< June 17 June 19 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Per WP:N, multiple sources is preferred. I'll be more than happy to restore the article if a second bit of external WP:RS coverage is located. — Scientizzle 16:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Research Association of Ireland[edit]

Paranormal Research Association of Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article relies on one reference and seems to be a potential a7inc but unsure and would like a second/third opinion. If re-written or organized correctly, this could become a legit article but as it stands now it is not. So I've placed it on AFD. Katanada (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But did they get government funding? If they did, that might indeed be notable. Deor (talk) 03:39, 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. — Scientizzle 16:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degree Girl: OMG! Jams[edit]

Degree Girl: OMG! Jams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating for AFD after a contested prod. There are currently no plans to release the Degree Girl tracks on iTunes or a CD at this time. Cover artwork is apparently fanmade. The album is only for promotion on the Degree Girl Site and have nothing to do with Warner Brothers Records. The Degree site does not mention anything about releasing a 5 track ep and nor does Tisdale. In the final Degree blog, Tisdale mentioned that the only way to download these songs is to unlock a secret code when you buy a Degree product. Not for official release purposes. I don't believe that promotional giveaways qualify as notable.
Kww (talk) 23:44, 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Hosler[edit]

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

This article has existed as a poorly-sourced biography for several years. Given WP:BLP & WP:ONEEVENT, perhaps this should be deleted. I found a general lack of substantial, readily-available reliable sources via Google News or a more general search (and, no, cannot believe that I did google searches for "Julie Hosler cucumber", either)...I don't think the Sundance Channel documentary[1][2] is sufficient enough to warrant encyclopedic coverage, no matter how odd the case. — Scientizzle 23:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual offender registry challenged I agree that I didn't find much about the story either. Perhaps this should just be an article about the movie? My $0.02. Keithh (talk) 23:59, 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 Speedily deleted as blatant advertising. An article about two people's divorce planning consulting businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce planning[edit]

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

Seems to be an ad for these guys and their services Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:32, 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 speedily deleted by Accounting4Taste per author blanking (G7). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Allott[edit]

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

This article has been here for almost a year and half, with no notability, no claims of notability that would survive a keep of the article, and no reliable sources to show that he is notable. He comes up with 138 Google hits, and not one of them a reliable source. He isn't in imdb at all. Corvus cornixtalk 23:13, 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 Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. Episode lists of notable TV shows are almost mandated. - Icewedge (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heart of Greed episodes[edit]

List of Heart of Greed episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory for all the episodes in a TVB drama. As well, this list sounds like an advertisement and provides summary for the episodes in the drama. I suggest this to be deleted, or simplified and merged into the Heart of Greed article. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 22:24, 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. If/when he hits the pitch, let me know & I'll restore the article. — Scientizzle 16:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Petrucci[edit]

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

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE as has never competed in a fully professional league. Saying that he will do so violates WP:CRYSTAL and the article can easily be recreated if he does. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section of WP:CRYSTAL would seem to be "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." It's well-documented that he's been signed, and will begin training for the fully-pro team on July 1. His dad has been offered a job in England, so it's almost certain that he will play: if for some reason he doesn't, odds are that will be notable too.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 04:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he has signed means nothing at all - he may never get anywhere near the first team. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:20, 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--JForget 23:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"One Shot 2 Shot"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
"One Shot 2 Shot" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability whatsoever. Just a track like million others. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no · 21:14, 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 Snowball Keep --JForget 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orthocarbonic acid[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal box. A Google search for "orthocarbonic acid" -Wikipedia gave 676 hits. I would not object to the survival of this article if it was expanded, explaining why orthocarbonic acid is any more relevant than, e.g., the compound obtained by replacing oxygen atoms with sulphur atoms in glucose, citing relevant sources. Note that neither of the other two hypothetical compounds cited in the article has a individual article. Army1987 (talk) 21:05, 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 Keep as the article is an expandable stub and has potential; reliable references are availible. - DiligentTerrier (and friends)18:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Higher education in the Northwest Territories[edit]

Higher education in the Northwest Territories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment What about the source, here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendaliv (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 June 2008
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Consensus, while not unanimous, indicates Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Cummings[edit]

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

No reliable sources to verify claim of notability. See WP:PORNBIO for criteria for pornographic actress. Lukeisback is porn gossip site. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:29, 6 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 carbon copy of "One Shot 2 Shot". Shereth 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Shot 2 Shot"**[edit]

AfDs for this article:
One Shot 2 Shot"** (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was already created about a minute earlier at "One Shot 2 Shot" Ged UK (talk) 20:54, 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 Speedy Keep - non admin close, an obvious keep and potentially a joke afd. Boccobrock•T 21:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion Policy[edit]

All that is needed for deleting a page is common sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Here because I'm here (talk • contribs)


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

The result was Keep. An article merge can be proposed at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, or a redirect can be worked out later, but there is no reason to fully delete the article. - DiligentTerrier (and friends)18:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communism in North Korea[edit]

Communism in North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has little content, nothing that cannot be covered by the Politics of North Korea article. The little content in the article doesn't really correspond to the title; communism is a political movement not a form of governance. A Communism in Korea article, with an oversight of the history and development of communist movements in Korea, would be a valid article though. Soman (talk) 20:18, 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 Keep, nominator now no longer wants deletion and there are no other delete opinions. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centsports[edit]

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

I originally mistakenly deleted this as an A7, no assertion of notability. An editor drew my attention to a link to a Forbes.com article about the subject, which serves as the sole claim to notability. This site has an Alexa ration in the 8,000s. Most of the results for the site that I found while Googling appear to be advertisements. WP:NOTABLE states that if a news item is used to establish notability, it requires "Significant coverage" and "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability". If this is a real site that meets WP:WEB, then addressing these should be trivial. CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quarrel with WP's guidelines. Despite the lack of news coverage, however, centsports is certainly notable. If nothing else their web-traffic should really speak for itself. They are the type of website that seasoned web users know to do a bit more research on. Wikipedia has assumed the role of default encyclopedia for many people, and in keeping with its mission of remaining a living, breathing and evolving database it should accept centsports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.218.80 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Non-admin closure by nominator, thanks to chart info added by Esradekan. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Push It (Rick Ross song)[edit]

Push It (Rick Ross song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested redirect of non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:07, 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 Withdrawn by nominator Non Admin Close DustiSPEAK!! 19:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Online[edit]

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

Fails to meet the general notability guideline because this topic does not have coverage by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Article is only supported by primary sources, or unreliable self-published sources. Randomran (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Caspian blue (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solitude (Album)[edit]

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

Notability. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ I-Dee‎. Subject does not appear to be encyclopedic, and this would apply to his albums as well. Enigma message 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Two things. First, WP:NOR isn't the problem here, it's the notability question posed by WP:MUSIC. Second, the existence of similar articles which violate notability guidelines is not a valid argument for keeping this article, rather it's an argument for deleting those other articles. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the conflict of interest, thats solely my personal opinion which is unrelated or mentioned on "Solitude (Album)" and how most DJ/turntablist musicians have a bulls-eye target on their head and get misinterpreted. Paragraph 2 of the cited reference on "Solitude (Album)" states the artist's name, album title, release date and featured artists. Okayplayer is a notable music website (started by ?uestlove) which consists of independent staff writers unrelated to DJ I-Dee. In accordance with WP:MUSIC, I feel that meets the requirements. However, if an official press release strictly covering "Solitude" is needed, please indicate.Djidee (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a future-music tag to help better clarify it's status.Djidee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:00, 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 --JForget 23:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Canada Pakistan Inc.[edit]

Miss Canada Pakistan Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable company. Explains what it does in brief, but that is it. Only article discussing this isn't an article about the company, but about Pakistani Canadian women in beauty pageants. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:41, 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 keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with Latin lyrics[edit]

List of songs with Latin lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-encyclopedic, trivial information. Note "Latin" here refers to the ancient language "latin" not Spanish. Bulldog123 (talk) 19:32, 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 no consensus. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian writers[edit]

List of Indian writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As it stands, this article serves no purpose that [[Category:Indian writers]] does not. A WP:HEY criterion would be that the article would have to be organized in some meaningful way. Failing that, there is no reason for this list to exist. Jaysweet (talk) 19:32, 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 --JForget 22:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh K Pillania[edit]

Rajesh K Pillania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The "references" appear to mostly be message board posts and product pages for consultancy firms... I think. I'm a little confused by this. The CSD#G11 concerns were never fully addressed, so let's talk it out here. Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I suspect that the following users are all the same person, attempting to promote Dr. Pillania's work. I do not (yet) see a disruptive editing pattern, so I have not reported this to WP:SSP, but please be advised: Greatlife999 (talk · contribs), Davidman21 (talk · contribs), Intellect12345 (talk · contribs), Globallight (talk · contribs), FreeSpirit111 (talk · contribs), Davidfisherman (talk · contribs), Globalacumen (talk · contribs), Globaljoy (talk · contribs), 123bluesky (talk · contribs) and Worldstorey (talk · contribs). --Jaysweet (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Frankly I am surprised some enterprising politico or entrepreneur hasn't already tried to gaslight us before. Who knows? Someone might have, but not this guy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It actually happens all the time :) Probably every day, multiple times a day. The trick is catching them ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to see here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.The statement of Jaysweet about reference list: reference list appear to mostly be message board posts and product pages for consultancy firms..is not correct as these references are of editorial boards/academic conference committes.

2.The statements of Arcayne and Jasweet about getting popularity and same person are based more on suscipion and are against the diginity of human beings.My purpose of starting this page was not to give publicity to someone but to en rich the database of Wikipedia.

3.Ryan Paddy is making a asumption that only source of finding the citation is Google scholar.We needto think beyond google.

4.Professortan being a academician has taken it personal and is wrong in using certain words and he should have used more polite words to show his disagrement and apprecited some contribution of wikipedia.

5.Mr Deepak D'Souza is making many assumptions and most of them are wrong.The last comment on Professor Tan comments is very personal and against the spirit of discussion.In a free and democratic discussion, we need to appreciate some criticism also as sometimes it helps us.In India there are many people with the sir name pillania(more than 100000s in rajasthan) and than assuming that professor pillania is creating all this is in a very bad taste.Also it is surprining that the comments of Professor Tan are deleted.

6.It is your choice and your call, but try to make the system based more on trust and respect for fellow human beings. 13:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Writerandreader (talk) I strongly believe Prof Pillania need to be a part of wikipedia. — Writerandreader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Writerandreader -- please immediately stop creating new accounts every time you log into Wikipedia. Either don't log in and edit from an IP address, or just create one account and stick with it. Creation of multiple accounts is considered highly disruptive. See WP:SOCK for more information. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let me for a minute take it for granted that my assumption is wrong. Even then it does not make this article notable. You, whoever you are , have been trying too hard. you have created multiple ids in order to preserve this article. We can easily report you for sockpuppetry and get all your IDs blocked. Wikipedia faces hundreds , probably thousands of articles written by people who consider themselves notable or write articles about their parents , uncles etc. Your is not the only case . So please dont think that we have anything personal against Mr Pillania. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure he is not socking on purpose, I think he just forgets his login every time... heh... each one of the accounts appears, makes like three edits that day, and then disappears. It's not like he's managing a big sockfarm. I honestly think he just can't remember his password! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I just saw that he denied it in point #2 above. Frankly, I find that insulting to my intelligence, to say that those aren't all the same accounts. Sheesh... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiong chen[edit]

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

Possible A7-bio but waiting for expansion in notability and some references. I feel the editor may be adding himself to wiki. If he has sources to back him up and other things to make him more notable it is possible that this could be a legit article. I would let it sit for a little but keep it AfD just in case Katanada (talk) 19:18, 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 Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emotiv Systems[edit]

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

Vaporware company fails WP:CORP. Article does not establish notability with reliable sources Selket Talk 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability is not contagious. A company is not notable because of its founders. Also, the product's impact on the industry is speculation at this point and what few mentions in the press there are, are basically rehashings of press releases. --Selket Talk 02:09, 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 Keep (non-admin closure), as per consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Kovacic[edit]

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

possible A7-bio or copyright infringement but not sure so nominating for AfD just in case. Adding expand tag to monitor any changes Katanada (talk) 18:42, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equality inclusion[edit]

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

Phrase appears to be an invention WP:NOR; Article has no references; Google reveals no references to the phrase outside itself and its mirrors; article created as the only action of an account in 2006; effectively an orphan, as its only wikilink is from the See also of an article mentioned in the "equality inclusion" article -Yamara ✉ 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Yamara ✉ 18:34, 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. The case for lack of notability made here seems stronger than the case for notability. That said, if someone thinks they can bring the article up to snuff, drop me a line and I'll userfy it.Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insite Security[edit]

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

Despite the numerous sources (which are mostly of the company's owner being interviewed about crime), I don't think the subject company has been shown to be notable per WP:CORP. Given the article history (previously created by an account with the same name as the company), I also suspect some self-promotion here. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:28, 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 --JForget 23:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Ahmed[edit]

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

Vanity autobiography for NN businessperson created, and extensively edited by the subject herself, using the acount Sonisona (talk · contribs). The same user herself created many other articles related to her company, and employed PR firms to edit those articles. This is a substantial conflict of interest. Ragib (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added: The PR firm accounts include Danthompsonjr (talk · contribs) (see : this, which states: I have been asked on behalf of Miss Pakistan World to make these changes. You may contact me, Daniel Thompson, regarding this matter through daniel@xxxxx (email domain removed))

The subject also created/edited articles on numerous NN pageants started by her company, and hired PR firms (see above) to edit those articles. The PR Firm's (TamaraDaniels.com ) own blog shows association of such editors-for-hire with these articles. --Ragib (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Updated to Strong because of new WP:COI evidence provided by nom. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:10, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Tree Railway[edit]

Apple Tree Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Google search does not turn up an actual heritage railway, just links to Youtube vidoes of a model railway. Wongm (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Amoung the inbound wikilinks was this: The Apple tree railway is a good example of a 00 gauge layout. The town Wayworth-on-sea doesn't appear to exist: Google for Wayworth-on-sea, and the search for " Apple Tree Railway" mentioned already. Wongm (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Just to note that the user in question has taken my advice and copied the article to Train Spotting World. Also I rather suspect that this particular user is one of our younger contributors, and so requires nurturing rather than anything heavy-handed. (Just a comment. No criticism implied towards contributors to this page.) EdJogg (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If (s)he is a younger viewer, and the article is acurate when it says the railway has recently had a 56000GBP upgrade, then (s)he gets too much pocket money! Meachly (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was OO-scale money? (Although, at 1:76 that is still 736GBP !) :o) EdJogg (talk) 13:03, 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 Merge & redirect to List of schools in Waikato, New_Zealand#Hamilton City. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melville Intermediate School[edit]

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

This school is not notable and nothing in this article indicates any notability what so ever. I understand that there is still no concensus regarding Wikipedia:Notability (schools), but the general notability guidelines and WP:ORG state that "notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Obviously from the looks of it this school has not been the subject of extensive 3rd party sources. So in the end of the day the school is not notable enough to have it's own article Cheers Printer222 (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Printer222[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copy will be sent to Shoessss as requested. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands theme park[edit]

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

    Could easily be an a7-inc but with work could become an actual article. thats why I didnt CSD it Katanada (talk) 17:47, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Brewster[edit]

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

    Autobiography of an ad man. Sole claim to notability is the winning of a student competition. Fails WP:BIO. nancy (talk) 17:28, 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 speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chunkit![edit]

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

    Nonnotable newly-released software, sources are insufficient to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:05, 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 Speedy deleted by User:Orangemike. Non-admin closed. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Center for diabetes care[edit]

    Center for diabetes care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    possible A7 (inc) ? Katanada (talk) 16:41, 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. The "keep" arguments are numerous but weak. As noted by the relisting admin (and in spite of his or her recommendation), they are mostly variants of WP:DEMOLISH, an essay of no particular authority, especially now that the article is ten days old and still reeks of advertising ("... its biggest growth has come from referrals from its large base of satisfied customers.").

    In particular, the "keep" arguments mostly do not address the article's apparent failure to meet WP:CORP, a community-adopted guideline that states: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The very few "keep" arguments that do address this issue are unpersuasive. The Google News search linked to by Shoessss includes no sources that cover this corporation in any depth and/or are intellectually independent from it; in fact most are press releases ("Business Wire", "PR Newswire") or their rehashes. The sources cited in the article itself are of a similar nature.

    In application of WP:DGFA#Rough consensus, I find that community consensus, as determined in the light of the strength of the arguments put forth in this discussion, is to delete this article. It may only be recreated once it clearly meets the sourcing requirements of WP:CORP.  Sandstein  20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Host.net[edit]

    Host.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Lack or external references or sources makes me wonder if this is really a notable company? Addionne (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shereth 16:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with this is, when a new article is AFDed within minutes of being created the incentive for a new user to continue working on it is virtually zero. The entire bureaucratic process is intimidating and they're likely to conclude that further work is a waste of time, why bother, since the article is going to be deleted anyhow by people far more experienced with Wikipedia than they are. Debate 木 00:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy Delete G12 by Orangemike. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Halloween (demo) (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

    Non-notable demo album fails WP:MUSIC (previous PROD). Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:03, 10 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, — Scientizzle 15:17, 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 no consensus. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Smith (illustrator)[edit]

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

    Biographical article on an illustrator that still does not meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Specifically, person has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. Earlier AfD resulted in "No Consensus", and in the six months since then, no reliable sources have been found. The citations provided in the article are sufficient only to confirm non-controversial details, not to establish notability. Thank you. — Satori Son 18:01, 10 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, — Scientizzle 15:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your arguments point to delete. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maria Orsitsch[edit]

    Delete A person who cannot be shown to have ever lived via reliable sources fails <-- how about Jesus ? prove me he lived !

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

    As I and User:Crypto-ffm have pointed out on Talk:Maria Orsitsch, there is no evidence that this person actually existed. Her existence is alleged in crypto-historic Nazi occult conspiracy theories, and, as the weblink in the current article illustrates, on right-wing webforums (the have a nice Black Sun on the top of the page.) Aside from the point that there is nothing really worth keeping in the article (and I have no intention to rewrite it completely), the notability of a person whose existence is only alleged in conspiracy theories is highly dubious. Deletion is the obvious solution, and on the German WP they already did that a month ago or so. If anyone considers this necessary, I can try to find the link to the debate (if there was any) on the German WP or give some more information so that we can discuss notability here, but I personally think the case is clear. Zara1709 (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "A person who cannot be shown to have ever lived via reliable sources fails verifiability" BRB, starting up the AFD for Jesus Christ right now.. SashaNein (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rofl; Fortunately, beliefs of some Neo-Nazis with occult tendencies are far less notable then the beliefs of Christianity. Fictional persons can be notable if there are enough people who believe in them, but I'd say that this isn't the case here. I mean, I could easily find out a dozen putative secret organizations from this milieu about which we DON'T need an article. What we would need is some expansion on Vril, Nazi occultism, Thule Society, Nazi UFOs, etc...Zara1709 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did you see the part about "legendary persons"? The article claims this was a human being who lived in the 20th century, not God incarnate. Edison (talk) 15:47, 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 redirect to somewhere; the target of the redirect is an editorial matter. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article per WP:NOTDICDEF.  Sandstein  20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pro-American[edit]

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

    Violates WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:NOR and WP:V. Nudve (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's why I think redirecting should be avoided. If an article states that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, for example, was pro-American, it would be absurd to imply that he was an American nationalist or an Americentric. -- Nudve (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    well, was he "pro-American"? If it turns out that the term is widely used in this sense, the page should disambiguate. It clearly should be either a redirect or a disambiguation page. It should be a disambiguation page if and only if there are two possible candidate articles for redirection. dab (𒁳) 15:59, 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 Speedy delete per CSD#G7 and article creator's request. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kike Gandul[edit]

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

    Prodded by Punkmorten (talk · contribs) because "Never played in a professional league, so not notable." I believe the deletion should be discussed but as I am the article's creator I obviously thought the player was notable, but if not the article should be deleted, so I am remaining neutral. GiantSnowman 13:51, 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. Fram (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken Seddington[edit]

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

    While there is a claim of notability (coaching someone to the Olympics), it's not backed up by sources. A gsearch turns up 19 hits, none of which are this person. Gnews turns up zero hits. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Merge - Redirect to Ade Mafe, the man who he notably coached. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yep, you are right. The mention at Mafe is suspect, clumsy, and from an SPU. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:25, 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 Speedy delete per CSD#G7 and article creator's request. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas Gant[edit]

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

    Prodded by Punkmorten (talk · contribs) because "Never played in a professional league, so not notable." I believe the deletion should be discussed but as I am the article's creator I obviously thought the player was notable, but if not the article should be deleted, so I am remaining neutral. GiantSnowman 13:47, 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. Pigman☿ 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Summer Gigs 1976[edit]

    Summer Gigs 1976 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    3 dates? Not notable. All unsourced claims. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:18, 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 keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Official International Queen Fan Club[edit]

    The Official International Queen Fan Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not notable. The world record assertion is not sourced (the link just leads to the Guinness records site. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I also don't appreciate how the nom did not use an edit summary when putting this article up for deletion. In fact, he doesn't use edit summaries at all. He was reminded to stop this in May, but continues to use these tactics to have less editors of the subject involved in the AFD discussion. SashaNein (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a personal attack to ask the nominator to use an edit summary or to do simple research before brining an article to AFD. You can tout a policy as much as you want, but it would help to read it before accusing critique as a personal attack. SashaNein (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: percieved bad faith or deceptive nominations should be pointed out.


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, sufficient consensus (including the nominator) agrees that the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evan M. Whidden[edit]

    Evan M. Whidden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article doesn't establish why this person is notable. Suttungr (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. I don't often change my opinion but I figure minimum notability has now been established. Article still needs some cleanup though. Suttungr (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep, AFD listing argument was non-notable subject, notability has been established within this discussion. Non Admin Close DustiSPEAK!! 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Harry Cleaver[edit]

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

    Entry does not meet notability standards for academics. As far as I can tell, this guy is just a normal academic out of Texas. Note that all of the links are to this guy's own stuff. Magickyleo101 (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For more information on guidelines see Wikipedia:Notability (academics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magickyleo101 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 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 Snowball delete --JForget 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve McKeown[edit]

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

    This article was deleted under proposed deletion guidelines, but the deletion was contested on my talk page. The original nominator's reasoning was "Non notable psychtherapist, as-yet unpublished author, partner of a notable person - doesn't seem to stack up to notability." The subject of the article does not appear to meet criteria for notability outlined in WP:BIO, so I've brought the article here to AFD for wider input. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:49, 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 per rough consensus and project guidelines (generally, if a project is large enough, and their guidelines are stricter than the general ones, there is no reason not to follow them). Fram (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Damon Sublett[edit]

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

    I copied the following from User talk:PLSublett. Similar notes were posted to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Damon Sublett and Talk:Damon Sublett. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The subject of this article meets all Wikipedia criteria for notability:

    WP:ATHLETE:

  • Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.

    • WP:ATHLETE#Basic_criteria:

  • A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

    • Any editors proposing deletion need to consult official Wikipedia guidelines on notability, rather than the user-created "guidelines" in Wikipedia:BASEBALL (which does not include Minor League Baseball players, and thus does not even apply to the subject of this article). Major League Baseball players are one subset of professional athletes, but Wikipedia guidelines explicitly allow articles on professional athletes who are not in that limited subset.

    The subject of this article has played for two professional baseball teams, has won numerous awards in his field, and has been covered in multiple secondary sources, including published newspaper articles, magazine profiles, Web sites, blogs, and sports almanacs (as well as three published baseball cards within the past year), and certainly meets all criteria for articles on professional athletes. If anyone thinks that this article does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability, feel free to make your case here on this talk page.

    Furthermore, several Wikipedia articles on professional sports leagues and teams have links to this article, and it would serve no purpose to delete this article and create red links on pages linking to it. The goal should be to turn all red links into full articles, and not the other way around. This article about a notable professional athlete, with footnotes to numerous secondary sources, was created to address a red link to this article from another page, whose author clearly (and correctly) believed this subject to be notable. PLSublett (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - 1. I have updated the article with additional verifiable facts from official sources, and BRMo can read the magazine article he couldn't find by clicking on the date after the magazine's name in the footnote (it is in Google's archives of the site). This should address any questions of reliable sources.
    2. Wikipedia itself defines "professional" as "sportsmen or sportswomen who derive income by participating in competitive sports." This certainly applies to all Minor League Baseball players, who are indeed fully professional, as per Wikipedia and any dictionary definition. (This is not my opinion; it is the official Wikipedia definition.) So this article passes official Wikipedia criteria for notability (which some of you may need to read again for yourselves -- don't take my word for it.)
    3. BRMo and others cite WikiProject Baseball as reason to delete any articles on Minor League Baseball players, but did any of you actually read that page? Right at the top it says, "This section is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's." So the very essay you cite as evidence for deletion itself says it is "not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it."
    4. The general tone of arguments for deletion here seems to be "Minor League Baseball players are not real athletes, so no Wikipedia users should have to endure the burden of reading about them." Well, you are all entitled to your opinions and personal disdain for Minor League players, but those opinions are not evidence or reason to delete an encyclopedic article containing verifiable facts about a notable, fully professional athlete. All of the above facts, links to official Wikipedia guidelines and dictionary definitions, and the additional verifiable material and footnotes added to the article itself, should more than address any factual concerns raised here.
    (As for people's opinions ... well, how do you argue with someone who says "In my opinion, blue is not a color," or, "In my opinion, people who get paid to play competitive baseball are not professional athletes"?) I think any admin familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines will know the difference between factual arguments and opinions, and will agree that all of the facts cited and linked above line up under the "keep" side of this debate.
    5. But since everyone seems to offer their personal opinions as arguments, here's one to consider: "Any person included in a set of nationally sold trading cards is de facto a notable person." (The subject of this article has had his own baseball card in three different trading card sets published by three different companies within the past year. Again, check out eBay or the links provided at the bottom of the article -- don't take my word for it.) Also, memorabilia autographed by this professional athlete is being sold on eBay right now. Not only is he notable by Wikipedia standards, but he's also notable enough on eBay for people to pay money for his trading cards and autographs.
    I have yet to read one factual argument here (as opposed to unenforceable essays or personal opinions) that he is not notable. (Those of you who have raised factual concerns about this article and its sources, I hope you will read the full article again and all of the new footnote links. If you have any specific concerns about a fact mentioned in the article, feel free to raise it here, or add your own footnotes to the article.) Those of you still tempted to cite WikiProject Baseball in this discussion, see point No. 3 above. "It is not a policy or guideline." PLSublett (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can source it and write it as well as you want, unfortunately he's still not notable. Wizardman 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wizardman, re-read my numbered points above, especially those regarding the difference between your opinion of what is "notable" and the official Wikipedia criteria of notability. Your arguments are like me saying, "I don't think Russia is a notable country, so the Wikipedia page on Russia should be deleted." Again, you are stating your opinion of a word's definition, but I have repetedly linked to the actual Wikipedia definition of notability. Read it again for yourself. PLSublett (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, how did I miss the Brad Chalk AFD? What a terrible precedent! Stay tuned for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Chalk 2, coming soon... —Wknight94 (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Also noting the above two arguments are basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wizardman 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really.. the points above are not because that article exists this one should.. but are more along the lines of ... the arguments at that other afd set a precedent that can be applied to this one. Spanneraol (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're arguing on the basis of precedent (which I acknowledge is generally not the best argument in AfD discussions), it should also be noted that many articles for minor league players with credentials similar to Sublett's have been deleted—for example, see AfD's for Kasey Kiker, Matt Rizzotti, and Kevin Russo (among others). BRMo (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Precedents are not really relevant to this discussion -- this article meets the criteria for notability on its face. There seems to be a semantic argument here over the meaning of "notable," "professional," and "athlete," all of which are defined by Wikipedia in links I have posted above. A lot of folks seem to have the opinion that "All of Minor League Baseball is not notable, therefore all articles about its players should be deleted." These people are so entrenched in that opinion, that they have not even bothered to read the actual Wikipedia criteria for notability, since it conflicts with their opinion. In fact, Wikipedia guidelines on notability, if you read them, would apply to all Minor League Baseball players who have been interviewed or profiled in a reliable secondary source. Perhaps instead of expending energy trying to delete every article that does not fall under Major League Baseball, a group of fans should start a Minor League Baseball WikiProject to organize these articles on notable professional athletes. There's no reason Wikipedia can't have articles on both Major and Minor League players (and even if you disagree, you don't have to read the articles on the notable professional athletes in the leagues that you don't follow). PLSublett (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I agree with you that precedents aren't really relevant. We're all familiar with WP:ATHLETE's criterion of "fully professional league" and are aware that minor league baseball players are "professional," in the sense that they are paid. However, many of us see a difference between playing for a team for which the primary goal is to win a pennant or championship and a team for which the primary goal is to train and develop the players for a parent team (i.e., the modern minor leagues). Thus, many editors, including myself, don't think that the "fully professional league" criterion is applicable to modern minor league baseball. That doesn't mean I disrespect the minor leagues, I just don't think Wikipedia can reasonably support articles for all of the roughly 150-200,000 men who've played minor league baseball (see WP:NOT and WP:BLP). The baseball WikiProject has developed specific criteria for minor league players. It's true that these aren't "policies" or "guidelines" (which reflect the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community) and editors aren't required to follow them in AfD discussions (just as we're not literally required to follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines), but they do reflect the consensus of editors who focus on baseball articles. And consensus is how Wikipedia operates. BRMo (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the old slippery slope argument: If you let me publish one article about a notable, professional Minor League Baseball player, then you will have to immediately edit 199,999 other Minor League Baseball articles the next day. I agree, that would be a huge burden for you and your fellow Major League Baseball editors, which would detract from your other important baseball editing duties ... that is, if the slippery slope argument had any validity in this case, which I don't think it does. (It reminds me of the arguments that non-gay people make against allowing gay people to get married: "Let one gay couple get married today, and tomorrow you'll have to allow people to marry farm animals.") I don't see it as a slippery slope -- we can just add one article at a time, check that it meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability and reliable secondary sources, and move on to the next one. There's no requirement that all 200,000 people who have ever been involved in Minor League Baseball must have their own article (like any other Wikipedia article, each should be individually checked for notability and reliability of sources); conversely, there's no reason that one Minor League Baseball player should not have an article. It's not a precedent. It's not throwing open the floodgates. It's just one article about one person. Judge it on its own merit and content, not what its existence would "cause" in the future. PLSublett (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've judged it on its own merit and it's not notable. BRMo (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When Matt91486 says, "minor league baseball players don't need articles," I agree 100 percent. I never said they "need" articles. But that's entirely different from saying, "all Minor League player articles must be deleted immediately, regardless of their content." I'm sure no one in this discussion has a personal grudge against the subject of this article (e.g., "Delete, because he ran over my cat"), but I'm pretty sure everyone who is pressing for immediate deletion of the article (without even trying to edit or improve it) is doing so based solely on the presence of the words "Minor League Baseball" in the first sentence of the article. The old slippery slope argument ("If we allow this Minor League Baseball article today, then we'll have to allow all Little League players to have their own articles tomorrow") seems to be popular, as are the "I don't care about Minor League players," "He's just not notable," and the "all-or-nothing" arguments. Feel free to continue citing these reasons for deletion, but first try to look at it from a neutral Wikipedia user's point of view, rather than a Major League Baseball editor's point of view: The subject of the article gets paid to play in a competitive sports league (which is a fact, whether or not you, personally, consider that sports league to be interesting or important). This, by definition, makes him a professional athlete, which by definition makes him notable. Wizardman's popular "Just Not Notable" argument does not cite any examples, offer any suggestions for improvement, or explain the urgency for deletion of this article. Some good reasons for immediate deletion would be "the article contains false information," "the facts in the article can't be verified in reliable secondary sources," "the article is libelous or is written in a biased manner," or "the article is poorly written, and no amount of editing can ever fix it." Also, if you argued "Wikipedia servers have run out of space, and we either have to delete the Babe Ruth article, or an article on some Minor League player," then I would agree the Minor League articles should go. But until that day comes, there's no reason that both can't coexist. The existence of this article does not clutter up any lists, it doesn't lead to confusion of Wikipedia readers, and in fact, the only people who will ever see this article are those who specifically are searching for it. And until someone can prove that this article violates even one Wikipedia policy, I will continue to dispute these "all-or-nothing" arguments that are based solely on the fact that he's a Minor League Baseball player. Finally, when Matt91486 says, "There is just no reason to have it unless there's really a reason for it," that's not an argument to delete a factual, verifiable, encyclopedic article that someone else has written about a notable professional athlete. What he's really saying is that "There is just no reason that I, Matt91486, would want to read about a Minor League Baseball player, because I am a fan of Major League Baseball, which has better, more experienced players." I understand that sentiment, which seems to be shared by just about every other Major League Baseball fan here, but as I have said, the "I don't care about Minor League players" assertion is fine as a personal preference, but to delete an article, you should cite some official Wikipedia rules or policies that the article has violated, and explain why no amount of editing would help the article conform to the rule it has violated. (I personally don't care about basket weaving, so I choose not to read any articles on that subject. I wouldn't go around trying to delete articles others have written on the subject, unless they are blatantly violating a Wikipedia rule or they contain libelous content, or their sources can't be verified. If an article does not violate any Wikipedia rules, then we should just assume that someone, somewhere, does care about basket weaving, or Minor League Baseball, and might find the information useful.) Nobody reads an encyclopedia cover-to-cover, and nobody has to be interested in the subject of every Wikipedia article. I understand that Major League Baseball players are generally better and get paid more than Minor League players; but what does that have to do with deleting an article? PLSublett (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about a slippery slope. It's about having to have a general objective criteria. Major professional leagues meet that criteria. Developmental leagues do not, unless there are extenuating circumstances to give a player legitimate WP:BIO notability. This player doesn't have it. matt91486 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I am inclined to think it's possible there may be a slight conflict of interest given your username and the name of the player. I could be completely wrong, of course (I've written articles about people with last names that I haven't been related to), but your editing history is very much skewed to this. So when I'm voting delete for it, I don't mean anything personal about it, but I just don't believe he objectively meets the criteria of notability. He certainly has plenty of time to get there, though. matt91486 (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if only Wikipedia had some objective criteria to determine the notability of a person, then we could avoid this "yes-he-is," "no-he-isn't" debate, which seems to be going in circles. Oh, wait, they do have objective criteria: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Athletes, which defines notable athletes as "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." And to clarify any confusion arising from that sentence, Wikipedia helpfully defines professional as "sportsmen or sportswomen who derive income by participating in competitive sports." (Being professional means you get paid to do something, rather than doing something for fun. It has nothing to do with how much a person gets paid.) Also, at the top of Wikipedia's guidelines for determining notability, it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." In the article, I have included numerous footnotes and external links to secondary sources, including magazines, newspapers, Web sites, etc., where the subject was profiled or interviewed. No one can dispute that he is an athlete, he gets paid, and he has been covered in numerous secondary sources. By all objective criteria on Wikipedia, he is notable (not because I say he is; Wikipedia says he is). In addition, he has been featured in baseball card sets published by three different companies in the past year. His autographed memorabilia is sold in eBay auctions at this very moment. Why would three companies publish and sell autographed memorabilia of a non-notable person? (Let me answer that for you: They wouldn't.) PLSublett (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And since a couple people have brought it up, yes, my username is similar to Damon Sublett's last name. That's how I heard about him, and why I took the time to track down multiple secondary sources about him before even starting this Wikipedia article. (If my username were "RedSoxFanNo.1" then I expect I would spend my free time researching some other players.) I have never met or spoken to Damon Sublett, and the similarity of our names just proves that his great-great-great-grandfather was a distant cousin of my great-great-great-grandfather. All the information in the article comes from reliable secondary sources that I have found just searching the Internet. (If you feel anything in the article shows bias or a conflict of interest, then feel free to edit it.) I have never claimed someone is notable just because their name is similar to mine (that would be as stupid an argument as saying they are not notable solely because they are a professional Minor League Baseball player). I have repeatedly proven notability citing Wikipedia policies and definitions and secondary sources, as well as the fact that the subject can be considered notable by the mere fact that he has appeared in multiple nationally distributed baseball card sets, and that people around the country are paying money for his autograph. Yes, the professional athletes in Minor League Baseball -- as well as Major League Baseball (and any other profession, for that matter) -- have the goal of improving their skills and being promoted to a better team with a better salary. But that doesn't mean they're not professional athletes. Fans pay for tickets to see Minor League Baseball games. PLSublett (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it curious that Major League Baseball editors keep gravitating to this discussion, claiming jurisdiction over all articles about Minor League Baseball players, but then contend that all Minor League Baseball articles must be immediately deleted because they fall outside the jurisdiction of the Major League Baseball WikiProject. What kind of logic is that? If you have no interest in Minor League Baseball, then let some group of interested editors make up a WikiProject on that topic, and you can wash your hands of it. It's OK to define parameters in your own WikiProject to decide what you will and won't edit. You think Major League Baseball players are better (and get paid more) than Minor League Baseball players, so you have more interest in reading and editing articles about Major League Baseball players. Therefore, you choose to exclude all Minor League Baseball players from your WikiProject criteria. However, Julia Roberts is not a Major League Baseball player, yet she is still a notable professional. It would be silly to argue for her page's deletion, based solely on the fact that she's never played Major League Baseball. In fact, it would be silly to make that argument for deleting any Wikipedia article for which the notability and sources are clearly established. Like Julia Roberts, Damon Sublett has never played Major League Baseball, yet he is a professional in his field, he has received numerous awards and recognition for his achievements, and he has been covered in independent, verifiable secondary sources. That meets all Wikipedia criteria for notability. "Not being a Major League Baseball player" is not a reason to declare a person non-notable or non-professional, or to delete an encyclopedic page about that person. I will agree, though, that simply "being a Minor League Baseball player" is not sufficient reason on its own to establish notability. (A Wikipedia page that just stated "So-and-so is a Minor League Baseball player" would not be encyclopedic, informative, or backed up by secondary sources, and would definitely be a candidate for deletion if no sources could be added and no amount of editing would improve it.) That is why each article on Wikipedia -- whether it's about professional baseball players, actors, or basket weaving -- should be read and edited on its own to ensure it complies with objective Wikipedia standards of notability and sourcing. This article does comply with Wikipedia standards, so therefore there is no compelling reason to delete it. If it is found to contain factual errors or biased material, the remedy to that is to edit the article, not to delete it entirely. PLSublett (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Antimodeling[edit]

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

    Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:29, 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 keep. PhilKnight (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Motocross Challenge[edit]

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

    Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Keep One of the review sites may not be independent since the site is also selling the game. The other review seems OK. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep, with no prejudice against re-nomination after season has finished. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nashville Star (season 6)[edit]

    Nashville Star (season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No other season has entire page dedicated to article, and all relevant information is on article's main page (Nashville Star) Zpb52 (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoops! I read the article as saying the show started June 19th, instead of 9th. Can you tell I don't watch much TV? However, I still believe this article should point back to the main TV show article until after the season concludes. Thanks for catching that! TN‑X-Man 12:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User:CountryMusicMan is creator of this article --Zpb52 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge and redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hit the Lights (album)[edit]

    Hit the Lights (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Self-released demos. Never commercially available, therefore are obscure, and prone to unsourced claims. All demos are dealt with in the Metallica demos page, so I don't see why each demo needs an article. Things "Though the demo officially had no name, bootlegs were titled Power Metal based on a Metallica business card" from Power Metal make me think that line between demo and bootleg is being blurred. Some of the covers are fan made too.

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

    Ron McGovney's '82 Garage Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Power Metal (Metallica album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    No Life 'til Leather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Metal up Your Ass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Horsemen of the Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Megaforce (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think this comment can be disregarded. Keeping something on the basis that it "rules" is questionable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree from the stand point of a fan, but we're running into third-party WP:RS issues here.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    H. Thomas Bromley[edit]

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

    Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:16, 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. Fram (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hairspray cast lists[edit]

    Hairspray cast lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Where did you hair that? I hair that there is a new season of Hairspray opening hair.... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:33, 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 --JForget 23:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mascot Metal Manufacturers[edit]

    Mascot Metal Manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is a contested speedy-delete, which is self-promotion for a non-notable company. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as COI goes, I cite that I, gain nothing financially, make no legal gains, am not promoting myself nor am I campaigning. The only criterion met under COI is "close relationships". However, Wikipedia explicitly states, "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias." I agree - closeness "may" incline one towards bias. I have tried to write this article from a neutral point of view and would like to receive suggestions from the members. Many thanks.--Mascotmayank (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The conflict of interest is the creation of the article itself. As far as SPAM goes, Wikipedia is an incredibly-heavily trafficked site. Having this page up, no matter what it says, implies notability. Bands, artists, websites and companies are constantly creating articles that are deleted. No matter how well the article is written, if it fails WP:Notability then it qualifies as SPAM. JohnnyMrNinja 06:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From the wikipedia WP:Notability page " The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.

    Further from the wikipedia Notability (organisations and companies) page, it states that An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.

    The point for worthy of being noted for Mascot Metal Manufacturers article is that 1.) It is among the top export business companies from India in the builder's hardware S.S.I.(Small Scale Industries) segment, providing clean, safe, and socially responsible metal products in the worldwide market. 2.) March 2008 Mascot Metal Manufacturers ties up with a leading Italian brand BRUNI.

    Also please click | here , please click | here and please click | here for the verifiability clause. These are relaible Secondary Source which wikipedia demands of.--Mascotmayank (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    None of these would signify "significant coverage". I mean no offense, but there is nothing to signify the company is notable by WP standards. JohnnyMrNinja 07:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the Mascot Metal Manufacturers has just a few media coverages showing its awards achieved, but I request you to gain your attention on the point that wikipedia notability page also advises Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations., I would like to point out that MMM is a Small Scale Industry besides it does export of its whole products, so it does not holds wide media coverage and has an influence over the local workforce providing employment to many. --Mascotmayank (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also included/added articles on Optical Fiber article but no objections have been made, this is my first page and I have been loaded with allegations, so it might be possible that I have missed some something essential. Kindly advise. Many thanks. --Mascotmayank (talk) 10:08, 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 --JForget 23:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Understanding insomnia[edit]

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

    Redundant to insomnia. HaeB (talk) 09:44, 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. — Scientizzle 16:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DJ I-Dee[edit]

    DJ I-Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Does not appear to meet WP:NMG and also has few or no independent references as required by WP:V. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment If it weren't already obvious from the username, check out some of the self-promotional junk I removed, which makes it clear that the article was written as self-promotion. I'll remove some more of it, and that will leave very little real material to work with. Enigma message 19:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you're an admin, could you take care of this? Some of them aren't being used on the articles now anyway. Enigma message 08:42, 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 speedy keep. I recommend the nominator read Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Very minimal research would have found that this is not a hoax, and that there are plentiful sources to be found on the internet; adding some would probably have been just as fast as adding templates and bringing the article up here. Lack of references in an article is not grounds for deletion, if references can be found. Nominations like this do not help improve Wikipedia. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Centre national de la recherche scientifique[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Centre national de la recherche scientifique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No references provided --Jessika Folkerts (talk) 09:19, 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 per near unanimous consensus--JForget 23:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jason Naidovski[edit]

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

    Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully pro league, and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. Was originally prodded, but removed with the rationale "fair enough if he was no longer at an A-League club and never made any appearances, he was only just signed by the Jets though and has made appearances in pre-season friendlies", which seems to suggest the editor is certain that he'll play, which of course is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As per WP:POINTY prod removals, I'll also add Ben Kantarovski, Daniel Mullen (footballer) and Andrew Redmayne to this nomination. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - The player holds a first team position and is under contract in a national professional league. This may be different to English leagues where a the team can have hundreds of players on their books and they are only played in reserves etc. The A-League has a first team squad limit of 23 and the youth league players are registered separately. I am sure that any Australian's will verify my opinion that players such as Jason Naidovski and Ben Kantarovski are notable enough to warrant a WP article. It should also be noted that WP:ATHLETE is guideline not policy. Perhaps other uncapped A-League player articles which are proposed for deletion could also be linked to this page so multiple discussions do not take place. Jared Wiltshire (talk) 08:55, 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 Keep (non-admin closure), as per consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Soviet famine of 1932-1933[edit]

    Soviet famine of 1932-1933 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not an encyclopedic topic. There are no citations, no references, and no such topic exists on the internet. Totally OR. Horlo (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Clarification - I apologize if my previous reason for nomination was unclear, as it aparently was. I am not saying that there was no famine in 1932-33, I am saying that there was no "Soviet" famine at that time. There was a famine in Ukraine, and in a few other areas, but it was not a Soviet-wide phenomenon. All references always discuss this famine as an event in Ukraine, with people suffering in other areas as well. Hope that clears it up. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update: Added a new reference. Gatoclass (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added another one. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added two more refs. I'm not going to bother to add any more, I found these amongst just the first half dozen hits on Google. Gatoclass (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - please read the WP policy about deletion - don't take it personally, and avoid personal attacks. Also, please take a look at those references - they are all reviews of one work, Davis and Wheatcroft. The last one is just an opinion piece from the Washington post. What strikes me most about all of the references is that they seem to be reactions against the famine of 1932-33 (actually, all of the references have different dates) being a Ukrainian phenomenon, not studies of the famine itself. There were no studies about the Great Soviet Famine until the international community started recognizing the Holodomor as a genocide. Then, suddenly, a book came out saying "no, no, it was everywhere". That's why this is not an encyclopedic article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So it's only a recent allegation from two authors is it? (whose study of the famine just happens to be the definitive one). It seems you forgot Elkman, who is also quoted in the refs. But if that's not enough for you, here's what I found after another 30 seconds on Google - an eyewitness report from Manchester Guardian correspondent Gareth Jones from March 25 1933, describing the famine in - not Ukraine - but North Caucasus. Seems knowledge and reporting of the wider famine of 1932-33 has been around just a tad longer than you assert. Gatoclass (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another article, from Professor Mark Tauger of West Virginia University, citing no less an authority than Nicholas Werth on the Soviet famine:
    Werth, in his chapter on the famine [ie from The Black Book of Communism], notes that the famine affected many regions outside Ukraine, including even Moscow and Ivanovo regions, and that famine mortality included other groups beside ethnic Ukrainians (185,188). Most serious scholars now do not accept the view that this was exclusively a "Ukrainian" famine. Gatoclass (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kazakh Catastrophe (Famine in Soviet Kazakhstan, 1932-33). Gatoclass (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, you seem to be missing the point of an Encyclopedia. There were witness accounts of a famine in 1933, and I'm sure that there were also witness accounts of UFOs in 1933. That doesn't make it an article for an encyclopedia - Wikipedia is not a collection of stuff. There has been no scholarly study about the "Soviet Famine" - the Elkman ref is an re-statement of the Davis and Wheatcroft article. Please read it, and see.
    Most serious scholars read references before using them, and most scholars of the time don't forget that there were armed guards around Ukraine keeping people in, and putting them back on the trains to the villages from which they fled (that's from one of your refs, by the way).
    Please, stay cool, keep focussed on the article at hand - don't try to deny the Holodomor anymore.

    Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He has denied nothing. Please stop telling people to 'stay cool', then turn right around and lie to discredit the references. SashaNein (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Horlo, I am not trying to "deny the Holodomor", but it does seem that you are intent upon denying the wider famine that afflicted other parts of the Soviet Union at the same time. Which I must say I find pretty extraordinary, given that you have spent the last six months using the denial of the Holodomor page to vigorously denounce famine deniers in that instance. Gatoclass (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, look, if I came across roughly, I apologize. However, after reading something like "help promote his view" (ignoring the sexist assumption) and "has seen fit to completely ignore in his claim" it is sometimes difficult to stay cool - so again, I apologize.
    What I'm saying is this - many people died during the time of the USSR. No news there. Many were systematically killed by the government in every way conceivable, and some ways which a sane human mind cannot grasp. I personally lobbied for a long time for our local school board to include studies of Soviet atrocities, so that such mistakes are not repeated again. Everybody must know what happened.
    However, that's not what this is about.
    This is about a particular WP article. Again, please look in detail at the references. For example, in this article [[32]], it states that "most serious scholars do not now accept the view that this was exclusively a "Ukrainian" famine". However, the only supports for that statement (found at the bottom of page 2) are articles by R. Davies published in 1987 and a reference to an article published IN THE SOVIET UNION in 1988! How am I discrediting the references? That is not lying, nor trying to discredit articles, it is simply holding every article up to the same standard.
    All studies of the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 always focus on Ukraine, where according to even by this [[33]] Maoist publication 4 million (in Ukraine) of 6 million (around the rest of the Soviet Union) were starved. How is that a Soviet famine? The famine of 1932-33 must never be forgotten, but the point is that it was not a USSR-wide phenomenon. Deaths from starvation happened in many places, but they were focussed in Ukraine, and the semantic difference is important. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologize, because I haven't been offended. However, I must point out that you have basically just managed to demolish your own argument, by admitting that "deaths from starvation happened in many places". That is just the point - the famine of 1932-33 wasn't exclusively a Ukrainian phenomenon - and although Ukraine was the area most affected, millions died outside the Ukraine too. As to your comments about Wheatcroft and Davies - has it ever occurred to you that they are so widely quoted precisely because their work is seen as the definitive study?
    But in any case that is beside the point. I have now cited some half a dozen eminent historians - including three regarded as experts in the field - who have written about the 32-33 famine (not to mention the journalistic sources). That's more than enough to make this a notable topic. If you have information from reliable sources which challenges the notion that the famine was a significant phenomenon outside the borders of Ukraine, you are obviously free to add it to the article (within the usual policy parameters of course). Nominating the article for deletion is not the solution. Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent)Hello, I think that maybe I have been unclear here - am I saying that people didn't starve all over the Soviet Union? No. Am I saying that people didn't suffer at the hands of the Soviet government all of the time? No.

    I am saying that there wasn't one great all-encompassing Soviet famine. There are no sources linking the various events, because that cannot be shown. At the time, by the admission of many scholars, the USSR was quite disorganized. The centralization policies were just taking place, so a famine in one area would not necessarily be connected with a famine in another. Just like various "white" counter-revolutions were not necessarily connected during the 1917-21 Civil War. However, historians have since lumped such events together.

    The reason that I nominated this article for deletion is not to belittle the suffering and gruesome deaths that millions suffered at the hands of the Soviets. The reason I nominated this article for deletion is that there is no evidence that all of the deaths all over the Soviet Union were caused by the same famine. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello again - I just looked at the page again, looking for the three experts. However, I only found this article [[34]] written by Hiroaki Kuromiya, an expert in Stalinism, but not the Holodomor/Famine of 1932-33; and this article, [[35]] which summarises Wheatcroft's talks. Hardly something written by an expert in the field. Also, there is an Op-ed piece in the Washington post. There are not half a dozen eminent historians listed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gatoclass's work. Kevin (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Comment - all of the sources provided simply comment on one publication (Davis & Wheatcroft). Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's usually referred to as the 32-33 famine, so I fixed it to conform with the title. Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Hello, please take a look at those references - they are all reviews of one book, and include a newspaper opinion piece, not encyclopedic, scholarly work. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Comment - Hello, my point is that this was not a "Soviet" famine - a vast majority of the deaths occurred in one country, Ukraine. I believe that almost 10 million people were starved in 1933, and it must be covered and studied (and if I had my drothers it would be taught at every elementary and high school in the world), but a) the title of this particular article makes it sound like it was USSR-wide, which it wasn't - again, a disproportionate number of deaths took place in one country; and b) every source/reference provided always focuses on Ukraine, which the article doesn't. I think in this case, the semantic difference is very important. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I believe you will find that the Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union during this time period and the Soviet Union is the "country" in question during that time period. If your argument for deletion is one of semantics and article content (as opposed to lack of notability, etc) than the issue isn't one for AfD and should be discussed appropriately on the articles talk page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - hello, Kuban Cossack, first, please realise that "your own native Kuban" is not the entire Soviet Union. (Who is being arrogant?). Please look at a map of the Former Soviet Union, and then find the Kuban. If something is in Ukraine and the Kuban, it cannot be stated that it was Soviet-wide. Once again, it seems that there seems to be a language issue here -you cannot privatise a tragedy. You can privatize a factory, but not history. History happened, and it is not for WP to write it, just give info about what other people wrote. There is no info that there was a Soviet-Wide famine. Look, if you say the Irish Potato famine, it is understood that people all over Ireland were starving. If you say the famine in Ethiopia, it is understood that people all over Ethiopia starved. However, there is nothing saying that people all over the Soviet Union (I mean all over the Soviet Union - Kyiv to Kamchatka, not just in Ukraine and Kuban)starved. Also, another point to ponder - for another place, of course - what was the percentage of ethnic Ukrainians in the Kuban before 1933, and what was the percentage of ethnic Ukrainians in the kuban after 1933? Finally, perhaps you should not make claims like "punish the nominator for arogance" if you cannot even spell it - we have had many such discussions about the language issue in the past, so please, stay cool. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:18, 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 Keep, Consensus is that there is sufficient in the sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    William Norman Grigg[edit]

    William Norman Grigg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Only claim to notability is being an editor of a non-notable (I believe) magazine of a notable society. Clearly fails the guidelines of notability for authors. RJaguar3 | u | t 07:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - There's likely a major WP:COI problem with this article. Two-thirds of the article was written by an IP editor with an edit summary containing the name Tom Eddlem. Google search reveals a blog written by Tom Eddlem called Dangerous Talk where the main page advertises one of William Grigg's books. In addition, the bio page on the blog reveals that Tom Eddlem has worked at many of the same locations as William Grigg and contributes to many of the same publications. --Millbrooky (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - A surprisingly well-written article. (It is much more interesting than our current article on the John Birch Society). I can't quite bring myself to vote 'Delete.' though The article lacks reliable sources that testify to Grigg's importance as a columnist, or show that his writings have had any broad influence. In a brief Google search I could only find web sites that refer to his work, no other publications. It is not a good sign that the Wikipedia article on him is also the #1 Google hit for his name. Nonetheless, it is still fun to discover a John Birch Society guy who is an ardent defender of civil liberties. Maybe some kind soul who sees this AfD will dig up reliable sources before the AfD runs out? EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The dog ate my homework? Your argument would be more persuasive if you could actually present the reliable sources here. If I could see them, I might change my vote without needing to see changes to the article. Being the author of (say) widely-ignored books would not be a claim to fame. Being an officer of an organization is usually not a claim to fame. (See WP:CREATIVE for the requirements). A search for 'william norman grigg' at latimes.com does not find anything. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy to pay attention to JJB's arguments once he comes up with the references that he can no longer find. "I believe I saw the musical career in a reliable source too." What reliable source? EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The LA Times, in the youth camp article, in passing. They are not references I can no longer find, they are references which it takes time to write up. Having 30 people cite you in books is "widely cited by their peers or successors" per WP:CREATIVE, and the several news articles are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:N. "Significant coverage of his works" is not the policy; the topic is not Liberty in Eclipse. That said, I had assumed that my statements were sufficient in good faith. It is not necessary to perfect the article in 5 days, merely to demonstrate notability, which has been done, unless widely cited does not equal cited 33 times. JJB 22:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Search full name in quotes in Google, return 50 results per page, switch to News, and select all dates. That yields 400 articles by and about him. I did the first page already. The second page [36] currently begins with a third Las Vegas Review-Journal, Dallas Morning News, Deseret News, Daily Herald, a third Los Angeles Times, Seattle Times, Providence Journal, Augusta Chronicle, Greensboro News & Record, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I would appreciate it if someone else would comb through some more of the 400 articles to find additional biographical material. And we haven't even begun the "William Grigg" searches. This is much more than could be found on G. Edward Griffin. Thanks. JJB 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    Again, most of those references are trivial speaking engagements (W.N.G. will be speaking tonight at ... at 7:00 PM) and citations. I just don't see how others in his field are widely citing him. If that were the case, then there would be no question to notabiblity. However, the lack of wide citation in his field by academics is what makes him non-notable. RJaguar3 | u | t 10:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Edited to add: Also, he is not the subject of those articles, which once again raises the question of whether anything in a Wikipedia article about him could be sourced by reliable sources without original research. RJaguar3 | u | t 10:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most of those references": have you looked at all 400 articles, counted how many are not by Grigg (perhaps 100), and counted how many are trivial speaking engagements, to support the word "most", which means "a majority of"? "Citation in his field by academics": while academics are admittedly regarded as better sources, why are you importing the word "academics" from elsewhere in the policy I quoted, when it refers instead to cites by "peers or successors"? "Not the subject of those articles": have you looked at all 400 articles to determine how many he is not the subject of, including "No Left Turn" (already cited), a 500-word article solely about one of his speeches? "Original research": of the seven reliable sources I have already used to support facts in the article, which constitute original research? We have a tag for that. After all that, we still have the issue that beyond the significant coverage, a large number of one- and two-line mentions also indicates significance after a certain point. But my friend, I didn't join Wikipedia so that I could spend my time arguing against "33 is not a large number of citations" (WP:NOTBIGENOUGH) and the like. Would you like to compromise on "no consensus default keep", or do you want to help me build the article today? There is much more material than in either of these two successful discussions: [37] [38]. JJB 13:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    "No Left Turn" is cited once. (I can't view the article, so I know nothing about it apart from the abstract.) This leaves just a few remaining sources from the article's references. Of the ones that aren't self published, the top reference (the only page that is fully-readable) gives just a passing mention to Grigg, while the article's subject is JBS. Most of the rest of the article is uncited, and given the quality of the sources already cited, as well as the ones I found on the second page of the Google search (I admit, I did not read them all, I just took a sample from the summaries on the second page), I cannot see how reliable third-party independent sources can back up the claims in this article. Hence, I do not believe it to be notable for that and for all the above reasons I have mentioned.
    And I am willing to work with you to make it better. However, I would like to see direct links to articles (since I do not have a subscription to a newspaper database). Otherwise, as much as I would like to help, I'm afraid I cannot. RJaguar3 | u | t 10:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of citations in the article is not a deletion argument; the number of citations available is. The viewability of a full source is not a deletion argument, especially when it only sources facts taken from the abstract; at WP:V we have been discussing the point that pay articles are just as much verification as free articles. A hundred sources, even if only one is fully topical, do add up to significant coverage. The unciteability of Eddlem's material is not a deletion argument; just excise what of Eddlem you don't like (I did!). Repeating: notability is established by "widely cited by their peers or successors" per WP:CREATIVE and "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:N. I don't have a pay subscription either, but much can be done without one. JJB 13:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    Most of those are published by the John Birch Society/New American, which qualifies as self-publication. Getting published 6 times in a publication by an organization you are a leading member of is not notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 10:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaguar is actually correct here in the second sentence. It is, rather, the wide variety of independent citations that crosses the threshold of notability. E.g., Grigg has also been published in about 15 essay compilations, many of them in the juvenile "Opposing Viewpoints" book series of Greenhaven Press: [39]. If they regard him as widely suitable for teens, all of these are proper for inclusion in his bibliography, as has been done in other articles. These are both third-party and notable. JJB 13:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedily deleted as copyvio of ([40]. Neıl 龱 08:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Murder of Joseph Didier[edit]

    Murder of Joseph Didier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Sad, but the vast majority of single murders are not notable, and this one has nothing which sets it apart from the others. Moreover, the article is identical to Joseph Didier, which is also up for AfD here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Now move for speedy deletion because of copyvio. User:AniMate discovered this page] where much of the copy for the WP article was ripped off from. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Add quotes to that search and it suddenly looks a lot less notable, not to mention looking suspiciously like NN per WP:NOTNEWS. Debate 木 08:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It still shows coverage in Denver and Chicago, which seems a bit national (to an Aussie) to me. Kevin (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, there were two people murdered in the '70s named Joseph Didier. One was a teen murdered by a man named Robert Lower, but the Denver references are about a 26 year old man murdered in Denver by a man named Marvin Gray. AniMate 18:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to self - read sources more carefully. It didn't occur to me that 2 murder victims with the same name in the same time period would exist. Kevin (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that coverage in the Rockford Register Star doesn't suffice for notability purposes, see the link above that shows that the incident received coverage in Denver and Chicago as well.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to Edison, many newspapers are in the process of converting their archives to the web, nothing gets deleted anymore. The fact that a news report from 1975 is still hanging around demonstrates nothing other than it was news in 1975. Residual trances of a news event on the web 30 years later do not suddenly make something notable simply because the original paper reports have been converted to electronic format. WP:NOTNEWS still applies - although it is extremely out of date news, it is still news nonetheless. Debate 木 21:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joseph Didier is already up for AFD, this is simply a recreation that avoids speedy deletion per CSD G4, a policy which mainly applies after the article is deleted, wasting the time of a bunch of editors again debating exactly the same issues... Debate 木 21:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be assuming that the result of the other discussion will result in Delete. You might be right, but I'm not so sure. In any case, this discussion, although strongly related to the other discussion, is at the same time significantly different. The issue in the other discussion is whether Joseph Didier is a notable person per WP:BIO. The issue in this discussion is whether the murder of Joseph Didier is a notable event. The two are related, but substantially different in the sense that they revolve around different notability policies. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but both articles are written by the same person, the content is almost exactly the same except for one sentence that essentially says "because this happened in 1975 there will not be onlie references." It's a newer user, so I'm assuming good faith, but it's essentially a poorly planned attempt to get around the first AfD. AniMate 01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if I was assuming good faith I would assume that s/he made the article not to "get around" anything, but in response to the suggestions at the other afd.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for missing the earlier AfD for the other article. That was my oversight. As I noted at the other AfD discussion, WP:ONEEVENT is very clear that we should cover the event, not the person. I also recommended an appropriate Redirect on the other AfD once I found it. I do not believe that either article meets the requirements for a speedy delete. The two seperate proposals must be determined on their own merits. This discussion is completely about the merits of whether this article complies with policy. I will assume good faith that this article was created for the sole purpose of complying with WP:ONEEVENT. I still believe this article it meets the policies put forth in WP:5P. The AfD on Joseph Didier should be redirected according to WP:ONEEVENT which tells us to cover "the event, not the person." Only one of these AfD discussions should be used to determine the policy implications of the substance covered. The guidelines say that Murder of is the preferred article for inclusion. This article is the one that should be used to determine whether the event meets WP:V or not. Also, it is a very big stretch to try to apply CSD G4 to an article that has not yet actually been deleted, regardless of the duplication of content. G4 does not apply to articles that have not actually been deleted yet. I reiterate my Keep position because the article still meets WP:V. Jim Miller (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. In 1975, in a city with relatively very little crime, a little boy gets murdered under extreme circumstances. The reliable sources attest to the significant effect it had in the community and surrounding region. This is incomparable to other places where murder is far more common. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete Not notable and it appears the author is trying to make an end run around the AfD for Joseph Didier. AniMate 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep No the author is NOT trying to make an end run around the AFD. The author thinks that the case for this article is much stronger than the Joseph Didier article. The author plans to AFD only one of the articles, not both, not none. Presumptive (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the only difference between the articles is this sentence:It was featured almost daily for several months in many newspapers but this was before the internet was invented so there aren't many weblinks to the murder. You should have waited for the first AfD to play out, then taken it WP:DRV. You didn't even move the article, you duplicated it. AniMate 02:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a valid option. The consensus (even me, the creator of the Joseph Didier article) seem to agree that this article, the MURDER of Joseph Didier should be the surviving article as it's the event that is regionally notable and the person wasn't notable prior to his murder (except to his family and friends). Presumptive (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, these "anonymous proxy votes" are ridiculous. If we do not allow sockpuppets and meatpuppets on Wikipedia, we certainly cannot allow this sort of thing either. I suggest that these proxy comments be moved to this AfD's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 05:37, 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. Fram (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Sullivan (footballer)[edit]

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

    Contested PROD - no explanation given. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-pro league. --Jimbo[online] 07:19, 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 Redirect to John Birch Society, as the magazine isn't particularly notable, but the John Birch Society meets the notability guidelines. There is no sense in completely deleting the article, as the John Birch Society is relevant enough to this article for a redirect. - DiligentTerrier (and friends)21:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New American[edit]

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

    Quick google search shows no coverage outside of the sponsoring institution, the John Birch Society; hence, the subject of the article is not notable. RJaguar3 | u | t 07:18, 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. Daniel (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Revelation At The End Of Time[edit]

    Revelation At The End Of Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable unreleased album. Entirely unsourced and reads like a promotional item. A speedy deletion request under criterion G11 was refused on the grounds that the topic indicated some importance Mattinbgn\talk 06:58, 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 keep. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ogguere[edit]

    With little to no explanation, this prod was contested. It is my belief that it fails WP:MUSIC and should thus be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this, which says the Grammy nom is theirs, but is not especially reliable, and this, which shows the nom was for the album Charanga Eterna by Orquesta Aragón, to which Ogguere contributed. I'm not so sure that that counts toward notability. Kevin (talk) 00:13, 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 Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Madrasi chess[edit]

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

    The notability is not explained in the article, no reference is given (e.g. a book) to show this chess variant is notable. It has been suggested to me that this article could just be merged into Chess variant, but that would necessarily remove a certain amount of information, so I prefer to have the opinion of the community first. SyG (talk) 06:56, 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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. The article does not irremediably violate our core policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and arguably now WP:BLP), which means that a deletion unsupported by a consensus is not admissible. Reasonable editors can disagree (and have done so here) about the application of policies such as WP:NOTNEWS or WP:MEMORIAL to this article, so I also can't determine which side is deemed to have consensus on the basis of the strength of its arguments.

    Even though there's no consensus to delete, however, there is a consensus (or a near consensus) that this topic does not deserve an article of its own. Accordingly, I think that a selective merger of this article to Tim Russert would be an appropriate editorial consequence of this discussion.  Sandstein  20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Russert tributes[edit]

    The article was renamed on 06:07, 21 June 2008 to Reaction to Tim Russert's death‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyabbott (talk • contribs)
    Tim Russert tributes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is recentism, and seems more like a memorial than a daughter article for encyclopedic content. A few prominent "tributes" (say, for example, comments from George W. Bush, and the extensive news coverage offered by competing news organizations) can be mentioned in the main Tim Russert article to demonstrate that he had a huge impact on American journalism and politics, but we don't need to have an entire article that details every condolence offered after his death. In the long run, no one's going to care about this minutiae, and, even though some might be interested in the information now, it's not the kind of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. (See also my comment dated 06:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC) on the talk page of the article.) -- tariqabjotu 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More than the coverage of Princess Diana or Ronald Reagan, neither of whom get a 'tributes' article on Wikipedia? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you identify anybody who wants an article on Russert's tributes but not on tributes for people who received even more of them? This is a ridiculous argument. Everyking (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The level of coverage in the Tim Russert article as it is now is probably appropriate. If this article were to be simply redirected to the main article that would be fine. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of tributes currently in the main article is more than enough. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time: it's not about the number of tributes, it's about the notability of the fact that there has been an unprecedented outpouring of coverage (in the form of media coverage, tributes, memorials, and official statements) of this death. I really wish people would stop with the red herring arguments. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    S. Dean, I don't think anyone here disagrees that this man's death has drawn statements from a surprising number of high-ranking or well-known figures. The point is that an entire article is not needed to make that point. -- tariqabjotu 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would not be acceptable to me. It's not about giving it the right feel, but about having quality articles! And the subject matter is just not notable or significant to merit an article: when someone dies, people react, and if a public figure dies, other public figures react to express their grief and condolences. There's no reason to compile and catalog every such expression. Fletcher (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is becoming something of a farce.Those who wish to have this deleted aren't even interested in solving the underlying problem that led me to create the page: the tributes section of the main article was becoming long and cluttered. I tried to improve the encyclopedia by creating a stand-alone article for the tributes or "reactions" to Russert's death. Then, when Everyking tries to come up with a viable alternative to deletion, Fletcher hops in to say no, that the only acceptable alternative is straight deletion. If positions are that hardened, what's the point of this discussion? I'm very disappointed that it appears that those vying for deletion (or the semantically different, but practically identical "merging") are not even willing to consider alternative solutions. Very disappointing, indeed. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I'm obviously opening myself up for a world of hurt but, can you please explain why you feel that merge is "semantically different, but practically identical" to deletion? And why you feel those that "voted" merge are "not even willing to consider alternative solutions"? Because, I thought by saying merge I was considering an alternative solution to deletion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's "practically identical" because to "merge" the articles, the article in question must be deleted, and then the section on the tributes will be vastly pared down. How is that -- for practical purposes -- any different than simply deleting the article? Working for an alternative would include things like renaming the current article, or perhaps restructuring it in some way that makes it less like a "memorial" for those who view it that way currently. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if you didn't mean it but, the "not even considering" thing came across like you were accusing me (and others). Merging to me is the prefered option because it means keeping some of the content of this article (but, ensuring it is in the correct place) as opposed to deleting it and losing everything. I'm sorry you look at it differently but, would appreciate yourself and others not making such generalised statements in future (admittedly I may have taken it more personally than it was meant). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was created so that there could still be a place to document the extensive coverage of Russert's death, while keeping the main article free from clutter. To trim and merge is practically speaking, no different than just deleting it. This has been my point all along. The "mergers" and "deleters" aren't willing to try to reach a compromise on the existence of some type of article documenting the extensive response to Russert's death. That response is notable in itself, simply because of it's size and scope. Compare this reaction to the reaction at Jennings' death. It's without precedent, which makes the reaction itself notable, and worthy of an article, instead of an overlong section in the main article. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    S. Dean Jameson, you are I think under the misapprehension that everyone here agrees with you that all the quotes currently in this article need to be preserved. I don't believe that is the case. Even if the number of tributes is unprecedented, we can report that by writing "an unprecedented number of tributes was made", not by quoting each one of them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The best way to deal with a long and cluttered main article section would be to trim it down to size, keeping a sampling of what people said about Russert while noting the coverage was more extensive. So my underlying disagreement is that most of the subject matter doesn't belong on Wikipedia; while the tributes are testament to Russert's notability, they are not themselves notable and can be summarized on the main article. Fletcher (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're cutting this too fine, Fletcher. The words themselves may or may not be notable - some are more than others perhaps - but the fact that they were said, by such a wide range of notable people, in considerably more than a perfunctory way, is certainly notable and to not include the statements is unnecessarily narrow. I also note that we're not including each one of them as been implied above. Tvoz/talk 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence the tributes are notable. As I've said, they confer notability on Russert but not themselves. Expressions of condolences are common and unremarkable, and it's to be expected that the death of a highly prominent person would garner condolences from many other prominent people. As WP is not a memorial site or a directory, we don't create compilations of tributes any time a notable person dies. But this is just my opinion. Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps there is something notable about these tributes. This article does nothing to prove it. It aptly describes the tributes by quoting extensively from them, but has no analysis or independent sourcing explaining their significance. Fletcher (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me, but when did "Amerocentric" become a reason for article deletion? There are hundreds, no- thousands, of articles that thrive that have exactly 0% to do with America, and they aren't challenged on that basis. Tvoz/talk 15:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You completely ignored the remainder of Woohookitty's statement. -- tariqabjotu 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No I didn't - recentism is certainly a reasonable rationale, but Amerocentric is not, in my view, and I said so. If it was just a gratuitous comment, it had no place here. Tvoz/talk 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was not a "gratuitous comment" and there was zero reason to think that was case. You commented on one part of the comment, and ignored the rest. If you think Woohookitty's delete statement based on the other points is okay, why does the "Amerocentric" piece matter anyway? -- tariqabjotu 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And you complained that it was nothing more than a memorial, then when I moved it to a more appropriate article name, you moved it back. I'd like all arguing for deletion (or "merging") to note that one side is trying to work for an amicable solution, while the other is simply digging into their position without consideration of compromise. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tariq, I'm not here to reply to everything that everyone says, but I saw a comment that appeared to be an irrelevant point to the discussion, so I said so. I commented at first on the part of the objection that seemed out of process to me - "Amerocentric" not being a valid reason for delete in my view. To unpack: I am asking whoever closes this discussion to not take "Amerocentric" into consideration because I believe it is not a valid cause. If "Amerocentric" was gratuitous, then it should not have been here. If it was not gratuitous, as you say, then I say again that it is not a valid reason for deletion. Continuing: I did not, at first, comment on "recentism" because although I don't agree with the argument, I do think it is a valid thing to raise. Obviously I don't agree with Woohoo's position, which is why I had previously stated my own. To flesh it out: we regularly include material about recent events. Whether we think of ourselves as a news source or not, people do come here for information, and I don't think that's something we can ignore. The phenomenon of the response to the death was surprising and seems to be significant, and I believe we should have a place for people to learn more about it. Along those lines, I think that Dean's change of title was a helpful edit that I support. Whether the article ultimately will pass the test of time is of course unknown, and the subject can be re-visited sometime down the road if editors have a problem with it later on. But for now I think the 'recentism' argument should be set aside. Further, WP:RECENT is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so it can be considered, but it's hardly revolutionary to ignore it, and it itself says "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". So, I did not particularly feel the need to spell all of this out in responding to Woohoo's point, but since you asked, I have. Hope this clarifies. Tvoz/talk 19:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Tariq took it upon himself to move the article back to the improperly titled one. It makes the red herring argument that it's only a memorial more cogent if it's titled "Tim Russert tributes", I guess. It's sad that we can't work together to make the article better, instead of simply digging in the trenches, and thwarting even attempts to smooth out the issues that some have raised for deletion (or "merging"). S. Dean Jameson (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The name of the article is indeed a red herring, as those people arguing for deletion have objected to the substance and notability of the article, not what it's titled. For all your talk of amicable resolutions and compromise, you appear unwilling to make an actual compromise on the content. Further, Tariq's edit summary claimed he objected to your "move in the midst of AfD." I don't know if he was right or wrong to revert you, but I too found it surprising that an article would be moved before its AfD was resolved. I'm not sure what the protocol is. But to say he had an ulterior motive and actually wanted the "Tributes" title back because that makes it easier to delete is to say he was lying in his edit summary. So you are not compromising and assuming bad faith on the part of editors who disagree with you. Please, try to practice what you preach. Fletcher (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    S. Dean, my suggestion that the article is nothing more than a memorial has nothing to do with the name of the article, and I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that the other people's deletes on this matter do. -- tariqabjotu 06:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (unindent) Believe what you want about my motives. Everything I've done thus far in the mainspace has been to try to make the project better. I'm very unclear how deleting this article (and reverting to an improperly titled version) does that, but if an argument can be made that it does better the project, I'm open to hearing it. And the only red herring here is being presented by those claiming this was only created to serve as some kind of memorial to Russert. I won't accuse someone of assuming bad faith, though, as that seems unfair. I believe that Tariq thinks that deleting this article will somehow better the project. It's simply my contention that his thought processes--and yours, for that matter--are completely wrong-headed, and would actually do harm (however slight) to the project. That's why I argue so vigorously--and object so strongly to the red herrings being flopped around--against deletion of this article. There's just no convincing evidence that deleting the article improves the project in any way. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Break after renaming article and adding new section[edit]

    I don't think it's appropriate to add more than one "keep" for yourself. In my reading of the article is it most definitely a memorial or tribute page, because there is very little about the tributes that analyzes or explains their significance, but rather we have mostly quotations of people giving their condolences. We should be able to summarize the condolences on Russert's page. To quote many of them, even though they are all saying pretty much the same thing, is to imply they are important, but that importance needs to be explained and supported with other sources. I do however tip my hat to Eyabbott for adding a media criticism section, which does finally contribute to the article's notability. Nevertheless, the article is still very lopsided in favor of sappy tributes, and I'm doubtful there is enough media analysis to support a full article. The media criticism section should definitely be saved and merged under Tributes in Tim Russert. Fletcher (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you say "delete" (well, "merge", but it's the exact same thing) even in the face of growing proof that your concerns are addressed, and that the subject of the article is, in fact, notable of itself, and not just as part of Russert's article? If a sub-section on "Media criticism of the reaction to Russert's death" were included in the main article, that would simply exacerbate the problem I initially created the article to fix! This "debate" is almost taking on something of a surreal quality. Is there nothing that can move you off your position that this article must not remain part of the project? S. Dean Jameson 14:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you weren't talking to me, but in response to your question in the last sentence, I'm going to have to say no. A lot of media sources and people (mostly American, might I add) commented on this... okay, we get; adding more information on that is not going to change anything. I was aware of that before I presented my position.
    The problem is that you're trying so hard to expand something that can be stated in a few paragraphs into an entire article because you think that is what demonstrates notability. It doesn't, and it doesn't matter what "health professionals" (who, for some reason, have a section in this article) say, or that there was media coverage of the Challenger explosion. We don't need to mention Obama and McCain each three times, including precisely what they said about Russert and the manner in which they spoke to each other at his funeral. The fact that there was media criticism or analysis means very little; the media analyzes everything. And yet you have devoted space in the article for all this content -- and more -- to give the impression there's this huge wealth of information on this subject that must be included somewhere on Wikipedia. There isn't, and it doesn't. Merging this article into Tim Russert does not mean including every word of the current vision and putting in the article. It means cutting the article down to size, removing trivial details and full quotes that really are just taking up space so you can say "wow! look how long this article is; the subject must be notable!" and putting the rest in Russert's own article, where it belongs. That is still possible, and always will be. -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying what most of us already knew: you're intent on deleting this, no matter what evidence is presented to you that the reaction of the media, politicos, and others is in itself a notable occurence (much like it was after the VT massacre). It's illuminating if only because it brings to light what I'm sure most of us suspected: your position is your position, no matter the facts we bring to light that contradict it. As such, I appreciate having that out there, and I'll continue the deletion/inclusion discussion with others who are less-hardened in their position. Thanks, S. Dean Jameson 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If something's not notable, it's not notable. You can't make something notable. I, for example, am not notable (in the Wikipedia context). Even if I write 20,000 words about myself, spending inordinate amounts of space on the most "notable" events in my life, that doesn't make me notable. This is what you're doing here. You're trying to take what I believe is a non-notable subject and make it notable. You are not presenting me with new information that can change my opinion; you are simply taking what I already knew -- that this was widely covered by the media and certain celebrities and figures -- and putting that in the article ad nauseum. Of course I'm not going to change my stance (as nefarious as you make me sound by doing that); my conclusion that the topic is not notable enough to have its own article did not come from lack of information, but rather from my survey of all the relevant basic information. You will be unable to sway me because you are providing me with nothing new. I see you have a problem with people disagreeing with you, though, so I'll leave you be for now. -- tariqabjotu 22:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I'm not angry in the least, though you seem to be, especially at the talk page. And neither I, nor anyone else is trying to "make" this topic notable. It is notable, and we're attempting to get you (and a few others) to see that. You've refused to, and stated categorically that you won't change your view no matter what evidence of notability is put forward. That's fine, though not very helpful. S. Dean Jameson 20:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony is you're criticizing me for not wanting to change my position, when you also aren't willing to change yours. The difference is that I'm not expecting you to. Notability is not objective. Obviously, our standards for what makes a topic notable enough to have its own article are different -- and that's fine. However, given the number of people in support of deleting or merging this article (in comparison to those in favor of keeping it), my standard is clearly more in line with the community's as a whole. Also, please stop saying I'm "angry" as you have said in the last four comments on this subject; this is clearly an attempt to make me angry, and it's not working. -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus far, there are 10 or 11 "keeps", around the same "merges" and 9 or 10 "deletes." There's no consensus there, and it won't be deleted without consensus. The sooner you acknowledge that, the better off we'll all be. There's no consensus here at all, and that defaults to "keep." S. Dean Jameson 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now removed nearly all the actual text of the many tributes, in favor of simply discussing the fact that there was so much coverage/tributes. Re-read the article, and let me know if you feel that the reworking addresses any of your concerns. S. Dean Jameson 14:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why not bring it up for review in a year or a month if you're right? Or perhaps there wil be more analysis of the phenomenon as the months go by? We don't know, do we. Now that the renamed article includes a section of critical commentary regarding the subject it certainly cannot be accused of being a memorial, and it seems to be developing as an article. No compelling arguments have been given for this rush to delete. Tvoz/talk 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubtful "more analysis" will follow, though I suppose you are free to save the article on your hard disk and try recreating it then. And yes, some people expressed disapproval of the broad coverage, as might be expected - but again, this is just a short burst of opinions (already subsided), not something expected to have lasting impact (and again, if it does, we can recreate then). Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or in the alternative, given that there's clearly no consensus to delete it, those of us who are actually working on the article can continue to do so, in an attempt to improve it. And those who are fighting to delete it for some reason can continue to do so as well. S. Dean Jameson 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Factual point A vote of both merge and delete indicate people who do NOT want this article to exist. That actually means there is (currently) a two-to-one majority in favour of not having this article in Wikipedia.
    And you know what, DJ? That's STILL not consensus to delete. Period. It's ironic that I was castigated for calling out the "merge" votes as simply "deletes" in disguise, but now that it fits the needs of those wanting deletion, they're happy to do the same. No consensus here, sorry. S. Dean Jameson 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two to one is an easy consensus. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus != unanimity. Fletcher (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy Delete - non admin close. ukexpat (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsanctum[edit]

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

    Does not appear to meet our inclusion criteria. No apparant released records on major labels. Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 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 speedy delete as real person, doesn't indicate importance/significance (WP:CSD#A7) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Almamy.[edit]

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

    non notable band, no sources claiming notability - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 05:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note near-duplicate article at Almamy (Singer)..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    haha, snap. So thats what the edit conflict was.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 10:08, 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sexy Boy EP /... B.M.D.. Shereth 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Like You Do Remixes - EP[edit]

    Like You Do Remixes - EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non notable album - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 05:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    comment-- see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sexy Boy EP /... L.Y.D.. Dlohcierekim 17
    29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    remix release of recording artist Almamy and is not to be deleted.

    No prior edits. Dlohcierekim 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No prior edits. Dlohcierekim 17:29, 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sexy Boy EP /... B.M.D.. Shereth 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Sexy Boy EP /... L.Y.D.[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    The Sexy Boy EP /... L.Y.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non notable album - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 05:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Like You Do Remixes - EP. Dlohcierekim
    Comment- no prior edits. will welcome Dlohcierekim 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- no prior edits. will welcome Dlohcierekim 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment To me an emerging artist is one that is not yet notable. No links offered shoing subject meets WP:Music. See my delete above. Dlohcierekim 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Also consider taking the socks to the cleaners, so to speak ... Shereth 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Sexy Boy EP /... B.M.D.[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    The Sexy Boy EP /... B.M.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non notable album - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 05:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has very no prior edits, possible a sockpuppet created by article author.- -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 21:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User has no prior edits, possible a sockpuppet created by article author.- -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 21:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment ref's in article are not unconnected to the subject. Dlohcierekim 04:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Agama Yoga. PhilKnight (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Swami Vivekananda Saraswati[edit]

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

    Lacks notability. Rather few Google hits, and none seem to be third-party references treating the subject in an even remotely objective manner. Biruitorul Talk 05:16, 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    High School Romance[edit]

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

    Fails WP:Albums and WP:Crystal. DiverseMentality (Discuss it) 05:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Decent amount of hits on google, but there are no sources, and none of the hits on google are reliable, though. Also, the song on there "Get Low Wit It" is about a half year old. Y5nthon5a (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete for now. Recreate when is really released, and presumable sources start to come forth.Yobmod (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 23:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You Hear Me?[edit]

    Only one source; not a reliable site. Like it says, it's an underground album, so it's obviously not notable. It's probably just a mixtape, or something like that, and those who are familiar with the genre of hip-hop, usually wikipedia deletes mixtapes. A mixtape IS an underground album. Y5nthon5a (talk) 04:43, 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 keep. --- RockMFR 00:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shivnath Mishra[edit]

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

    article does not state notability, non notable - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 04:40, 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. Wizardman 23:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fernando Flores Morador[edit]

    Fernando Flores Morador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable person. Article appears to have been copied and pasted from another source, probably external. Relevant Google hits are few. The article's main purpose seems to be to promote Morador. Only ref given (aside from a link to a Spanish Wikipedia article) is just the text of his writings. No evidence of notability at all. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:19, 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 no consensus. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Irish French[edit]

    List of Irish French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This list is unlikely to ever be completed, and is already covered by a suitable category. Fribbler (talk) 15:39, 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, TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment But, I must say, that many lists on wikipedia should be deleted, then, because there are many lists that are uncompleted on wikipedia. I CHANGE my opinion to Keep.. Y5nthon5a (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is easy to reference these entries as I have just demonstrated by referencing the first. Such considerations are not a reason to delete per WP:IMPERFECT. Categories are less satisfactory in this respect because they cannot be referenced with citations. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But surely we must have a policy/guideline about adding categories to things "properly" i.e. being able to show the facts of the matter? If I'm wrong than fine and we should find a way to fix. I still don't believe the article should be kept as inclusion on the list would seem pretty "ambivilent" (may nto be precisely the correct word). I suppose the criteria for inclusion could be discussed more fully on the talkpage. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CAT says Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.. So, it seems that a list is the correct choice in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That does it for me. Weak Keep based on the above. Although someone that knows what they are doing should get to work adding to the list and referencing it. Oh, and making the criteria for inclusion more obvious would help Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:42, 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, fails the notability guidelines due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Literary Rejections on Display[edit]

    Literary Rejections on Display (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This blog does not seem especially notable. The only sources that I can find are other blogs. Captain panda 20:26, 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, TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:49, 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 keep. --- RockMFR 00:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michel G. Malti[edit]

    Michel G. Malti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article does not show that he satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. No sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, if you search for Michel Malti at the New York Times Archive, you get this 1939 article; the free preview indicates that an important 102 year old electric power problem unsolvable since Faraday was just solved by "research men" at Cornell, likely including Malti; someone with free access should check. The Cornell retirement bio indicates he was a pioneer in engineering research there.John Z (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The free preview of the Washington Post article on the same discovery of a "New Way to 'Balance' Dynamos" says that "Prof. Malti and Dr. Herzog Discover New Method of Winding Coils Which Should Save Industry Millions for New Dies".John Z (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think most academics have discoveries reported in the nation's two most respected newspapers, apparently for solving a century old problem, perhaps posed by Faraday himself. This seems to qualify him under WP:ACADEMIC , esp criterion 5. The sole paper he has in IEEE Xplore is [54] from 1963, at the end of his career. However, IEEE Xplore covers "IEEE journals, transactions, letters, and magazines from 1988 with select content back to 1913."[55], so that it is "select content" can argue for notability. I trust DGG's professional judgment that the number of libraries his 1930 textbook is still in probably indicates it was a major textbook in its day, and his point of the difficulty of assessing people with a career decades ago by their web presence is quite valid, this kind of "internetism" and Wikipedia:Recentism is a serious systematic bias.John Z (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep while the pure quantity of opinions are for deletion with an argument notability, the source added by Jim Miller from BusinessWest asserts notability. Gnangarra 08:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    EverythingCU.com[edit]

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

    Completing nomination for an anon. The main complaint is notability. In the previous afd, there was much handwaving and vague assertions of notability and importance, but nothing concrete. Most of it seemed based on the concept that this website is somehow important in the credit union industry, yet these claims were never elaborated on. --- RockMFR 15:18, 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, TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:44, 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.-Wafulz (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tek-Tips[edit]

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

    Notability does not appear to be confirmed in this article. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:56, 10 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, TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:30, 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 Speedy keep. PRC does claim sovereignty over Taiwan, but that does not mean it is an indication that Taiwan is under the sovereignty of PRC. Aquarius &#149; talk 17:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Twain is not a theoretical province of china. It is an established sovereign country. This article doesn't deserve a place on wikipedia. AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete The title invites warring POVs and is not strictly speaking necessary. However this should be a redirect to Political status of Taiwan. That article can expand on the PRoC position without the POV title.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Israelis actually have troops and facilities in Jerusalem. Unless the PRoC army and Party is in Taiwan and I just missed it, well then it's not the same. Nor is it like Kosovo whose own government is recent. There has been a non-PRoC government in Taiwan for 50 years or more. I see you've also worked on a great many Communist party articles, which doesn't necessarily mean anything but makes me wonder. In any event thanks for helping me reconsider.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:23, 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 Gnangarra 08:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Westway Community Transport[edit]

    Westway Community Transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I was tempted to speedy as A7 but I'm not certain whether it's a part of the local gov't or a private company. At any rate there is no evidence of RS coverage under its present or former names and no evidence it meets WP:CORP. Note Andrew W Kelly is also at AfD but due to timings, I didn't want to bundle. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 02:57, 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 Speedily deleted and protected by User:Orangemike. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 20:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    UWho Wireless[edit]

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

    Unsourced article about a wireless company. Mostly advertising, speedy tag was removed by an editor with no other improvements. TN‑X-Man 02:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - After I nominated this, I also noticed that this article has been deleted twice. TN‑X-Man 02:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I did try that at first, however, the tag was removed by a third-party editor. TN‑X-Man 14:36, 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 Merge to List of Tetris variants. PhilKnight (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tetris Elements[edit]

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

    Non-notable; either delete or merge with List of Tetris variants - does not warrant its own article ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:42, 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, without prejudice to recreation at the appropriate time.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dhun (film)[edit]

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

    Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation upon sourced confirmation that shooting has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:55, 12 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, Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 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 merge to The Oaktree Foundation. Shereth 21:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Schools 4 Schools[edit]

    Schools 4 Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Was nominated for speedy deletion and contested. I thought it claimed notability but can find no reliable sources to back up that claim. Selket Talk 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As best I can tell, it's still a Speedy candidate since it hasn't bothered to even assert notability. Either way, delete. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Schools 4 Schools is indeed a noteworthy topic to be on wikipedia. It is (as said in the article) one of the flagship programs of the Oaktree Foundation.

    For a bit of a background on The Oaktree Foundation, read its wikipedia site, or visit www.theoaktree.org. You will find that The Oaktree Foundation has some 15,000 supporters and 500 active volunteers in Australia. Many of these volunteers are currently working on the schools 4 schools program.

    The Schools 4 Schools program is having a broad impact in South Africa, and in 2008 is being rolled out in 13 South African Schools in the KwaZulu-Natal Province of South Africa including; - Mcothoyi High School - KwaPata High School - Siqongweni High School - KwaBazothini High School - Hlahlindlela High School - Swelihle High School - Siyabonga High School - Umyeka High School - KwaVutha High School - Khamangwa High School - Qhilika High School - Sidelilie High School [1]

    These High schools are getting access to a peer-to-peer HIV/AIDS education program, along with communication with their australian partner schools. [2]

    The Schools 4 Schools program has also had a lot of recent media attention: [3] [4] [5]

    NOTE: I'm quite inexperienced with wikipedia, so if i haven't answered anyones concerns properly, i would love some advice on what exactly is the problem with this page, and what more i need to prove in order for it to be accepted as legitimate. Thanks.

    1. ^ Schools 4 Schools - South Africa
    2. ^ Schools 4 Schools - Where does the money go?
    3. ^ Schools 4 Schools | Herald Sun
    4. ^ New volunteers head over to South Africa | Herald Sun
    5. ^ triple j music news: Bliss n Eso get help from Barnsie

    Oaktree1 (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 01:16, 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 no consensus. There appears to be no argument that the material here is in need of, at the very least, some editorial help. Renaming or merging this information elsewhere has emerged as a potential compromise as well, and should be considered, but at this time there appears to be little need to do so. Shereth 20:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Moldovenism[edit]

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

    The term has nothing to do with the content of the article. "Moldovenism" in Romanian language simply means "linguistic particularity characteristic to the language of the Moldovans" (Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian language) or "Moldavian word/idom" (Romanian-English Dictionary), and this is the only meaning that can be found in the results of Google Book Search [56]. The results are mostly Romanian, with two exception, that are in German, but us the term the same meaning as in Romanian, and not the one presented in the Wikipedia article. The meaning used in Wikipedia can be found in only one nonscholarly source, the one already present in the article, and outside Wikipedia the novel meaning is only used in blogs, forums, Romanian tabloids and nationalist newspapers, as well as in the pro-Romanian press of Moldova. This clearly violates WP:Notability, WP:Undue, WP:Neologism, and its content violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:SOAP. The only solution is to delete it.

    First, I must note that most of the "sources" are from pro-Romanian authors, articles by whom have a strong anti-Moldovan bias, or represent the POV of pro-Romanian organizations. The "report" is a paper by an unnotable organization, and, as the disclaimer put it, the views in that "report" are not assumed by the UNHCR. The author doesn't hide the fact that she is against the Moldovan constitutional order.[57] The reports from NYU Law School make it clear that this term is used by one political party of Moldova (which not surprisingly is a pro-Romanian one, succesor to a violent nationalist organization of the early 90s). Must I remind you that we're not here to promote a certain political agenda? The "paper" from the University of Maryland is not even worth mentioning, since it's only a draft, and it fails the requirements of WP:RS. And, moreover, all use quotation marks when talking mentioning the term, a sign this is a neologism unassumed by the authors. So it clearly fails WP:Notability, WP:Undue and WP:Neologism. As for its content...Xasha (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The UNHCR did commission that report, and as the footnotes indicate, the term is present in other scholarly papers as well. That Miss Gribincea happens to support Moldova's reunification with Romania is laudable, but also immaterial to her ability to write impartially on the subject for a UN agency. 2. The PPCD does indeed use the term, but it's not just "one party" - it's the third-largest party, the most vocal opposition party. And your accusation that the Moldovan Popular Front was a "violent nationalist organization" is baseless, libellous and contemptuous. 3. I'm not so sure it's a draft; in any case, it's by a history professor. So the term is used, fairly widely, and yes, quotation marks are used because it's still fairly new, but it does appear in academic literature and the press, so it's a noteworthy subject. Biruitorul Talk 03:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sharing with us the real reason why you support this fringe use of a legitimate Romanian term ("Moldavian word"): you are against the Moldovan constitutional order. Probably it's common for "impartial" authors to cite their own works to talk about a term unused outside Romanian nationalist media. As for that under 10% party, yes: it's predecessor was nationalist and violent, and that it was the Moldovan citizens eliminated it from the political scene. A draft is not peer-reviewed. He could have written anything in it. It's even less relevant than tabloids, that at least in theory have an editorial board to review content. Please read WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not a tool to spread fringe political opinions, especially propaganda against the very existence of an UN member state.Xasha (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Kindly refrain from speculating on the "real reason" for my comment. If you eliminate the clause, nay the sentence beginning "That Miss Gribincea...", you still have a comprehensive policy-based argument for keeping the article. 2. 9% is not bad in a supposedly multi-party system (the PNC even took office with 9%), and it is still very much on the scene; Iurie Roşca is not exactly an unknown. And I'm sorry, while the FPM was nationalist (nothing wrong with that, ipso facto), your accusation that his group was "violent" remains unsubstantiated (and anyway has nothing to do with this discussion). 3. A professor doesn't normally publish just anything, even in draft form: he has a reputation to defend. 4. Being a UN member isn't that great an honour: so are North Korea and Iran (the first of which should unite with South Korea; the second, somehow have its rulers eliminated from the scene). But that's not the point: the point is that this term, whether you like it or not, exists, and is used, not only by academics, but also by certain segments of the press. Its use is wide enough to merit an article, despite your personal disdain for it. And by the way, if being "against the very existence of an UN member state" will have your article taken away, there go Shining Path, FARC, UNITA, Saddam Hussein, Leonid Brezhnev... Biruitorul Talk 13:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You made your real reasons clear to anybody. You can prattle all you want now.Xasha (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:AGF and WP:CIV. My "real reasons" are that "the term is used, fairly widely ... it does appear in academic literature and the press, so it's a noteworthy subject" - kindly refrain from further speculation. And also, kindly remain civil and do not accuse me of "prattling" or pursuing some sinister agenda beyond mere application of Wikipedia policy. Biruitorul Talk 16:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep and Rename to Moldovanism. There are English-language scholarly sources which use the word with this meaning: (google books), so it's not a neologism. bogdan (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All use quotation marks, so its a neologism and they clealry don't accept it as an English concept. Unless you want to rename it to "Moldovanism".Xasha (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the manual of style says that we should exclude the quotation marks from the article name, even when they should be used. bogdan (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ever heard of WP:RS? Xasha (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You may not like Timpul, but that doesn't make it unreliable. Biruitorul Talk 22:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to use Timpul. See the Google Books has on it:
    No explanation is given. Moreover, the term is used in quotation marks even in the index !!! (WP:NEOLOGISM)
    Uses it with a meaning unrelated to the article, as the author explains.
    It's not available and we can't say if the meaning is the same as the Wikipedia article or another.
    The same.
    The same. No explanation whatsoever.
    The same, although the context seem to refer to the supression of Moldovan identity by the Romanians.
    Is used in the name of a newspaper article, and we don't know for what it is quoted (could be very well to prove that the term is used in nationalist media)
    The same here.
    Unavailable, unless you bought the book or you are a crystal ball.

    bogdan (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As seen from above, the only source that explains the term uses it in an unrelated way. And a lot of these books are not viewable, meaning that Moldovanism could refer to anything. Also, you seem to ignore the contetn of the article which is just an indiscriminate collection of facts and opinions . Per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, that has got to go. Otherwise I see no reason for not having an article about the dogs on Mars. This is a clear example of tentedntious editing and deceitful use of otherwise reliable sources. The truly worrisome fact is that this comes from an administrator.Xasha (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You said: "Unavailable, unless you bought the book". Published book is a reliable source. Same the rest of sources.Biophys (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling a book a source just because it mentions the term "Moldovans" (once? twice? we don't know!!!), without knowing how they use it, is a severe abuse of WP:V. As I explained in my original rationale, "Moldovenism"/"Moldovanism" has a totally unrelated meaning, according to Romanian dictionaries and Romanian-English bilingual ones. See my example in the previous post to see how easy we could create absurd topics just because they appear in GBook search results.Xasha (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Andyjsmith's previous comment is not only misleading, but may be also qualified as a banal lie. As described above, the UNHCR had explicitely declared itself non responsible for the report, which was in fact made by an unknown organisation and not UNHCR at all!!! I do not think it is a part of any edit war, if you see one, please explain. So, again, I kindly submit, delet this original research, lacking basic notability criteria of Wikipedia--Moldopodotalk 17:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin - Moldopodo has now been indef blocked for disruption. andy (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He is actually on a one-month block at the moment.Xasha (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Shereth 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Larry Torres[edit]

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

    BLP violation -- no references; amateurishly written; seems to promote one-self Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 01:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    actually, the relevant article is Golden Apple Award (education), from which it appeals that this is a (rather obviously) generic terms, and a number of awards have this title in various states, without any apparent connection. The New Mexico program is not listed there. DGG (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah:
    • Other awards and recognitions include the Golden Apple Award and being named Outstanding New Mexican of the Year (twice).
    Thats the full sentence. It didn't imply that there was a connection to The New Mexico program. These are apparently different recognitions altogether. — MaggotSyn 04:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, on the matter of which award it is, I came to the conclusion that it was the same award because of the subject matter of the article itself. It begins by stating he is a teacher thus an education award is appropriate, no? — MaggotSyn 04:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Struck out because I now understand what you mean. :) — MaggotSyn 04:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note I have re-written the article and included some of the sourcing I found. While I still think he's notable, I know that others will disagree but I just ask that everyone look at the current article state rather than !votes that may have come in prior to the re-write. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:05, 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 redirect/merge to Paypal#Criticism. I have left the history intact so that merging of pertinent material can take place but have not performed the merge myself. Shereth 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Paypalsucks.com[edit]

    Paypalsucks.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable website. The article has little or no context. Merge with Paypal#Criticism Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 00:47, 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 Speedy Delete - non admin close. ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neodog[edit]

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

    Delete - Fails WP:OR and WP:V. No sources. Possible hoax. Ward3001 (talk) 00:17, 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 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]

    Arushi_Talwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

    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]

    :*I vote against deletion, because of its similarity to JonBenet Ramsey article. Anmol.2k4 (talk) 12:12, 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]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Corriball[edit]

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

    Something made up in school one day, Ghits are blogs. Notability and PROD tags removed my Anons Richhoncho (talk) 18:24, 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, Nakon 00:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whynatte[edit]

    Proposed for deletion in April 2007, deleted by me. In June 2008, the author contacted me and contested the deletion. I have undeleted the article and brought it to AfD straight away. This is a purely procedural nomination, I have no opinion myself. JIP | Talk 19:36, 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 merge to Rob Zombie. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Montgomery[edit]

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

    The subject is not independently notable (notability is not contagious) and no reliable sources. Perhaps merge with Rob Zombie. Selket Talk 05:49, 12 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, Skomorokh 23:26, 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 merge to World Wrestling Professionals#Other On-Air Talent. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Beale[edit]

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

    Article does not assert notability. The references for this article do not qualify as WP:RS as most are simply derived from press releases or interviews with the subject. This article fails WP:RS and WP:N.

    1. The first ref is an interview which would qualify as a primary source.
    2. The second ref mentions the subject in passing (Mark Beale, general manager of the Port Elizabeth-based WWP (World Wrestling Professional) and “As a PE-based company we want to show the people of SA that local is lekker,” said Beale).
    3. The third ref only says "Mark Beale for Alkebulan" about the subject.
    4. The fourth ref only gives a quote (“The newly-crowned champion requested the sixth edition to channel reconciliation and peace world-wide and Niger Delta in particular. It is therefore worthy of note that the championship must be held within the speculated six months, as stated in WWP title policy,” Mark Beale, CEO WWP stated).
    5. The fifth ref is subscription only (You have selected an article from the AllAfrica archive, which requires a subscription).
    6. The sixth mentions him once (The Chief Executive Officer and chairman of the world body, Mark Beale) and is mainly a bunch of kayfabe quotes.
    7. The final ref again only mentions him once (Chief Executive Office of the WWP based in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, Mark Beale,).

    There are no credible reliable sources from third parties which can establish the notability of this subject. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aj, if you think the sources are sufficient then I suggest you address the concerns above, 1 reference is half-way RS, the other five are not. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge: This don't need to be delete, merge is good enough.--Freewayguy Msg USC 03:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. As it's unsourced, there is technically nothing to merge. Wizardman 23:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sonia (film)[edit]

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

    No evidence that film has begun shooting (article has existed for two years now); therefore it fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when shooting can be confirmed to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:04, 12 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, Skomorokh 23:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as long as its merge to what make sense, its okay.--Freewayguy Msg USC 03:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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