< June 1 June 3 >
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 Page was speedy deleted. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre Production/ Demo (As Blood Runs Black album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pre Production/ Demo (As Blood Runs Black album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Captain panda 23:45, 2 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. RFerreira (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanveer Ali Hussain[edit]

Tanveer Ali Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references; claims of awards do not match the relevant facts on Wikipedia articles; probable hoax (or at least extreme exaggeration of the truth). MightyWarrior (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability provided. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Learning Environment[edit]

Open Learning Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability (apart from a claim on the talk page that it was used by the "accredited online colleges" as part of their website). Still not clear whether this is about a product or a concept (neither is the article creator, according to the talk page).

I originally PRODded the article for these reasons, and because a Google search gave < 10 hits. PROD was removed by another editor, because apparently it was "mean" to include "Voloper" in the search terms, even though that appears to be the product's (?) creator, according to the article. For reference, another Voloper-related article has recently been deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenSites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oli Filth (talk • contribs)

I am sorry Oli Filth, you were right, that article should have been PRODed.
I am the user who wrongly removed the PROD template.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an application, sorry about that, I'll remove it Mariam-t (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Nevill[edit]

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

The article claims that this young actor is a co-star in a popular television show, but the article does not include any reliable sources confirming his notability, nor could I find such references with a google search. Is it a hoax, or just a self-aggrandizing autobiography? Or, and I'm stretching good faith as far as I can here, is this a notable person whose sources I simply couldn't find? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:08, 2 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 A3, non-admin closure by Lenticel (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph School(Redding)[edit]

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

School who's notability has not been asserted Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:02, 2 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-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corpsicle[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and also Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so therefore this article is inappropriate and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try "wikipedia is not a dictionary" then. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the article? It's not a dictdef. And even if it were, there's a better solution in this case than deletion. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz Girlz Really Rock (video game)[edit]

Bratz Girlz Really Rock (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was re-created a day after it was deleted pursuant to WP:PROD by User:Sauce2243 (author of the deleted version: User:Strongsauce21). The article cites no reliable sources and claims to be about a video game set for release in mere months by a studio that has announced games for release into 2009 with no mention of this one. I submit this is likely deliberate misinformation that is likely here to prove a point and/or disrupt the project. Erechtheus (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate Bratz Kidz: Slumber Party under the same rationale. Erechtheus (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC) I withdraw the nomination of this second article. I didn't look fully enough at the edit history and mistook vandalism to the article for a hoax article. Erechtheus (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Sehkar[edit]

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

No notability, probably advertising. Justinfr (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the quotes from the subject's blog that was previously considered advertising, and I rewrote the whole article. That was why I removed the tag.

Sorry if that counts as vandalism.

--hbbtk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbbtk (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's understandable, though the notability tag also was removed and, as of yet, no editor has made a case for why the article's subject is notable, as per WP:BLP or WP:NOTE. Justinfr (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google brings up various secondary sources. ---hbbtk

I've glanced through the first four pages of google results and only see blog entries, online profiles, etc., not reliable sources. The only exception I could find is an online newsletter from CMU. If you would please provide specific links it would be helpful because I remain unconvinced. Justinfr (talk) 17:14, 4 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 and so deleted blatant copyvio TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yin Yoga[edit]

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

Article has no third-party reliable sources. All links are to YinYoga dot com or personal websites. Had this been created recently, I would've speedily deleted as blatant advertising. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:56, 2 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-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swoogle[edit]

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

Pretty cool tool, but doesn't appear to be under active development. Last news posting on website is from November 2007, with regular postings in February 2006. Paper appears to have been published in 2004. Note search engine still says 2007 on Splash page. Finally the one reference is hosted on the ebiquity website, which appears to be just the website of the lab that was developing this project. In short the tool is not notable, under active development, or fully functional. I let User: Finin know that I would use the AfD process to delete the article unless he had any objections about 3 weeks ago, I haven't heard from him. Jussen (talk) 21:52, 2 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. I'm not at all sure what to do with Citecloud; I have no experience on SPAs. I'll just leave him alone. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOLCODE[edit]

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

The article does not cite any reliable secondary sources. Also not notable. Citedcloud (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin The nominator of this AfD appears to be a single-purpose account, created solely to initiate this AfD. It is also probably an alternative account of an experienced Wikipedia editor. The nominator has (so far) not responded to requests (below) to explain their unusual actions. It is therefore possible that this might be a bad faith nomination. Please take this into account when closing this AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing more really needs to be said. Clearly non-notable with clearly unreliable secondary sources. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is sort of a close call (and I LOL'd), but too much tongue-in-cheek self-reference and bloggage, as opposed to reliable third party coverage. Townlake (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not notable ??? Featured at Microsft's TechED 2007 conference; implemented in Microsoft DLR; mentioned in Computer Department News at Lancaster University (home of creator) and on CNN (I have added sources to the article); and literally tens of thousands of Google hits. Obviously meets notability criteria. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not necessarily, the GNAA article has more 'notability' than this, and it got deleted! Citedcloud (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know what the "GNAA article" is/was, but the fate of other articles is not really relevant here - each article should stand or fall on its own merits in AfD. But I was sufficiently interested to try to track down the "GNAA article" in your contribution history. So I saw you created a new account Citedcloud on June 2 and your first action is to nominate an article on AfD. Do you perhaps have another Wikipedia account somewhere ? Gandalf61 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the account thing is irrelevant. please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) for more information on the GNAA article deletion. Citedcloud (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "account thing" is very relevant, because openness is important in AfD discussions. Unless you are open about your use of different accounts, how do we know that you are not contributing to this discussion under different aliases ? There are sometimes legitimate reasons for using alternative accounts, but there are also procedures that should be followed to ensure openness. You are obviously much more familiar with Wikipedia procedures and history than a truly new user would be. I invite you to explain which other Wikipedia account names you have used in the past, whether you are still using them, and why you created what appears to be a single purpose account to initiate this AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No response to my invitation above, so I have added a Note to closing admin at the top of this AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:39, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Blow[edit]

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

Disputed prod (and rightfully-declined speedy). notability doesn't seem to be present and, although sources are provided, none are reliable since all amount to self-publication. Doesn't seem to be sufficiently similar to Beer pong to be melded with it. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bartlett[edit]

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

Contested prod (by IP, no explanation). Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season[edit]

2010 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Proposed as per WP:CRYSTAL. The speculated schedule is a copy of this year's schedule, with some unsourced addition. There are no confirmed participants also. Asendoh (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uplift War Glossary[edit]

Uplift War Glossary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPound[edit]

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

No evidence this web currency is notable. The website does not have an article and false positives aside as it's a difficult search term, there's no evidence it would pass WP:WEB. Therefore, no apparent logical redirect. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:52, 2 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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Nikčević[edit]

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

Contested prod (no reason given). Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully professional league (the Third League of Montenegro is not a fully professional league). Also nominating:

for exactly the same reason, as well as ((FK Igalo Squad)), which lists a whole bunch of them and ((FK Igalo squad)) which is a duplicate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:47, 2 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 an utter mess of a discussion, from which no policy-informed consensus either way is discernible. If these articles are still seen as problematic, I recommend individual re-nominations, one after the other. A centralised discussion might be even better, as it would allow us to consider solutions that do not involve deletion (e.g., merging). — Procedural note: To save time, I'll be removing the dozens of AfD tags with administrative rollback, and only the first talk page will be tagged with an AfD notice.  Sandstein  19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closure note: Some editors have proposed to continue discussion of this topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences.  Sandstein  20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Conference[edit]

Arbitrary Header Section[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE High School Conferences not notable as shown here. Also pages are duplicate information that definitely is not relevant enough to have info listed multiple times on multiple pages. Full list of conferences with schools already exists. Why does each conference with schools need to be duplicated on several individual pages, Ohio High School Athletic Conferences.

Other examples from other states - Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference, Six Rivers Conference
To discuss these claims, see discussion after Arbitrary Break #3
For sake of space see... Category:Ohio_high_school_sports_conferences. These other articles have been tagged as they are other high school conferences in Ohio. Note that several of these have been tagged with notability issues. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Notice of possible Single Purpose Accounts
The following accounts have made few or no edits outside this topic:

Beginning of discussions[edit]

  • Comment - The reason for the deletion on the page I gave was high school conferences don't exist. And other crap exists is when a person says why are you deleting my page when other crappy stuff exists elsewhere. Doesn't really work against deletion here.--GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, other stuff exists does work here. The merits of the other articles that GoHuskies9904 brought up that are both articles and on lists are'nt up for discussion. just the athletic conferences. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused by what you are saying. The list is fine because its centralized and all you really need for high school athletic conferences. Having multiple pages with the same thing added with seasonal sports just wastes space. As Airtuna states below, everyone knows basketball is a winter sport, baseball is a spring sport. That doesn't add much to an article. If every page could contain a full history and what not then they might be acceptable. But right now each page is basically not much more than a list of schools with links to their home pages and the sports they play which are universal. What you really have is a central list and then 25+ individual conference lists. They aren't notable enough to be listed in several different places. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most pages have more than the list of schools. The ones that don't should have info added as i mentioned in my vote below. If theres nothing to add, then they should be listed for deletion as separate articles. But back to the other stuff exists discussion, the fact that some articles were merged to a list has nothing to do with this discussion or these athletic conferences <Baseballfan789 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All per Jon & Frank--Cube lurker (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's no different than having a list of schools and then having an article about each school. The list of athletic conferences in Ohio is a centralized list (i.e. a starting point), just like lists showing schools by county or schools by state, etc. Athletic conferences have histories, different setups, etc. I've mentioned two that have been tagged for deletion, both of which already contain explanations as to why and how they formed, what schools are a part of them and why, as well as notable traits and other info not contained in a list (enrollments, location, colors, etc...just like in a collegiate conference article). Neither of those fit the reasoning of just being duplicate lists.--JonRidinger (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can we have a reason, not just per so and so's comments. Not disputing you, just curious as to why YOU think the pages should stay. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay then. Take Western Buckeye League for an example. It doesn't fit the stereotype of just a list of schools with the sports. It conatins athletic history as far back as the 1940's. Not to mention, the main category these articles are in has around 255 High School Conferences; picking Ohio as a subcat is easy to deal with. But all of those articles really don't assert any notability? I find that hard to believe. And since we're getting rid of high school conferences; might as well Tfd the templates and tag all other conferences for this Afd as well. Have to keep one step ahead. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, could you please point out anywhere else, besides one admin's opinion that high school conferences are not notable? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out where an admin supported a high school conference in an AfD. I gave you some precedent where it wasn't notable in the past. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you had asked for another one from me when I already provided one. It would be your move to find one that backs your cause. And I didn't take it as an attack, just more of an odd request. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have begun to look for the repository of closed Afds and can only find open ones. I'll let you know if I turn anything up. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Careful with blanket statements like "no one." Most high school athletics conferences, at least the ones I have looked for in Ohio, do not have official websites; most of the info on each conference comes from newspaper articles, history books, and school or other websites, so Wikipedia is one of the few places that puts it all together. Just because you may not use Wikipedia to look up info on a high school conference doesn't mean no one else does. Further, not all states have high school athletics conferences like Ohio does, so they are somewhat unique. Utah, for example, simply assigns high schools to regions, which act as a conference but a school does not have a direct say as to what region they are in and the regions themselves do not have rules or guildelines unique to themselves like an Ohio high school conference can. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Not having a website deosn't have anything to do with notability. Take Brookside, Ohio; they don't have their own website. Western Buckeye League & Ohio Valley Athletic Conference; the first two I looked at both had websites as well. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly, I for one usually turn to Wikipedia to look up a topic that may not be written about somewhere else. I figure since anyone can edit, someone probably wrote about whatever it is I want to look up. Also, that's interesting about Utah high schools! Frank12 (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there aren't any websites or what not on the subject, why should it be notable for Wikipedia. You would think those sites that specialize in high school sports would have it. If they don't, why should a broad encyclopedia like Wikipedia have them? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've always had the notion that because of Wikipedia's unique setup, it included a wider range of topics than other encyclopedias. If it didn't, I wouldn't find it any more significant than the rest. Frank12 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be an official "Pioneer Conference Website" but a website does not necessarily equal notability. I would venture to say that most high school conferences don't have a website because they simply don't regard the costs of upkeeping a good website as a good use of money or they simply don't have the money period. High school conferences in Ohio are similar to collegiate conferences in how they are formed, their management, and structured, but high school conferences don't have big sponsorship deals to bring in money like their collegiate counterparts. The conferences, however, are frequently mentioned as governing bodies in newspaper articles and by the schools who are members; they are legal entities, not just loose associations like a region. And, it's not that there aren't any websites on the subject, but there are no comprehensive ones. That is typical of a lot of topics on Wikipedia, even higher notability...that being sources and info in a variety of scattered places both on and off line. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong with the article's primary author coming into an AfD to defend his or her work, especially when constructive arguments can be made. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the complete opposite of what I said. This nom violates WP:AON because the conferences should be listed individually due to great ranges of notability and information in each of the articles Ben1283 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Comment- David, which conferences are in multiple states. From what I understand high school conferences stay within the state and compete against each other for State Championships and what not. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just through glancing at the article's images I can say for sure Ohio Valley Athletic Conference is in two states; there are possibly others. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conference affiliation has little bearing on state championships, so it's not surprising there are conferences with schools in multiple states. Even for those entirely in-state, conference members can compete in different OHSAA size divisions. For example, the Portage Trail Conference, in theory, could have five state champions in football in one season because its 16 members play in Ohio's Divisions II, III, IV, V, and VI. In other words, winning the conference division does not determine who gets into the state playoffs and conferences are not all exclusively one size division, though they are usually schools close in size. This is where high school conferences are different from collegiate ones, again, adding to their notability. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This action implies that all the articles here are simply lists of conference members and sports they sponsor, when it has already been pointed out that some of the articles have documented histories and unique conference rules in their individual articles and can already stand on their own. No need to do a mass merge for articles that don't need it just to satisfy some people who feel they aren't notable enough to be on Wikipedia, plus the main list already exists. They are either notable enough to warrant an individual article or they aren't. Why make extra work when we don't need to?
As for high school conferences being notable, why are college conferences notable? Because they're on TV? Because they have a website? In essence, high school conferences, at least in Ohio, function very similarly to collegiate conferences. While they are certainly not as notable as a collegiate conference, that doesn't mean they are not notable at all, especially in light of the articles on high schools, which make mention of the school's conference affiliation. If the high school is notable enough to have its own article, why isn't the conference it is a part of notable enough? I have already mentioned how conferences in Ohio are different than in some other states (which don't use conferences) and how a given conference can have it's own specific rules, history, and structure; things that are notable even if it is lower. A simple list cuts out a lot of information. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused to as why the Cincinnati league within this list of conferences was deemed non-notable then. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same here; and so is Jimbo from the sound of it. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Jimbo? hahahahaha --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to proposal to relist - Only those which are stubs OR which do not clearly list a particular reason for notability beyond "This is an Ohio athletic conference, ergo it is notable" should be relisted or merged. Non-stubs that do list a reason should be left alone. Non-stubs that do not clearly list a reason should be tagged and worked on. Stubs which do not list a reason should be merged. Stubs that do list a reason should be expanded. In any case, the bottom line is: Do not delete until after relisting, and only delete those which are mere stubs which do not make a claim of notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Comment on encyclopedic nature of high school sports conferences: Some are "notable in their own right" due to specific events involving the conferences. For example, high school sports conferences that were subjects of seminal desegregation cases or which consistently produce star athletes out of proportion to their member schools enrollment. Others are "wikinotable" because they cover so many schools that to leave them out would be a disgrace. For example, if there were a single governing body for high school sports in a country with as many high school athletes as the United States, such a body would clearly deserve at least a stub. As for state- and sub-state-level conferences in the United States, they probably all technically meet WP:N only because they receive significant coverage in the high school sports pages. Every time those conferences or their governing bodies make a major decision, it's reported in sports pages throughout the region or state, trivially meeting WP:N. However, just as we don't include every neighborhood non-nationally-affiliated youth sports association even though it receives significant coverage in the local paper every year, we don't necessarily include regional or state-level high school athletic conferences. Instead, we write articles or leave the articles unwritten and, on occasions like this one, nominate articles for deletion. The consensus, either "not notable"/"nobody cares" by virtue of nobody writing the article, "notable" by lack of a PROD or AfD, or notable or not notable or no consensus by the results of the AfD, shape and reshape where to draw the line. Remember, consensus can change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment David does bring up a good point, as high school sports do get a good chunk of attention in local papers. After the national stuff, local stuff generally follows in the average sports section. That's a good reason for keep. But the current state of the articles are really bad, with the exception of a few. If the consensus ends up being keep, if anyone wants to work with me with coming up with a uniform format for these pages. Obviously some will be longer than others. But a general blue print for each page (i.e. Infobox, maps, how to break the article into sections, etc.). And time must be given too, because I've seen articles brought back to AfDs quick, and because the people involved are different consensus changes. It stinks! --FancyMustard (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis sounds like a good task for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ohio. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LOCALFAME A subject that is notable only locally does not necessarily fail WP:N. These conferences (at least the ones around my home town of Cleveland) are coveed in the newspapers a nd on local media a lot. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this argument. Local papers also post obituaries of local citizens as well. Does getting in the newspaper make these people notable? No! --UWMSports (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These days big-city papers treat obituaries as classified ads. They'll print a small "death notice" without a photo as a public service, anything more that isn't a "news obit" is a paid ad. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because the person in the obituary has no notability, local or otherwise, the conferences all have local notability. read the policy before making outlandish statements like you just did. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCALFAME is not as cut and dry as you are trying to make it to be Frank. Something like Old Man of the Mountain qualifies under your interpretation of localfame because it is known to EVERYONE within New Hampshire. You go to New York, they probably don't know about it. But high school conferences don't qualify under your definition of local fame. Unlike the Old Man of the Mountain, I'm sure only a low% of Ohioians know what the high school conference lines are. Does this make sense to you? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that high school conferences receive extensive coverage most of the year, from conference previews for each sport, to online discussion forums, and general reporting of scores...so not the same as a one or two-time obituary notice. As for the suggestions for this to be part of Wikiproject Ohio, and the formation of a basic layout, I think those are great ideas. I did some of the layout for the Portage Trail Conference article and based it loosely on what I found on the collegiate conference articles (using a chart for member schools, for example), though the PTC article is far from a perfect model to be used. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being an Ohioan I can say that more than a low % of Ohioans know the High School Conference lines. Obituaries are firrerent. The have to follow Biography criteria. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UWM, low profile obits are generally written by the family and sent to the newspaper to inform locals in the community that someone they may know has died. The newspaper does this as a favor to the family to get the word out and possibly save them the time of making hundreds of phone calls. With high school sports, the newspaper sends their people out to the events. This is to enhance their paper. Big difference here. They aren't going to report John from the supermarket died unless the paper is notified by the family, they will report on the high school sports whether or not someone from the game calls them to come.--FancyMustard (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mustard, two girls from my community died in a car crash recently and the article made the first few pages. Those girls weren't notable! --UWMSports (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the crash is newsworthy. Like your local news begins with two killed in local robbery. Those people weren't necessarly notable, but the way they died was notable and thus newsworthy. Grandpa dying in his sleep doesn't make the front page. --FancyMustard (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Mustard, but there are lots of things that make local papers because it is a specialized local newspaper. They are not going to report much national stuff because the reader can buy the New York Times or something like that instead. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is very broad. I think people fail to realize that and unfortunately many unecessary articles get through. It's a lot of work that no one will search for. Huskies made a good point about local fame! --UWMSports (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reset indent) But again, these instances of noteworthy items in a newspaper may be in for one or two days and then the item isn't covered anymore. This is not the same as a high school conference which is covered in multiple newspapers on an almost year-round basis. And as I've said before, why are the high schools notable, but an organization which is formed by those notable high schools (yes, Ohio conferences are formed by their respective member schools) is not? Keep in mind, the only reason that collegiate conferences have achieved high notability is because of the high notability of their members. Ohio State isn't notable because of the Big Ten; no, the Big Ten is notable because it contains Ohio State and other notable schools like Illinois, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, etc.--JonRidinger (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A high school in the middle of Ohio cannot be compared to a mega-large institution like Ohio State in the collegiate Big Ten. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point...it's not about comparing Ohio State to some high school...it's comparing reasons for why something is considered notable and why it isn't. I was trying to connect the notability of high schools (already established) with notability of their respective conferences since it is the high schools themselves that get together and form a conference, just like in college. If nothing else, high school conferences are notable because they contain and are formed by notable institutions, just like collegiate conferences have achieved notabilty based on the notability of their membership. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, it's pretty clear from previous deletion discussions that public high school articles won't be deleted merely from lack of notability. We are talking about sports conferences, which are organizations consisting of many high schools but, unlike school districts, may or may not be taxpayer-funded, may or may not have elected officials running the show, and which may or may not provide direct services to students or the general public. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would venture to say that none of the high school athletic conferences are supported directly by taxpayers, any more than a college conference is directly funded publicly. They function on membership dues, which is an indirect public payment since it is coming from the school (if the school is public, of course). From what I've read as well, the leadership of a given high school conference is usually made up of the principals of the member schools who may or may not hire a separate head or they rotate who is in charge amongst themselves.--JonRidinger (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

Other examples from other states - Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference, Six Rivers Conference
To discuss these claims, see discussion after Arbitrary Break #3
  • Prods that exceeded 5 days are listed differently. I think one of them demonstrate that. So six pieces of evidence, take away the prod+5days, equals five pieces of evidence to ZERO. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cincinnati Hills League - 3 November 2006 "high school athletic conferences are not notable" No AfD record found
Greater Miami Conference - 5 July 2006 "closing prod" Uncontested PROD
Suburban League 6 March 2008 "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page" SPEEDY
Interstate Eight Conference - 1st deletion - 15 April 2008 "A1: Not enough context to identify subject" SPEEDY
Interstate Eight Conference - 2nd deletion - 25 April 2008 "CSD A1: Very short article providing little or no context" SPEEDY
Sangamo Conference - 3 November 2006 "((prod)) > 5 days" - Uncontested PROD
Six Rivers Conference - 26 May 2006 "closing prod" Uncontested PROD
As you can see, at most 1, and possibly 0, of these are relevant as precedent.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence to negate these? You can't just ignore them. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They only have value as precedent if there was an AfD or similar discussion that ended with a consensus. I'm pointing out for all to see that of the 7 deletions, 6 or 7 of them have no value as precedent, and the value of the first one, if any, is hidden from view and therefore useless here until the relevant discussion surfaces. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the admin that deleted some of those articles agreed with the prod. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, there was no discussion. Also, it's not necessary that the admin "agree" with the prod, only that the admin not disagree. I expect most admins are neutral when it comes to housekeeping tasks like deleting expired prods. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Good edit David, can you agree to that Baby and Frank? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this keeps up I'm going to ask an admin to either PP this page for 1 hour and/or look at the debate to see if it can be closed or if further discussion is likely to be useful. The 5-day minimum period has already passed, but I would expect admins to leave it open until it looks like further discussion won't provide any more benefit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its probably getting to the point where you could do that anyway. It just seems to be the same users talking in circles. Maybe give it a day for others to chime in about Baby's links, but other than that, I'm looking forward to seeing this wrapped up too. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 4 - Summary/Poll[edit]

In a previous edit I called this a poll. I've restored it along with the responses to date. AfD is not a vote, but I'd like to see how people stand all in a single location, rather than spread out as above. Put your name below the statement that best describes your feelings on this. Many people will not see this non-poll - the closing admin will have to look here as well as above when making his decition.
  • explicitly keep all, all clearly meet the criteria for keep
  • explicitly keep some as some clearly meet the criteria for keep, rest can be dealt with later
  • explicitly keep some that clearly meet the criteria for keep and explicitly delete some that clearly meet the criteria for delete
  • explicitly delete some which are worthy of deletion but no opinion on the rest
  • explicitly delete all as all are worthy of deletion
  • none of the above
  • your name here

The above is not a vote

Just remember when you say the rest can be dealt with later, you will probably see an agonizingly long AfD here again. Why don't we just deal with them all, even if some are keep and some are delete or merge. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'm sure there's other things we can be doing in the middle of the night. --FancyMustard (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smartest thing said yet here. Haha! --Airtuna08 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GoHuskies9904, for those articles which have consensus, then by all means let's mark them done. But if no individual article has a consensus, then it's unfair to that article to mark it "consensus: delete" or "consensus: keep." With the exception of stubbish articles, I haven't seen much discussion about individual articles. Frankly, I expect most of these that survive this AfD to come up again individually within the next few weeks or months. Those that are rightly marked by the closing admin as "consensus: keep" will have a better shot at surviving future AfDs than those that don't yet have consensus, which I think is most of them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it does any good to bring each and every article back to an AfD. They are all basically the same; a list of schools and sports within the conference. Why should time be wasted on bringing those back individually? It's easy to just delete them and have them on the central list. What you guys want to do with those unique conferences with history and what not is up to closing admin. --UWMSports (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per what I said Way up at the top of the AfD probably a week ago, I believe a Keep All is in order. I think those that are currently stubs should be tagged as such and others with notability/reliable sources concerns should be appropriately tagged. I like the idea by davidwr about informing those involved with WikiProject Ohio as they could help expand those stub-level conferences. After at least a month or two, if nothing is done about them, then maybe redirect those specific conferences to the conference list. Maybe this opinion also supports "keep some, we will deal with the rest later," but I believe all should be kept, at least for now. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the suggestion (as I have already mentioned) of including articles within various related Wikiprojects and seeing if anything can be made from them, at least for a time. If not (i.e. the article is just a duplicate list) then delete it for redundancy. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 5 - non poll discussion continues[edit]

Actually, over half of those nominated have more than school listings Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 14:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few have more than a list of schools and a list of sports though. I don't think listing every sport makes the article better. It is pretty much common knowledge what sports a high school plays. Maybe one includes boys volleyball or something. That's the only curve ball you're going to get there. --UWMSports (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 5 didn't get a lot of love, haha. --FancyMustard (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I guess not Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 23:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 6: Breakdown of the nominated articles[edit]

Articles that should immediately be deleted-REVISED LIST
This is because all of the following pages are nothing more than a list of schools already found on the central list and look like the deleted Cincinnati Hills League article that is from the same list of schools:
1-Blanchard Valley Conference
2-Buckeye Border Conference
3-Central Buckeye Conference
4-Cincinnati Metro Athletic Conference
5-Firelands Conference
6-Great Lakes League
7-Greater Buckeye Conference
8-Greater Catholic League
9-Greater Western Ohio Conference
10-Green Meadows Conference
11-Lakeshore Conference (OHSAA)
12-Midwest Athletic Conference
13-Northeast Ohio Conference
14-Northern Ohio League
15-Northwest Central Conference
16-Northwest Conference (Iowa)
17-Northwest Conference (OHSAA)
18-Northwest Ohio Athletic League
19-Ohio Cardinal Conference
20-Pac 7 (OHSAA)
21-Patriot Athletic Conference
22-Pioneer Conference
23-Putnam County League
24-Southwestern Conference (Ohio)
25-Toledo Area Athletic Conference
26-Wayne County Athletic League
27-West Shore Conference

The following articles have the beginnings or a lengthy history and other valuable items within the article. These articles should be decided upon individually.
1-East Central Ohio League
2-Mid-Ohio Christian Athletic League

3-Midland Athletic League
4-North Central Conference (OHSAA)
5-North Coast League
6-Northern Lakes League
7-Ohio Valley Athletic Conference
8-Portage Trail Conference
9-Sandusky Bay Conference
10-Southern Ohio Conference
11-Suburban Lakes League
12-Toledo City League
13-Western Buckeye League


Clearly Frank Anchor's claim that over half of the articles have more than just a high school listing is not true. 70% of these articles should be immediately deleted. --UWMSports (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side note:Northeast Ohio Conference does include a very brief history and its list is more than just a list of members: each division is different in each sport, something that is very unique in any athletic conference. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's still just a list. No history there. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it is a list, yes, but not all of it is, plus those lists wouldn't be included in the master list of Ohio athletic conferences. That list would simply contain a list of the members. The breakdown of each division by sport is unique enough (and does contain an explanation) to constitute an article, even if it is a stub or of low notability. It also does have the very basic beginnings of a history in that it mentions when it was formed and where the schools came from. It could definitely use an expansion, but that doesn't mean it's just a list like some of the other articles listed. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this breakdown very informative. I see 10 articles of good quality on the athletic conferences. And I see the other 30 as articles that with work could be made to look like the good 10. No need to delete because they haven't reached their potential at this moment in time.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have the following conferences in the inaccurate list. The following also have valuable items that could not be easily added to the list:

  1. Blanchard Valley Conference (Lengthy introduction, list of enrollments)
  2. Greater Catholic League (Lengthy intro, mention of numerous All-Ohio and All-American athletes)
  3. Mid-Ohio Christian Athletic League (List of champions, lengthy informative intro)
  4. North Coast League (History section recently added, possibly after you compiled this list)
  5. Northeast Ohio Conference (Notable in its own way in that the divisions differ by sport, and history section as to how it was the merger of the former Pioneer and Western Reserve Conferences
  6. Patriot Athletic Conference (Many notable lists of champions)

That makes <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pioneer_Conference&action=edit&section=9 Editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedias>16 15, not 10 as you say, conferences that differ significantly from the deleted Cincinnati Hills League. Ben1283 showed and NewYork483 seconded that 53% had more info than a simple school list - a claim which i went by. Perhaps they also included leagues with just lists for schools and sports. I still maintain that all articles should be kept per my previous comments. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of enrollments can be found on each high school's page. List of sports is common knowledge. And breakdown into divisions can be done on main list as demonstrated already. Championships can be incorporated into high school page under their athletic section. And the 10 that I put aside aren't necessarily good. There is a big, big gap between East Central Ohio League and Portage Trail Conference. Those ten I simply left up to individual review. --UWMSports (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that enrollments may be a stretch, but championships should be on school pages in addition to conference pages. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only the school's individual enrollment will be found on their page, not the enrollments of the other schools, so comparing one school to another in its conference won't be easy. As for sports...while the time of each sport is the same (Fall, Winter, Spring), what sports are offered by a particular conference varies. I guess one of the notable things about the conferences to me is how each school fits in and it can provide further perspective about a school's athletic program when it is compared to the other ones it competes with. And since each member is notable... --JonRidinger (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Delete the 28, weak keep the other 12 for now is a good compromise for this AfD. I would still vote delete for the other 12 if asked today, but we can give a little time for them to be turned into good articles before re-nominating them separately down the road. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may sound like a comprimise, but i'd suggest it's not in line with policy. Deletions are based on the topic and (with the exceptions of copy vio or severe blp issues) not on the current state of the article. If the 12 can be expanded why do we think the other 28 can not be?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Cincinnati Hills League was a separate page from this list that was deleted 2 years ago. All of the 28 that UWM provided seem to mirror that page. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that had already been discussed. Speedy delete, not consensus at afd. Interpretation of A7 that could be argued.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh and 2 years ago, consensus can change even if there was consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now SIX examples of high school conferences being deleted. Prods can be contested, but they weren't. And even if they go past the 5 day limit, the deleting admin has to ask themselves is this article really worthy of being deleted. Airtuna said it above, if someone puts a prod on George Washington and its ignored for 5 days, do you really think an admin is going to delete it? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that compromise too. A list is sufficient enough for those 28 conferences. Those opposed should realize it really isn't deleting the material, its still on Wikipedia. --FancyMustard (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's awfully difficult to expand the articles to make them more complete and thorough if they no longer have pages from which to expand. There must be no prejudice toward recreation to any article deleted should it be turned into a complete, encyclopedic article. I still maintain that articles are totally valid as stubs. matt91486 (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, many of the articles in the 'immediate deletion' section have more than just team lists. The Pioneer Conference article lists former members, which would not be present in the main list. The Ohio Valley Conference has teams from West Virginia, which equally would not be covered in the main list. Merger processes would be incomplete at best. matt91486 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, keep the Ohio Valley Conference. It's unique that a high school athletic conference include two states. Matty, can you do a little research on that conference to find out if its privately run or which state runs it? I can't imagine its champions would be recognized in a state championship setting. As far as the stubs, they shouldn't be kept as is because as they read its just duplicate information you can find on the master list. --FancyMustard (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the multi-state conferences, I don't think one state would run it. Each school adopts the rules of its conference and of the state governing athletic board, so a team winning a particular conference would only have a partial effect on their qualifying for the state's playoffs (which isn't assured by their winning the conference title like in college). In other words, it is possible for a conference like the OVAC to have state champions in both states depending on which state the school plays in (Ohio teams go to OHSAA playoffs, WV teams go to WVHSAA playoffs), just like a conference with teams in multiple size divisions can theoretically have multiple teams win the state championship from the same conference. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The OVAC should be kept specifically because it covers both Ohio and W. Virginia and wouldn't exactly fit into a list of high school athletics conferences in Ohio NewYork483 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Reset Indent)
The Northeast Ohio Conference page needs to be kept as well. The fact that it uses different divisional alignments for its different sports is notable in itself and could not be copied into the conferences list. I believe that and the 12 that Huskies UWM marked as having valuable information that could not simply be put on the list. I also believe the other articles should be redirected to the conference list, not deleted. That way someone searching for one of the conferences would find the list of conferences, and not a blank page. it would also preserve the histories of the articles. Ben1283 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on both points NewYork483 (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I made some minor expansions on the Northeast Ohio Conference page Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on the Northeast Ohio Conference. That material can be copied over to the main list. I'm sure there are conferences all over the country that don't line up exactly sport for sport. This is nothing uncommon. As for the Ohio Valley, since its in two states, keep it. The list has been updated for me I guess. --UWMSports (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sidenote It may not be completely unique, but it is certainly noteworthy. I have never seen a high school conference that has a setup like that at least in Ohio or elsewhere (again, many states do not use athletic conferences the way Ohio does), so I wouldn't say it's "nothing uncommon" until you can present some references to "conferences all over the country" that have that particular setup. The only thing close I have seen is in instances where some members don't offer a particular sport, so the divisions either are aligned differently or disappear all together. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unusual for this to happen. All depends on school size, funding, interest, etc. Not notable enough to have its own page, merge the divisions to the central list. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the comment way above me (this discussion moves fast when you're not home), I'll do my best to look into the Ohio/West Virginia conference some; however, I'm taking the GRE on Wednesday, and that's going to occupy most of my time until after that. I'll quick glance around though, and if this discussion is still open Wednesday evening, I'll look into it some more. matt91486 (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff, no worries, Portage is on the list of 13 that will get a closer look. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in point of fact I am... not worried, per se, but concerned. With all due respect, this is a rather poor nomination to AfD, akin to subjecting Cleveland, Ohio and Center of the World, Ohio to the same AfD process simply because both happen to be places in Ohio. It appears that this AfD was originally about one article, but in an attempt to blunt arguments from WP:OSE every other like article got thrown in the mix. This is a deletionist's dream, and as one who tends toward inclusionism I don't like how the process is being abused in this case to try to delete a number of articles en masse. I believe AfD should evaluate each article on its own merits (or lack thereof), and not be used for a deletionist agenda any more than "other crap exists" should be used for an inclusionist agenda. -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly that, Jeff. All these conferences belong to the Ohio High School Athletic System. That is why they all had to come here together. They are part of a unit!!! It is not about Cleveland compared to small towns miles off any interstate highway in Ohio. If it was about that, how come there'd be a central list with conferences from all over Ohio? I'm not a deletionist or a inclusionist. You are speaking to the nominator, and I assure you that is not the case. There was precedent in the past of a high school conference in this system being deleted. My concern is if that was going to be deleted, how come other similar conferences exist. I've already compromised that certain pages should remain that have notable history, etc. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to handle this is to close it then kick it back to a merger discussion, perhaps sponsored by WikiProject Ohio, to reorganize all these articles plus possibly a new article Ohio High School Athletic System. My recommendation: A category called Category:Ohio High School Athletic System or Category:Ohio Primary and Secondary Sports along with a main article for that category. The main article talk page can host the merger discussion. Those conferences deemed not notable enough for a full article can become redirects, without any AfD required. If, after the merger discussion, editors still feel that a given article is non-notable, they can bring it up for AfD individually. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No David, it isn't. Delete the 27 articles on UWM's list and bring the other 13 back for discussions down the road. Merger discussions go no where fast. And this isn't about a merger, this is about deleting several articles that look like Cincinnati Hills League. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing back articles from the dead is harder that it looks. There's no point in erasing an article if it is going to come back in a substantially similar form. You can argue for deleting articles that merely duplicate content, such as some of the stubs whose information is duplicated in a list, since re-creating is possible. However, deleting a substantive article should only be done when there is a mandatory reason to delete like copyvio, when the substantive article is so poorly written or so contentious that "startover" is the best solution, or when no substantive article could be written on the topic and still pass AfD, which is the case for non-notable entities. IMHO if you are arguing that "13 conferences are notable, 14 are not" then any article with substantive content must either be kept or be kept for now and relisted separately.
If you are arguing that 13 conferences are notable and could have good articles in the future, and 14 are not notable and never could barring new notability, then you should close this AfD and relist the 13 individually and group-list the 14 as "non-notable Ohio-area High School football conferences." Before you do, make sure most people agree that the 14 are in fact not notable. Because this AfD has been open so long and because some of those who followed it early thought it was an all-or-none decision, it's only fair to relist rather than delete 14 and keep 13 as a result of this AfD. Because there is "no consensus" on at least 1 of these conferences, and by your own admission possibly as many as 13, it is unwise to delete them all - it's a ticket to deletion review, which would just prolong things unnecessary as the deletions would likely be overturned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reset indent
I would like to see all 40 go, but it is a compromise at this point to allow the other 13 a chance to be judged separately. We've wasted enough time to have this article closed as you want it. The 27 articles that should be deleted resemble no difference to the Cincinnati article that was deleted. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And UWM laid out the list well. An admin can see that and make their decision based on that. Things do not need to be listed separately. There is a reason why Wikipedia gives instructions on how to bundle articles together in an AfD. It is to save time and get everyone discussing it at once. This singular discussion may be running over a week, but if you list every article separately it could take a year! It would be a total waste of time. We can cut the fat here and delete 27 articles that is merely duplicate information to the central list. Work on the 13 that I have compromised with. If those pages are developed into good articles, maybe you guys can plan on a project to re-create the other 27+. Use your sandbox or whatever to work on those after you've provided a solid 13. Make no mistake, those 13 are in very bad shape. Those should be your focus. Those will be re-listed separately if they aren't improved. By the way, they are athletic conferences, not football conferences. Might want to rename all those pages you created:p. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 7: The Return of the Jedi[edit]

I agree with DGG. Close as no consensus and take this elsewhere. This is highly irregular for an AfD to take a format like this. I would suggest nominating one example from each of the categories (list-only, list-plus-other-info), let those AfDs play out individually, and then start a discussion on what to do with the whole category. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All this and a no consensus? I think we are overthinking this. Yes, its highly irregular. But these conferences are all under the same Ohio System, therefore they had to be listed together. Something needs to come out of this AfD! Otherwise we wasted a week. Delete the 27. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a no consensus decision would be a big mistake. I agree with Huskies; UWM broke the articles down well and that provides a good blue print for the closing admin to make his/her decision upon. After looking at the 27 articles there is really nothing there that isn't on the main list. So I ask what are we holding on to there? It already exists!!! However, I disagree that the other 13 should be deleted down the road. They have unique qualities, such as one being in two states. It's pretty cut and dry for the closing admin. Delete the 27 that look like that deleted Cincinnati article and keep the other 13. --FancyMustard (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really solve anything. That solution would say that high school athletic conferences have notability. And if they have notability, then the articles that are team lists should be able to stay up and be marked as stubs for future expansion, because they could be given the same league histories, etc, and then would be in the other group that survived this. It's really arbitrary to say that anything written well enough by some standard at this point is OK, otherwise it should go. It's under some assumption that none of them can be improved in the future, which doesn't make any sense to me. matt91486 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 8 - chart of schools[edit]

It's in dispute whether being a high school athletic conference is itself clearly notable, near the border between notable and not notable, or clearly not notable. If being a high school athletic conference is clearly notable, then all articles, even stubs, should pass. If being a high school athletic conference is inself near the border between notable and not notable, then well-written articles plus articles that have an independent claim of clear notability should pass. If it's clearly not notable, then even an article that otherwise meets FA standards should fail unless the individual conference either clearly notable or is a well-written article near the border between notable and not notable. It's the consensus of editors here that the normal rules of "receives significant non-trivial media coverage equals notability" doesn't apply here, if it does, as evidenced by the fact that we didn't speedy-close this as "keep all/snow" on day one.

To help those who think school conferences are marginally or almost notable, as well as those who want to delete all which do not have an independent claim of clear notability, I've prepared this table. Please make corrections and additions.

This chart is incomplete. Please strike this line when it is complete.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:00, 10 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. As a side note, I'd like to point out that deleting an article about a man who is at best a kook, at worst a conman is not to delete the article but rather make sure that the man is portrayed in fair light. This includes both fair praise and fair criticism and there appears to be enough of both to construct a balanced article here.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Greer[edit]

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

There is no indication of the subject's notability, and the article seems to be blatant advertising to promote the subjects commercial activities, including his $995 "training sessions" [9] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. But I don't see any publishers there that look reputable. Rather it all seems to be publishers of fringe stuff with doubtful standards. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is notable, it would be more helpful to substantiate that in the article than to write claims about it here. So please add evidence of notability to the article. So far nothing has changed there, not even the promotion for his commercial activities. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, my belief that the article should be deleted is based on looking at the article and assessing the quality of its sources. If you improve the article, then I may change my mind. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur completely. Notability has nothing to do with whether somebody is right or wrong about something. The proponents of two mutually exclusive hypotheses can both be notable, even though at least one of them must be wrong. This article just does not establish notability, even among fellow travelers. --Crusio (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification., Crusio. That has been one of the more unbiased and informative comments I've read so far, and I appreciate your sense of fairness. I'll certainly encourage the inclusion (and contribute, where I feel qualified to do so) these cited-source additions to the article. Dancingeyes (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether "something is going on here" or not is completely besides the point. AfD is to establish notability not The Truth. --Crusio (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: the preceding comment is the only edit of Flyboyqw. --Crusio (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, we have a new SPA I-netfreedOm and an even newer editor whose only edit is the above. 'Surely something is going on here'. :-) Doug Weller (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please explain what "SPA" means? Thanks. Dancingeyes (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPA=Single Purpose Account (see WP:SPA). User Flyboyqw has made only one single edit on Wikipedia up till now (the one just above), I-netfreedOm has only made edits to this discussion, the page on Greer, and user talkpages related to this. You yourself, although in the last month your only contributions have to this subject, are not an SPA, as you have contributed to other articles on other subjects in the past. As WP:SPA explains, SPA is not to be used pejorative, but descriptive only. However, if many SPAs participate in a single AfD, that raises the suspicion of them being sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Hope this helps. --Crusio (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This does indeed help. Much appreciated. — Dancingeyes (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me suggest that "500 Witnesses from covert projects in the government" supports the notability of the Disclosure Project far more than it does this biography. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed create a new account, but not just for that edit above. I realize that this is not common practice but I am not going to be an active or permanent sockpuppet. This topic is so sensitive (ridicule, even worse at times) that I decided to create a new account with a new IP for security reasons. Don't forget that a SPA not only has negative aspects (abuse) but also positive as it is effective at protecting one's privacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboyqw (talk • contribs) 07:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now, what else do you need to keep this article going? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs)
Comment And another SPA.... Makes one almost willing to believe that there really IS a conspiracy out there.... PLEASE, take a few minutes to read the discussion above and the linked policies. It does not matter at all for this AfD whether Greer is right or wrong. For all I care he could be a proponent of a flat Earth. What IS important is that we establish whether or not he is notable and for that we need reliable independent and verifiable sources. --Crusio (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number of sources listed is satisfying now? Or do we want more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Orion Project has collected 342 000$ from donations so far, which is definitively of great importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If only to show how gullible people are. Sorry, but it had to be said. This article needs more input from the skeptical community. Plvekamp (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rather, I would say that for a topic which supposedly millions of people believe to be real, that raising only that sum of money is an excellent indication of lack of notability for the project. DGG (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the contrary, I believe that people are waking up to a new understanding of our true nature. Science might not be able to mesure everything at the moment, just like science couldn't see or mesure ultra-violet or infrared in the past. But time will come where we can measure these things in a distant future. Your reality is based on your understanding of the current Physics. Can I pretends I understand everything that there is? Can we pretend we understand everything there is? If so, then we fall in the same traps as our ancestors. As long as it can't be measure, it's stupid and unacceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The addition of random UFO sources such as the self-published Leopizzi Harris, Paola, Exopolitics: How Does One Speak to a Ball of Light? or the self-published Kennedy, Judy, Beyond the Rainbow: Renewing the Cosmic Connection that are not cited in the article does nothing to establish notability. We need reliable sources that discuss Greer, not the Disclosure Project, not a passing reference to Greer in a discussion on UFOs in general - we need reliable sources that discuss Greer in particular as their main subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well said. I totally agree. Flyboyqw (talk) 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm not completely sure, but I think I detect a foot odor here... Just a suspicion. Plvekamp (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm suspicious enough to tag him as an SSP. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These comments are out of line and off-topic. Please stick to the issue of notability, as has been so duly pointed out to me recently. — Dancingeyes (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your are wrong this time, Watson. By the way your accusations show that my reasoning is correct and instead of bringing some arguments against my point you attack the messenger. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest that we also separate out the biased Greer opponents. With this I can count 4 keeps and 3 deletes. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Votes will not be tallied. This is a discussion, not a poll. Votes are not simply tallied by the admin who will close this AfD, rather the debate will be weighed by the discussion here with reference to wikipedia policies and guidelines. You may wish to consult Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:VOTE if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's procedures. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know who the editor behind this account is, and that editor knows who I am and who Philosophus is. Unless required to do so, I will not break the anonymity. I agree with many of the views of the anon, but encourage civility. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:26, 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 keep. The sources cited by Phil Bridger do appear to demonstrate notability.--Kubigula (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Levete[edit]

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

Apparent vanity page, person does not conform to any of the guidelines for notability either as creative professional or as academic. Sources are not reliable or independent. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Miron[edit]

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

Not notable  Chzz  ►  19:16, 2 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 closure. macytalk 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Indian Premier League[edit]

2009 Indian Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable source, notability LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


LeaveSleaves and I have already had a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page after he posted 2 links ([20], [21]) and suggested that these indicated that it was unclear if an IPL season would occur in 2009 (or any other particular year in the future). I responded to say that these links were about a proposal that there be 2 IPL seasons in the same year (as expressed in this link) and that the 2 initial articles stated that this particular proposal would not go ahead for at least a few years. Here is an extract from the new link:

I also stated that there was no doubt that there would be an IPL season in 2009 and pointed out that, for example, the player auctions saw teams acquire players on 3 year contracts and that there would definitely be IPL seasons in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Any number of articles, such as this one suggest as much. As for notability, if the 2008 Indian Premier League is notable, and it clearly is, so too is the 2009 Indian Premier League. I think there is little value in expanding on this point. Juwe (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither of these sources or any other ones for that matter substantiate the information given in the article regarding the schedule or format of the tournament. And although 2009 Indian Premier League when declared would be considered notable, at present it is impossible to presume any of the information given at present in the article. Please note that the 2008 Indian Premier League article was created only after there was an official announcement to that effect. I'm not contesting the occurrence of next season, but a premature creation of an article without any reliable sources supporting any of the information given, except that there will be a next season. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take back my AfD nomination, a reference has been added. LeaveSleaves (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubén Serrano[edit]

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

All the language versions, as a short investigation at plwiki has shown, have been added with a high probability by one and the same person; all have been added as a translation of a previously prepared template and supplemented by trustworthy-looking photos, also taken by one and the same person. When doubts arise, a number of Spanish-language links are provided as sources by the same person - these do not confirm Serrano to be a writer (a few of the links are dead, one points to a webpage of a photographer, another directs the reader to a philantropist webpage). Other sources quoted in various Wikipedia editions rely directly on Wikipedia (which was the case of the article added to Polish Wikipedia), or sources such as the "author's" blog. Google (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=pl&client=opera&rls=pl&hs=ffQ&q=%22Rub%C3%A9n+Serrano%22&btnG=Szukaj&lr=) does not return any search results that confirm Serrano's identity other than Wikipedia itself and its mirros. The alleged Selvinderan publishing house also does not exist, and the only information returned by a search query is a number of Wikipedia user accounts by that name. The entry does not meet any Wikipedia criteria.

3 of 5 Serrano's books as presented in the entry are accompanied by ISBN numbers, and they have been published by the person himself (see http://www.xing.com/profile/Ruben_SerranoCalvo , confront author's resume). The have not been sold by neither Spanish nor international Internet bookshops, they have not been reviewed by any critic - Web sources (blogs and blog-like sites) quote only a local meeting with Serrano.

All in all, this seems to be an amateur writer's self-promotional activity on a huge scale, massively interwiki'ed. A variety of users posting opinions defending Serrano pretend to be different people, although they edit from the same location (as seen at plwiki). ISBN does not mean anything - de facto anyone who is a registered publisher may apply for a batch of ISBN codes and assign these to individual books, posting them in an ISBN database. The only thing that can qualify this article as eligible for publication is mainstream distribution of Serrano's books, which is - as shown above - not happening. Wpedzich (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This nom was malformed. I've corrected it (I hope) and added the AfD tag to the article Rubén Serrano. Deor (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There ale small social networking websites or local Madrid community websites, not notable. Szwedzki (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for offering some context there. :) As I don't speak Spanish, I've been finding the nom's statement about the sources that "these do not confirm Serrano to be a writer" a bit confusing, as the (admittedly clunky) translations of the above do seem to do that. :) I feel I can only offer a "weak" opinion here, since I do not speak Spanish and cannot positively assert that there are not scads of good sources covering this individual. But I will say that if these are all that can be found, and if they are local in scale, then he wouldn't seem to meet WP:BIO in terms of multiple independent sourcing. Whether he is notable as an author or not, these sources would, however, seem to suggest that he has achieved at least local notability as a philanthropist. But lacking further sources to confirm wider notability, I would tend weak delete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 3 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 - Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Oreshin[edit]

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

Non-notable person, founder of a company we don't even have an article on, no sources, not really a biography. Only 9 unique Google hits, and nothing in Google news. Based on the article's creator's name, it's an autobiography. Corvus cornixtalk 18:56, 2 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 overwhelming consensus. LeGrande (or anyone else), I understand your rationale, and if you have any reliable, secondary sources from your google searching that you feel verify and confirm the notability of this subtopic of a fictional series, hit me up on my talkpage, and I'll userfy a copy of this for you so you can improve it/restore it properly. Until then, consensus here is to delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyokugenryu Karate[edit]

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

Fails to meet the wikipedia general notability guideline since there is no significant coverage of "kyokugenryu karate" in reliable sources that are independent of SNK and its games. Most of the content of the article violates WP:PLOT and WP:GAMETRIVIA. Randomran (talk) 18:54, 2 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 nominator withdrawal. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Fechenbach[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS. If search for Felix Fechenbach+Nazi, google search shows only 45 ghits. This reference only mentions his name and this reference has only one sentence on Felix Fechenbach. No significant coverage multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per the references provided. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Men from the Pru[edit]

Men from the Pru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. 'Nuff said. ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 2 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 seems to have made a mistake in the process. Rudget (Help?) 18:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warstock[edit]

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

Ziggy Sawdust 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Got Talent[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The World's Got Talent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sourced, nothing is for definite; article was made too early in my opinion, and may sway it towards WP:CRYSTAL. Coming to AfD to encounter consensus. Rudget (Help?) 18:21, 2 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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akim Aliu[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article per an agreement to resurrect it from a hasty speedy deletion. I fully admit he is close to the threshold at this point of his career, but I think he's on the keep side. My main agreement towards keep would be that he recently played professionally for the Rockford Icehogs and that alone satisfies WP:BIO. He is also known for being on the receiving end of one of Steve Downie's "episodes". ccwaters (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO he meets the bolded text, unless I'm misreading something, which I might be. Dusticomplain/compliment 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Editors interested in pursuing a merge of this material elsewhere are invited to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party (UK)[edit]

Libertarian Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. And this ties in with the on-going discussions at User:Doktorbuk/pp relating to the lack of notability rules for political parties. The Libertarian Party (UK) fail WP:N as they have no recorded history of campaigning, they have no elected representatives, no recorded evidence of significant campaigning outside the electoral context of the Henley by-election, 2008, which is their first candidature. They may be notable in the future, but WP:Crystal suggests we cannot assume they will. See the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money Reform Party debate for a comparative example. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already linked to at bi-election.Smeeee (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The discussions at User:Doktorbuk/pp are still preliminary and no consensus has been reached. (And personally I think your criteria are too restrictive, but that discussion belongs elsewhere!) Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Given the non-notable nature of the party as they currently are would you accept a merge to Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom until such time as the party are genuinely notable (currently that is open to debate, the proposal is 2 years of campaigning/elections) doktorb wordsdeeds 09:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Cup 2009 Andalucia[edit]

Peace Cup 2009 Andalucia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be speculation because there is no references or anything of that matter to verify that this event is actually happening. Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. Tavix (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its not a required step of the AfD process so I don't have to tell the creator of the page. It may be a good idea though, but lets not get off-topic. Tavix (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Sertori[edit]

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

Character in a show that doesn't even have an article. I don't see which speedy criteria it meets (it might meet one, I just didn't notice it). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:18, 2 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). This was tagged for AfD only five minutes after creation, and "unfinished" isn't really a rationale for deletion, so consensus here is to give it a chance. WilliamH (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Professional Wrestling Styles[edit]

Types of Professional Wrestling Styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is unfinished; it also lacks notability criteria. Bit Lordy (talk) 17:16, 2 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 consensus established in this AfD is in line with previous discussions that have held that Guantanamo detainees that have not received substantial coverage from reliable sources – excluding the US government agencies involved in their detention – are not notable. The arguments made by GeoSwan and DGG here are not sufficiently strong to make me disregard that consensus:

A relisting is not appropriate because there has been ample participation and it seems that no important new developments that would need further discussion have occurred towards the end of the AfD.  Sandstein  09:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826)[edit]

Is this a biographical article? It looks more like a WP:COATRACK to me. Either way, the article also fails as the person is only notable for one event anyhow (WP:BLP1E). coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No offense, but I am concerned over what I see as a conflation here between "noteworthiness" and "notoriety"/popularity. The first paragraph of WP:BIO states:
Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary.
It seems to me that WP:BIO is clear. It does not require notoriety/popularity. It merely requires that there be something unusual enough to deserve attention. There are lots of topics that merit coverage here where there is no, and never will be, any press coverage. If the wikipedia is going to be comprehensive it is going to have to cover lots of topics that aren't notorious/popular.
Thought experiment -- if the paragraph Worthington wrote about Abdul Salaam had been written about an American would it even occur to anyone to challenge it? I suggest it would not. (1) Being picked up in a random sweep; (2) held for years in a secret detention camp; (3) released years later, with no explanation. If we had an article about an American in this position, I doubt anyone would challenge it. Aren't all the captives in the same position as Abdul Salaam? No. Only one other captive's memos justified his detention because he worked for a hawalla. Hawalas were suspect because there was an unsubstantiated meme floating around that the funds that supported 9-11 hijackers had been transferred to them through a hawala called al Barakat. However the 911 Commission found that all the funds transferred to them had been sent via ordinary US banks.
WRT BLP0E Respondent, above, describes Abdul Salaam as someone known for zero events. Most of BLP is devoted to protecting the privacy of the subjects of our articles. The BLP1E sections seems to have been grafted on as an afterthought. And I think this discussion illustrates a weakness of this section. Deciding when something is just one event, or several events, is an entirely POV judgment call. I listed four five events the references document. I'd be grateful if respondent stated why the events I listed weren't separate events.
Taking BLP1E seriously? -- In another discussion another wikipedian suggested that the article on Tony Blair be merged with the George W. Bush article -- because no one would have ever heard of him, if he hadn't supported Bush in the invasion of Iraq. Their joke makes a good point. There is no good absolute dividing line between what should be considered multiple events, instead of one event. I think this section is so open to misinterpretation it should be removed from BLP, where it doesn't fit, to some other place. It is so open to misinterpretation I question whether it belongs in policy space at all. Geo Swan (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this article is a violation of BLP1E.
  • Captured in a routine sweep of his local bazaar in May 2002.
  • Sent to Guantanamo in October 2002.
  • Faced the very last of the 558 CSR Tribunals in January 2005, where he was accused of transferring funds for al Qaeda.
  • His CSR Tribunal was particularly described by a DoD spokesman -- who explicitly obfuscated his name. Keeping the identity of captives secret is a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions.
  • During his first annual Review Board he faced only four factors justifying his detention. This is very unusual -- unlike what other captives experienced. Practically every other captive faced more allegations during their annual reviews than they did during their initial CSR Tribunal. Most faced at least twice as many allegations. One captive faced six times as many allegations second time around.
Please bear in mind that the Guantanamo captives were described as "the worst of the worst", and various similar description, by senior cabinet members of DoD officials. I suggest that anyone, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who almost everyone will agree is one of "the worst of the worst" merits coverage here.
And, I suggest that other captives, who faced allegations justifying their detention that may not clearly establish they were "the worst of the worst" also merit coverage. I don't think it is our role, as wikipedia contributors, to decide whether the allegations are credible for our readers. I think our readers are entitled to reach their own conclusions about the credibility of the allegations, and to reach their own conclusion as to whether those allegations really support descriptions like "the worst of the worst".
Some commentators above have made comments that suggest they may not understand that there are multiple separate, independent agencies here. Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), set up in early 2002, was responsible for the captive's interrogation, detention, medical care, mail from home. The Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants (OARDEC), set up in July 2004, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush, had the responsibility of formally confirming earlier secret determinations that the captives were "enemy combatants". Part of OARDEC's responsibilities was to independently review the evidence against each captive, and prepare "Summary of Evidence" memos, for the officers charged with making the recommendation. And in doing so they reviewed reports prepared by the CIA, FBI, CITF and the office of DASD-DA. It is my opinion that this fully satisfies the policy requirements that sources be "independent secondary sources". I know some people think they don't satisfy the requirements because they are not "media sources". But this is a misconception. The policies don't require sources be "media sources".
WRT WP:COATRACK -- it lists about a dozen different criteria. I've reviewed its recommendations recently, and I can't honestly see that this article lapses from any of those criteria. One of the criteria in COATRACK talks about "wongo juice" -- the article that is nominally about one thing, but quickly diverges, and spends most of its bytes talking about some other topic, which the COATRACK author called "wongo juice". Now, if this article were to diverge from talking about Abdul Salaam, and spent most of its bytes talking about Guantanamo detention, in general, then Guantanamo detention would be the "wongo juice". But I don't believe this article does this. Yes, there is material in this article that is similar to other articles. But, I regard that material as necessary context. You will find other related sets of articles, like the articles on the chemical elements, also have material in common. It would be possible to strip out all common material from the articles on the chemical elements -- at the cost of leaving them essentially useless for anyone who didn't already have a PhD in chemistry.
WRT WP:NOTINHERITED -- I believe this challenge is based on a misconception. Challenger acknowledged the Guantanamo camp is notable. And, similarly, San Quentin, Devil's Island and Leavenworth are notable. There are differences between the captives in those other facilities and the Guantanamo captives. (1) The captives in those other famous facilities have not had Cabinet members repeatedly label them as "the worst of the worst", "very bad men", and "terrorists"; (2) Captives ended up in those other facilities through the normal, routine, well-established, well-understood procedures of a criminal justice system -- one with established rules of evidence and established rules of procedure. When there is something unprecedented about a captive in one of those other facilities, we have an article about him or her. And, when there is something outside of the routine about one of the captives in one of those other facilities, we cover them. The USA imprisons thousands, or tens of thousands of individuals charged with, or convicted of murder. And we have articles about practically none of them. But we have articles on guys who stand out, like Willie Horton or Rubin "Hurricane" Carter. I've written about this further, here.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to COATRACK -- this document doesn't, generally, recommend deletion as the answer to a perception of COATRACK. Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. I will be happy to restore the content in userspace if anyone is interested in salvaging some of it or transwikying.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morretti SR4[edit]

Morretti SR4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A fictional weapon from one video game with no other notable qualities can be included in a list in the original BF2142 article, but certainly does not deserve its own article. Ops101ex (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No sources assert notability, also, creation of certain types of articles does not equate to Consensus. The weapon itself is not a major game mechanic, that is to say, it itself is not crucial to interacting with the game. It is one of two primary weapons of one out of four character classes. Furthermore, it provides no new or notable dimensions of interaction (For a positive example, see Gravity Gun), it is essentially "just another" Sniper Rifle. Therefore, it is not an exception to the Unsuitable Content guidelines under WP:VGSCOPE. I do agree that this is valuable information, however, so I change my "vote" to Transwiki. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 11:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Against's fifth studio album[edit]

Rise Against's fifth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely violates WP:CRYSTAL. Page has been around since last year, but page now doesn't expect album until 2009. When a title and tracklist comes out, then we can include this. Spell4yr (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think the sources are particularly great overall but consensus is against me and it's not worth keeping this up for the full time. Someone please close this; I'm not familiar with the process of nominator-withdrawn AFDs. Spell4yr (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per new, reliable sourcing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahar rug[edit]

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

A non-notable type of rug. The article is written like an advertisment. Tavix (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13,000 google hits, rug is detailed in numerous authoritive books on the subject, quite feasibly could be expanded into a full article. Article was proposed without consulting the creator originally. I can't really be bothered to answer here as it is a clear time waster. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply 13,000 Google hits?! If you take a look, there are slightly under 1,000 hits. I see you have added some references which is what I was after originally anyway. Tavix (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars (script)[edit]

Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars (script) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of deleted article . Very little sourced information on the script itself - nearly all references refer to the released film, and most of those are not from reliable sources - majority of article is unsourced original research. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no need to "vote" again - it doesn't get counted twice, and you've already made your feelings plain. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to your Comment - dude, I didn't assume a bot was counting votes, just wanted people to know I'm entertaining their complaints and recommendations. ....hmmm, but if you want to count votes, drumroll please!... 5 votes for KEEP, 5 votes for MERGE, 5 votes for DELETE (and that's not including my second vote (even the President gets to vote for him/herself once) but it does include the dork who thought it was all a hoax)... Exciting isn't it?! You and me, head-to-head! Brahma vs. Shiva! Dipolemoment (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL. Calling people "dorks" isn't going to sway anyone to your argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to your Comment about my Comment - I see your "Consensus" and raise you WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ...and, dude, the dork comment was a joke, chill! :) Dipolemoment (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to help you out because I see you're (cough) new here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Dipolemoment, the (re)creator of this article, was blocked as a sockpuppet [24] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Someone has created it here Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods (script). Please consider deleting this article as well, if the nomination for deletion is approved. Note that both the "(script)" article have redirects pointing to them. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:22, 4 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) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roland System-100[edit]

Roland System-100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a clear, biased advertisement of a product. It is not even remotely significant, every piece of equipment ever used by professionals is not significant. If so, almost every synth would have to be included on Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic, and has never been throughly cleaned-up Scapler 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No sources, and so unverifiable fancruft. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokemon obtained by Main Characters[edit]

List of Pokemon obtained by Main Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

At first each individual Pokémon character in the anime had a section showing the Pokémon they had. These were eventually removed due to being trivial and failing WP:N. This article was then created; it has no encyclopedic value, and is mainly a bunch of cruft, simply listing each Pokémon every character has. It has no sources and and fails WP:N. Artichoker (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Ashley Tisdale album[edit]

Untitled Ashley Tisdale album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Utter speculation. No firm sources to verify that the album is in production, and an utterly speculative title to the album (the current version presents it as if the album will be called Untitled Second Album!). Entirely premature to have an article at this point with the lack of firm sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally also waiting for an artist to release an album titled Self-Titled, rather than actually naming the album after themselves. But I digress -- back to the topic at hand. Spell4yr (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Treble Charger did that. Well, almost; they used self=title. Bearcat (talk) 06:52, 3 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 Speedied per WP:WASTEOFTIME, SNOWBALL and POINT William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooling denier[edit]

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

As per WP:NEO. Original Research by Kauffner. The reference given does not only disagree with scientific consensus but also doesn't use the term 'cooling denier'. It appears the User, who created the article is trying to make a point (see edit summary) of some sort, after his disruptive edits have been reverted by multiple editors and he has been ask to stop: [26] [27] [28]. Splette :) How's my driving? 14:21, 2 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 consensus, failing WP:MUSIC at all levels. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K-Rino[edit]

K-Rino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Book Number 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Has several albums, but none on a major label or notable indy. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use it as an argument but I'd point out that Amazon.co.uk have this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Worst-Rapper-Alive-Us-K-Rino/dp/B000AOEN86/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1212613167&sr=8-7 in stock. This isn't Amazon.com. The British site has imported stock of the album. He must have an international fanbase, no way would a retailer like Amazon be around today if they had a history of stocking turkeys. I worked for a record shop that did, it's no longer in business! Mallanox 21:02, 4 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 isn't a court of law, precedent does not hold sway, consensus does. Precedent may well influence an editor's opinion but it should not be the main reason of a deletion rationale. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia national football (soccer) team season 2008[edit]

Australia national football (soccer) team season 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per past precedent. – PeeJay 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as part of the same series:

Australia national football (soccer) team season 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Australia national football (soccer) team season 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Australia national football (soccer) team season 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and the following pages as similar articles for other countries:

Iran national football team season 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iran national football team season 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iran national football team season 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iran women's national football team season 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Japan national football team in 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waffman[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable slang, probably originating from a small group Katharineamy (talk) 13:05, 2 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 Audi_R8#Audi_R8_TDI_Le_Mans. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audi R8 TDI Le Mans[edit]

Audi R8 TDI Le Mans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

DELETE - the article, as it stands, is not WP:NOTE. The article merely deals with the development of an existing Audi model, the Audi R8 (with basically a new engine), and the text of this nominated article is detailed in the R8 article (Audi R8#Audi R8 TDI Le Mans). -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to disagree. This is a completely new vehicle. It looks very different, and every component under the skin has been changed. Please go on Audi's website and research it. It is not just an R8 with a V12 diesel in the back.Hce95 (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT a completely new vehicle (it is based on the current Audi R8 - hence the title). It does NOT look "very different" (it may have some "minor" visual changes, to allow for additional cooling, but the overall silhouette is no different to the existing R8). "Every component under the skin has changed" - now that is just a blatant lie - the floorpan, steering, suspension, gearbox, interior, electronics, etc are all identical to the existing R8! -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 18:28, 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 Nom withdrawn per WP:HEY/I must have had a bad google day TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margery Edwards[edit]

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

Snarky comment in the deprod aside, the reason for my original PROD stands. There are a lot of false postives (she's not the one who was married to Leon Uris, death dates don't match). She existed but there's no evidence that she was a notable artist. No evidence she passes WP Bio TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 12:54, 2 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. Malinaccier (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage from Bo Jonsson of Gripsholm to Casimir Ehrnrooth[edit]

Lineage from Bo Jonsson of Gripsholm to Casimir Ehrnrooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, but probably not difficult to verify, so that is not the issue. This is a genealogical line from random important mediaeval person to random important modern person. Using a sufficiently complete genealogical database, one could produce pages like this one automatically in the millions. Bo Jonsson is probably the ancestor of tens of thousands prominent Swedes, Finns or others. These, in turn, probably have a variety of other important ancestors. No case is being made for why this line is of particular significance. (For some reason, the genealogy has Finnish forms of names even for people who were in all likelihood Swedish-speakers.) Olaus (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we're not a directory, this doesn't really belong here.--Serviam (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate per nom. Everyone is related to Adam. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for every genealogical coincidence that strikes people's fancy. Choess (talk) 05:57, 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 Keep all. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil at the 2006 FIFA World Cup[edit]

Brazil at the 2006 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The majority of the content of this article is a duplication of information from various articles (in this case, 2006 FIFA World Cup, 2006 FIFA World Cup squads and 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL)). The rest of the info is immaterial and unencyclopaedic (e.g. Brazil's preparation for the tournament is not relevant). – PeeJay 12:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brazil at the 1982 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Croatia at the 2006 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iran at the 2006 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colombia at the 1994 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colombia at the 1998 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Croatia at the 1998 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trinidad and Tobago at the 2006 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Although I'm very hesitant to delete any "real place", I agree here that unless we can show, even in a phone book, that this place actually exists, then we have to assume that it either a)doesn't exist, or b)no one cares that it does. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meflink[edit]

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

According to this unsourced article, Meflink is "a small village [in] Båstad Municipality, Skåne County, southern Sweden. It lies approx. 2km south of Östra Karup."

The Swedish online telephone catalogue service eniro.se gives no hits for "Meflink" in any addresses or on any maps. Neither can any locality or small locality of this name be found in the on-line files of Statistics Sweden. Olaus (talk) 11:59, 2 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 tale of mari and three puppies[edit]

The result was Speedy keep- Withdrawn by nominator. I now see the film to have had coverage in independant, reliable sources per Delicious carbuncle's link. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 16:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tale of mari and three puppies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:N- no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A single blog does not count, and nor does an offical website. PROD contested OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 11:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I resent the amazing wikipedia bureaucracy. A new article has no chance to go beyond a simple stub stage before getting assaulted by numerous AfD. I am not associated in any way with the movie nor its web site. I am not the author of the blog linked to. I have nothing to gain from the article. But one has to spend more time preventing an abusive deletion than contributing interesting content to wikipedia. This kind of abuse (including cultural abuse) is the reason why I spend so little time contributing to wikipedia: if I have nothing to gain, at least I can avoid wasting my time fighting bureaucracy. Go watch the movie! AugustinMa (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"western cultural supremacy" never been accused of that before! Nor adminship, incidentally.
"If you could do a search in Japanese, you'd see the event has been discussed millions of times on Japanese web site."- the importance of the event is not importantant. The article is about the movie.
"A google search on the English title of the movie ("A Tale of Mari and Three Puppies") returns over 70,000 results"- 11,100
"Also, this movie is the greatest hit in Japan last year and this year."-If it is, then it is most likely notable and I will withdraw my argument. Have you a source for this?
"I am not associated in any way with the movie nor its web site."- at no point did I say you were.
"I am not the author of the blog linked to." The important thing is not the author, but the fact that it is a blog, and fails WP:RS
"cultural abuse" It's not relevent to this AfD, but at what point did I abuse a culture? If an identical article was written about an English film, I would nominate it for deletion. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 14:49, 2 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 anyone wants the content to try and get it onto Wikisource, let me or any other admin know. Neıl 龱 10:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalk of KAL 007[edit]

Stalk of KAL 007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary content fork which is mostly a transcript. The series of events leading to the downing of KAL 007 is better covered in the main article. If possible this should be added to Wikisource, but afterwards should be deleted.

I'm also nominating the following pages for the same reasons:

Guycalledryan (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that these articles contain transcripts but my own intros and some of my comments are also included. But the fact that these is not one comtinuous transcripts but my joining of transcripts, with my deletions of extraneous material - such as fuel readouts, interspersed "fasten seatbelts" announcements in the three languages, etc. might be more telling. I had thought about, as you have suggested, placing the articles contents in the body of the main article, but decided against it because of the length this would bring the main article to. Yet, the material is certainly enhancing to a full understanding of eventsBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:59, 2 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 07:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man Laws[edit]

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

Not notable series of US only adverts Darrenhusted (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a lot of work into an article is not a reason to keep it.Darrenhusted (talk)
Fair enough. I'll stick with keep though, because the pop culture references seem to establish notability. It looks as though some of these 'man laws' are fairly well-known to the general public and coming into general use, though it would be nice to see some references for that section. Actually it needs some real references for the rest as well... I clicked on some of the links to imdb profiles and they don't mention that the actors were involved in these commercials.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelastic (talk • contribs)
Then it fails WP:RS and WP:V. As well as being a large chunk of WP:TRIVIA. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a surmountable problem? (assuming such reliable sources exist... if they don't, then of course the article should be deleted.) --Angelastic (talk) 13:36, 2 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 Jami'a Nooriyya Arabic College. Tikiwont (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faizee[edit]

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

non-notable local degree, no references given. Triwbe (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I would support the merge proposal. --Triwbe (talk) 18:45, 2 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 any actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mietlicki[edit]

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

A reasonably well put together piece about an apparently hard working and talented person however I doubt that any of the information contained in the article can be verified by reliable sources. Guest9999 (talk) 09:32, 2 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 per WP:SNOW. Consensus indicates that this is a notable event, and the nomination is possibly WP:POINTy as it's made by a single purpose account. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Stanley Cup riot[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    1994 Stanley Cup riot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is news, doesn't belong on Wikipedia.Ac 767 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC) — Ac 767 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Zac R. Daley[edit]

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

    Unverifiable, suspected hoax. A quick search for the subject (excluding Bebo) gets all of 19 unique ghits, none related. MER-C 08:57, 2 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creativity in management[edit]

    Creativity in management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced personal essay. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete-essay. Buckshot06(prof) 10:09, 2 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.

    Kacey (porn star)[edit]

    The result was Speedy Delete as recreation of previously deleted AFD material with no significant improvement over issues addressed in said AFD. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Was deleted before, but this is a new and substantial version, so I thought best to take to AfD again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: She may be a size queen but did she begin the trend, per WP:PORNBIO? Participating in it does not inherently translate into unique contributions. WilliamH (talk) 13:51, 2 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not A Day Goes By[edit]

    Not A Day Goes By (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced article about a Desperate Housewives episode that "originally aired" in September of 2008 (think about it), created by an editor with no prior edit history. Impossible to verify whether this is genuine insider info or a planted foiler. Delete as unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 08:30, 2 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 REdirected to Self-replicating machine. Black Kite 08:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Partial construction[edit]

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

    Unverifiable OR. The WP editor that created the page is the author of the cited article. The article has not yet been published (cites vol 3 issue 1 whereas [30] lists the current issue as vol 2 issue 4. Author claims it is in a forthcoming issue. Topic is already a section in Self-replicating_machine of which it is a subtopic - would propose merge if it wasn't all already there. Ripe (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Author also claim that the paper is cited in already published media, and that the conclusions given in text deleted by user Ripe is consistent with this already published media. Hence, author claims a clear act of vandalism on the part of user Ripe. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been a single paper published in conference proceedings on the topic. The concept is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article when he had already made it a subsection of Self-replicating_machine. Many minor academic theories, including many better supported in the academic record, are not sufficiently notable for separate article topics in Wikipedia. Regarding the comment above, removing unverifiable information is not vandalism. The above author has a potential COI problem if he can't maturely handle good faith edits from other authors. Contrary to WRB's assertion, according to Amazon search inside, Automata 2008 proceedings have no mention of zygotes, which was the sole topic of my deletion on Self-replicating_machine article that he's referring to above (my edit here). Though that's a different issue than if the article should be deleted. Ripe (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I never mentioned that the word *zygote* is contained within the proceedings of Automata 2008. Ripe's contrary assertion, that I have so claimed use of a word in the proceedings to Automata 2008, is therefore a patent lie. Ripe needs to read what is written, and to understand the meaning thereof, in order to see the clear, unmistakable, and obvious relationship between the process of partial construction, and the nature of the zygote. William R. Buckley (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The placement of the concept may not be appropriate as a separate article. On this, I agree. Indeed, such is mentioned in the comments associated with enlistment within Self-replicating machines.

    As to notability, we will leave time to demonstrate such. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Redirect to Self-replicating_machine. Wait until the section on partial construction becomes large enough to warrant its own article, then make this article. Jkasd 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singularity 08:02, 2 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 userreq - Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Migratorius[edit]

    Migratorius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Monogyna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Rubecula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Oblonga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    One of Pages from a set of ill-considered disambiguation pages, two of which have already been deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulgaris‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miserabilis‎) and another of which is near deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canus). This one These should also go, for the reasons specified in the other AfDs. Deor (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I've added those to this AfD. But if you agree they should be deleted, you could just slap ((db-author)) tags on them. Deor (talk) 13:02, 2 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thats How I do(song)[edit]

    Thats How I do(song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. Supposedly released May 2006 on an album that is to be released May 2008. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:51, 2 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Waist Line(song)[edit]

    Waist Line(song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. Supposedly to be released August 8. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:50, 2 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Move Your Body(song)[edit]

    Move Your Body(song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. Not a single yet, supposedly to be released November 17. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Please note that the creator of this article must have copied and pasted this page when starting new articles, including copying the AFD nomination that directs here (see What links here). Wolfer68 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those other pages are as follows:
    Thats How I do(song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Waist Line(song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Any Holes A GOAL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Thats How I do(song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Taking Bows(Take A Bow) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Get Loose(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Take A Bow(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Get Loose Reloaded(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The HITZ:Remix 08(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The HITZ:Remix 09(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Get Loose(album)[edit]

    Get Loose(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. Release date is almost a year from now. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Please note that the creator of this article must have copied and pasted this page when starting new articles, including copying the AFD nomination that directs here (see What links here). Wolfer68 (talk) 22:03, 4 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 WP:CSD#A7. No assertion of notability, unverifiable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball &c., &c. Nothing here to suggest this is anything other than an elaborate hoax. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ladies Man(Singer)[edit]

    Ladies Man(Singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No references at all. States album peaked #23 on Billboard Top 200. Billboard.com Search turns up no results. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Sorry, I was using Twinkle at the time when I posted these, and didn't think of just adding them one by one. Sorry about that. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:01, 2 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 deletion (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Derbyshire[edit]

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

    Has not played in a fully professional league, and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't think he has even plays for the team he say hes does.--81.105.174.9 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - apart from the fact that he wouldn't satisfy notablity criteria, there's no mention of him on Stalybridge Celtic's homepage, and no relevant ghits when searching for "Paul Derbyshire stalybridge (with the exception of wiki pages)... and his height is 3 ft 8 in ?!? Very dubious. Bettia (talk) 10:22, 2 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blind equality[edit]

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

    Unreferenced for a year. WP:NOR. Most Google hits seem based on Wikipedia or its mirrors. Yamara ✉ 06:32, 2 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 - lack of external sources so notability not demonstrated. Spartaz Humbug! 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    G-Kon[edit]

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

    Contested prod. Gaming convention in Texas. Unclear notability. Sources are trivial. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 06:28, 2 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 Deleted by PeaceNT (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 10:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Envy album[edit]

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

    Debut album from a non-notable band, not yet released. Delete without prejudice against recreation after the album is released. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 06:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dont delete it, it has historical significance of an upcoming bands debut album. Mirrored Love (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay firstly why cant you guys just let our page be.... why would we bother putting something up we didnt think was worthwhile, it makes me sad to think that you guys dont appreciate what we're doing here....='(.....y r u all against us =( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrored Love (talk • contribs) 07:13, 5 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 Spartaz Humbug! 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AustNet[edit]

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

    This article had a prod removed by an anonymous user stating if this article is deleted major policies in wikipedia would need to be changed. I fail to see the resoning behind these statements as this article fails WP:WEB assuming IRC networks fall under this. Original prod created for "Article does not establish third party notability. Article lists no notable information for network. Possible COI. Article believed inappropriate for wikipedia " Also note many other IRC Networks are being proposed for deletion under notability, see IRC Network COI Virek (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "stating if this article is deleted major policies in wikipedia would need to be changed", Huh? You think by pointing out it is not very clear what Wikipedia is or isn't I am trying to hide behind a policy? WikiPolicy? WikiPolizia? I do not believe it has crossed your mind at any point to attempt to better any of the IRC Network articles you have marked prod/afd. I just noticed there may be a conflict of interest on breathing as it seems everyone editing the page is doing it, but I'm not sure where to report it! I need scissors! 61! 203.122.246.87 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. No bias to future nominations, but no particular desire on the community's part to delete this seems to exist. WilyD 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Krishna Vasudeva[edit]

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

    This article is to be considered for deletion or expansion as the main body of the article is merged into article Krishna as a separate section. Wikidās-ॐ 11:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:45, 2 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 Spartaz Humbug! 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    José Smith[edit]

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

    Many people have heard of Miami Beach, but it isn't actually that large a city (pop. 90,000). I don't believe that this politician's career meets WP:POLITICIAN. We have no inherent notability standard for mayors, and I prefer inclusion only for cities of 100,000 and up. But he wasn't even mayor, just a commissioner whose fellow commissioners chose him to be vice mayor for a while, and now he's just city attorney. Created as part of a group of UF alumni, prodded, then recreated, so effectively a contested prod. Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:45, 2 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 Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Total conversion[edit]

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

    Fails WP:NEO and WP:NOR. At first glance this article appears to have some validity as a possible theory or sci-fi concept, but on closer examination it is merely a personal essay on a fictional concept, and a person claims to have written the wiki article based on his own thoughts.[31] The article claims that a Heinlein novel may have been the original source of the idea, but Heinlein doesn't actually use this phrase to describe the concept. This article basically usurped the original and far more recognizable context in mod (computer gaming). A google search for "total conversion" and "science" does turn up a few real-world applications of the phrase, but they appear to be WP:FRINGE. However, I'll leave that judgment to editors who are better-versed in the (real) sciences. I also have to wonder if there is a real-world theory that could serve as a target for merge or redirect. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:43, 2 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 requirement for non-trivial independant coverage not addressed by keeping side. Notability not therefore established. Spartaz Humbug! 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Picnicface Comedy[edit]

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

    Non-notable comedy group. One of their writers was listing in a magazine, and the group received trivial mention in an article bemoaning YouTube celebrities. Does not satisfy WP:N, in my opinion. ZimZalaBim talk 11:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. One of them writes for This Hour has 22 Minutes, one of their Youtube videos has seven million views and was nominated for video of the year. They have also been acclaimed by Will Ferrell. -Oreo Priest talk 17:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have sources for these claims, feel free to add them to the article. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added sources to the page. Beijing goalie (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:31, 2 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Necole Bitchie[edit]

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

    NN Blogger Nakon 04:16, 2 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1977 Trinity[edit]

    1977 Trinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    While the Byte magazine article does refer to the three companies as the 1977 trinity, it's clear that this is simply a rhetorical flourish, and not intended as some sort of proper name. Indeed, there are no other references to these companies by that name outside of this one Byte article, Wikipedia, and its mirrors. In other words, this was an offhand description that isn't, in and of itself, a discrete and notable topic. The article should be deleted and mention of the term, if the editors of that article deem it notable, should be moved into History of computing hardware. Nandesuka (talk) 03:03, 2 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 G1 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Segovian[edit]

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

    Contested PROD. The term was apparently originated by the article's author. No references, no Google hits in this context. Fails WP:MADEUP. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 2 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 per invalid nomination and that the article has been well sourced. (non-administartive closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Get The Fuck Up Radio[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Get The Fuck Up Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    this article should be deleted, it is on a non notable "internet" radio show. There are no impartial secondary sources, there are no sources apart from the radio show itself. The show does not meet the criteria for inclusion of media organization. There are no ratings figures. There is probably more wrong with it too. SuperSuperBoi (talk) 03:02, 2 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. It'd be safe to say that there's nothing keepable in there. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoeno (rapper)[edit]

    Phoeno (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    The Apprentice (Phoeno album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Non-notable artist, likely COI issues at play. Also listing his album. Recommend Delete both. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 02:42, 2 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. — Scientizzle 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric W. Sawyer[edit]

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

    This person doesn't meet the WP:BIO notability standard. The three references that the article provides don't cover him, they cover this one opera that he happened to write, and he is mentioned as an aside. In addition, the references provided aren't reliable seconday sources required by WP:BIO. Gets nothing in Google News. Therefore, Delete. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Being mentioned in a few (reliable?) sources falls far short of the significant coverage requirement. There's isn't one source that directly gives him any coverage. Your inclination to say that "if an opera is notable (accepting for this argument that the opera is notable), so is the composer" directly conflicts with WP:ENTERTAINER, which requires substantially more then being the composer of one quasi-notable opera. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main point is that your original claim that "Google has never heard of him" is overstated. Better biographical information is found on his own web site (which I googled for as "eric sawyer" "composer") here. He claims he "has received the Joseph Bearns Prize, a First Music commission from the New York Youth Symphony, and awards from the Tanglewood Music Center and the American Academy of Arts and Letters, and has held fellowships from the MacDowell Colony and Harvard University." He also has a number of CDs unrelated to the opera listed on Amazon. Not being an expert in music, I'm not sure what the significance of those various awards, positions, and recordings are. But it seems to me that what this article needs is better sourcing, not necessarily deletion. Nandesuka (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Touché, you did a better job at googling. However, nothing that can be done if there's zilch in terms coverge of him in reliable sources. There are literally millions of people out there that have had moderate success in their profession like him, and rightfully, they aren't all in Wikipedia because they don't meet the notability requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. The "significant coverage" requirement specifically weeds out these bios, otherwise Wikpedia will turn into the facebook for anyone who has ever accomplished anything. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The New International Year Book by Colby, Churchill, Wade, and Vizetelly (1938) describes the Joseph H. Bearns prize as "One of the most valuable annual American awards for composers." Possibly outdated, but a useful indicator of significance nonetheless. Nandesuka (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More than "possibly outdated". If the award was as notable as it was 70 years ago, we wouldn't have major difficulties finding significant coverage in reliable sources of him having recieved this "award". Indeed, Wikipedia:Reliable sources was meant for situations like these, where the truthfullness of him even having recieved the award isn't clear-cut. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sawyer is an assistant professor of music at Amherst who studied with Pulitzer prize-winning composer Leon Kirchner and won honors for his compositions at the Tanglewood Music Center. The Washington Post said Sawyer "weaves powerful statements into" his music, while the American Record Guide called him "a composer of considerable skill and stature." Sawyer's work has been released on the Albany Records label.

    • Please provide the link to the Washington Post article proclaiming that he's a "composer of considerable stature." If this is true, this afd is a waste of time, and he's obviously notable.
    • "Mentioned prominently in the second sentence of the first source" is not coverage. There's no coverage in reliable sources, the basic requirement for meeting WP:BIO.
    • Admins don't decide WP:RS policy. This guideline that you mention, "three non-reliable sources = one good one" must appear somewhere in the WP:RS guideline. I doubt that it does.
    • Studying with a Pulitzer prize-winner (not sourced) doen't make someone notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's not what you say, you've nominated it for deletion because the sources mentioned don't cover him and they do. Did you want to change your nomination and relist? Feel free. But your current nomination is simply false. So there's no reason to support it. --Blechnic (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I'm not sure why you're posting "NOTINHERITED" as there's nothing in the article about Sawyer's studies with a Pulitzer prize winning composer. However, that's three strikes as far as I can see, nothing in this AfD seems to be related to the actual article. --Blechnic (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a "discussion" about Eric W. Sawyer's notability or lack thereof. You mentioned above that he "studied with Pulitzer prize-winning composer Leon Kirchner". I assumed that you mentioned this information becasuse you were trying to prove notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just to forestall that conclusion from anyone, I clearly presented, after the blockquote, the reason I felt that paragraph established notability. "So, the Washington Post and American Record Guide consider him noteworthy and a "composer of considerable stature," respectively." Feel free to read the whole thing. --Blechnic (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - yes, that's the problem with having to rely on newspaper archives, as you can't link to them, making it hard for other editors to judge the context. In the hope it might help either way: a couple of the (non-linked) references I used are trivial (as were many of the hits), so I just used them to establish a performance date. About 5 or 6 of the newspaper references are non-trival, but not extensive, including the Washington Post (typically a paragraph or, at most, two, as part of a review of three or four pieces performed that night). The better ones I just managed to dig up - the American Record Guide review is extensive and very positive, the first San Francisco Classical Voice piece is reasonable (but not long) and very positive, and the second San Francisco Classical Voice is long and very negative. :) I gather that there are a couple of reviews of his printed work in Strings magazine, but I don't have access to them. Overall, I still lean towards saying he's just notable (the American Record Guide helps on that for me, as is the presence of a published CD just on his work, and another featuring some of his pieces) - not incredibly so, but enough for an article. Your mileage, of course, may vary. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Criteria 1 doesn't even apply to these references. The criteria concerns "musicians and ensembles", and these references concern a play, not a musician or an ensemble. Although he might have been mentioned as the writer of the play, the coverage was not of him. There has yet to be shown one reliable source that specifically covers him, therefore falling far short of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources standard, the very basic Wikipedia notability requirement. One who writes one semi-notable play just doesn't deserve a whole encyclopedia article about him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I agree that "musicians and ensembles" doesn't apply. While he is a musician (pianist) that isn't what he is noted for. So he'd be under the "Others" sub category of Criteria for composers and lyricists. That section relates primarily to music, which fits with the references provided, but I think is a tad tricky to apply. I'm not sure I'd regard his opera as notable yet (that looks too much like WP:Crystal for me), in spite of (mostly short) reviews of the early performances, but I think he just meets the criteria due to repeated performances of some of his work, CDs, reviews (especially the American Record Guide, and potentially Strings magazine), and various mentions here and there. I don't think it is entirely clearcut, though, which is why I see these debates as so useful. - Bilby (talk)


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

    The result was keep Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Steve Allday[edit]

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

    There is nothing in the article to suggest notability. —G716 <T·C> 01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ETA not MOS but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), knew I'd seen it TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:57, 4 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 Snow? In June? (deleted) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Growing Up In : The N.Y.C.[edit]

    Growing Up In : The N.Y.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Puakeni - Sweet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    I.R. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    No claims to notability. Band that is making the album has no article and various articles about them have been deleted previously going by the article "owners" contribution history. All references are Youtube, or group owned blogs or Myspaces. Most of the article is also crystal balling. Incidentally also created by user who appears to be the artist in question. Canterbury Tail talk 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete both, fails WP:MUSIC as the band is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:56, 2 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    York Hiking Club[edit]

    York Hiking Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable organization, just a small local club. Article does not contain any references, just a single external link to its own site. Though the article states the organization has been around for what amounts to be more than 75 years, age is not a criteria for notability, especially for an organization that is generally not considered notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Besides, there are no off-site references provided to document this. Hellno2 (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why we and our suporters have till now not pushed to add all this info as till this week we did not know this. Now that we are under the light we will try our best to be more than equal to the many other Wikipeadia hiking/trail pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.28.64.254 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    p.s. I know notability has nothing to do with level of fame or popularity. But just making a point, I live in Timonium, Maryland, which is only 40 miles away from York, and I am a hiking enthusiast, familiar with all the trails in the area. Yet I have never heard of the York Hiking Club until I randomly came across this article one day recently.Hellno2 (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, this is a no-brainer for deletion but also a case where the editor involved obviously does not understand WP policy or notability guidelines. Maybe we can spend some time educating the editor so they at least understand why their club can't have an article here. --Laser brain (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking to the author on his/her talk page now. Ideally we can find references to prove notability, if it exists, and if not, explain our policies. Creating a new articles is a daunting & difficult task for any new editor, so we shouldn't be surprised if an editor unknowing errs in the process. --Bfigura (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.28.64.254 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

     Our club is as important to the beginings of the Appalachian Trail and 120 mile Mason Dixon Trail as the PATC that you have listed on Wiki. We have built it from the beginings and give many things back to the comunuity for public hiking. Without us and KTA and other groups there would be 3,500 fewer miles of trail in PA!
 Guess some day I will figure you guys out. Do you have somthing that does not look like a 50 page leagal doc that I could read to gain a clue. All I have been linked to so far read so lawer like are hard to get a feel for what Wiki really is. Any info pages that are people friendly and not leagle stuff?Hikingb5 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I am actually reviewing those other articles on hiking, canoeing, and other outdoors clubs that Hikingb5 is talking about, and I have found several of them do exist, yet do not seem to meet notability requirements. In the next week or so, I am considering putting them into a bundled AFD. Hellno2 (talk) 15:04, 5 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