that the article may be unimprovable, but as there seems to be a general level of interest in rescuing it, it should be kept and given a chance to improve. McJeff (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim or evidence of real world notability. Also sources such as freeweb7.com, deviantart.com and youtube.com does not strike me as useful --T-rex 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles save the Creation section. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are these characters, or enemies/power ups (does the main character take control of them a'la Little Nemo)? Hewinsj (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be the case. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Removed some sections to make the article sound less like a guide. Also, the titans mentioned on this page are returning for the next Crash game, Mind Over Mutant, and may potentially return for a third game if the trend continues. People here have citied there is no real-world signifigance of the character, yet looking at several mario characters, there are whole articles on rather insignifigant characters. Tell me, how does Birdo contribute to our culture or society? He/she doesn't. Video games characters aren't real, and labeling an article about a character (or several characters) unneeded because of such is unfounded and biased. However, I agree that the article needs major cleanup. Possibly more references. But when Mind Over Mutant is released, we should have more information on the titans (as well as some new Titan sections). Another thing is, someone critisized the references on the page. What's wrong with citing a freewebs page? Crashmania is a legit site and is referenced on many other crash pages. The deviantart reference is that of an artist that worked for Radical and gives legit information as well. The youtube reference can be taken off, I just wanted to provide proof of the quote so that people don't remove the quote saying that it isn't "cited". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobb (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:N and WP:RS. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Latin American Tour[edit]

Not notable Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doing a search on Yahoo, I found no sources that could be used to assert notability, as required by WP:MUSIC. I can't see how this could be merged into the Coldplay article, so I think deletion would be best, unless notability can be asserted. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 17:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleting would be a stupid decision. OK, there's the sources issue, but THE TOUR DID EXIST ahaha.... so, let's find them and end this thing. its a respectable 10-gig tour (with huge significance to the band's future), it should have an article. i don't know how to do the source thing, but go to www.wikicoldplay.com and theres a 'wiki' article with this tour practically with the same content as this. 190.245.134.176 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the question here isn't whether the tour exists, it's whether it is notable. Delete per WP:NN & WP:RS. Pretty much the same for Viva la Vida World Tour too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't believe there's even a category for "Coldplay tours," let alone articles to fill it. Not notable, maybe worth sharing a sentence with another tour in the main article, if someone can find a source. J293339 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 08:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ColorZilla[edit]

Non-notable browser extension. 69.158.111.97 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think this should also be extended to a large portion of Category:Mozilla extensions, with the exception of truly notable extensions, such as StumbleUpon and Google Toolbar. 69.158.104.240 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - it is just an extension, but I would say that it's one of the better known ones. --T-rex 23:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, where are the indpendent and reliable sources? GRBerry 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the internet, waiting for you to find and add them! Whilst we're asking rhetorical questions, why didn't you (as an admin) complete the afd for the anon that started it? or search for these refs yourself? Set a good example please! *grumblegrumble*
- However. I've added 2 books (it gets 4 pages of coverage in Firefox Secrets, and at least 3 mentions in Hacking Firefox) and a few relevant links, that should satisfy any concerns. It's in most top 10 lists for ff extensions. And that's without getting out of my chair...
- Suggest strong Keep. (I'm not sure how we're meant to end (or restart or whatever) this page-less/end-date-less afd?) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As to why I didn't complete the nom: I didn't even realize this wasn't an AFD subpage. It is transcluded on the June 11 AFD page. Rescuing article takes some time, too long to do in a quick break at the office, especially for an article I don't care about the topic of. GRBerry 03:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, my apologies for that then. I didn't realize it was successfully included in one of the AfD subpages. And apologies for my earlier grumpiness (but it did only take me 5 minutes to search google-books, and use ottobib to generate the cite template).
    - If we're ten days in, can this nom be closed; Is it sufficiently referenced now, for a stub length article? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:MUSIC. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Five[edit]

Not notable enough to have an article. Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. All the usual problems: unsigned, no albums yet, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC & WP:NOTINHERITED. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N with no independent sources. Artene50 (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Upon further review, I concur that the article makes unsourced claims about living persons, particularly accusing someone of murder. That makes this a candidate for a CSD G10 deletion, as a negative unsourced BLP. Given that I participated, below, and that I blocked the article's creator, I'd wait for an uninvolved admin to do the honors - except that it's a WP:BLP violation, as noted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiacig crime family[edit]

Same reason as Alfredo Chiacig, and the main editor, User:Rico-rico1982 just today created both articles. With no other edits.. Samuel Sol (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rationale provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfredo Chiacig was "It fails WP:BLP, as it claims someone as a member of the Mafia without any RS. And again, it does no claim at all that the person even exists. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)". UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This article is so horrible on BLP grounds (unsourced claims about criminal behavior) that I suppose an admin could speedy delete it. The article's creator, User:Rico-rico1982, has been blocked 72 hours. If there even exists a Chiacig crime family, that fact can't be quickly determined on Google. This could be a hoax. The main Google hit for Chiacig is Roberto Chiacig, a basketball player. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep without prejudice to merge. Assuming good faith with the addition of Danish sources, this is neither a hoax or non-notable. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aarhus University Shooting[edit]

Hoax/attack page. No sources available for this event. There appear to be several people named Flemming Nielsen, but none of them are referenced in this context. BradV 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The IHT reference confirms the date, university, number of victims slain and wounded, weapon, shooter's age, shooter's length of association with the university, and shooter's fate. The rest of the article may be fictitious. I've removed all the US-centric tags from the article, since it didn't happen in the United States, and will make some other obvious improvements. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One good RS, along with a number of non-RS which can be googled, confirm the event took place--it is not a hoax. This article does include details that are not confirmed by the English-language reference, however. I can't read Danish and Babelfish doesn't offer it, so we could use the help of a Danish-speaker here to look at the second listed source. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a copyright issue: the text is a word-by-word translation of the Danish-language reference [2]. The author of that reference claims copyright, with the proviso that "Partial quotation of the text is allowed only when clearly linked or referenced" to his page. I would think that requires more explicit citation, including quotation marks, than is currently done on the Wikipedia page. The reference itself is not obviously a reliable source: it is a list of Danish murders maintained by an individual as a subpage of the web site of a cluster of apartment buildings. It does list its primary sources at [www.bredalsparken.dk/~drabssageridanmark/html/webmaster.html]. It specifies that "some names have been altered", which in itself would seem to disqualify it as a source for the name of the perpetrator. The event is arguably notable and deserves a page, but the current page needs to be re-written based, to start with, on the IHT reference. --mglg_(talk) 20:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the article to remove unsubstantiated names and eliminate copyvio. It's pretty stubby now. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article at fyens.dk that also mentions a Flemming Nielsen as perpetrator of the shooting, so the information from drabsager seems to be correct. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

MERGE This might be applicable as a section of another article, but with google only turning up one English language source, It doesn't appear to have much on its own. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to merge this with? BradV 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of school-related attacks already seems to contain most of the content of this article which can be derived from the IHT source. School shootings is the only other mainspace article that links to it. Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event in Denmark. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and salt to prevent recreation. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Bonner[edit]

Non-notable person, page reads as advertisment. CSD - spam not approved, although looking at User talk:Allanbonner, this page (or a similar one to it) has been speedied in the past. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, weak keep. At least one book he authored has multiple citations, and at least one reputable media outlet has used him as a pundit. The entry needs a serious NPOV injection, but the subject is notable. The problem will be finding reference material not too badly infected with spin. 9Nak (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you getting back to me so quickly and trying to resolve this issue.

I am not sure what "weak keep" means. The reason his book as multiple citations is due to information from other industry experts or quoting people such as Marx etc... Many reputable media outlets have used him as a pundit in fact he is on BNN tonight speaking about a current controversial matter. I am not sure what NPOV inhection means. And he has been referenced by many media outlets and notable people so I am not sure what "too badly infected with spin" refers to. Is there information that should be removed for this to get approved?

Thanks again you are very helpful. Sarah Sarahanders1712 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StephenBuxton"

comment Explanations... Weak keep means that this person thinks the article shouldn't be deleted, but only just thinks that. NPOV Injection slang way of saying that the article is very biased, and needs rewriting with a Neutral Point Of View - see this guideline. Too badly infected with spin is referring to the sources - they are very heavily biased and putting a "positive spin" on the person. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, Sarah, this article is a vanity page written either by Mr. Bonner himself or people associated with him. It has been created in various forms in the past and has been repeatedly deleted. While I was the admin that declined to speedily delete it, I agree with what user 9Nak said about the issues. The article is not encyclopedic - it is really a promotion of Mr. Bonner, and needs to be rewritten to remove bias. Tan | 39 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it better myself, thanks. I've trimmed back the article – so severely that it may now be an even better candidate for deletion. Can't find acceptable (non self-published) references to include most of the claims in the original; YMMV. 9Nak (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's been deleted several times already as a vanity article. Now that it's been stubified it's a different discussion, but I don't see any evidence of notability. BradV 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I usually try to see what I can do to save a notable page, but this page is not notable. If it was a vanity page before, and it's a one-sentence stub now that the POV content is gone, I really don't see a reason to keep it. Macduffman (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Summary deletion per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs by CIreland. 17:21, 11 June 2008

Alfredo Chiacig[edit]

It fails WP:BLP, as it claims someone as a member of the Mafia without any RS. And again, it does no claim at all that the person even exists. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that this article fails the notability guidelines due to the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sendai Habitat[edit]

This article is about a charity initiative that lacks reliable sources. A search for coverage on this iniative shows no news coverage and a web search finds many wiki mirrors but no sources. The content of article is essentially an organisation web site and not an encyclopedia article. Removal of the image galleries and whatnot would leave an unverifiable stub with no notability. Whpq (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I was thinking of suggesting a removal of the fotoblog-like descriptions of the various projects by the organisation, but that would indeed leave only a stub with no sources to back it up... TomorrowTime (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated by nominator. --DAJF (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Madelynn Daniels[edit]

Non-notable actor. IMDB lists only four roles, all bit parts. Other appearances are asserted but no sources given. Talk page indicates she is an "up and coming" actor. Well, let's reconsider that if and when it happens, but for now she is not notable enough. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --John (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the content of the article I'd have to say non-notable. As "cameo" appearance is quite a subjective term which (and no disrespect to Brittany or the author of the article) some people use to mean "extra" without using the word. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly non-notable; the deadly "up and coming" phrase is used (code for "not notable yet"). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- addition - also note name of editor Hllywdbrit; I suspect a WP:AUTO violation by this s.p.a. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her roles are supporting ones, but that is not the same as "bit parts". See http://www.dreadcentral.com/story/are-you-ready-saw-blade for a review of Sawblade. --Eastmain (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and with an apparent WP:COI problem thrown in as well. I agree that the term "cameo" is misused here: a cameo role is a deliberate insertion of a famous, notable, or recognisable person, probably the ultimate example being Hitchock's walk-ons in his own movies. A small part (bit part) or part as an extra isn't a cameo unless the person is famous or notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable date on lame MTV dating show and extra on One Tree Hill is what I get out of this (red-headed nanny was probably a scene where her and the nanny character played by Torrey DeVitto had a non-vocal scene with each other in the same shot). Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her roles taken together aren;t significant. There are no articles in reliable sources about her. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious COI, no notable roles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 22:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Want It[edit]

Nothing to prove itself of its notabily, fails WP:NM, just not high enough to be included for this flop song - well I never neard of it, end of —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charley Uchea (talk • contribs) 04:17, 12 June 2008

Delete Although, "I never neard of it" isn't remotely criteria for deletion. It does fail to meet notability criteria as I understand it. If the singer or the reality show are notable this can easily be included in their article(s). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it charted, there are sources out there, passes WP:MUSIC. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have I misread the criteria? Does just being on a chart make songs notable? I thought it was about having a high position on said charts? If I'm wrong and being number "63" is notable (AND the information is sourced and verified in the article) than change my Delete to a Keep. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC has that lovely word "possibly" notable, which to me, leaves it very much up to people like us to decide which side of the keep/delete line this article falls. WP:MUSIC mentions whether it has charted or not, nothing about how far up the chart it has got. Since the only real reason we're here is because the Nom hasn't heard of it, and also doesn't like it (which is strange because he hasn't heard of it), I said keep. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The single is currently doing well in Europe and has charted in the UK. Also it has been inside the top ten Club charts across Europe. Highest position No.2 in the UK Club Charts. Also No.9 in the Upfront Club Charts. Ref to Chanelle Hayes main page. 'Charley Uchea' says she knows nothing of the single but has named herself after a Big brother 2007 contestant? Also this person is the same person who created the deletion page for Chanelle's main page that was kept. I smell vendetta. Can we take this deletion page seriously? I don't think so.Nightfactoy (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

u dont av 2 mr fanboi, ur speakin fanspeak as dis chart place is nowt, doesnt the top 10 is the one that counts, not the top millyun. herre sumthin 4u - u a ur m8s can make it mor "notable" by spending all your dosh, buy all her shit off from ur local hmv or wollys or woteva, and put mor orda. leas dis can help her 2 get a top 3 place, 'Charley Uchea' is me cos i am 'Charley Uchea'. i'm sorry to say dat dance cart thin is very tiviel nobodi take it seriusle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charley Uchea (talk • contribs) 00:17, 17 June 2008

Delete Isn't the Top 40 the most significant part of the British chart, anything else are totally ignored, had the single reached at least the bottom part of the Top 40, this article is likely to survive this AfD. This article is unverified hence my reason for deletion. Anton Ego (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, these charts seems to be a bit too trivial to make this single significant, especially that Upfront Club one as it does not have its own article well not likely with 235 ghits. Anton Ego (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and on the other hand, I think this nomination is rather a bit too bad faith, considering the nom's attitude and her personal attack, but I wouldn't mind nominating this myself. Anton Ego (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has charted in the UK --T-rex 23:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is still a current single. She is still promoting with club gigs, she had 2 this week and has two next week. It is too early to think of deleting this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbaxter43 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Editors interested in pursuing a merge are invited to do so on the article's talk page. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista 64-bit editions[edit]

We already have the Windows Vista editions article covering the x86 (32-bit) versions as well as the x64 (64-bit) versions of Windows Vista. There is nothing in this article not covered in the Windows Vista editions article, nor is the x64 section in Windows Vista editions large enough to warrant a split. Anything that can be discussed about how Vista x64 is different can very well be fit in there. True, x64 versions of Windows are quite different from the x86 versions, but unless we are writing a text book for a masters course iin Operating Sustems, the differences are not that major to need a separate article. Plus there is stuff here that is not specific to Windows Vista x64 versions ("Old device drivers are particularly problematic, because they need to be rewritten in 64-bit mode"). soum ^talk 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now several important documented differences in the article. None of this was in the Windows Edition article. Even if it was, it would be in the middle of the article. I think the differences are major, and are noteworthy enough for a new article. Please re-read the article. I have added some things, and they need more exposition. This article needs to grow, not be deleted. Also, it is plain to see that rewriting drivers to 64 bit is a major impediment to the adoption of 64 bit operating systems, and that this became acute when users chose Vista. In the future, as more and more people need to decide 64 vs 32 bit, this is going to become an important article. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Windows Vista 64 needs a separate article because Windows Vista editions exists to describe the different types of marketing editions -home- -premium- -ultimate- etc. There is very little in that article which describes how or why 64 bit is different. I think that trying to squeeze the 64 bit differences into that article feels unnatural to me. In other words what makes 64 bit different from 32 bit doesn't have a lot to do with why Basic is different from Unltimate. I think that the difference is profound enough to require a separate exposition.--Marcwiki9 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a number of references currently; merging into Windows Vista editions would make it way too long. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Windows Vista editions. Neither article is particularly large --T-rex 23:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I don't want to know about the 64-bit edition I don't want to have cluttering up the (shall we say) "parent" article. If I do want to know about it we have a precise and concise article. Other precedences can be seen with separate articles for different Linux distributions (SUSE Linux distributions).--Triwbe (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all of the reasons that I wrote above--Marcwiki9 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information about 64-bit editions to Windows Vista editions]. Most of the rest of the information in this article is not unique to Windows Vista, as it covers 64-bit Windows in general (the sections about WOW64, device driver compatibility, memory addressability, data execution protection -- which isn't even a feature unique to 64-bit Windows -- and so on), and should be merged into Microsoft Windows, or into Windows NT architecture. -/- Warren 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote Warren: "most of the rest of the information in this article is not unique to Windows Vista". I would like to correct the record to state that the entire article is about the differences between the 64 bit and the 32 bit versions of Vista. I did not say that it differentiated Vista. That is plain for anyone to see. That is the point of the article. Given the way you have shouted at me that I am wrong so many times, I can truly believe that the point of the article is still escaping you. Let the readers decide. To say it again, all of those four points you write about above here are exactly included in what differentiates Vista 64 bit from 32 bit. To be more specific, hardware assisted Data Execution Prevention is Not included in the 32 bit version. Etcetera. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is astonishing for the vigor of your assertions and the unfriendly way in which you shout them and blank otherwise good pages. Refer to the talk page of the article to assess whether his knowledge of Vista 64 bit is adequate to opine on the matter. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to tell me, the person who wrote fully 75% of the Windows Vista article, and many of its sub-articles, and another dozen articles on the subject of Windows, that I have a "lack of knowledge" on the subject of Windows Vista, whereas you can't even be bothered to spell the word "kernel" correctly, than you may kindly go fuck yourself. That's really offensive, and also provably incorrect given my 2.5 year history of writing on the subject.

Not that being wrong has ever stopped you from yammering on, has it? Instead of carrying on with this losing argument, how about actually learning a little bit about what the hell it is you're trying to write about? But first, let's debunk a little bit of what you've said with reliable sources:

You state here (and in the article) that "hardware assisted DEP is not included in the 32 bit version. MSKB 912923, which is the first google result on "hardware DEP", states: "Both 32-bit versions and 64-bit versions of Windows support hardware-enforced DEP." ... so you are wrong.
You state in the article that ASLR is specific to 64-bit Windows. Mark Russinovich's three-part series on the Vista kernel makes it clear that ASLR is available in 32-bit versions of Windows ... so you are wrong again.
In your article on the list of incompatible 64-bit Vista applications, you assert that iTunes doesn't work. Had you been bothered to do the most utterly basic of Google searches: "itunes 64-bit", you would have seen the very first hit is HT1426 on Apple's support site, titled "64-bit editions of Windows Vista require iTunes 7.6 or later" ... so you are wrong a third time.
You claim in the article that Subsystem for Unix Applications is 64-bit only. No it's not -- it's included in the 32- and 64-bit variants of the Enterprise and Ultimate editions of Vista. Or is this update for 32-bit SUA in Vista just a mirage? You claim that this is the first time Windows has supported POSIX. No it's not -- the very first release of Windows NT, fifteen years ago, supported POSIX. Everyone with familiarity of the architectural history of Windows NT knows this. For a fourth and fifth time, you are wrong.

I could carry on, since there are several other factual errors in your contributions, but I'm getting bored of telling you you're wrong. -/- Warren 21:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was really a personal attack. Profanity doesn't help, Warren. And it makes you look bad. You might have 2.5 years, but that doesn't make you a grizzled veteran, or your responses would have been more nuanced. It doesn't take much research to protect your arguments better than that. I don't want to give you advice, but I think you ought to think before speaking like that. Or blank pages without consensus.

DEP: I will give you the reference from Microsoft. It is here. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765. I think the readers should go there and read in black and white that "32 bit versions of Windows vista use a software based version of DEP".

additionally I would like to add that the article you quoted for DEP doesn't list Vista. The article I quoted specifically lists Vista. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASLR: You quote an article from a Microsoft spokesman. That is great, but Mark Russinovich didn't tell you about the testing of ASLR. When it is independently tested, it is found that ASLR on 32 bits will randomize addresses on reboot, but 64 bit will randomize on every execution. Moreover, 32 bit randomization has 8 bit granularity, giving 256 different random points. 64 bits randomizes into the huge potential address space of 64 bits. Perhaps not an earth shattering advantage, but a hacker that wins one out of 256 times can still gain hidden or overt control of a compromised system, especially if he repeats the attack more than 256 times. see http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard/archive/2006/10/04/Alleged-Bugs-in-Windows-Vista_1920_s-ASLR-Implementation.aspx see http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:MRtZZSED-EUJ:www.ntcore.com/Files/vista_x64.htm+address+space+layout+randomization+vista+64&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=35&gl=us

Itunes doesn't work: That is not part of this article. It is part of a beginning of another article that we all agree was badly thought out and should be deleted. Bringing it up here is not helpful to this discussion. Please try to keep it on topic.

Subsystem for Unix: Oops. You're right. I misread my source. The claim was the existence of a new 64 bit subsystem for Unix, not the first subsystem. I am sorry and I will delete that from the original article.

Thank you for taking the time, but please keep it more civil.

I sincerely hope that best decision is made by this AfD consensus.

I really believe this article ought to exist, and that it should be made as excellent as possible.

--Marcwiki9 (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment, Still none of that is specific to Vista x64. Some (like KPP) were already in XP x64. Others will be there in Win7 x64. If at all, the article should be Windows x64 editions, not Windows Vista x64 editions. And the two 64-bit systems supported by Windows (x64 and Itanium) should be differentiated. --soum ^talk 14:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - We have had article x64 Edition since January of 06. It is odd that no one attempted to delete it. It is a very very tiny one sentence article. You are right that these technologies aren't unique to Vista, But this Article as I wrote it was supposed to be about Vista 64 bit edition. Anyway, my hope was that this article would satisfy the search for Vista 64 bit edition when people are looking for it. I wasn't really dedicated to exposition on the need for X64 as implemented in server 2003 or XP, or itanium for that matter. I am a little bit suprised, now that you mention it, that List_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions doesn't include the itanium version of windows, as it is a separate system. Here is the link http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64bit/itanium/overview.mspx Microsoft has in the biggest letters on the page x86x64 is not equal to Itanium. Thanks for commenting.

Keep It is important to have a separate article that just highlights the differences, and not clutter up the excellent Windows Vista Editions article. Also I don't know about others but I find the personal attacks to be unnecessary so please let's stick to the goal here of creating great articles, and avoid tearing eachother down. Thanks... --BigalbinoNerd (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An account created to just vote and speak out against personal attack? Something odd might be brewing here. --soum ^talk 14:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The article is a complete mess, unreadable to the layman and an annoyance to the expert. Any saveable facts, specific to Windows, and not written like an advert or magazine review, can be merged, as it doesn't look like there is going to be much not already included. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think it is a mess. But that means that WP:UGLY applies. In other words, messyness is not a reason to delete. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misunderstand, the fact it is a mess is what actually obscures the fact that the amount of usable content is mergeable. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. MickMacNee just stated the conclusion I reached after reading this entry. Leaving advert/review type material aside, there isn't much of substance to say that is uniquely interesting about Windows Vista 64-bit architecture support. We benefit more from having the few interesting facts merged into the parent articles. Merzul (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please see Windows XP editions#64-bit editions. There is plenty of room for Windows Vista editions#64-bit editions to expand. Merzul (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Your link is exaclty the kind of exposition of the type that I was hoping for here in the Vista section. However, there has been a bunch of points being made here and in other places that are, in effect, what about (choose your option) [xp, xp edition, xp 64, vista, vista edition, windows, *nix, *nix 64] etcetera. As you can see, all of these articles are violative of WP:WAX. As such, they are fallacious arguments. This article, if notable (and nobody has even questioned that), should stand or fall on its own. Why Vista is different is because Vista 64 bits is the first Windows edition that is marketed to consumers. Why? because XP 64 professional is, by it's own name, not for consumers. XP 64 is for Itanium, which is not for consumers. So now we have this new type of thing, Vista 64 bits, being marketed to consumers, with home editions, media center and all. There are going to be millions of people who must decide which one to pick (64 bit or 32 bit). Up until now, there is no where to go for a NPOV opinion. Believe me, I tried. Wikipedia did not have this info. Google did not help. Microsoft's description did not help or point out what would and wouldn't work.

Most people here who have opined on the matter have, I am quite sure, for the most part, not experienced the issues of actually installing and running and using Vista 64 bits. You have people claiming "it is the same system with compiler options changed", as if it was a simple matter of choice with no ramifications. Nothing could be further from the truth when you actually buy it and, oops, the Audigy card does not work!! (It does not). And then, oops, your motherboard doesn't have drivers. I haven't even gotten into all of the Nforce 3 boards that utterly fail for Vista 64, even though they have a 64 bit processor. Nforce 3 will run *nix 64 until the cows come home. They fail on the Vista drivers that will not and cannot be updated. How many of you actually knew that? It is really not simple at all. XP 64 professional did not have media center.

Morever, the arguments here have been sidetracked by a bunch of ridiculous assertions delivered with a boatload of scorn, making it difficult to make any actual progress. There have been boatloads of violations of WP:NPA and etiquette. I am not reporting anybody because everyone makes mistakes, and Warren is obviously a very valuable and recognized Wikipedian, but trying to squish the newbie is obviously bad.

This article was listed as AfD. Even so, there has not been one vote to delete. Even by the original nominator. Soum listed it for deletion after this notification by Warren:User_talk:Soumyasch#Windows Vista 64-bit editions. As you can see, this almost created a wp:3rr puppet. Soum wisely declined, but even he knows, I am sure, that nom for deletion was wrong. It should have been nom for merge. Nom for deletion seems like a violation of good faith.

As you can see on this page Wikipedia:Deletion policy the reasons for merge are [short, unlikely to grow, duplicates]. This is none of them. If the XP 64 section described above is any guide, this article can grow quite large.

It sure seems like this has grown to a mountain out of a molehill, but the personal attacks made it difficult to be NPOV about the whole thing.

--Marcwiki9 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy, and yes, Warren should try to be kinder. However, note that people can nominate for deletion with the intention that the material is integrated elsewhere. Also, a nominator may be completely wrong... These things are a completely normal parts of the article maintenance process here at Wikipedia. Instead of taking this deletion discussion personally, I suggest you work together with the others to get this material integrated into the main article. Also, it would indeed be good if more experienced Wikipedians here worked with you, rather than against you. From my quick reading of the above, you do seem to know this topic well. Merzul (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merzul, tell me why I should work with someone who comes onto Wikipedia, refuses to work on our existing corpus of articles on the subject of Windows Vista, preferring instead to create their own articles (one of which has been deleted), and then tells one of Wikipedia's most active contributors on the subject (me) that they don't know what they're talking about? Half the information he's submitted is provably incorrect, too, which is damaging to the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Warren -talk- 21:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an important enough aspect of major software for a separate article. DGG (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, does it make sense to keep this article, in light of the fact that most of the information in the article is not actually specific to 64-bit editions of Windows Vista? The issues discussed also apply to 64-bit Windows XP, 64-bit Windows Server 2003, and especially 64-bit Windows Server 2008, which is based on exactly the same kernel. If we want to talk about things that are new to the 64-bit edition of Vista, we have a series of Features new to Windows Vista articles. If we want to talk about things that cover the whole line of 64-bit Windows articles, we have Microsoft Windows (which already discusses the progression of Windows in terms of CPU architecture) and Windows NT architecture. If we want to talk about releases of Windows Vista, we have Windows Vista editions. Basically everything that's presented in this article belongs elsewhere, so why duplicate the information? Warren -talk- 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is substantial support for the retention of this article by established users, while no users with > 50 edits support its deletion. Furthermore, the references provided in Theodore_Beale#Notes indicate sufficient coverage of Theodore Beale in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline. John254 02:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Beale[edit]

I believe this Biographical article fails to meet WP notability guidelines. Deletion has been discussed on the talk page, and there has been no compelling argument against deletion. Messiahxi (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He seems to meet the notability criteria although I agree the article needs a whole lot of work to improve it and make it properly neutral. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Messiahxi. This Biographical article clearly fails to meet WP notability guidelines. There's more information about his father and unsourced "controversies" that no one has ever heard of than there is actual biographical material.Xday (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see absolutely no valid reason for deletion here. Numerous references to this individual's works from literary reviews to articles in the New York Times regarding video game works, to public, on-air media discussion regarding his controversial views. It is true that there was a discussion on the talk page about deleting the article (mostly promoted by the nominator of this AfD) but half or more of those who commented on the proposal seem to think he is notable enough for an article. Article may need some further improvement, but the nominator's contention seems unsound to me, and the other "Delete" is basically an "I've never heard of it" argument. Zero policy violations here. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Zahakiel describes, there's no policy reason to delete. Anecdotally, I turned to Wikipedia to find out who Vox Day was, having encountered the name elsewhere. So there's at least one person (me) who found this entry useful--and I'm not so arrogant to believe that I'm that unusual; if I found it useful, others will. It's useful, it doesn't violate policy. So keep it. –RHolton ≡– 16:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zachary Jaydon[edit]

The result was delete and salt. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The 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 and salted by Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closing. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Biro, LLC[edit]

Tagged for speedy under criterion a7, corporations. The creator removed the tag, promising improvements that never materialized. When the tag was reinserted, it was removed again (twice), by an anon, with no rationale given. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reinstated the CSD tag after the IP removed it the second time, then self-reverted as I remembered that the tag says that anyone other than the page creator may remove the tag. Utterly non-notable company. It is very obvious that this particular IP is not a neutral or good faith editor. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, all edits from that particular IP consist of removing speedy and AFD tags from that particular article, no explanation ever given. Move to salt. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. I tagged again. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete to me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Deleted and salted for a month. Tan | 39 14:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Malinaccier (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyMania 7[edit]

Disputed prod. This article is either a hoax or WP:CRYSTAL speculation. No reference to this album existing. NrDg 13:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous AfDs for similar articles for this series Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DisneyMania 6, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DisneyMania 9. There is a similar pattern of articles created with speculative track information well before any verification of existance by the label.--NrDg 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's extremely unusual for a record company to announce the track listing of an album a year before its release, so without reliable sources this is either hoax or fan wishful-thinking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL firmly applies here. WilliamH (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - odds are that an article of this name will be released in 2009 but for now WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though I do not know that it is actually a hoax, I can certainly see that it fails WP:MUSIC: This is a forthcoming album, requiring substantial coverage in reliable sources. None provided, none found. Though disney.com calls the series "highly successful" and projects 9 volumes, there is no indication of any coverage of this volume anywhere that I could find. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Galloway[edit]

Suspected self-authored biography; non-notable, no sourcing. Minkythecat (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not established, and searches turn up only in American hockey, not Scottish running. (If he is the same person, then perhaps that would establish notability.) Frank | talk 13:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:ATHLETE, WP:RS, WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Minkythecat. Non-notable Kalivd (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reliable sources --Kanonkas : Talk 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOT. No available sources therefore no notability. Wikipedia is not here becuase
the scottish althletics board has no pubicly available record of previous national champions.
However noble that effort is that's not what this project is for--Cailil ^talk 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, there are no sources (listed in the article), but if the rationale for deletion is "a google search turns up absolutely nothing" as stated on the article's page, um, so what? Notoriety.. I mean Notability does not require Internet pages to be produced to prove its reality. Nor do the GUIDELINES of Wikipedia require Internet Notoriety. This definitely needs sources however. Too bad this stub will never be improved by those in his country who know of him and other athletes before it's ruthlessly deleted. - Nhprman 03:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note; Nhprman self-identifies as an inclusionist. Minkythecat (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you picked up on that. But so what? Is that a slur? I've restrained myself from calling others here "knee-jerk deletionists" because I'm nice and like to AGF. Why the "outing" of me as an inclusionist? I suppose that's like saying "leper" here on WP these days, huh? - Nhprman 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note; ~~Nhprman~~Minkythecat self-identifies as a Wikipedia Review member. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, and utterly irrelevant. Minkythecat (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more irrelevant than your comment about Nhprman. If you make ad hominem arguments then you should expect people to scrutinise your prejudices too. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do no such thing, although I'm a critic of the extreme deletionism of stubs that this kind of article represents (though in this case, it really does need proper attribution and I noted that already.) - Nhprman 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme deletionism? Given someone has already produced linkies showing the facts cited on the page to be somewhat incorrect, deletionism of stubs like this isn't required, more termination with extreme prejudice. Minkythecat (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - I meant Minkythecat. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, it wouldn't be appropriate for this (or any) article to be expanded by "those in his country who know of him and other athletes". If the information isn't already available and verifiable, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, period. Nobody is saying it has to be an Internet-based source - just that it must be published and reliable. This doesn't really have anything to do with inclusionism or deletionism. Frank | talk 12:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about not needing to be online in the guidelines, but to be accurate, someone actually did say it must be Internet-based. The critereon posted on the article for deleting the articles said there was nothing to be found on Google about it. That, to me, is an irrelevant point, and whether something is on Google or not has no standing in WP policy. - Nhprman 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd put that a different way. Google - and most especially Google News and the Google News Archives - can definitely be used to establish notability. Lack of hits in any of those three areas is a bad sign, to be sure, but not definitive. (Google Books and Google Scholar are also good resources.) I have also done a search at a university library, which covers many news sources that Google does not, and I've also come up with no hits there. It's a US-based university, so it may be that the resources that would include Ryan Galloway aren't included. The key here is that the Internet is a tool, not an answer. There are many databases that search print materials - the materials themselves are NOT available on the Internet (or they are but aren't free), but the databases ARE available. In any permutation I've looked at, the subject of this article has not shown up, so I agree that notability hasn't been established. It would be a fairly simple matter for notability to be established - but first it has to be asserted, and that simply hasn't been done. Scotland has libraries and universities. If the subject is notable, someone there can find material that shows it. Even if the article is self-authored, although it would be in bad form to do so, notability could still be asserted - but even though this article has been nominated for deletion, no such attempt has been made. Frank | talk 15:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair analysis. - Nhprman 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:N Artene50 (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article author put this in the article; I think it belongs here:

This article has been added for the very reason that the scottish althletics board has no pubicly available record of previous national champions. This article is to demonstrate to others how a brief paragraph could be create for each of the countries previous great athletes and then create a ring of information linking these athletes and events as needed. How is anyone supposed to create such a wealth of information if people try and jump on it like this and say usles?? you don't have a clue what you are calling usless! for example, try and tell me who was the scottish u19 champion in 200m in 1994.. when your done trying you can see what i mean.

Phil Bridger (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Unsourced stub. - Nhprman 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. According to Scottish Athletics, the governing body for track and field in Scotland, the 200 m outdoor champion is "1991 Paul Greene (Aus) 21.74" as noted in the Scottish outdoor track and field champions 1986-2006 document. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've spent more time trying to validate any information provided. A personal best of 20.76 for the 200 m is asserted in the article. I've gone to the rankings at Power of 10 which is appears to be the high performance program for the UK. I've brought up the men's 200m rankings for all time which includes Scottish athletes as far as I can see. According to the ranking, there are several runners with 20.76 but none of them are Ryan Galloway, and the list does include entries that date back as fas as 1968. So what we have here is an athlete that claims a 1991 Scottish Championship in the 200 m. But a news article database search by another editor through google news, and unversity library resources turns up no mentions. The Scottish athletics documentation I've found directly contradicts the assertion as it lists a Paul Greene as the winner for 1991. And a search for the top UK results in the 200 m all-time has no entry for Galloway despite his personal best being within the range for the rankings. There is simply zero reliable sources to verify the content of the article, and one source that would indicate that at least one claim in the article is in fact not true. -- Whpq (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion is raised by this text "going on to enjoy a very succesful athletics carrear". Given nothing else is been sourced it just seems a bit odd if this person was kosher that they'd not mention any details of this successful career. Based upon all this, I suspect it's nothing more than a hoax article. Minkythecat (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete via creator blanking. ... discospinster _talk 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science Park I Bus Terminal[edit]

Totally and utterly non notable bus stop, surely??? Minkythecat (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles for railway stations, but I think bus stops is going too far. Delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator just blanked the page. I think we can take that a a request for deletion and speedy it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NN, speedy if possible. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and the author blanked the page. D0762 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn in favor of renomination in proper forum (RfD). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Mathod[edit]

The article title is obviously a misspelling. THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Isn't it policy to simply redirect misspellings? Otherwise delete. Thetrick (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep and let the nominator take this to WP:RfD. --Thetrick (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirects may be cheap, but that doesn't mean we can or should cover any of the nearly infinite possible misspellings of everything. We don't want a Sceintific Method, Scientific Mothod, Scyintiphik Meathid, etc etc etc etc... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; AfD does articles; this was a redirect before you deleted all the text on the page to add the AfD label, so it should go to RfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as original redirect. WTF!!!!! Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a total misuse of a redirect. Esradekan, please refrain from pure emotion. Prosfilaes, you're using bureaucracy to maintain trash on Wiki. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, because trash is such an unemotional word. It doesn't go here. AfD is busy enough without people listing things here that don't belong here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Golly gee, Prosfilaes maybe you should have done an undo and moved it to rfd instead of just criticizing. We're not all perfect like you, sorry. I made a good faith effort to clean up something, and you've assisted how? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing links to this redirect except userspace pages, so the redirect itself is useless. I think we can just delete this here instead of taking it to WP:RfD unless there's a good reason to keep it. Spoom^Talk 15:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, having read WP:RfD, I'm changing my vote to speedy keep and relist at RfD. As listed there, historical versions of other articles could link to this redirect, and we can't predict that. Spoom^Talk 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Since AfD is for articles, this should go to WP:RfD. I suggest to the nominator he opens a discussion there. WilliamH (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regardless of the lawyering that seems to be going on it doesn't appear like this is the correct place. May I suggest that someone who knows how be BOLD and move it to RfD. The nom made an error. Don't beat him over the head. Fix it (or at least help him fix it) and yes I'd do it myself but, I don't even no what RfD is (and I'm going home shortly). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to withdraw the afd request, and have it resubmitted for rfd as suggested. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, Nakon 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da Realest[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL? Minkythecat (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Plies (rapper) until further information of the album surfaces, if in fact there is one. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 00:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to support a merge. GRBerry 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Inherently notable. Process is good, but this is just plain common sense rather than WP:SNOW. WilliamH (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canton of Grand-Bourg[edit]

To short, non notable, nonsense Hellboy2hell (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its a stub - so too short isn't a good argument. It's not nonsense its the way electoral areas are designated in France (and its overseas departments) and I think places / government areas are meant to have some sort of inherent notability in policy terms. There's also an awful lot more of them Category:Cantons of France btw. -Hunting dog (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although, I agree that one-line articles shouldn't be encouraged. If places are automatically notable through policy and this is a real place than it desperately needs expanding and not deleting. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. Believe it or not, I'm usually with Jasynnash2 on this sort of thing. But there's plenty of precedent for this sort of article being acceptable, and I think it's at the very least a good, necessary start, geographically-speaking. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Canton is a political entity, kind of like a township or county (depending on the locality) which are inherently notable. An article on a notably topic eing a stub is not a reason for deletion, it's reason for a request for expansion. --Oakshade (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inherently notable, and can definitely be improved. At the very least, certainly not nonsense. Maxa megalon 2000 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SNOWBALL anybody? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep' The nominating statement is bizzare. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 21:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice to the creation of a sourced, verifiable article. HiDrNick! 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Touch[edit]

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and likewise, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP & WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP at the shore one day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor variation on Touch Rugby. There are several sources [10] [11] but nothing that asserts notability. D0762 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if properly sourced. It seems to be a not-uncommon term in Australia. A quick Google search produced a few sites that use the term (Beach Touch Queensland, A page about the sport on the Queensland Police website, A page about it on Touch Football Australia, Sandstorm Beach Club Touch Football competitions) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if properly sourced Actually it was not made up on the beach one day, there is an intenseive discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MaiDireMeta that indicates a deep and long history of the whole shebang. In short, has potential, needs lots of work. Lots42 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of work to do! I have a lot of source and sites that are about beach touch but I am not sure about how to use it. Beach Touch is a sport and there is summer competition in Australia, South Africa, France and from this year in Italy too. See discussion for links. MaiDireMeta (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is the possibility to remove the Warning Message on that page if I try to improve, with your help!, the page documentation? MaiDireMeta (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD tag has to stay on until the discussion is over. The tag will be removed if the article survives AFD. However, feel free to edit and rework the page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am reluctant to delete such pages because we have few enough articles on Iraqi organisations but it is clearly promotional. Also, there are no independent Ghits and, though we need to be wary of systemic bias, nothing in the article can be verified so, at present it fails WP:V which is policy. TerriersFan (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ainkawa Social Youth Club[edit]

Declined speedy, however appears to fail WP:CORP nonetheless. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability and article is a hopeless advertisement, even written in first-person "we are arranging parties", etc. Speediable under A7 or G11. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are some strong arguments that this material is inclusion worthy and that cannot be discarded, but the fact remains that many of the concerns about this article - primarily the lack of sourcing - are real. If the arguments for keeping are to prevail, it should be no big deal to get the article up to proper standards before it gets renominated; otherwise a subsequent closure may be less favorable for this article. Shereth 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday devices in popular culture[edit]

This is simply a trivial dumping ground for any doomsday device reference in popular culture. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak partial merge There are so many films with doomsday as its main theme (see Doomsday film), and even more with a doomsday device, that this list becomes filled with indiscriminate plot summaries (WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#PLOT). A thorough discussion of doomsday devices can take place at Doomsday device, which is still rather stubbish. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as getting rid of the sonic weapon in pop culture thing. Just a huge collection of trivia whose relevant information is better contained in the appropriate articles. The list is incomplete (and will always be incomplete because of its relatively indiscriminate nature) not to mention many of the items are entirely non-notable Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why a list should be deleted on the grounds that it is incomplete, any more than an article should be deleted on the same basis.--Father Goose (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of a category, my standard answer for this. If a page for the topic exists, put it in a category; no mess, no fuss. But, as it stands now, it's an unsourced list. Frank | talk 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~I'd be surprised if this weren't covered in some independent sci-fi compendium.~~ FWIW, I do now remember reading about the rise of this device in film paralleling the development of the atomic bomb and the obvious connections. I will get the ref. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Casliber says, there will be no problem finding sources. I am really puzzled by the argument that because there are many works that use the theme, the theme is not suitable for an article. I'd think it exactly the other way around. (Come to think of it, the argument is also used the other way around. Makes no sense either way. if there's enough to right an article, the use of any theme in notable works is a suitable encyclopedic subject. If notable artists use it, they know what they're doing.) I am almost equally puzzled by the reappearance of some other arguments. Indiscriminate does not mean difficult to define, but covering everything in a conceivable group without consideration of importance--the consideration here is appearance in a notable work, which is defined as for any other list--having a Wikipedia article or being substantially covered in one. Next, that a list has some inappropriate items -- that is a reason for editing not deletion--just as with any article. If we deleted every article that had something inappropriate in it, we'd be down to the FAs. A list does not have to be complete--I wonder where anyone got the idea; Wikipedia is not complete in any topic, and never will be. (And if it were, people would then start saying indiscriminate again.) And the favorite argument that it belongs in a category instead is opposed by the consensus that agreed on WP:list -- there is no reason not to have both--a category has the advantage of being built automatically, a list of being able to give some actual information about the use. It's not just the fact of the use, but the context and the role in the work--you can't do that with a category. DGG (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needed to be sorted, and a couple of nonnotable entried removed, but it looks a lot better now. Doomsday film should probably be merged into this article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Indiscriminate collection of some plot summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for want of sources that speak to the subject, and for contravention of WP:TRIVIA. This is a good example of why I'm such a hardass on trivia lists, because this list labels a very broad range of fearsome fictional weapons as "Doomsday devices" without much basis. WillOakland (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you're already aware, WP:TRIVIA is against unselective and indiscriminate lists, neither of which describe this page. This page lists different media in which a doomsday device has played a major role/was a major theme, which makes it a selective and discriminate list. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What this page lists are a bunch of fictional plot devices that some editor thinks are doomsday devices, even though there is not one source of literary criticism to substantiate that. Some of the devices aren't devices, and some of them don't destroy the world. Some are too vague to even begin to know one way or the other. The list is original research and having it in a separate article encourages the growth of precisely what WP:TRIVIA is supposed to restrain. WillOakland (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a single review with the word "doomsday" in it be enough to satisfy the OR problem? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to see at least one source that analyzes the concept of doomsday weaponry across several works, to establish that there is a subject to write about here. WillOakland (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P Anderson - "American Science Fiction and the Cold War: " 1999 - Taylor & Francis;
"Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove: A Guide to Study -" R Carringer - Journal of Aesthetic Education, 1974 -[12]
What I Learned Since I Stopped Worrying and Studied the Movie: A Teaching Guide to Stanley Kubrick's..." D Lindley - PS: Political Science and Politics, 2002 - Cambridge Univ Press
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCT1ON in W LAQUEUR, I DOOMSDAY - Terrorism in Perspective, 2003 -"... Edmond Hamilton's" Crashing Suns" appeared in 1928. and Jack Williamson's Space Patrol novels about a doomsday device called" AKKA" a few years later. .."

That makes 4 from the first 3 pages of Google scholar slone--that last one is unquestionably about multiple such cultural references. DGG (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No different from any other "in popular culture" article. Aseld ^talk 05:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? Some pop culture articles have been deleted recently. And this is different in that the subject exists more in fiction than in reality. WillOakland (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cite, and remove what isn't citable. WillOakland (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into doomsday films, and rename as doomsday devices in fiction. This isn't a pop cult article, despite its name; it's an article about a major fictional premise (not limited to films).--Father Goose (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be about the verifiable development of the doomsday weaponry concept in fiction. That is neither as broad as the overall doomsday concept, nor narrowly limited to films. Which, come to think of it, is what the "Doomsday device" article attempts to be about. WillOakland (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this time because doomsday devices don't exist in fact. Therefore what can verifiably be said about this subject can be said in the main "Doomsday device" article, which I hadn't looked at until now. That leaves this article, once again, as OR that need not be kept. WillOakland (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why them not existing in fact makes this article subject to deletion. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Payne[edit]

Contested prod (by IP, no explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he's never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Number 57 indicated lacks notability.Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 09:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Clearly fails notability at this moment in time. --Jimbo^[online] 12:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. —97198 talk 12:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the chart says no senior team appearance. Appears to quite obviously fail the notablity guidelines. No reason not to recreate once he has become notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Colmenares[edit]

Might be me, but can't seem to find any RS backing any of this up - searching on Celeste Colmenares produces very few ghits, can't seem to see any that match this bio. Minkythecat (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly made up - remarkable lack of ghits (even non reliable ones) for names in this including the agent and parents.-Hunting dog (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax; no secondary source coverage even if not. —97198 talk 12:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Rocce Verilano[edit]

No indication that this person actually exists. The small number of Google hits outside of Wikipedia are probably just copied unchecked from here. Another article of the same author is currently up for deletion for the same reasons. --Latebird (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, the little amount of Google hits does look like it's a nonexistant person, unless we can get some confirmable references. Arienh4^(Talk) 10:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to confirm the stats listed in the article, but I have no idea of its reliability. No other Ghits that I can find for things like "Equinho Caen", which seems unusual for a supposed professional player..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is a hoax. The reliable sources covering SM Caen (L'Equipe, Eufo, FIFA, UEFA, etc) make no reference to such a person existing or ever playing for the club. Jogurney (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - surely this search would come up with hits if this player actually were on the books of Caen, a Ligue 1/2 club. ugen64 (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 21:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No result in www.lfp.fr and CBF contract record. Matthew_hk t c 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the slightest shred of evidence indicating this guy actually exists can be presented. Ford MF (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I applaud the thorough discussion made by those arguing to keep the material but in the end consensus is pretty clear to delete. Shereth 22:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish auction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page was tagged for speedy deletion under CSD:G4 by User:Ulner. I am taking the discussion here, because with respect to the previous AFD, there was very low participation there and the content of this page is somewhat different to that of the deleted page. I recommend delete as notability is not established and referencing is poor. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic generates multiple hits in Google Scholar. That, and the references in the article suggest to me that this is a valid and notable topic in auction theory. The article needs improvement, but that's no reason for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am swayed by 木's and Moonriddengirl's arguments that this article is not appropriate, although there may be something salvageable in it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A legitimate form of auction that is eminently notable. The article, however, could do with a massive rewrite, even if only to fix the spelling mistakes. Ugh. Still, it's only a couple of weeks old so give it time, per WP:DEMOLISH. Debate 木 10:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the auction method does exist and is notable, but "Swedish auction" isn't the commonly used terminology. I've been doing some further digging, but until I get a chance to go through the sources in more detail than I have the time for right now I'm withdrawing my original comment. Debate 木 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Following a good deal of research that could have been far more constructively spent elsewhere I've come to the conclusion that this article is not salvageable in its current form. The article appears to conflate a series of tangentially related concepts into what is, in my view, ultimately a synthesis at best. While certain concepts referred to in the article are absolutely notable, such as Simultaneous Multiple Round Auctions, the synthesis presented here is too tightly woven to easily untangle in any practical way that would allow splitting or merger. Note that Paul Milgrom, the only source mentioned in the article, has very helpfully provided a huge amount of material on his website, including 437 pages of Powerpoint slides, not one of which includes either of the phrases 'Swedish Auction' or 'Multiple-round auction'. I note that in the process of researching this topic I've also come across a series of related, unreferenced edits that are going to cause more than a few headaches for anyone who wants to have a go at untangling them. Debate 木 12:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless further references are added sufficient to demonstrate that this is not a neologism. This isn't a time issue, in my opinion. This is the fourth incarnation of this article by the same user since last November, and no additional sourcing seems to have been added since the first. It was previously deleted under this title and twice deleted under Swedeauction following this AfD. My research at the time of that AfD (which I'm incorporating here by reference and link :)) suggested to me this was not a widely used term, and it still does not seem to be. Almost every hit I came up with on google news for "Swedish Auction" was adjacent, independent usage of the words (cf this, referencing an auction that happens to be in Sweden) (I say almost every, because some of those hits are pay per view, and I can't verify that those do not use the term in this specialist sense.) This is also the case with a general google search. I get 36 hits on the term in Google scholar. Many of these are duplicates, and some of those seem utterly unrelated to this usage. Take the duplicated reference here, for example (it accounts for 2 of the 36). It asks "What would a carefully designed Swedish auction have looked like?" and is discussing a theoretical concept, not an existing one. Many of the other hits seem to be referring to something specifically called "the Swedish auction bankruptcy system"--we already have an article for that. The creator of this article wrote it. I got 13 hits in google book (hoping to find the article's reference, but failing). None of them seem to correspond to this usage. (I thought I might have found something on the reference in a google search of Milgrom + "Swedish Auction" (13 distinct hits), but though it looked like a reliable source, it turned out to be a Wikipedia mirror.) Also, though I mentioned this in the first AfD, I would like to repeat it here: "I also found a .pdf from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm (HTML version here) that lists the four types of real estate auctions: "English, Dutch, first and second-price sealed bid auctions". They don't mention Swedeauction or Swedish Auction or anything like, even though its a 2006 report from Sweden discussing auctions in Swedish real estate. That report states that with regards to housing auctions in Sweden, "The auctions are either conventional English ascending-bid auctions or executive auction"." The report does use the terms adjacently, but not with any indication that it is an official name for anything, as it appears once on page 13. (This particular document accounts for another of the hits on google scholar.) As a final point, according to this article's creator, "Swedish Auction" is also known as "Multiple-round auction". Combining the terms "Swedish Auction" and "Multiple-round auction", I get 4 hits--two of which are Wikipedia. Of the other 2, one mentions the term once, on page four, but doesn't specify that it is a title: "Swedish auction report: For the PTS, advice on the introduction of auctions for spectrum assignment...." The other is a Wikipedia mirror reflecting content added by this contributor to Spectrum auction. I strongly feel we need more evidence that the term is in widespread use as a title for this specific kind of auction to justify having an article describing it by that name. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless better referenced. um, what she said. Moonriddengirl seems to have done our legwork. Need evidence that "Swedish auction" is a term used for some particular kind of auction. Is that in the Milgrom book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cretog8 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Agree with above keeps. Indeed the subject is obscure and the article needs better organization, but it is clearly sourceable and thus notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm convinced--Mike Cline (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can actually produce a reliable source. My own investigation turned up even less than Moodriddengirl's did. The references I found were all either coincidental use of auctions occurring in Sweden or casual descriptions of the real estate auction market as practiced in Sweden, not crystalized into a discrete academic concept. Rossami (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dear fellow Wikipedia users: I want to thank you all for giving so much of your time and effort in reviewing “Swedish auction”. I am a comparative newcomer to Wikipedia and your comments have greatly helped me and guided me in my work to find Reliable sources. Please note the 608 page book by Claude Zacharias and the editorial articles by Bim Enström, Lottie Molund and Yvonne Edenholm quoted here. I am quite a bit late and my only fear is that your minds are made up already and that you do not take kindly to these facts being presented at such a late stage. But please read on.

Swedish-type auctions have many different names: Auction (Google: 361,000,000 hits). Spectrum auction (Google: 469,000 hits). Typical: $200,000,000. Forest auction (Google: 3590 hits): Typical sale: $50,000,000. Airport landing slot auction (Google: 604 hits): Typical sale: ? Simultaneous ascending auction (Google: 3530): $10,000,000. Multiple-round auction (Google: 3180):Typical sale: $200,000,000. Swedish auction (Google: 3100): Typical sale: $1,000,000. Swedeauction (Google: 2470 hits): Typical sale: $1,000,000. Swedish-type auction (Google: 309 hits): Typical sale: $1,000,000. Bidding (Google: 79,500,000 hits): Typical sale $500,000. Number of Swedish-type auctions per year in Metropolitan Stockholm area: 20,000 @ $500,000 per sale. $10,000,000,000

Estimated total sales through Swedish-type auctions World-wide per year: $100,000,000,000.

Swedish-type auctions are used for several types of products: Wireless spectra World-wide, Airport landing slots World-wide, US forests, Homes (only in Sweden’s metropolitan areas up to now, expected World-wide in the not too distant future).

History of Swedish auction

Swedish auction was first used in 1982 for the sale of a house in the Metropolitan Stockholm area. Over the next 26 years of home sales the auction rules have been changed more than fifty times to improve the practical performance of the auction. Bidders are constantly trying to outsmart the auction system but with less and less success.

On 1987-10-14 the large Swedish nationwide daily newspaper Expressen devoted two pages (28 and 29) to a large editorial article written by their real estate expert Bim Enström. The headline was: “1000 persons at the Open House…and the price doubled.” (The Final price quotient FPQ was 1.93 times the SOB, Suggested opening bid. The multiple rounds required 10 days starting with 148 bidders). This article was the first comprehensive independent media account of a Swedish auction, a completely different way of pricing real estate compared to the standard Asking price method. That method involves starting with an Asking price, typically 10 to 20 percent above the Estimate and the buyer’s haggling until the Final price is reached. Even in 2008 the Asking price method dominates the real estate market in most countries except Sweden and Australia.

On 1991-06-14 the leading daily financial newspaper Dagens Industri (on page 5) had an article describing Swedish auction.

In 1994 the United States Federal Government started to use so called “Multiple-round auctions” designed by Paul Milgrom (Stanford professor, born 1948) and associates. The auction rules are almost the same as for Swedish auction. Paul Milgrom is married to a Swedish economist and they own a vacation home in the Stockholm Archipelago. It could be that Milgrom came in contact with Swedish auction on his many visits to Sweden. But probably he designed his “Multiple-round auctions” without being aware of the previous existence of Swedish auction. I met Milgrom briefly in 1996 as he accepted the Nobel prize on behalf of the widow of William Vickrey and delivered Vickrey’s Nobel lecture.

Multiple-round auctions are logical extensions of singel-round English-type auctions. On first hearing about Swedish auction many economists will exclaim: “This surely must be the right way of pricing and selling real estate. Why does not every real estate agent in the World use Swedish auction?” The answer to this is of course that estate agents World-wide are more interested in reducing their work-hour input to the barest minimum, rather than obtaining the best possible price for their clients. In Sweden since 2003 clients insist on Swedish auctions, since they will result in about 20 percent higher final prices compared to any other pricing methods. It is thus inevitable that the rest of the World will follow.

In 2001 the Swedish lawyer, member of the Swedish Bar Association and real estate expert Claude Zacharias (born 1961) published a book called “Fastighetsmäklarlagen i praktisk tillämpning”. (The Estate Agents Act in Actual Practice) . 608 pp. Norstedts Juridik. ISBN 91-39-10503-2. Pages 228-234 are devoted to bidding, especially through Swedish auctions. There is a comprehensive description here of the actual Swedish auction procedure and rules. (Unintentionally the auction here is called “Swedish Auktion”, not Auction. This lawyer has English as a second language). Norstedt’s publishing company was founded in 1823 and publishes and prints most of the legal literature in Sweden, including the huge official “Lawbook of Sweden” itself every February.

On 2001-11-24 Expressen again (on page 23) had an article written by their real estate reporter Lottie Molund about a Swedish auction involving 900 persons at an Open House. (The Final price quotient was 1.92, the multiple rounds required 35 days with 85 families bidding). This article alerted Swedish consumers, to the fact that for the sale of homes, Swedish auction is superior to everything else, and more and more vendors demanded that their agents use Swedish auction.

On 2008-05-09 the large daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter had a quarter-page editorial article written by their business reporter Yvonne Edenholm about the Swedish government's simultaneous Swedish auctions (or Multiple-round auctions) for nine 15-year licenses for wireless Spectra. The total Final price amounted to SEK 2,099,450,000 with a Final price quotient, FPQ of 41.99. The multiple rounds required 16 days. Reports about this particular Swedish auction appeared in business newspapers all over the World, see Spectrum auction and thousands of Google hits for Spectrum auction and Swedish auction.

The US Federal Communications Commission, FCC uses Swedish auctions since 1994. General Services Administration GSA (a US Government agency) since 1994 uses Swedish auctions (Multiple-round online auctions) for the sale of real estate. However US real estate agents still mostly stick to the obsolete Asking price method. This explains, why in 2008 there are so many unsold houses in the USA (but so few in Sweden).

For the sale of private homes in Sweden’s Metropolitan areas the Swedish auction pricing method accounted for 0 percent before 1982, less than 1 percent in 1987, about 5 percent in 2001 but more than 70 percent in 2008.

An English auction consists of one round only and requires a total of 20 seconds to 10 minutes from the moment that the first opening bid is announced until the final (winning) bid becomes a binding agreement between buyer and vendor. Normally the Suggested opening bid, SOB is equal to the Estimate. English auctions are widely used for real estate in Australia.

A Swedish auction consists of multiple rounds during several days or even weeks. Normally the Suggested opening bid, SOB is deliberately set far below the Estimate. This is particularly true, when governments are the vendors.

A typical 1982 ad for a house in a Swedish newspaper would contain a short description and “495,000”, meaning that the Asking price was SEK 495,000 and that anybody saying “I will buy the house if you give me a 10 percent discount” would be the buyer right away, without the agent waiting for a better offer from someone else.

A typical 2008 ad for a house in a Swedish newspaper will contain a photo, a short description and “Budstart 1,500,000”, meaning that the SOB, Suggested Opening Bid or starting bid is SEK 1,500,000. The Final price is not mentioned and is almost certainly at least 20 percent higher, depending on the competition. (In 1996 a charming, but run down, house built in 1918 sold for 2.86 times the SOB, when 67 families joined the bidding during 17 days. The final price was 78 percent higher than would have been the case with the traditional Asking price method).

On a typical 2008 weekend there will be about 500 Swedish auction ads and about 200 Asking price ads in the Metropolitan Stockholm area. But the term “Swedish auction” is not mentioned in the ad. By now the buyers know the “Swedish auction” rules and that the bidding will be a multiple-round auction lasting anywere from 3 days to several weeks. (Not a single round English auction and not an Asking price).

Chinese auctions, Dutch auctions, English auctions, French auctions, Iraqi auctions and Swiss auctions are all named after the country of origin and so is Swedish auction, see Auction.

The auction rules for “Swedish auction” are almost identical to the auction rules for “Multiple-round auction”. The differences that do exist are related to differences in the product being sold rather than to differences in the actual auction principle which is “multiple-round”.

Arguments for the Wikipedia main page being “Swedish auction”: The auction type was used in Sweden for twelve years before it was used anywere else. Plus: Far more objects are sold in Sweden through “Swedish auctions” each year than the total number of objects through “Multiple-round auctions” in the rest of the World.

Arguments for the main page being “Multiple-round auction”: This term occurs more often in Google (and then mostly in connection with Spectrum auctions) than does the term “Swedish auction”.

Dear Moonriddengirl, I appreciate that you have spent many hours researching “Swedish auction”. But it seems that you have only had access to your computer, including access to Google and Wikipedia. You will however surely agree that not all human knowledge is in Google. And you can not be an expert on everything. Auction design is growing at a fast pace right now. Even for experts it is not easy to keep track of everything that happens. All users have been invited to share their information about Game Theory including Auctions and this has been classified as being of considerable importance. Those of us who are very excited about auctions read every scrap of paper that we can find on the subject. But there are still only a few thick comprehensive books on the subject. There are a lot of ads for houses for sale in Stockholm, but those ads can not be reached through Google alone. But one can contact two of the largest estate agencies in Stockholm: http://www.notar.se or http://www.erikolsson.se

Swedish bankruptcy auction is a legal term used in the USA only (as opposed to a firm being reorganized under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code). The auction is normally a First price auction and has nothing to do with a Swedish-type auction.

Regarding the brief working paper written by Samuel Azasu of Ghana, (an international postgraduate student at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm): Azasu has only been in Sweden a few years. He is by no means an expert on the Swedish housing market. An English auction is a single-round auction lasting from 20 seconds to a maximum of 10 minutes from start to finish. A Swedish auction is a multiple-round auction lasting a minimum of 3 days and a maximum of several weeks. Azasu includes all types of ascending bid auctions in his term English auction. That is not the terminology used by the experts. It is most unfortunate that Azasu's paper has entered the talk page for Swedish auction. It just does not belong there. The correct wording would be. “Conventional English ascending-bid auctions (like in Australia) are rarely used in Sweden, except for forced sales by court order, etc. Either an Asking Price (outside the metropolitan areas) or a Swedish auction (multiple-round auction) is normally used.” Note that Azasu seems to be ignorant of Milgroms important 2004 book, still the most comprehensive and important book on auctions anywere. This ignorance is very significant here. When looking for Google hits, it is a mistake to combine the term “Swedish auction” with the term “Multiple-round auction”. Both terms mean the same thing and each article normally uses only one of the terms and not the other depending on the preferences of the author. Each term has to be checked separately, not combined with anything. The resulting hit count will be dramatically larger. Sincerely, Max7437. Max7437 (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment You indicate that Swedish-type auctions may have many names, but we really need some kind of references to indicate that the term "Swedish action" is prevalently used. You note that "Swedish auction" has approximately 3,100 google hits. I get 3,070. However, this doesn't verify that there is a term. Looking at the first two pages of google hits, we have 8 about auction sites or auction houses in Sweden ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]) and multiple articles about a specific auction where "Swedish auction" is used to distinguish from upcoming auctions in other countries ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]). The only hit that matches this specific usage is the wikipedia article currently under dispute. That makes the number of hits for "Swedish auction" irrelevant in determining if this is a neologism or a widely used term. We need substantial evidence that there is something called a "Swedish auction"--not simply that a style of auction that was popularized in Sweden exists. From the guideline on neologisms, we see that "articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." The topic may be notable, but the title may be inappropriate. Again, drawing from neologism, "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." If the article were generally about auctions in Sweden, that would be one thing. As it is, the article is defining a type of auction for which multiple editors have failed to independently verify existence. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Moonriddengirl, ghits are only an estimate, and usually a massive overestimate in my experience. Set the Number of Results to display under Google preferences to something large, like 50 or 100 per page, then try to jump to page 10. In fact, if one does this one discovers only 276 ghits, total, for the term "Swedish auction", further exclusions being entirely unnecessary. A similar search for "Multiple-round auction" in fact returns only 266 hits, most of which refer to "Simultaneous Multiple-Round Auction" which probably should have its own article, but which is only indirectly discussed in the article under consideration here. Several others are fairly comprehensive reviews of auctions which do not mention the type of auction you describe, the hits instead being the result of incidental references to other things that just happen to use that particular phrase in another context. eg [30].

I also note the references to Milgrom, however I find it telling that he doesn't appear to mention either term once in his entire first year undergraduate class dedicated to auctions. Debate 木 01:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I just did another academic search of EBSCOhost (subscription only, unfortunately). It is the premier source of academic journal articles in economics available and it returns a grand total of one hit for "Swedish auction" (the Thorburn article). A similar search for "Multiple-round auction" returns 9 hits, 8 about spectrum auctions and one about Dutch auctions. Debate 木 01:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I'm finding this far more fascinating than I probably should. Perhaps because I'd still like to justify my initial opinion of keep. The evidence against, however, just keeps stacking up. I just had a look at the last deletion debate and note User:Hersfold's excellent investigative effort establishing that the Swedish Wikipedia article of the same name was also recently deleted by AFD. Debate 木 09:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to which, the Zacharias reference just added was also used in this article's last deletion debate, and apparently the mention is simply as an "experimental method worth trying", per User:Ulner. Debate 木 09:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the “Talk: Auction” page: “This artcle is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow and standardize Wikipedia’s articles related to Game theory. We need your help! – This article is on a subject of high-importance within game theory.”

As you can see on “Revision history of Auction” much of that article has been written by me, with few complaints.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.” — William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet; II, ii, 1-2; circa 1595.

In 1948, MacCallum and colleagues published an article reporting a new mycobacterial infection in man, and later named the causative organism Mycobacterium ulcerans. In their article, they described six patients, five of whom came from the Bairnsdale district in Gippsland, Victoria. Three Bairnsdale general practitioners, Drs Alsop, Clay and Searls, had initially recognised a novel disease in their region and submitted pathological specimens to Melbourne University for diagnosis. Subsequently, the same disease was described in many different areas, mostly in Africa (“Buruli ulcer”). Each new outbreak tended to give rise to a new name; of all these, perhaps the most colourful is “Sik belong Sepik”, describing the infection as it occurs along the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea. In Victoria, where most Australian cases of M. ulcerans infection occur, we have continued to use the term “Bairnsdale ulcer” even though the main endemic areas are now the Bellarine and Mornington Peninsulas near Melbourne.

As you can see Google mentions a mysterious infection (in Australia, Papua New Guinea and Africa) that had a different local name in each community affected. Laboratory tests finally revealed that it was the same infection and this discovery eventually facilitated the treatment and cure.

It is much the same with “Swedish auction” (Multiple-round action). The government agencies and estate agents that use this type of auction only refer to it as “Bidding” or “Auction”. But “Auction” is the term used in Australia for an “English auction”. It is an unsatisfactory situation, to have the same everyday word for vastly different types of auctions. It is like only using the term “eating tools”, and never using the words knife, fork and spoon.

We do not normally call an auction an “Open outcry ascending single-round auction”, we call it an “English auction” or even simply an “Auction”. But in the age of the Internet auction, with very many actions having their own specific auction rules, the general public needs what might be called the “Wikipedia Guide to Auctions”. I read the appeal from the WikiProject Game theory (including Auction theory). It is a bit frustrating to say the least, to have my articles on Swedish auction, deleted again and again, although these articles seem to be in considerable demand among many ordinary Wikipedia users.

“If you cannot find it in Google it does not exist.” Well it may indeed exist. Google itself has only existed a few years. The fact that Wikipedia administrators rely so heavily on Google, accounts for many excellent articles being deleted, only because they cannot be verified through Google.

When an independent agent or auctioneer sells by action he is mainly interested in completing the auction inside 10 minutes or even inside 20 seconds. But when the vendor and the auctioneer are the same, maximizing the final price becomes much more important. The U.S. government does not care much if it’s own auction lasts 10 minutes or several weeks. If the final price can be doubled or trippled, so much the better. That is why a Swedish auction (or Multiple-round auction) is used by several governments.

Before 2001 only about 200 homes had been sold through a Swedish auction. In 2001 it could perhaps be said, that Swedish auction was still an “experimental method worth trying”. But the Zacharias book in August and the Molund article in November totally changed that. The Molund article had a very great impact. It alerted consumers all over Sweden, that they should no longer be content with estate agents’ using the Asking Price method and instead demand that a Swedish auction be used. By 2003 thousands of sales through Swedish auction had taken place and on the weekend of 2008-03-07 as many as 504 out of 710 homes for sale through Dagens Nyheter in Metropolitan Stockholm were offered through a Swedish auction, each auction lasting days, rather than minutes. This amounts to about 20,000 homes per year in Stockholm and additional homes in the other metropolitan areas.

There are 361,000,000 g-hits on “Auction”. Some of these obviously refer to Swedish auction.

To those of you who complain about my spelling: I studied English and Spanish in Havanna (before Castro), then Swedish, German and French in Stockholm. Then using English again as an engineer working in New York and building the World Trade Center. (A sad story in 2001!) I try to do my best, but sometimes I may not be quite aware of which language I am actually using. Please forgive me!

Ulner is a Swedish Wikipedia administrator. He and I had a big argument a few months ago. Since then he deletes almost everything I write on Swedish Wikipedia and as you can now see he is trying to delete everything I write on English Wikipedia too. I insisted that the international (that is English) names for various types of auctions be used, while he attempted to wash all English words right out of “his” Swedish Wikipedia. He wanted “engelsk auktion” in stead of “English auction” and “holländsk auktion” in stead of “Dutch auction”. Since Swedish experts always use the English terms even in otherwise Swedish articles it is kind of silly for Swedish Wikipedia to introduce Swedish terms that no one else uses or even heard about. Ulner and I violently disagreed. But I hope that my articles will be treated fairly on English Wikipedia and it is up to my fellow English Wikipedia users to make that happen. I have more or less given up hope that Swedish Wikipedia will ever recover from it’s sickness. At least not as long as Ulner is one of the 78 administrators. Lesson: You cannot successfully argue with a policeman or an administrator. I should have kept my big mouth shut. Sorry about that!

Is the above Evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasoable doubt that Swedish-type auctions do exist for homes in Stockholm and for Spectrum sales World-wide? (Australia, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, USA and several other governments). Probably less than half of the more than 2,400,000 articles in English Wikipedia have as much evidence to support them as Swedish auction has, with estimated World-wide sales of $100,000,000,000 per year. Deleting “Swedish auction” would be an unacceptable type of discrimination. You might as well delete 1,200,000 other articles as well then.

“English auction” is a much shorter term than “Open outcry ascending continuous single-round auction”.

“Swedish auction” is a much shorter term than “On-line or fax silent mostly ascending discrete multiple-round auction” evidently preferred by some eager deletionists. And remember, that it is a long standing tradition among auctions to name them after the country of origin. At least until someone comes up with a better name, which has not yet happened with “Swedish auction”.

Please read “Wikipedia:Reliable sources”. “It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.” - Please use common sense regarding “Swedish auction”. Thank you! Max7437 (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "What’s in a name?" Encyclopedic accuracy: which is what we strive for here. We are not here to define a new type of auction, but merely to describe--with accurate nomenclature--what exists. Creating titles, and then defining them, is original research, which is not allowed on the English language Wikipedia. If the term is not already in widespread use, we don't use it. As I said above, an article on "Auctions in Sweden" that describes the various auctions conducted there, with verifiable sourcing, would be fine. An article on "Swedish auction" (that indicates it "is a type of auction lasting days or weeks from the moment that the first bid is revealed until the final (winning) bid becomes a binding agreement between buyer and seller. It is often used in spectrum auctions and sometimes when selling real estate and vintage cars, etc.") is inaccurate if there is no such specific auction type. Verifiability is the policy of point here. While it may be unsatisfying to have to use the same word for vastly different types of auctions, it is not Wikipedia's place to create new terminology to distinguish among them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A wife gives birth to a son. The parents decide to call him “Robert” and report this name to the authorities and also put in an ad in the local newspaper stating the name, “Robert”.

A man invents a new type of auction. A newspaper editor invites him to write an article describing the invention. The article is published and it states that the name of the auction type is “Swedish auction”. (Dagens Industri 1991-06-14, page 5.

”Robert” and ”Swedish auction” are the official names, especially since many, many years have passed and nobody has challeged the use of these two names. But now there is this talk about “Encyclopedic accuracy”. But every possible proof has been presented that this is a specific existing auction type. Nobody is asking Wikipedia to create new terminology, only to accept the terminology that has already been decided. My fellow Wikipedia users, please do just that! Keep Max7437 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I have written in the 1st nomination for deletion, there is a credible reference to a Swedish handbook, where this method is described as a experimental method worth trying; Zacharias, Claude (2001). This suggests strongly that this auction method is of low encyclopedic value. In this new version of the article references to several English books have been added. I have looked in the book by Paul Milgrom - and Milgrom does not refer to the concept "Swedish auction" anywhere. I urge the author Max7437 to reply if the concept appears in the other books added as references to the article. Ulner (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Noida double murder case. Consensus is that an article on the case rather than the murder victim is valid. There is no clear consensus on what the exact title of the article should be so am moving to Noida double murder case. Suggest a discussion takes place on the talk page to decide on a title if editors are unhappy with this name. Davewild (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arushi Talwar[edit]

the article has no relevance here.It is a sensalization and media hype.Thousands of people die in india by murders est 30,000.that doesnt mean that we should have all the murders listed.

Also accoridng to news there were many double murders after and before the arushi murder.Why dont you list them.

According to :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline

"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.

http://news.google.com/news?&rls=en&q=arushi%20talwar&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn

1) What you get is around 1,732 news stories on this subject.

2) Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati (And one of the biggest Political leader of India) has done a press conference on the Arushi Talwar Murder case.

3) Seniors most police officers handling this case have been demoted / transferred.

4) Women and Child Development Minister Renuka Choudhry have announced that ministry will file defamatory case against the Noida police and transferred officers.

5) There is already an ongoing debate over Media trial / Media Harassment seen in this case.

6) India's premier investigating agency CBI have taken over the case.

7) Similar cases are found to be notable enough, even though thousands of people have been murdered in similar way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBenet_Ramsey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jessica_Lall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulshan_Kumar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitish_Katara http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Dubey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priyadarshini_Mattoo

8) And Time magazine has found this case notable enough to do a story on it. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1810162,00.html

9) Notable movie director Mahesh Bhatt and TV production house Balaji Telefilms have shown intent to make movie / tv serial on this case.

Millions of people have died around the world, but people / police / media / politicians have reacted differently to this case. And that is why it is listed on wikipedia. Anmol.2k4 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you said that a movie and a tv serial is being planned.YOu must realise that the victims mother has gone to the court to seek restraint from making any movie,serial and what if she realizes that her daughters murder story is on a encyclopedia?.wikipeida is not a news website,its a encyclopedia. One more thing why dont you have the servants murder on a separate page also.Why the bias? I vote to delete this page as it don not conform to wikipedia standards. manchurian candidate 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many article similar to this category in wikipedia. One of them is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBenet_Ramsey , which follows the wiki standards!!! This article may need edition to remove "Presumed".

I vote AGAINST DELETION.

Sumeetsahu (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the event per WP:ONEEVENT: "Cover the event, not the person".--brew crewer (yada, yada) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*I vote against deletion, because of its similarity to JonBenet Ramsey article. Anmol.2k4 (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have changed my mind, Move to "Murder of Arushi Talwar and Hemraj" per Wikipedia:Notability_(criminal_acts)#Article_title. Anmol.2k4 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move per brew as the article seems to be very clearly about her murder and not about her as a person. And even though I get the feeling it may be one of "those" type of AfDs let me point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't reason to keep or delete articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for deletion as the murder is not just of arushi but another person whos article does not exist.Even if it exists its media sensationalisation and wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news website and this artilce does not conform to wikipeida articles policy.

manchurian candidate 13:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Keep; notability is made by the sources, and we have plenty of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge – as an example into an article concerning the circumstances and controversy surrounding the investigation with regards to the growing sensationalism in the Indian media. In and of themselves, the individual does not warrant an article. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Noida double murder case , an article about the double murder of the 14 year old girl and the Nepalese servant Hemraj (who is male per [31] ). It could also be called [Arushi Talwar-Hemraj double murder]]. Hemraj's real name was "Yam Prasad Banjade" and Hemraj was an alias, per [32]. Editors from India or Nepal could better advise as to how his name should appear.Noida double murder is a term which has been widely used to refer to this crime.[33] . The victims were not notable, but the crimes perhaps were, since the incident got lengthy coverage [34] in Time (magazine) across the world in the U.S. It is notable in that the police have been criticized widely for the practice of blaming of a child victim, and police were apparently reassigned after they failed to adequately investigate the crime scene, missing a trail of blood leading to the body of the second victim. The case was sensationalized by the Indian press, with breathless round the clock coverage full of lurid speculation. The nation's unusual degree of interest in the case has itself been covered by the press [35] . Edison (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was There was no consensus to delete defaulting to keep. Furthermore, listing an article for speedy delete minutes after an article was created may show disregard for the inherent process and may possess bad faith. The last AFD was conducted less than a month ago, and deletion review endorsed its closure. Give this more chance and time, and apply a little more good faith. I expect that this will not be listed at AfD in an expedient manner. seicer | talk | contribs 04:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete:blatant POV fork, discussion is covered in NPOV form elsewhere (notably Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki)Jw2034 (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant PoV fork, sourced or not it seems pretty much impossible for an article with this title to ever be neutral. This information can be, and is, covered in other articles on the topic. ~ mazca ^talk 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article titles don't need to be neutral; see Wikipedia:POVFORK#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV -- Kendrick7^talk 19:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's hardly what that link says. Particularly, the phrase "state terrorism" is so loaded with negative connotations that I don't think it's very defensible for the title of a neutral article. ~ mazca ^talk 06:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changed to Neutral - my opinion on the article pretty much remains the same, but per WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED it seems pretty silly to delete it only a few weeks after the last contentious vote. ~ mazca ^talk 13:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minority thesis is not an appropriate topic for an article; breaking the article out in this way fundamentally misleading since it frames this topic as part of the debate about how to characterize the atomic bomb, when this is a vanishingly small aspect of that debate. The useful content is already in the history of the appropriate article (US/allegations of state terrorism). Christopher Parham (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect, per WP:UNDUE, which says "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." -- Kendrick7^talk 19:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article isn't about a minority view, it is about a particular thesis associated with a minority view. The minority view is covered in the allegations of state terrorism article; this page is about a particular argument made by those who make those allegations, and its primary purpose is to advance that argument. On the other hand, within the scholarship about the bomb, this view is vanishingly insignificant. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I think it is a minority view, and that you are incorrect that the multiple views in the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States are monolithic. There's no reason that the same person who thinks the U.S. support for the Contras was a form of state terrorism is going to think the exact same thing about the use of the atomic bomb on Japan. The merge discussion is heading that direction though; in the meantime trying to hijack that via an AfD is misguided. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep claims of POV violation were reviewed and found unsubstantiated by the closing admin in the original AfD [36] which was completed less than 2 weeks ago. The closing admin's decision was upheld at Deletion review only a few days ago. Bringing a deletion nomination on the same basis so soon has as its only basis WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Such POV tactics (pov fork) dont have a place here. A someone above noted, this POV material is already covered in other articles and the last thing we need to do is replicate it yet again.Dman727 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while I remain undecided on this AFD, I would note that the material comprising this article was mostly split out of two other articles, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. If it was acceptable in those articles, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be acceptable as an article in its own right. I have concerns about the title and focus on this topic, however, so this should not be taken as a 'vote to keep'. Terraxos (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We went thru this less than two weeks ago, and yet people continue to misconstrue the WP:CFORK and WP:SS guidelines, which in fact say this article is perfectly fine. That closure was endorsed in DRV. I'm happy to merge this back into one of the two articles it was split from whenever consensus forms as to which one it is; otherwise, I fail to see how making the exact same argument over again will change anything. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and notable. Not POV, but an article on a POV, and not an obscure one either. And even if it were POV, it wouldn't be difficult to rewrite as an NPOV presentation of the opinion. Dekkappai (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it's an unnecessary fork of that article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's absolutely shouldn't be merged into that article as this view is not a significant part of the scholarship on the atomic bomb. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's your opinion. Based on some of the references, it appears that at least some scholars disagree with you, too. It would work perfectly well as part of that article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Saying this is a POV fork of the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article is misleading. Actually it’s a spin-off of the Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States. It is undue weight to have too much of this minority view over at the Debate Article about the bombings. Hence, due to WP:UNDUE it is sensible to support the split, per the WP:EP policy. As WP:UNDUE even says: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them." It was getting a little large (as of now, and as it expands) for the Allegations article; here it is able to grow fully, although there should be a section of this material (shorter) kept on the allegations article as well, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Also, per WP:PRESERVE.

As was previously explained by the closing admin just about two weeks ago, the core issue is whether the article is a POV fork (bad) or a summary style spinout (good) of Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Here's the relevant part of the WP:POVFORK guideline:

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. But this is not the case here.

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View, which it does.

Notice that it is neither apparent nor clearly explained what this is supposed to be a POV fork of, and how. It is linked to from the parent articles through WP:SS-style, brief summary paragraphs that are neutral. Furthermore, it is prima facie unclear what POV the article would be pushing. It both neutral and notable in that it cites several scholars with a variety of viewpoints.

Even assuming arguendo that the article is a POV fork, this does not explain (and it is also not obvious) why this means we must delete it, instead of editing it to make it into a neutral WP:SS spinout, or merging it back. Looking at the sources, we see they are leading authorities on the subject, and it seems to do a decent job at representing an intelligent and NPOV presentation of this notable, academic, social discourse on the subject. Here is a partial list:

Richard Falk, professor of International Law at Princeton, current U.N. Special Rapporteur

Arno Mayer, professor of History, Princeton

Mark Selden, phd Yale, professor of history and sociology,

Michael Walzer, professor of philosophy, Princeton (Japan)

Michael Stohl Professor and Chair, Department of Communication University of California, Santa Barbara. Formerly he was Dean of International Programs (from 1992) and Professor of Political Science at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, where he had taught since 1972. He has published 13 books and numerous articles on terrorism, political violence and international relations. His book “The Politics of Terrorism” is in its 3rd edition. (general, El Salvador, Japan)

Michael Mann, phd Oxford, professor of sociology UCLA

J. Patrice McSherry, professor of political science, Long Island University

Douglas Lackey, professor of Philosophy, City University, NY

Jorge I. Dominguez, professor of history, Harvard. Presently the Vice Provost for International Affairs, the Antonio Madero Professor of Politics and Economics, Chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, and Senior Advisor for International Studies to the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University.

Howard Zinn, professor of history, University of Boston

C.A.J. (Tony) Coady head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), Melbourne University

Igor Primoratz, professor of philosophy, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Alvin Y. So head department of social sciences, Hong Kong University

George A. Lopez is a founding faculty of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame

Joseph Gerson - Director of Programs and Director of the Peace and Economic Security Program for the American Friends and Services Committee.

http://www.afsc.org/newengland/Hiroshima-Speech2005.pdf Giovanni33 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. Covered in a number of articles with the proper weight and tone. This article is set up as an advertisement for fringe views from the title to the sources. --DHeyward (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dheyward's statement about it already being covered elsewhere is false -- and his argument rests on the claim that the material in this article is already found in other articles, and is repeated here to push a POV. This is totally false. I happen to think that most of it should be placed back into a section in the Allegations article, where it was spun-out of, but to claim that the material is already there is incorrect. Moreover it's even more false because since that time the section has grown even more as it's own article, and done so in an even more nuetral NPOV manner. So claims of a POV fork are invented out of whole cloth: its unsubstantiated and false. Lastly, it does not logically follow that we must delete this article even if his premise were correct, i.e. even if it's better to merge, merge is never a valid reason to delete an article per WP policies; so this is simply faulty reasoning or indicative of a failure to properly understand policy (in addition to getting the basic facts of the situation wrong).Giovanni33 (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are still mistaken. See Talk. Your vote of speedy keep underscores your lack of knowledge about policy and process where article keep/deletion debates occur. --DHeyward (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you throw around accusations of lack of knowledge of policy/guidelines, you should probably actually read Wikipedia:Speedy keep 2) iii) "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected" -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read? You quoted a section as illustrating an example of unquestionable vandalism or disruption. Are you claiming that this nomination is unquestionable vandalism or disruption? Secondly, even if your severely lacking good-faith accusation is taken as true, "No Consensus" is hardly a statement of "Strong Rejection" especially when the delete/merge opinions outnumbered the keep opinions by almost 2 to 1. But thank you for your opinion as it illustrates again the lack of understanding of NPOV and deletion policy. --DHeyward (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: the article was nominated for deletion 27 minutes after it was created, and when that failed it was taken to DRV, and when DRV endorsed the close, it was renominated for deletion with the exact same argument just four days later. It surely gets disruptive at some point, especially as there's a merge discussion going on besides; I think TheRedPenOfDoom is free to voice an opinion, without putting too fine a point on it, that these attempts to remove the article from the encyclopedia have reached that point. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His opinion seems to have less to do with the AfD and more to do with trying to accuse me of not being able to understand policy. Anyone who has read (and understood) the policy would know that this does not qualify for "Speedy" anything. That's a simple fact. --DHeyward (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the Reverend George Herbert, "Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another." -- Kendrick7^talk 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Red Pen of Doom. Much too soon to reopen the case. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 08:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this is not a fork, as it's not covered in full elsewhere; the sections in Debate and Allegations are merely summaries. If it is NPOV, the remedy is in editing, not deleting. There is no consensus as to where to merge it, if it were to be merged, hence, as we want this material in full in a single article only, an article of its own is currently the best option. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this is an abuse of process. I voted to delete this article a couple of weeks ago, but as it survived that AfD and a subsequent DRV this nomination should be closed as a waste of time. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedureal keep - I do not feel that two weeks is a sufficient period between nominations, especially on the heels of a DRV. If I were to opine on the merits of the nomination, I would merge to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States as this material could best be placed in a proper context in that article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per very recent Afd. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Very recent AFD and Deletion review make another listing this soon inappropriate. Davewild (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Much too soon after previous AFD and DRV. MrPrada (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking through this article it is at least a good-faith attempt at an NPOV treatment of a relatively controversial topic. My first instinct for whether or not to delete would be to ask whether it is possible to come to an NPOV consensus on the topic. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might make sense to move this article to a less inflammatory name? Would "Analysis of the atomic bombings of japan in the context of state terrorism" be a more sensible title? HatlessAtless (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An obvious POV fork to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Biophys (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Nihonjoe's comment. John Smith's (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. no reason to believe that it can't play nicely with all the other viewpoints --T-rex 23:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ah, but there is a reason it can't: WP:UNDUE. To give this minority view this much detail in main Debate article would violate undue weight. To put all of this (and growing) in the Allegations article, would bloat the section. It does play nicely with the other Allegations of State Terrorism by the US sections, in that article, but here the view can be somewhat expanded, in greater details. So playing nicely with other view points and having its own article are not mutually exclusive.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:UNDUE is the exact reason I am arguing for deletion. Obviously I also suggest cutting it down to size a bit --T-rex 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. POV fork. Ostap 00:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It *just* went through a AfD. Is this going to be nominated non-stop until those who want it deleted get their way (KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED)? There is a widely held view that the atomic bombings of Japan are a form of state terrorism/war crime outside of the US. Seems well-sourced by several academics.--Berkunt (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The content of the article is not covered elsewhere and the article itself looks like an attempt to cover all angles of the subject. I think deleting the article without merging would be POV as it wouldn't be showing all angles of the controversial topic. Also previous AfD was recent. Orfen ^T • _C 02:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments in the first AFD. The paint's barely even dry from the last debate... Debate 木 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing new appears to have been brought to this AfD. WP:UNDUE still disallows a complete merge into a mainstream articlea and still recommends the existence of this kind of article provided it makes due reference to the mainstream POV. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Notable well-discussed topic. Seems to be WP:POINT nomination. Especially ignoring the last AfD less than one month ago. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. --rogerd (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as last time, but without much hope that sanithy will prevail William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting and reasonably well-referenced article which follows our policies as far as I can see. I will with some difficulty refrain from commenting on the nomination. --John (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant info to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork which overemphasizes one theory. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Probably could have been speedied as CSD:G11. --MCB (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Services Group[edit]

This page does not have enough information and perhaps violated copywrite laws. It should be deleted until the author has the chance to update the information fully. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ropponguy (talk • contribs) 2008/06/11 08:20:10

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A company that provides loan and real estate asset management services without any convincing showing of notability. The only apparent reference given seems to be hosted on a blog that is in turn hosted on a business website. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Looks like some newbie confusion and some itchy new-page patrolling. Article is sourced, and he clearly meets WP:ATHLETE (non-admin closure). brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Youngblood[edit]

chief youngblood real person baseball player keep with attention --Baseketballer (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article does not have references. Could someone please try to verify the claims in it? --Eastmain (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Done --Baseketballer (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have cleanup up the article. Keep since this article is ~~about a real baseball player~~ notable. -- RyRy5 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply- Just because the article is about a "real baseball player" does not mean it needs to be included. It still has to have reliable sources, the subject needs to be notable, and it has to be verifiable. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 09:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Every player in the history of Major League Baseball has, or is eventually expected to have, an entry in Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in the pro's meets notability for athletes. Info now referenced with the links to Baseball Reference & Baseball Almanac.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can't seem to get to the references but, if he actually played in even 1 game at the highest level than he meets notability criteria. Just being on the team doesn't count though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those links show that he made it into 2 games, 4-1/3 innings pitched, and a couple of AB's. Not much, but meets the guidelines. I'm sure if someone did some digging they could flesh it out with his minor league info.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Even if it does exist, it is not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prosti Za Lyubov' (Yulia Savicheva album)[edit]

According to singer's official web site (http://www.savicheva.ru/main.html), there's no such album in her discography. Moreover, she have never recorded any duet albums. This looks like a hoax. Probably, a pirate release that has nothing to do with official discography. Netrat_msk (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netrat (talk • contribs) 2008/06/10 15:10:39 [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete real or not it fails notability and verifiability criteria Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain why everyone believes this fails notability criteria? Cause my only reason for nomination it was the fact that there's no such album. Netrat (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect (non-admin). brew crewer (yada, yada) 09:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiemux[edit]

The content is factually wrong; proper content is available at Wienux (misspelling) — Lasse Havelund (p · t · c) 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted, probably as as A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Koekemoer[edit]

Non Notable person and this nomination is based on the Deletion Policy.Hellboy2hell (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not even any claim to notability. (Incidentally, why was the speedy deletion template removed? Is there any reason why this shouldn't be speedied?) --Bonadea (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ha, I should have waited a minute to post that :-) --Bonadea (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, as below. I do not feel there is anything worth merging — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 09:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Ajeetpura[edit]

Not notable, unsourced Ged UK (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ajeetpura#List_of_Schools_in_Ajeetpura (appropriate locality article) per precedent and WP:SCHOOLS. No need for an AfD, as deletion is not required. EJF (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per EJF. Artene50 (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ajeetpura#List_of_Schools_in_Ajeetpura per numerous precedents. TerriersFan (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Since the article is unsourced, nothing should be merged from it. Redirecting seems quite reasonable. GRBerry 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy (Super Mario Galaxy)[edit]

This is basically a half list of levels in Super Mario Galaxies, with some extra game guide info that doesn't really belong on wikipedia. DurinsBane87 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an inapprapriate article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm gonna finish the thing. It's not like I'll just leave half of it forever. Plus, Wikipedia needs every single bit of info possible. Linkandsonicx (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it really doesn't. Wikia is thataway. JuJube (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure gameguide (WP:NOT#GUIDE). Even if the levels were mention-worthy, they could nicely fit in Super Mario Galaxy. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc Strange. JuJube (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...as per above. Zef (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable gamecruft. Artichoker^[talk] 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of fancruft. Martarius (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Super Mario Galaxy. Buc (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Super Mario Galaxy (game guide) and then Delete --T-rex 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Super Mario Galaxy. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on a combination of WP:N for toys and games & fiction.Oroso (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material. faithless (^speak) 09:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (RBD album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Possible hoax Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 07:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did not realise this was deleted before. Perhaps it should be speedy in that case. Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 07:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Not listed on their website [37]. Not that a "Greatest Hits" album would usually be notable enough in any case per Wikipedia:NMG#Albums. Debate 木 07:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a hoax. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above. It was already deleted once already. Artene50 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Not notable alone. Malinaccier (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Maria Jenner[edit]

Related to notable people, but not notable in her own right, notability is not inherited. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ I don't think the issue here is whether or not notability is inherited, since she is one of the main characters on Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Nonetheless, I still think she fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:REALITY unless someone can establish some kind of cult following... Debate 木 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to to Keeping Up with the Kardashians per Cailil (below) Debate 木 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just being one of the main character on a reality show doesn't suffice for WP:ENTERTAINER . --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keeping Up with the Kardashians - not notable enough for her own entry (at this point in time) since the subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:REALITY and therefore WP:N--Cailil ^talk 17:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Dweller (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Chuckie[edit]

Claims widespread appearances, which would make him notable, but no cites for any of them or info about why he was selected. Not sure they give him lasting enough notability vs 15-minutes-of-fame--is he notable, or did they find him as man-on-the-street. I see some places where he is an example of a Katrina victim, but that doesn't make him notable (he isn't the spokeperson or used as the prime poster-child for this disaster, etc). One would-be-viable claim is having an album, but its page says it isn't released, and even the cite for it coming soon doesn't appear to mention it. Therefore album is also nominated as too-speculative crystal-balling. DMacks (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hellboy2hell (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Bundling the album into this AfD:~~

~~DMacks (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Bundling the album into this AfD (moved page to its correct namespace...reverted Child's Play to its previous viable content):

DMacks (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Album not even out yet, which the article admits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and non-verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it fails WP:N--Cailil ^talk 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Speedy's not applicable as notability is asserted (although not substantiated). tomasz. 11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. HiDrNick! 15:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EeLin Modeling Agency[edit]

No notability. No mention in any sources other than company's website Gront (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Pretty strong claim of notability ("Eelin today manages hundreds of models & celebrities, making it one of the biggest modeling agencies in Taiwan") and if anyone can verify that statement this would be a slam-dunk keep. But I find it telling that they seem to be elusive as to who these supposed famous clients actually are (the one name in the article is a redlink). Again, though, I'll happily change my vote if reliable sourcing shows up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here you go. - http://www.cnmdb.com/company/29258 TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete non-notable and non-verifiable on the surface. If someone can find a client list and some verifiable 3rd party sourcing than maybe I'll change my mind. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. http://www.cnmdb.com/company/29258 TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not sure the Chinese version of IMDB is a reliable 3rd party source. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking me to pick a needle out of a haystack. Wikipedia uses IMDb for almost everything entertainment related. This is a Taiwanese company, what do you want me to do? I have always been adding Chinese Language related articles. This is exactly why Wikipedia will always be bias, and it will never work. Fine, do whatever you want, I am done with this hippie place anyway. TheAsianGURU (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is one of the biggest (If not the biggest) modeling companies in Taiwan.

Over 1,800 Google Search Results

Over 1,800 Yahoo Search Results

Over 3,000 Baidu Search Results

Even MSN Search has over 265 Search Results

It fits perfectly with WP:Company. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:CORP. Even the hits above are indicative of a company that is not notable. These days, 3,000 hits is a nothing. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Dweller (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agoda[edit]

Contested speedy. No references, no assertion of notabily. Blatent WP:ADVERT from single-use account. Thetrick (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Probably speedy candidate as well per Wikipedia:CSD#G11. The original editor can't simply remove the tag (they need to add ((hangon)) instead) so try re-adding it. I note, however, my concern that the nom. might have been a little too eager on patrol per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers since it was speedied only 7 minutes after creation. Start at the bottom of the patrol list, which is currently backlogged to 12 May 2008, and work up per Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Patrolling new pages... Debate 木 08:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrightsoft[edit]

Fails notability I sense, only 24 employees. Complicated article and company 23 years old, which made me pause and ask AfD not CSD. SGGH ^speak! 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article doesn't currently have reliable, third party references, they're all from the company's website, but they exist. Here are some I found: [38] [39].--Serviam (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Both the above "reliable, third party references" are directories confirming the company exists. Existence does not equal notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a software development firm for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) community is serving a small, non consumer niche market. No case is made in the article itself for general notability outside the HVAC trade, and as such the article fails the business notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Found some specific sources on this company in some of the HVAC trade journals (via EBSCO, library database), they seen notable within their industry
- Wrightsoft Is 20 Years Old. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 11/6/2006, Vol. 229 Issue 10, p6-6; From abstract: The article focuses on the accomplishments of the Wrightsoft Corp., which has celebrated its 20th anniversary, to contribute to the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) industry with many software programs.
- Wrightsoft wins design award. Contractor Magazine, Aug2007, Vol. 54 Issue 8, p26-26; From abstract: This article announces that Wrightsoft was given the 2007 Dealer Design Awards.
- Innovation Awards 2004 Winners Selected. ASHRAE Journal, Jan2004, Vol. 46 Issue 1, pS14-S15, 2p; From abstract: Lists products that won the 2004 AHR Expo Innovation Awards. York UPG's Sunline MagnaDRY; Ice Energy's Ice Bear-50; Vulcain Alarm 301 IRF refrigerant monitor; Wrightsoft's the Right-Suite Residential;
- BITS & BYTES. Engineered Systems, Jan2007, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p122-122, 1/2p; (AN 23835654) From abstract:The independent panel of 45 contractors chooses the Wrightsoft Corp., in partnership with Uponor to win a gold medal award for its innovative design of the Uponor System Design software.
- HR Expo 2005 Innovation Award Winners. Supply House Times, Feb2005, Vol. 47 Issue 12, p28-28 From Abstract: The article announces the winners of the Air-Conditioning Heating Refrigeration Expo 2005 award. The winners of the award are Wrightsoft Corp. and Danfoss AS.
- HVAC-City: A home on the Net. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 10/13/97, Vol. 202 Issue 7, p19 From Abstract:Reports on the Air Conditioning Contractors of America and Wrightsoft Corp.'s development of the HVAC-City, a full service Internet site.
- Software Products That Boost Profits Win Raves From The Contractor-Judges. By: Skaer, Mark. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/19/2004, Vol. 222 Issue 12, p32-34, 2p From abstract: Highlights the winners in the contractor services and software category of the 2004 Dealer Design Awards for the U.S. heating and ventilation industry. Right Proposal Plus Module from Wrightsoft Corp.; Luxaire Business Analyzer from York Unitary Products Group.
- Winners Have the Right Stuff. By: Preville, Cherie. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/17/2006, Vol. 228 Issue 12, p52-53, 2p; From abstract: The article announces awards given to outstanding heating & ventilation products in the contractor services and software category in the U.S. The company Wrightsoft Corp. has won the gold award for its Uponor System Design Software.
- Software Winners Selected. By: Preville, Cherie. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/16/2007, Vol. 231 Issue 11, p46-46, 1p; From abstract: The article announces that Jonas Software has won gold, Wrightsoft Corp. has won silver and FastEST Inc. has won bronze award at the 2007 Dealer Design Awards ceremony in the contractor services and software category. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided by Captain-tucker indicate sufficient coverage of Wrightsoft in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline, which provides in relevant part that:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
John254 00:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Citations in industry trade journals are just about meaningless. They publish anything and everything about companies because they desperate for advertising dollars. Ever try to read one? --Thetrick (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An industry trade journal, in this case "Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News", is not a reliable source as these are essentially advertising vehicles and not devoted to independent coverage. Debate 木 08:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. And, there are no reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm convinced this passes WP:CORP, especially after reading this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; even those who impugn the credibility of trade journals could hardly gainsay the reliability of The Boston Globe. Furthermore, not all of the citations provided by Captain-tucker are to articles in trade journals:
** Innovation Awards 2004 Winners Selected. ASHRAE Journal, Jan2004, Vol. 46 Issue 1, pS14-S15, 2p; From abstract: Lists products that won the 2004 AHR Expo Innovation Awards. York UPG's Sunline MagnaDRY; Ice Energy's Ice Bear-50; Vulcain Alarm 301 IRF refrigerant monitor; Wrightsoft's the Right-Suite Residential;
The "ASHRAE Journal" is not a trade journal at all, but rather a professional society journal published by the prestigious American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Thus, it has been established that Wrightsoft is the subject of significant coverage in at least two clearly reliable sources, thereby satisfying the requirements of the general notability guideline. John254 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator: There is no doubt finding substantial sources can be trying for a small HVAC software company. Yes, much of the citations are from trade journals, but that doesn't mean they are false (libel, anyone?). I find it interesting that the users who wrote keep actually seemed to do a bit of research, rather than to add their own biased opinions on the reliability of a trade journals or whether Wrightsoft passes the celebrity test in order to remain a part of Wikipedia. Regardless of your personal thoughts on the notability of a small-niche company, I chose to write this article on Wrightsoft, as its founder and president Bill Wright was hand-selected by the Air Conditioning Contractors of America ACCA to build the very first Manual J load calculation software. For me, that's pretty notable.--JLevangie02420 (talk)

Comment Okay I'm confused. Is the article meant to be about Bill Wright (as JLevangie02420 states or about the company?? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jasynnash2, An excellent point! I admit this page is not in the shape I wish to have it. I didn't anticipate the AfD, and though I fervently hope to be able to add to the article soon, I realize publishing this before it was ready has caused a mighty headache. The article is about Wrightsoft Corp., as the particular part of Bill Wright's life I wish to address started with an ACCA partnership, and the resulting establishment of Wrightsoft. Wrightsoft is an established innovator in software created specifically for load calculations. Not really note-worthy to the common-folk, I suppose, but if you are an HVAC contractor who needs to be code compliant, chances are this company is very well-known and notable.--JLevangie02420 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per captain tucker, starblind and john254. Multiple RS's - Boston Globe and professional society journal, equals N. John Z (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice, I put the question of trade journals being reliable sources onto Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Industry specific trade journals? to obtain more opinions. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll comment there, but for the award of professional distinction in a profession, a leading trade journal is perhaps the best source there is. As with any other source, it is necessary to distinguish the material from public relations. I think the material here hold up pretty well.DGG (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both the Boston Globe article and some of the trade journal articles. Trade journal articles must be judged with editorial discretion, not merely blanked accepted or blanket rejected. GRBerry 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco A. Diaz[edit]

After a discussion with wimt, I believe that a few minor appearances at iMDB does not satisfy notability guidelines. The article was also created and has been edited almost entirely by a user with a username very similar to the article title (Marcodiaz13 (talk · contribs) vs Marco A. Diaz) leading me to believe this is a possible COI/self promotion.

I originally Prodded the article, but the notice was removed with no explanation as to why in the edit summary or on the talk page. During this removal, my ((biography)) and ((coi)) tags were also removed (diff). ChaoticReality 05:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator: I have created this page to try to illustrate the success and hard work of my cousin. I did not know that wikipedia discouraged the creation of pages for people at a early stage of success in their career. I have created the page with no ill intentions of hurting anyone, so If my edition and contribution is not welcome I will gladly delete and persist in my efforts. I apologize for trying to create the page, and did not know that only strangers may create a page for someone. Thank you for your advice and lesson.Marcodiaz13 (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Marcodiaz13[reply]

and for Blaxthos i would like to see you get some IMDb credits, see how tribal and simple it is.

Delete - Seems to fail WP:N, as there are no reliable references beyond tivial listings at imdb. COI aside (cough), come back when career has been more sufficiently covered. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I commend Marcodiaz13 for his efforts the subject of the article doesn't meet the notability and verifiabilty standards set out in policy and guidelines. IMDB isn't a reliable 3rd party source because anyone can edit it (any many have done just that to try and mess with projects like this one). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -* 'Is IMDB a reliable source for its polling and statistics in a film article?

Two groups of editors have gone around in circles on this one. There was a consensus that it wasn't a reliable source in a previous discussion at WikiProject Films. But trying to remove references to it led to this backlash on Talk:Films considered the greatest ever, with another group arguing that IMDB should be considered a reliable source.

It is a reliable source for the statement "IMDB users voted xxx". We don't have to show that it's considered a reliable source in any other sense, as IMDB is notable enough to be included on its own merits. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Besides, IMDb has strict rules that only films gone to major screenings can go to the main page, you need a special account and it takes weeks to get your name there. It is reliable and can be proven to be honorable on its own. [40]

Delete Not notable at this stage of his career. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fling (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. The previous AfD was closed as "delete," but the subsequent deletion review demands a relist. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Still seems to lack sufficient sourcing to establis notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I said this before but got no response. One of the criteria for meeting notability standards was that a member of the group was a part of another notable band. One of the members was in Letter Kills. They have a wikipedia page with a link to The Fling. Also The Fling has been mentioned in multiple third party sources. With two on the page already and more to come. Blue Gillian (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on label and member from a previous notable band. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't have any idea who any of them are and I think the articles both need work (expanding and such) and I don't totally understand the rationale behind some of the notability criteria (if one member was in a different notable band than... etc - only because I can see some nightmares (I'm thinking Pete Best and any band he played with) but, it does appear they meet the criteria as written. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Local band with no full length albums and a tenuous connection to a minor band with an article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References have been updated and the article has been expanded.Blue Gillian (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No "keep" opinions, very poor article, WP:OR problems, etc. Sandstein 20:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Pakistani sentiment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article has been nominated before but in my opinion the narrators have failed to present the proper reasons. The article is completely filled with information about the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent during the 1200s. Pakistan was not even created until 1947. The other information are personal opinions, which is aganist Wikipedia:NOR and the article also lacks WP:N

Sources 2,3,4 and 5 are falsely cited in the article. They have no relation to the sentences in which they have been cited with. Leaving only 2 source, one of which is a lengthy quote meant to take up space. None of the sources also use the term "anti-Pakistan sentiment" The rest of the article is filled with Indian resentment of Pakistan which is also against WP:COAT.

Might I also mention that the term "Indophobia" can also apply to Pakistan since "Indophobia refers to hostility towards Indians and Indian culture and prejudices against South Asian peoples, including Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans". --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved here from second nom; it works now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral I appreciate the nom's effort to distinguish this from previous deletion debates, which is rare, appreciated and entirely appropriate. Nonetheless, there does seem to be significant scope to expand this article and consequently it is, in my view, worth keeping. There is no doubt that there is resentment in India against Pakistan (also, arguably, in other countries including the West), for some legitimate reasons but also arguably for some less legitimate reasons. Regardless, while I note the reference to WP:COAT I don't think that this concern is sufficient to justify deleting the article which in this instance which can be improved per WP:BOLD. There are a range of cross-cultural tensions on the sub-continent that are worthy of encyclopedic coverage, although I agree that this particular example is inadequately treated by the current text of this article. Debate 木 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What cross-cultural tensions? The only tensions mentioned here are between Pakistan and India which are not cultural but political. They should not even be in this article but instead in Indo-Pakistani relations.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my view to neutral on this one. I've spent a fair bit of time looking over English language sources and I'm finding surprisingly little reliable, secondary or tertiary material. The lack of independent analysis is particularly surprising to me since, as just one example, the racially abusive term 'packi', is commonly used by the more racist elements in Great Britain. I note, however, that in my view there has been little in the way of argument in this AFD to date that would justify outright deletion in preference to simple, bold editing. Debate 木 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The concept of anti-Pakistani sentiment is notable, but this article does not deal with the topic substantively. The quote used most prominently in the article is a negative characterization of Hindustan (not Pakistan) which was written by a Muslim emperor almost 500 years ago, and over 400 years before Pakistan was created, and so its relevance is unclear. If the article got a complete rewrite, it might be worthy of being kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sources don't support the point of the article, and no effort has been made to improve the article since the AfD began. The central quote is still there and still makes no sense in this particular context. It would be like using a quote from a Canadian deriding France as an illustration of Anglophobia. This deletion should be without prejudice to creation of a better article, but unless we try to delete this one, progress toward a better article is unlikely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the five online sources are not relevant to the topic of the article, the offline one is supporting the irrelevant quote from centuries earlier. While an article might be possible on this topic; the current article and history offer little hope that one will be written and a blank slate would be better than this. GRBerry 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yes, the nomination may have been a bit quick, but as there has been no improvement of this article in the last 5 days there is no reason to suspect giving it more time will result in further improvements. Shereth 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian "Cowgirl" Pearlman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jillian "Cowgirl" Pearlman

WP:INUNIVERSE article about a fictional character in Green Lantern. Unverifiable and unsourced. Google pulls up about 1,000 hits, but not many reliable sources for this article. Mizu onna sango15 Public (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 04:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsuitable as an encyclopaedic topic. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Masterpiece2000's reasons. Artene50 (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Blaxthos as the article is not encyclopaedic. Kalivd (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if only for the next 5 days or so for the author to have time to work on it. It desperately needs work (an assertion of the character's notability) and some references are essential but, AfD after 14 minutes? If no improvement is made than merge appropriate material into Green Lantern. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, article is an excuse for the spam links at the end. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toys, Other Baby Items to Soothe A Fussy Baby[edit]

Article is nothing but a how-to article intended to instruct parents on how to "soothe a fussy baby". Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Mizu onna sango15 Public (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep after Metropolitan90's rewrite and sourcing. --MCB (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'47[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/'47

Article does not state notability. It says it is a publication owned by hundresds of the best writers and artists of the day yet does not have any sources to back it up. tabor-^{drop me a line} 02:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the concept of a magazine "owned" by its contributors in the form of stock is fairly unique, and sources aren't hard to find: Washington post, NY Times. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References mentioned above only seem to be "announcements" of upcoming magazine... long term notability isn't established. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found to satisfy WP:CORP and WP:V; redirect to 1947 if they cannot. B.Wind (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article significantly improved by Metropolitan90 (see post below) with citations from Time magazine. Changing to strong keep. B.Wind (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and fails to assert what the notability was - uniqueness of ownership may be interesting but what was the significance? Thetrick (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blaxthos, above. Debate 木 09:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was a notable magazine why did it last only 1 year before being terminated? Secondly, there isn't any sources for it's existence Artene50 (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~. The magazine may be somewhat notable due to the fact that it had some prominent writers, but the article needs references. In addition, the article needs to be focused on relevant information. This article digresses into such doubtfully relevant topics as the price of prunes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to The Magazine of the Year, the title under which it is indexed in libraries (due to its main title shifting with the year). I have found some sources and added them to the article, and given the article a rewrite to eliminate the less relevant content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to album, non-admin close. --Onorem♠Dil 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Miller Rag[edit]

Contested prod. This is a non-notable B-side that does not meet WP:Notability (music)#Songs. TN‑X-Man 02:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Already redirected. Close Thetrick (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close - as moot/completed. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Dear America (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Thy Neighbor: The Tory Diary of Prudence Emerson[edit]

Does not meet any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books): No sources which give more than a simple plot summary; no awards; not adapted for theatre or film; not a subject of instruction at any schools; author not historically significant. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dear America. Notable series, but each individual one of the 40 or so volumes doesn't individually pass WP:BK. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The forty volumes are not notable enough for stand-alone articles. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Unfortunately no one really suggested a target so I am redirecting to Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series - but this article is being discussed at AfD, as well, so if an interested editor wants to change the target somewhere else, that is certainly acceptable. Shereth 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redead[edit]

This is an article solely on a fictional enemy from The Legend of Zelda. This article cannot stand alone as it fails WP:FICT, and Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series covers it more than enough. It also has no sources. Artichoker^[talk] 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the general notability guideline. Nothing makes this particular enemy worth its own article. Note, however, that if there's a list of Zelda enemies with info missing about the Redead, a merge may be more appropriate. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is not missing information, this link contains all the information on ReDeads that is needed. Artichoker^[talk] 01:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and revert to the redirect from 2007. Not substantive enough for its own article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. Andre (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I must say the first time one of these things shrieked and latched onto me was a memorable moment for sure, but like most minor video-game enemies it's better merged than on its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not notable enough on it's own --T-rex 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I worked really hard on this article! Plus, I remember when this monster had a very large article, I promise that I will expand it and give a second chance...Who said to delete this anyway? -- User:linkandsonicx-11:53, 10 June 2008
Redirect, not notable on its own. JIP | Talk 04:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - *update* I expanded the article big time! And in two days, I can upload photos, so please give it a chance, and check it out - ReDead. Talk 2:04, 11 June 2008
Redirect - Please, please give the article a chance...it once did have an article, but I think I deleted it...So, please, give it a chance. Linkandsonicx (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Talk[reply]
Delete Zef (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReDeads are popular enemies for Zelda fans. And Octoroks? Or Stalfos? They don't even have their own articles! Its just plain sad! 76.97.95.228 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Artichoker, your link does not contain all the info needed. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to have EVERY SINGLE BIT OF INFO POSSIBLE! By the way, I didn't play Majora's Mask much, so can someone add some MM info on ReDeads? 76.97.95.228 (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, then you thought wrong. Wikipedia should only contain discriminant and notable information, see WP:NOT. And do you know what "redirect" means, because it seems like you are opting for the wrong thing, given your opinion. Artichoker^[talk] 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then, what if I made a article which covers ReDeads, ReDead Knights and Gibdos, called "ReDeads and Gibdos" would you pleeeeease change your mind? Because merging them would made a awesome article. Linkandsonicx (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)talk) 6:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I am concerned everything about enemies is covered in Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. There is simply no reason to make a new article about a couple of enemies that are already described in another article. Artichoker^[talk] 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThey are given a summary, not a full explanation. Plus, the article would be a great resource, especially since it covers every little detail on the monsters. Linkandsonicx (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) linkandsonicx[reply]
- A summary is all that is needed. Once again, please see WP:NOT. Artichoker^[talk] 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing there that says "ReDeads are the most minor enemies in Zelda". Linkandsonicx (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)linkandsonicx[reply]

- I think it would be better if the List of Enemies includes a summary, then it has a link to a full article, depending on how much info the viewer needs. Linkandsonicx (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)linkandsonicx[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 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Bay Hardcore[edit]

Delete neologism, without any indication that this purported subgenre is recognized by any authorities or what its characteristics are, why its notable, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carlossuarez46 Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO, WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Zero references or notability as of June 2008. Artene50 (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article has no notablity and is non encyclopaedic Kalivd (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as complete nonsense. JIP | Talk 04:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumour initiation factors[edit]

Delete barely enough context to realize the topic, but without references such an article, if it could be written, doesn't begin with this... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unintelligible nonsense. Initiation factors aren't genes, either, so even the title is wrong, and there's so little to go on that who can tell what was intended? I think this one can be safely speedied. --Blechnic (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The article is a nonsense. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (non-speedy, as no CSD applies): there's nothing worth keeping here. The single sentence is pretty obviously wrong - a "tumour supressor gene" doesn't sound like a "tumour initiation factor" to me. Quite the opposite, in fact. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, "complete nonsense" is a criterion for deletion. --Blechnic (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1 or A1 Article is pure word salad and incoherent. --Mizu onna sango15 Public (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shereth 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viking metal[edit]

:Viking metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) This page contains a grand total of three sources, one which does not work, another is not in english and as far as I can tell, states nothing on the subject of the article. Finally, the last source is a fansite which cannot be defined as reliable. And this to the fact that a majority of bands in the list of bands are also folk metal bands, I suggest that page be deleted and merged into the folk metal article.I am also nominating the following related page:

I withdraw my nomination, in light of the fact that the article has had alot of work done on it. I fully support to Keep this article.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect I'd considered merging it with a more general genre if any sources can be found. --neon white talk 01:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is overlap of "Folk Metal" here, just as there is overlap of "Heavy metal music" here. This article's subject is sufficiently distinct to have a separate article, and this article is rated as a high-importance article under WikiProject Metal. A lack of reliable sources alone is not sufficient reason to delete if reliable sources can be found. At a minimum, I would ask for this deletion to be put on hold for a sufficient time to allow a serious cleanup effort. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Lack of sources is not an acceptable reason for nominating an article for deletion. It is a reason to improve the article. The folk metal article originally featured zero sources until I came around and improved it to the high standard it has today. As the person who pretty much rewrote the folk metal article in its entirety, I can also state with certainty that Viking metal is not the same thing as folk metal and to merge the two article would be as ridiculous as merging heavy metal music with hard rock. Yes, there are many Viking metal bands that are also folk metal bands but there are also many that are not, including almost all the early pioneers of Viking metal like Bathory, Enslaved and Einherjer. Viking metal is a well-known and established subgenre of heavy metal music, one that is recognized by even mainstream sources like allmusic and in books like this and this. I've long had the intention of improving this Viking metal article but I've been busy elsewhere improving other articles. --Bardin (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires detailed second party sources, lack of these is a reason for deletion/merge. Not all sub-genres are notable unless they have significant coverage. Not every subject needs a seperate article. Sub genres with little available sources are better merged to a parent genre so they are present in some context that will help the reader. If you believe that this can be sourced i'd suggest marking it with a 'rescue' tag. --neon white talk 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain this more clearly: articles on notable subjects that are missing sources should be improved and not deleted. The fact that you and some others might not appreciate the notability of this subject matter is a separate issue. If the article was on the political leader of some country, for example, you would not question the notability of the subject even though the article might not have any sources whatsoever like this one. No sources and no verifiability. Yet I do not think a nominating that article for deletion would succeed and I can imagine that the good people of Andorra would quite rightly feel rather pissed off if someone dare suggest that their first Prime Minister is not notable enough for an article on wikipedia. Would you tell them that their article should be deleted or merge to the main Andorra article because "notability requires detailed second party sources" and "lack of these is a reason for deletion/merge"? Moving to heavy metal music, there are plenty of other subgenres with articles that are as poorly sourced as this Viking Metal article was, including power metal, progressive metal, speed metal, nu metal, doom metal, symphonic metal and industrial metal. Should we wipe them all off and merge them with heavy metal music? After all, the reason for nomination above would be valid for each and every one of these articles as well as others like, say electronic dance music? The relevant criteria for deletion here as stated wikipedia's policy is "content not verifiable in a reliable source." That's verifiable not verified. In other words, the acceptable reason for deleting an article along this line of verifiability is where "all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." That's the exact phrasing used at WP:DEL. What that means is if an article can be improved, it should be improved and not deleted. Verifiable not verified. Perhaps you think this is a mere neologism but a mere casual search on google would easily reveal that this is a widely recognized and established subgenre of heavy metal music, easily deserving of an article on wikipedia. I've already cited two books above that discusses the genre. Even the New York Times recognizes the existence of Viking metal. Let me stress once again that the folk metal article was originally devoid of a single source when I first came across it. Now, it has a Good Article status - something that would not have been possible if someone had came along before me and nominate it for deletion along the same line as this Afd. The gothic metal article was in as poor a condition as this Viking metal article was but just look at it now. I'm not capable of working on every single heavy metal subgenre article at the same time. That's what we need: time to work on this and other articles across wikipedia. Trigger happy nominations like this are a hindrance to our efforts. And for the record, Viking metal is not a subgenre of folk metal. --Bardin (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can 'appreciate' the notability of a subject if the article does not assert any notability. The criteria for this article is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Some subjects have additional criteria this does not. The purpose of an afd is to allow time for sources to be found. The rescue tag is apecifically for this purpose. The odd mention now and again is not the basis for a good article and the sources so far only point towards it being a neologism rather than a defined genre. It sources that can contribute to the article without the use of original research. --neon white talk 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:V... without reliable sources, we don't know if this is a NEO, or something someone made up, or what. Until we can demonstrate reliable sources that verify the details, I don't see how we can keep this. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Viking metal is regarded as a distinct style by numerous sources. With some time, I believe this article can be greatly improved. ___Superfopp (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge with Folk Metal, musically a band like Tyr and later Bathory is not that much different from Eluveitie or In Extremo. Joe Capricorn (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Superfopp ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Strongly agree with Bardin: very distinct genre from Folk Metal, article needs and deserves time to improve. Duke56 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even a real genre. Every "viking" metal band is either folk metal or black metal. Thematic elements, such as lyrics about vikings or Norse mythology, have nothing to do with determining genres. Having a page about a useless and fictitious genre is pointless.--71.210.179.110 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC) — 71.210.179.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Tell that to Christian metal, Christian rock, Unblack metal, Christian hip hop, Gangsta rap, Dirty rap and Pornocore, Filk music, Queercore, etc. --Bardin (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I'm briefly coming out of retirement for this) This is a notable genre with notable bands (Amon Amarth and Ensiferum comes to mind), and my Yahoo search returns nearly 3 million results for "viking metal." There is no excuse for deleting this. Also, you can't say it doesn't exist because I'm rocking to Ensiferum and they sure exist. MalwareSmarts (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hits on a search engine aren't criteria for notability and this is the perfect example why as the term is used in many different contexts. For example there's a company called 'Viking Metal Detectors', another company called 'Viking Metals' that manufacture guttering [41] and another called 'Viking Metal Cabinet Company' [42] out of the total results, there are only a handful that are relevant and i can't find one that is verifiable. A search on Google Books comes up with metal work of the viking and one use of the phrase in a quotation. --neon white talk 16:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 82.40.252.40 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - I think merging the List of Viking metal bands into the main Viking metal article would help it a lot. Especially since all the bands are referenced and there aren't too many to deal with. ___Superfopp (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge any useful content to Oak Bay, British Columbia, but since I'm not certain what would be worth merging this is functionally a redirect closure - history is preserved so the information can easily be merged by more involved editors. There is clearly a consensus that this topic does not warrant a standalone article, but there is no solid consensus as to whether deleting it or merging it is preferable, thus my selected compromise is the redirect/merge. The arguments for keeping this seemed to hinge largely upon an argument that police departments should be considered inherently notable and thus above the need for reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability. While that discussion may be an interesting one, it is not the sort of thing that can be covered in a single AfD. Shereth 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Bay Police Department[edit]

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

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

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

Local police department with no evidence of notability and ghits that just confirm its existence. Prod/Prod2 removed on the grounds that, essentially, "other crap exists and more will exist soon." Still not a reason to keep this, no evidence it meets WP:ORG just like the other police/fire/ambulance companies. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Delete as first prodder. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — as non-notable article. macy^talk 00:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the police department is notable. There are hundreds of article about emergency services on here. Why this one has been singled out Suddenly I don't know. The article has exsisted for over a year without any problems. It appears the nominator has an issue with these types of articles in general. It is a valid point that other, less notable, articles are widely accepted here and therefore an article such as this should be allowed. I have looked up many police departments on here for information and know many otheres do the same, that in itself makes these topics notable.EMT1871 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It isn't suddenly and there is precedent here.Some Fire departments/ambulance/police services have been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton City Fire Protection District,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Farms Volunteer Fire Department, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flatlands Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floral Park Police Department, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Police Department, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockland Paramedic Services; two were merged: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheeling Police Department and another had no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bargo Rural Fire Brigade. That's not an exhaustive sample. it's what was on my watchlist but it's a good sampling. Just because it has existed for a year (or even ten...) doesn't mean it should be kept if it isn't [[WP:N}notable]]. I don't have a problem with this article, I have a problem with all articles that don't meet the guidelines. Other poor articles aren't a reason to keep this one. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Re: There are hundreds of article about emergency services on here. Make a list and watch the AfDs commence. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it - maybe: First up I admit that I am new to this. Sorry if I have stomped on any wikiprotocols. As a relatively new wikipedian I am starting to get somewhat confused by what appears to be a split personality in the approach to articles like this within the Wikipedia community. One half wants an article for everything, the other half wants only notable articles. I deproded this article in good faith and upgraded it to be a stub. BUT other than trying to understand where the line is drawn in the sand by the Wikipedia community, I am not fussed about this particular article either way. Peet Ern (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On relfection - should be kept: To me key social entities such as social fabric maintenance entities like police/fire/ambulance are inherently notable, because they have such a key impact on the societies they serve. Not withstanding all the crap elsewhere, the vast number of never heard of by 99.9999999% of the population articles on horse jockeys, note even one hit wonder musicians, almost zero production recordings, who where they sports people, etc., all of fleeting if any relevance, the 100 years of the Oak Bay Police Depertment is vastly more notable. If anything we need articles like Oak Bay Police Department to stop Wikipedia turing into the worlds buggest fan site for trivia ? Peet Ern (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Neither the existence nor the deletion of similar articles should govern this¹. This municipal² police force has existed more than 100 years,³ it is frequently referred to in local⁴ and sometimes in national news sources⁵, has had to deal with some serious crime⁶ in a usually low crime municipality recently⁷ and is central to the question in Vancouver Island politics about whether various municpalities, like it, surrounding the provincial capital of Victoria should be merged together⁸. It doesn't claim to be NYPD, but it does warrant a separate article. --KenWalker | Talk 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Sources for those claims, please? I found one. Definitely nothing that passes WP:ORG. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question: Which claims (1-8) would you like sources for? --KenWalker | Talk 05:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment it is frequently referred to in local4 and sometimes in national news sources will suffice. That might establish notability, the others don't. I'm not questioning its existence. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response: The links to google that Necrothesp provides below cover the local (eg Times Colonist) and national (eg CBC) news sources. --KenWalker | Talk 15:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or redirect to British Columbia Provincial Police~~. The BCPP is notable, but one department of it, without any special achievements and without sources which attest to its notability? There is nothing in the article, or in the defenses above, which suggests that it is passes WP:ORG. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BCPP is a former province wide police force that has not existed for decades. The Oak Bay Police Department has no connection with it. A redirect would not make sense. --KenWalker | Talk 05:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - facts wrong here ? Definitely do NOT redirect to BCPP. The BCPP has been defunct since 1950? If someone can advise on the relationship, or not, between RCMP "E" Division and Oak Bay Police Department, then there might better way forward? Oak Bay Police Department might actually be notable because it is one of a small minority of municipal police forces in Canada NOT subcontracted to the RCMP? Peet Ern (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies for that blooper. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Oak Bay, British Columbia. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I'm concerned police departments/forces are inherently notable, however small they may be. Precedent on AfD is not really an issue - some of us have better things to do on Wikipedia than monitor AfD all the time, actually prefer to create articles than get articles deleted, and don't have the time to add every article in our field of interest to our watchlist, so we're likely to miss the nominations of some articles that should be kept. Some people making comments here also seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that only modern online sources are valid for notability purposes - print sources (like newspapers), historical or modern, are perfectly valid as well, if anyone in Canada could take a look. Also, try searching for Oak Bay Police (or here) on Google instead of "Oak Bay Police Department"! No hits? I think not! Trying some fairly basic lateral thinking on Google searches works wonders - the official name is not always (or even most often) the name used in articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia - it still has to meet the guidelines for inclusion Fritzpoll (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally... the google searches you supply only give trivial coverage of the police department. That is, it is mentioned in passing (e.g. "Officer So-and-so from Oak Bay Police said..."), but there is nothing particularly notable about the police department itself that can be established from these sources Fritzpoll (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Oak Bay, British Columbia it does contain information that can be used in that article. 21 officers for 17,000 people? Is that even correct? Regardless, merge and redirect is the way to go I feel. SGGH ^speak! 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Keep: Does not need to be of any minimal size to be notable. General Wikipedia guidelines allow for geographic-related topics to be notable, regardless of how small they are. This includes local government agencies (or comparable privately-operated ones) that provide civil services, like police and fire departments, libraries, schools, hospitals, and public transportation. Not each individual location within such an agency (e.g. Northwest Seattle Precinct 3 or Boston Library Mission Hill Branch) is notable, but the whole system covering a municipality generally is (e.g. Los Angeles Police Department, New York Public Library, Atlanta Public Schools) Sebwite (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a geographic entity such as a mountain or a town. And as can be seen at the debate over Fritzpollbot, not everyone thinks that all geographic places are notable. And many a school and library has been deleted/redirected. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please look at the AfDs I linked above. While precedent doesn't rule current discussion they highlight the fact that often these are not deemed notable. Large ones often are because they go beyond WP:ORG but in the majority of cases, small gov't agencies are not. Elementary and middle schools are often not notable either, whereas high schools are. Hospitals seem to be the exception to this because they garner enough coverage, Mayberry police departments tend not to. There is no inherent notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why are hospitals an exception and who do they garner enough attention from?? I googled Oak bay Police department and came up with plenty of hits. Exactly who does an organization need attention from to be notable? Local press? Regional? State? National? I think that this PD has enough notability to stay if many hospitals do.EMT1871 (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment While it isn't concrete, I think part of it has to do with the fact that hospitals tend to treat patients beyond their immediate city/town whereas police departments are limited by jurisdiction. Hospitals then garner the reliable source coverage needed for WP:ORG rather than ghits, which don't necessarily establish notability. Proof of existence!=notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per previous comments on this solution. --Ecoleetage (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and protect the redirect but keep history to facilitate merging and/or recovery if consensus changes over notability of police articles. Ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement to come up with a reasonable notability guideline for police departments that are sub-organizations of a larger government entity like a city or country. What they come up with should be somewhere between "they are all notable" and "they must be famous," and should require significant press coverage that comes from more than "just doing their job." For example, the New York City Police Department easily qualifies on multiple grounds, including being featured as the central theme in multiple television shows and movies, being at the heart of multiple major events, etc. Likewise, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States and Metropolitan Police Service in London are also clearly notable. The Los Angeles Police Department is notable but in a bad way. Whatever the criteria they come up with, if more than a few hundred or maybe a thousand municipal police departments in the United States qualify, the criteria are probably too easy. However, if more than a few police departments in cities of over a million people fail to qualify, then the criteria are probably too hard. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement#Proposed deletion of Oak Bay Police Department with a solitiation to "go to the articles page to help keep this article." 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: From WP:CORP:

Even though the parent organization may be notable, individual chapters of national and international organizations may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article.
Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process.

In this case, the city is the parent organization. Has this police department done something notable that is not common for other municipal departments in this city and not common to similar police forces in Canada? If so, then I may be persuaded to change my opinion from merge to keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown to be notable from third-party, reliable sources. I couldn't find any. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep: In general, I think that police departments should be kept (see User:Pee Tern's vote above), unless they are notably non-notable. Cf. User:Dep. Garcia's comment at WP:AfD/Floral Park Police Department. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does notably non-notable mean? If it was notable for its non-notability it would be notable, meaning it wasn't non-notable, meaning it wasn't notable any more....which would make it notably non-notable. This is quite a puzzler - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also confused, Dep. Garcia said, "Someone should find sources for this. Otherwise, delete it!" Sources confirm it exists, not that it's notable. Simply existing doesn't equate with encyclopedic notability. They're important as lifesavers in the community but as a whole are non-notable outside that area with the exception of large PDs, as have been discussed somewhere above. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, what happened there was that I originally agreed with User:Dep. Garcia, but then I read User:Pee Tern's comment and was persuaded by it. Having thought about it some more, I would not strongly oppose merging the police department into the city. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Police departments in most cases are not generally notable--their functions are usually routine. police departments in large cities probably are notable -- they will have been sufficiently involved in major events. The appropriate unit of aggregation for small governmental units is the basic unit. This town has a population of just 18,000. The content of the article shows the lack of notability--just directory information,. Elaborate article structure, but nothing to say. DGG (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Completely non-notable local police force. The fact that police are "good" or "important" has nothing to do with inclusion on Wikipedia. Subject of article simply fails WP:ORG, and none of the above keep votes address this failure. This should be a straightfoward delete close. Tan | 39 20:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please note that WP:ORG is a guideline and not a policy. There is therefore no actual need to address it - it's optional. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many people here feel that there is a need. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and even if there was no guideline, the opinions expressed here are valid. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, WP:ORG is a guideline, not a policy. This does not mean we throw it out the window whenever we want. It is a "generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Tan | 39 20:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect the article into Oak Bay, British Columbia, the article does have useful information no matter how small an amount and that info should be merged into Oak Bay, British Columbia and the article itself deleted. All the Best,--Mifter (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

Speedy Keep This reliable source wrote about the topic for 135 pages. We will therefore have no trouble sustaining an article on the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An inspection report? Looks like the British Columbia police had an internal audit and this is the result. Am I missing something? Tan | 39 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Tan on this one, I can dig up inspection reports, audits, and the like on just about every government entity, non-profit organization, or business on the planet if I try hard enough. While it can be used as a source, it cannot be used to establish face="Papyrus">Tan]] | 39 20:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - refactored Fritzpoll (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence presented that the audit and inspection service of British Columbia is not properly accurate and independent. By its nature, such a report is likely to be more thorough and neutral than a news report, say, since journalists tend to be sensationalist and have a vested interest in selling stories. Moreover, a report of sufficient weight to be a book is clearly a non-trivial source and indicates that the subject is worthy of notice. The idea that a complete police department for an area is insignificant seems utterly absurd. The comments above seem to confuse the idea of notability with the idea of importance. This PD is obviously not as important as Scotland Yard or the RCMP but it doesn't have to be to be worthy of notice. We have a fine little article here and I am not seeing the slightest reason for us to delete it as the facts it presents seem reasonably verifiable, neutral and unoriginal. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are serious, you just lost all credibility. If you aren't serious, you just lost all credibility. Take your pick. Tan | 39 20:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be one of those cases where the letter of the WP:V and WP:N policies would indicate it's an acceptable source, but the spirit does not. The spirit of the policies is that something is notable if it gets significant coverage from people who 1) don't have an agenda to push, i.e. 3rd-party, and 2) aren't covering in a trivial or pro-forma manner, i.e. significant coverage that is "optional" on the part of the entity covering it. While the audit in question is arguably independent, and definately non-trivial, it is very pro-forma - every police department is expected to have audits or similar documents created merely because the department exists. They are hardly optional. The same can be said for police-blotter sections in newspapers, a mention of the police department budget requests in newspaper articles that cover city council meetings, etc. Those don't carry much weight if you are arguing for notability.

Nope, even the letter of WP:N says that the source must have no affiliation to the subject to be considered an independent source. If there is an affiliation, as here, then the source shouldn't be used to assert notability Fritzpoll (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument, I'll concede that point. But even if it had no affiliation, it would still fail WP:NOTPROFORMA. I wanted to make that point clear, so a mom-and-pop child-care business couldn't use government reports on it to say "look, we are notable, here are 3 different sources, one from the city, one from the province, and one from the national government, all with significant coverage" when it turns out that in that business's country, all similar businesses have similar government reports. NOTPROFORMA or some form of it needs to be explicitly added to WP:V. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I just didn't want someone arguing that it was ok, even within the letter of the guidelines! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite ok by comparison with other types of sources. News reports tend to sensationalise their subject. Scholars have a vested interest in their topics, as do the authors of books. An inspection report is better for our purposes because the inspectors will have an explicit duty to be independent, just as the auditors of a company report have a similar legal duty. The source can therefore be expected to be reliable on matters of fact and adequately fair on matters of opinion. As for pro forma, this is only a substantial objection if you can show that it compromises the source in some way. A company's annual report is a reliable source since it is demanded by law precisely for this reason - so that investors and shareholders may have good information. Of course, company reports are not perfect but no source is perfect. And are you the same Fritzpoll who is going to create millions of pro forma article on every village in the world using census data? You do realise that a census is pro forma too? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm doing at all - I'm actually creating articles from a variety of sources, not just census data. You have failed to address the point in WP:N that sources used to assert notability should not be affiliated with the subject. My point was not that the data was pro-forma, but that it did not satisfy our independence criterion as stated in WP:N, whcih says, so that you don't have to click through and find it - "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject... Fritzpoll (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed the point of affiliation so let me amplify this. WP:N states Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. The inspection staff of the British Columbia Police Services Division are clearly non-affiliated in this sense because they are (a) not part of the Oak Bay PD (b) not paid by the Oak Bay PD (c) not engaged to promote or otherwise make the Oak Bay PD look good. Government inspections are usually considered quite challenging since they will tend to be made in a somewhat critical manner, seeking to find fault by reference to government codes and regulations. On matters of fact, such as the number of staff, their data will be of the highest quality since government bureaucracies are notorious for their meticulous records. As for the pro forma point, we need to clarify whether the objection is to the standardised format of the document or its supposedly perfunctory nature. The latter objection seems inapplicable as a report of this size is obviously not perfunctory. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've only started looking for sources. The huge inspection report seemed ample but since there are objections to this, I have taken a second look and find that there are abundant sources which might be used to source and develop this article. See, for example, Google Scholar for a selection of good sources. Since it is now seems apparent that other editors have failed to make any proper search, this AFD proposal is shown to be groundless disruption. I am therefore changing my !vote to Speedy Keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I looked there as well, with the same search - the mentions are trivial, and do not establish notability. This isn't about having enough to write an article about, it is about whether or not the subject is notable. I can dig out 12 newspaper clippings that mention me - from them you can get my school, my qualifications, some of myu interests, and even from a view of some of my political perusasions. With some web sources, we could add to this even further. That doesn't make me notable - the coverage of me is relatively trivial, and the mentions of me are confined to passing mentions within a particular context. The sources from the scholar search are just like those. And of course, a lot of them aren't actually about this particular topic. Notability is not the same as existence, and notability is not the same as having enough sources to write an article about Fritzpoll (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Colonel Warden apparently has no grasp on Wikipedia's notability policies, has no inclination to read the rebuttals here, and thinks this is "groundless disruption". I think we can all end arguing with him and safely presume that the closing admin will realize that his arguments have no weight whatsoever. Tan | 39 13:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tu quoque. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the hypocrisy? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss the article's merits not our own. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept. giggy _(:O) 04:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A wig wom for a goose's bridle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A wig wom for a goose's bridle

Contested prod, and the way it was done, I thought it was a request for deletion but it isn't. This is an old Australian saying, but the article is unreferenced and no more than a dicdef. No notability is asserted, except for the fact the saying is less popular today than it used to be. ~~Delete~~. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Trans to Wiktionary, if not already there. It is not much more than a dicdef, and is unencyclopaedic. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trans to Wiktionary. Not just an Aussie saying either. But of course the only WP:RS I had was my Grandfather who has long passed. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - belongs in wiktionary --T-rex 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've heard the phrase before too. But I'm pretty sure it should be "wigwam", not "wig wom". That might help dig up reliable sources, if there were reliable sources to be found to give this some content, though I doubt they exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've certainly only ever heard it as "wigwam". ~~even with reliable sources, though, this would still be a Wiktionary item. Grutness...wha? 03:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)~~ weak keep now, thanks to the improvements. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef, that's it, and unsourced at that. Interesting, but if this should be anywhere, it's either on Urban Dictionary or Wiktionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work on the changes, here. Change !vote to keep accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much of a starting point for a legitimate article. If some sources can be found on etymology/meaning, use, cultural impact, etc., this won't take any effort at all to recreate in a more suitable format. Changed to Keep per improvements. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading this has brought back memories of my late grandmother; this was one of her favourite sayings. For sentimental reasons I would like to keep it~~but I fear it is not salvagable.~~ There is a source here from the Australian National University if anyone wants to have a go at fixing it up. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tidied somewhat. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a valid stub now -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a start has already been made to start working on it. I don't think it is a mere dicdef topic - a stub yes but a potential article as per other topics in the Category:English idioms. I will confess to sentimental reasons for keeping the article too :-) but I think it is salvageable and wikipedia will be better off with it rather than without it. --Matilda ^talk 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Book title also as well as other refs given in article: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/518022 - ie it is a relatively important saying in the scheme of things to Australians --Matilda ^talk 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could previous contributers to the discussion please review the article again as progress has been made in providing sources can be found on etymology/meaning, use, cultural impact, etc. - see how it has changed - it now has 6 reliable refs and significantly more content. --Matilda ^talk 00:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- largely due to Matilda's fantastic efforts with expanding the article. I confess to bias also; my grandmother would often ask me to mind my own business using this phrase :) - Longhair\^talk 00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per changes made today. However, I will wait for a greater consensus before withdrawing my nom. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An understandable nomination in its early stages. Appreciate nominator's change of view since. I also note that it is more than a dicdef - with similar examples of sayings that are valid article pages including A feather in your cap & Mad as a March hare. --VS ^talk 01:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent additions/references by Matilda and because my mum still says it!--Sting Buzz Me... 01:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements done mid AfD which provide historical and linguistic context. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements - fair crack of the whip - bet that isnt up yet either Satu Suro 07:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent improvements. Well sourced, and now more than a dicdef. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per recent improvements which have taken the article far beyond the dicdef it once was. Maybe we can improve Wikipedia by nominating all articles at AfD. </sarcasm> Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with an article on an expression. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The 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 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Libertarian Program[edit]

This article was created in 2005 by an anonymous IP. While there was in the long ago a Libertarian Party program, and may even have been some linkage between some LP members and Libertarian International Organization (which itself doesn't have an article), this program is most definitively defunct. There are two main external links - The Libertarian Program (This is defunct) Libertarian Party web site (This has newest and relatively shorter platform) So basically its an old advertisement for a defunct project. Reason)) Carol Moore 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete spam. WillOakland (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, IP-created articles seem so weird to me. The way it's written it could be a potential G11. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just tagged it for speedy deletion as an advertisement. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically an advert. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for an article which has been denied db-spam, it sure has a large bunch of WP:LINKSPAM. There are no independent sources which attest to its notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable subject if the program was given up on. BTW, if people were inclined to follow a "program" they probably wouldn't become libertarians in the first place. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Reggie Perrin (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted before I could even finish this nomination. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faster is Better : English[edit]

This article was prodded, deleted, then recreated. No asserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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