< March 30 April 1 >
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 speedy close. This is a self-evidently notable, core topic for an encyclopedia. Willing to assume good faith regarding the nomination, but deletion isn't a viable means of resolving editorial problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communism[edit]

Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Quite obviously anyone who has taken part in writing this article does not know anything about communism or what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote this article have not read a single word of Marx's work. It doesn't give a correct definition of communism. It is completely pro western.
China- under the heading "After the collapse of the Soviet Union", there is map it says that the PRC is one of the remaining communist countries. What a load of rubbish, The Peoples Republic of China has the worlds fasted growing economy, how is this possible under communism.
Cold War Years- under this article, why does it say the words "Communist government". There can not be so such thing as a communist government. As that would imply some one running a country, which can not happen under communism and a communist country, which can not happen either as i have explained earlier. This article is awful
Criticism of communism- First, this section is criticizing something, which they do not know nothing about. So is pointless. Secondly, why isn't there a section "Meriting of Communism"? Since there isn't i believe this article to be POV, when it should be NPOV. If a person that had no idea of what Communism was, and read this article, the person would still not understand what Communism was! This just gives the pro-western perspective of communism. There is many complaints of this article in its discussion page. [1]. The article is also missing citations or footnotes, Its neutrality is disputed and Its factual accuracy is disputed. This article needs to be deleted and re-written. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Nation (film)[edit]

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

Delete Appears to be a small independent dtv zombie film with no assertion of notability. CyberGhostface (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while not the primary subject, the mentions here aren't trivial: [4]. --SmashvilleBONK! 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SorryGuy  Talk  19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DreamStream[edit]

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

Article on a start-up with no independent sources; ad-like but not blatant spam. Surely fails WP:CORP - note that its first product launch is coming next month. Also note that this article has been deleted under CSD G11 twice. Mangojuicetalk 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, smaller organizations can be notable. That doesn't mean they are. To pass WP:CORP, we need "coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."BradV 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Unprecedented and unparalleled" is kind of a hard claim to back up when DreamStream doesn't even describe their technology. So I think that claim is quite dubious and needs to be backed up with a reliable, independent source. Mangojuicetalk 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure) with strong consensus to merge. Skomorokh 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shorewood Stadium[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS, and WP:N NimiTize 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age of Tech[edit]

Golden Age of Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After searching in multiple databases/news archives, I was unable to find any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that significantly discuss or analyze "Golden Age of Tech" in relation to Scientology. One book, Controversial New Religions makes a passing mention in a footenote on one page, but I could not find any other books not affiliated with the Church of Scientology that discussed this subject matter in any significant detail. Another passing mention is made in Scientology's Study Technology by David S. Touretzky and Chris Owen - but this is also briefly and in one sentence, and not enough of a significant discussion to assert notability. I found zero mention whatsoever in 2 different news archive sources, and no results in InfoTrac. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources to back up that assertion? Cirt (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Lair TCG[edit]

Clear Lair TCG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:N, no refs per WP:RS. ukexpat (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep --JForget 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Plaza[edit]

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

PROD removed by author, saying "Wikipedia has infinite capacity, it is not cluttering the website. Why should this not have an article. I was going to expand it." Wikipedia may have a large capacity but it is not an indiscriminate collection of information and does have notability criteria - see "Buildings and structures" in WP:NPT#Places; having 20 floors, being the 30th tallest building in Minneapolis and appearing in a list of skyscrapers is not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Can you just add this information in to the Minneapolis area somewhere? Brentoli (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are building alot smaller that have articles, why shouent this one? Alaskan assassin (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - do we want to cover "mundane and ordinary buildings"? JohnCD (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean buildings that one local architecture critic doesn't consider interesting enough. If an article has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then I believe we do "want" to cover them. Eóin (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced, no real-world notability asserted. Black Kite 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morita (Starship Troopers)[edit]

Morita (Starship Troopers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional weapon, appears to fail WP:N. Content could be merged to the film article, but anything more than a line would seem to be undue weight. Skomorokh 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed in this deletion debate:

Marauder (Starship Troopers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greetings, General. I have responded to your comments at your talkpage. You say that "it does fail WP:N" but then say that "it meets requirements". Which requirements do you mean, if not WP:N? You may also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regards, Skomorokh 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These articles do not contain enough relevant information even about the film do deserve much space in that article. Would readers of The Godfather article want several paragraphs on the types of gun used? No. So to "merge" would be to effectively delete 95% of the content of this article. In such situations, calling it a merge is disingenuous, and the community should discuss whether or not the content deserves to be kept or not. Skomorokh 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: User:MI General's only edits prior to this Afd were to her own userpage and to the article up for deletion. Possible sock. Skomorokh 04:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already been clearly explained to you that just because the M41 pulse rifle has an article, it doesn't mean that the Morita should. Neither deserves an article because knowing the name and story behind the weapon doesn't give the reader any deeper comprehension of the movie or the book, and is essentially of little to no practical use to anyone. Even if the movie were about the development of a particular infantry rifle and the political and social ramifications therein, it still wouldn't be deserving of its own article. This article is cruft because it attempts to elevate a piece of inconsequential and non-notable trivia into a subject of encyclopedic significance, which it quite clearly is not. Sojourner001 (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farhrenheit 420[edit]

Farhrenheit 420 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band that has released two albums. No other assertions of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was make WP:DAB per Dhartung. The current content is unsourced. Feel free to come up with any other reasonable editorial solution. Sandstein (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amenhirkhopshef[edit]

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

Amenhirkhopshef, according to the article, is the son of a king who didn't even live past his first day. Amenhirkhopshef had virtually no impact on history. In addition to not being notable, the article lacks sources and appears to very difficult to source, since the only sources I've found seem to disagree with the article and each other. Even if a reliable source can be found for the small amount of information on the page, the information should be merged into Ramesses III and the article should be made into a redirect. Gflashwnox (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see the article deleted, and believe that is the proper course of action. The possibility of a merger was only brought as an alternative solution.Gflashwnox (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect. While not significant enough for an article, there's no reason to delete. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually, I suspected a transliteration/disambiguation problem, and we already have Amun-her-khepeshef (20th dynasty), who is probably the individual discussed in the article, and Amun-her-khepeshef, his brother's son. There seem to have been some later pharaohs who took the name Ramses-Amenhirkhopshef (transliterated however), as well. I would suggest making this a WP:DAB as this spelling appears in numerous sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McConnell Hall[edit]

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

Delete nn dormitory building; with nothing to indicate notability - an anon basically deleted the article's contents but let's go through process. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus to delete. Black Kite 23:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superman Chronicles[edit]

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

Series of trade paperbacks with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Has not made the NY Times bestseller list; gsearch not coming up with notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thus Keep Hobit (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a comics guy, but unless I'm mistaken not all of those in this series will be from Action Comics, correct? Hobit (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not 100% sure of the plans but that would seem a reasonable assumption - in which case the information can be added to the relevant entry - which is where the information should be. There is an argument on precedent as there are Showcase Presents and Marvel Omnibus - although these seem a little thin. If it could be made into something more like DC Archive Editions, Marvel Masterworks and Essential Marvel then I'd be fine with keeping it. The reviews would also help expand the real world context. As it stands it is very thin and just really replicates information elsewhere, hence my suggesting a merge might be the best option (for now - no prejudice on someone working on it in their sandbox and restarting with an improved version if more information is available - history along with some comments from the DC editors/creators about it would be a big boost). (Emperor (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Housing estates are generally non-notable except in certain exceptional circumstances (i.e. Broadwater Farm). This single line of text certainly asserts no notability. Black Kite 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze park[edit]

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

Delete nn public housing complex, unsourced with no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiketsu Zubat[edit]

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

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and now it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified.It was a challenged prod.It fails WP:V and WP:N Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not specifically tokusatsu, that I'm aware of -- the Japan Wikiproject seems to take care of them. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there is. Toss this puppy at them. They should be able to wash it up, give it a good grooming, tie a ribbon around its neck, and make it the cutest one in the window. Well, maybe not the last, but good enough to display there. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pseudo Miranda[edit]

Operation Pseudo Miranda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a classic coatrack article, masquerading as a factual account of a large CIA operation (with a title pointing specifically to it) but in reality merely delivering the plot of the sole editor's book (verbatim). There is no other reference anywhere to "Operation Pseudo Miranda", and it appears to be entirely a construct of the author (as well as 3/4ths of his book title). There is only ONE other independent reference I could find on the book itself; it's from the Orange County Press and calls the book a likely hoax.[6] Still, it's selling on Amazon and I'm not begrudging the book it's notability, but this is a verifiably unacceptable coatrack and it needs to go. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 05:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the articles on both the book and the author have now been speedily deleted. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 07:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cappadona[edit]

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

Teenage guitarist. No reliable sources to confirm notability provided, and I couldn't find any. Prod tag and several maintenance tags were removed without explanation by an anon IP with five total edits, all relating to this subject. --Finngall talk 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to work with the author of this article, however when I attempted to find further information on this person to establish notability... i could not find any, apparently he plays in his parents garage and at school talent shows, he played once at a local battle of the bands which was attended by about 10k people... in which he came in 10th place and received no award, not even an honourable mention. His only references are free sites such as myspace and musicnation both of which are user created, and have absolutely no requirements of being notable whatsoever. The reason for keeping this article is so people can find information on him and "get to know him", which can be accomplished in a myspace blog, or a personal website rather than a wikipedia article and is much more appropriate for an up and coming YOUNG artist (He is only 16). So i digest,

In-case there is any confusion... I vote for the article Matt Cappadona To be deleted due to utter lack of everything that is needed to establish a valid Wikipedia article.

Cheers. AnnaJGrant (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Canley (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Dies[edit]

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

Not an encyclopedic article, page contains nothing but a plot summary; no sources available. Dorftrottel (bait) 20:54, March 31, 2008 20:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Kenny dies in every episode, right? —BradV 22:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if you've seen this episode and the one's that follow, you'll realise he actually does die in this, and is absent for many seasons afterwards until his later return. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I agree completely. It seems that the only reason any sources were added were to stop the deletion - they should be added, on any article, much sooner. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something wrong with expanding an article and adding sources to it while it is undergoing an WP:AfD discussion? Cirt (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. They just should be added before it reaches this stage. It is sort of ironic that the best way to get an article fixed is to bring it to AfD. See WP:HEY for an example. —BradV 00:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. WP:HEY is an interesting essay. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocat (Air Traffic Control System)[edit]

Eurocat (Air Traffic Control System) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to indicate that this product one-liner is a notable encyclopedic subject; no sources as usual. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Phoenix-wiki 11:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Tonis Puri[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a bread, nothing indicating that this bread is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonczuk[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a surname with nothing to indicate why it's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 23:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pete Plan[edit]

The Pete Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable training plan for rowers. Can find no references in reliable sources and only reference in the article (since removed) was a blog. nancy (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Earl[edit]

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

Delete bit part actress, nn, fails WP:BIO, sourced only to imdb which is not a reliable source Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice to recreation should they become notable later on - currently fails WP:BAND. Black Kite 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shatter My World[edit]

Shatter My World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

De-proded by author. It doesn't appear that this band passes WP:BAND muster. "Shatter My World" band produces ~590 Ghits (52 unique)--and the highly specific search "Shatter My World" Wilczynsky hits only this Wikipedia article. The indie label that they're apparently signed to, Zoo Music Incorporated, isn't of any note Zoo Entertainment, is apparently of note, but being signed is hardly enough to meet WP:BAND; the single example of external coverage, an article in a local weekly altmag, isn't enough to justify an article here. — Scientizzle 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sole delete comment was "per nom" and notability clearly established since nomination, meeting the Heymann Standard. Skomorokh 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Moffat[edit]

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

Delete no sources showing that this playright or his plays are notable, so nn we don't know when or where he was born, whether he is still alive, or even what country he's from. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sources have now been added showing this individual is clearly notable. --Canley (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enfeebled Earth[edit]

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

Non notable demo tape. Was never properly released, sourcing is poor (questionable ezine and a mirror). Prod was removed with the comment "by a pioneer in the genre, should stay regardless". Dark Tranquility are a pretty significant band, but that doesn't mean that this is anything more than trivia. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Drive (album)[edit]

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

Unreleased album with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Article can be re-created if and when album is actually released. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Center[edit]

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

Questionable notability tag up since April, COI tag doesn't help either. Procedural nom, I have no opinion on the article. Wizardman 20:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 23:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Turney[edit]

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

Questionable notability tag up since April, no improvements made since. Procedural nom, I have no opinion on the article. Wizardman 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "procedural nom"? The idea of AfD is that you should nominate articles that you think should be deleted. No reason for deletion has been given by the nominator so there is no reason why this AfD should be pursued. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I move to have the article deleted since the question of notability has not been answered. Wizardman 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of hostility lately to AFDs as a way of having a notability discussion. Personally, I'm willing to consider a good-faith procedural nom. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete; without prejudice against recreation if notability is proven. - Philippe 02:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWISSENET[edit]

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

No assertion of notability; google news search yields 0 hits; google web search only 154 hits. Contested prod, with no reason given to keep article. Comment on original prod by User:Atama adds: "This is apparently a rather obscure project. The actual importance of this is not established, and the fact that it has been largely ignored by reliable sources shows that at least at this stage it's nothing worth having an article about." [9] -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the concerns are related to the fact that the project is rather obscure then I can certainly improve that by elaborating on the objectives that the project deals with so that things becomes more clear.
Regarding the comment that google search has a small number of hits I think that this will improve over time since project's results will become available. I wonder though what is a sufficient number of hits that will justify retaining an entry in wikipedia (AWISSENET has been created middle of February and by then the google search hits are constantly increased)?
Since I am quite new in the wikipedia community (not as a user but in submitting articles I would like also a clarification regarding the categorization of my article as orphaned. The explanation mentions that I can improve this by creating links to the article but does it mean from other wikipedia pages (AWISSENET is an acronym and surely it is related to many concepts with related articles in Wikipedia), from external entities or both?Nprigour (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duniya Vijay[edit]

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

Non-notable and reads like an ad. Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geosign[edit]

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

Only has two references, both dating to its creation; any company gets that press, and none has been seen since. The page has functioned mostly as an advertising platform for the websites this company owns. Its own website seems to be gone. Tb (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's true that "notability does not expire". It was, it seems to me, a flash in the pan. Even the new references show that it was notable a year ago, and now it's all but closed up shop. Even its own website is broken. I'm happy you found some more references--those are only helpful--but they seem to cement the case in my opinion. The company wasn't particularly notable to begin with, and now it's essentially dead. Notability consisted of two things: it was founded, and it died. Tb (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Lamode[edit]

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

The subject is not notable. There is no article at Killer Pussy, her band or Teenage Enema Nurses her "smash hit". Captain panda 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact keep though I'm fighting against the tide, per WP:MUSIC: "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". Phoenix New Times called them "Phoenix's fave '80s punk band" and the sources I've added to the article seem to verify that they were indeed significant in terms of the punk scene in that area in the eighties. -- Naerii 01:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is an example of why the people that are self proclaimed editors shouldnt be allowed to edit facts- the Phoenix New Times actually did an article on this band (a few actually)- it is found here: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2002-07-11/culture/punk-agrave-lamode/0 now if you have a personal problem with the band that is too bad but get your facts straight genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.83.65 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Phoenix-wiki 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opqrst[edit]

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

Non notable nemonic that is not world wide/country wide/industry wide - or of importance to wikipedia Brentoli (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known and widely accepted. --Arcadian (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with it being non-notable. If this is notable, why not include every other mnemonic ever invented? I don't think that "Hot T-BonE steAk (Interleukin mnemonic) deserves a Wikipage.JPINFV (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Indeed. As long as a mnemonic is notable I see no reason we cannot have an article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."
I guess the question then, is, are sources that are teaching assessment enough to be considered independent? It would be one thing if it was a common mnemonic (by common, I mean common in public, a la A-B-C), but I don't feel that this is the case with most of the assessment mnemonics. I think the most damning evidence is the fact that, in over a year and a half since the articles inception, the page only has one article linking to it, History of the present illness (which itself only has 4 pages linking to it, OPQRST). If it was notable, wouldn't there be more links to it?JPINFV (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not going to judge an article's notability on the basis of how many Wikipedia articles link to it. That's what ((orphan)) is for. And I really don't know where this "sources that are teaching assessment" comes into WP:RS. People that know the subject are not now considered reliable? --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't citing reliable sources, but notability. Hence my direct quote from the notability page. I don't think that things like OPQRST have received enough coverage that is independent of the subject (assessment text books, in this case, are not independent of the subject) that it is notable. -JPINFV (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bratspiess[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner on a surname without any indication why this surname is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Feed The Animals[edit]

This page has no references, nor could I find any sources when I researched for some. Y5nthon5a (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "single" on the album, and I found it, but Gorilla Zoe recently released a single from his last album Welcome to the Zoo. I really don't think he'd start releasing singles for his new album is he's still focusing on his last album.Y5nthon5a (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedily deleted (A7), for the second time in 16 minutes, by Wassupwestcoast. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Time[edit]

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

Non notable per WP:BK. No sources per WP:RS ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as G3. I have carried out thorough searches not only on various formulations of the name but also on formulations of the name of the suggested founder. I have found absolutely nothing. The article states that "The only varsity sport that N.N.U. offers is Male Wrestling"; I find this unlikely. It also claims that "The University is part of the Western Acredited Schools and Colleges". I have found no trace of this body; the nearest I can find is here and they have not accredited this University. I accept the point, made below, that sources may be available other than the internet, but for an article to survive it must meet WP:V and at present there is no basis for compliance with this policy. If reliable sources are subsequently produced then the article can be recreated. TerriersFan (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan negrete univeristy[edit]

Unverifiable. Possibly existent, but without sources does not deserve an article. Skomorokh 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that there are other sources of information than the Internet? Don't you think your tagging reflects a lack of good faith in the article's creator? Skomorokh 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1 (no content once unsourced content is deleted, which is all of it); also possibly fits under g3 (obvious hoax, see below). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Time[edit]

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

No sources are given in the article and I can't find any results for the book on Google or Amazon, seems like it's a hoax or a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Guest9999 (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was User:Paste is right, this got speedy deleted by User:Stifle just as the AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim van blaricum[edit]

Jim van blaricum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable businessman, fails WP:BIO. Paste (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and apparent joke nomination. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Connolley[edit]

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

NN WP:BIOgraphy: just some scientist. His only claim to fame is that he contributes to WP and the like. Note also that his buddy Ed Poor authored the article. April Regina (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. I am changing my vote to Unsure. I'd like to hear from some-one familiar with the climatology/climate modeling field about what whould be considered a high citation rate there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scopus gives him a h-index of 11.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
missed that one. good enough justification for a speedy keep. DGG (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Franchi[edit]

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

Appears that the gentleman drove in just one race. Google hits appear to show just this same information in various forms. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - This is a WP:Neologism, the only reference provided to the article name is to an unreliable source. Interestingly this article was previously deleted via a WP:PROD in September 2006 as a WP:Neologism for an entirely different usage of the term (Anthrosexual = attracted to men). Although the history of Greek sexuality is notable, it is covered, or should be, elsewhere and lends no support to the usage as the term was never used by the Greeks and there are no reliable sources provided where this is used to refer to Greek sexual beliefs. Although Google searches are great, contrary to the creator's assertions it's the contributor's responsibility to source his or her contributions not the community's to research outside the references provided; furthermore, a Google search provides only unreliable sources, including numerous blog results which beyond being unreliable indicate a lack of an accepted definition of the term. Additionally, identifying this as a peculiar phenomenon is WP:OR absent reliable sources. If the Greek history sources were removed, the only remaining sources relate to homosexuality and two references of questionable notability where notable persons have identified themselves as of undefined sexuality but without any explanation in the references to what that means to them.
Procedural history: this article was created with the title Undefined sexuality on 2008-03-27, tagged for CSD#A1 by User:Undead warrior here and CSD declined by User:Victao_lopes. The article was then proded by User:Undead warrior per WP:NEO and WP:N with this edit; Prod removed by the creator here, and was nominated for AfD on 2008-03-28 by User:Undead warrior with this edit. On 2008-03-30 the article was moved by User:Cooljuno411 to Unidentified sexuality with this edit. The article was then copy-pasted back to Undefined sexuality with this edit, AfD tag and all. On 2008-03-30, User:Cooljuno411 moved the article to Anthrosexual with this edit and removed the AfD tags from the article with this edit; User:Undead warrior replaced the AfD tags here resulting in a new date. Although this article remains the subject of a 2008-03-28 nomination notwithstanding the date on the current tag, it has been five days since the tag was replaced, nonetheless. (BTW, although unrelated to this decision, this was improperly partially closed by User:Cooljuno411 with this edit which made closing a pain as I searched for where ((REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD)) had gone, so this was not categorized for the last few days). I note all of this because 1) I needed to sort it all out for myself, and 2) in case there is a DRV, due to the cut and paste, the article Unidentified sexuality contains history related to this article which would need to be restored and the histories merged if this article is ever undeleted. Unidentified sexuality and Undefined sexuality are both being deleted per CSD#R1. Doug.(talk contribs) 20:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post closing note: While deleting articles and redirects, I additionally identified the page Anthrosexuality which was changed to a redirect to Pansexuality in Oct 2006 and which User:Cooljuno411 changed to a redirect to Anthrosexual. Because there was discussion and consensus in 2006 to have this redirect to Pansexuality, I have reverted to that version rather than deleting the redirect.--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Undefined sexuality Note: this article has been retitled: Anthrosexual[edit]

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

PROD tag was taken off, but notability is still not asserted. The one source cited is a dictionary. I think that the information is trivial, and online searches, both Google and Yahoo, yield a wide variety of strange topics, but none of them cover Undefined Sexuality. Delete under WP:N. Undeath (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is bisexuality and asexuality the same thing? No, neither is this.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asexuality is NO sexual desire or attraction. This is an undefined sexuality. Did you even read the article or doing any background research on this topic before you posted? For future reference, you are supposed to read the article and do major background research before you voice your opinion on deleting an article.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a form of Bisexuality, did you even read the article or do any background research on the topic before you posted here? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty reffed. to me. And besides, your supposed to do background research on a topic before you post an opinion on deleting it. Did you even go to google? Cause if you did you could find many things on this topic.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, can you please link to that, when i search DRG, i find a disambiguation with no wiki guideline article--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided additional sources. And for your future knowledge, you only have the right to speak your opinion about deleting an article if you do your own back ground research as well. And i don't know about you, but when i hit google i founds lots of things of this subject.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remain civil when discussing AfD debates. Your comment, above, was very un-civil. And for the record, I did many google searches on this subject, and when I come up with things like the Urban Dictionary or other various non notable online sites, I nominate it. This term is non notable for it's own article. Being merged is the best option for it, other than delete. Undeath (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and rename-to somthing more in line with a term in actual use for this demographic such as "unsure sexual orientation" or "questioning" or "anthrosexual" —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAtThis (talkcontribs) 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick google search, I agree that the article should be renamed to anthrosexual, and i will do so, thanks. I knew this concept wasn't new, or "neologism" or whatever, but i just couldn't get a name on the concept so i just titled the "undefined sexuality" but you have proven the power of wikipedia, that sharing knowledge is a great tool. AND TO ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO JUST SIMPLY SLAPPED A NEOLOGISM ON IT, maybe you should of did a quick google search too, cause its obvious you didn't. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ResolvedThe article was renamed to anthrosexual. And for future reference, please do research before claiming WP:N because this case proved that many don't. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will add additional refs. but for your future knowledge, if you are going to post here you are supposed to do your own background research as well. So please don't base your opinion on one ref. and also, why should it be deleted? I don't claim a sexuality, so that would make me a living reference. And others don't either, so why should the article be deleted? Not everything has to fall into the western culture fashion of hetero,homo, and bi-sexual.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that chat rooms, online groups, and other organizations that have been formed around Anthrosexuality is a good enough RS for me. By deleting this article, we are simply denying it existence, but we have to own up to it, it does exist, and i don't think we have the right to deny its existence just because it doesn't turn up a search in google scholar. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if this doesn't exist, then please tell me how sexuality was highly practiced in the ancient world especially in ancient Greece? Lets see, a system of passive and active, which is a form of athrosexuality because they do not claim a sexual orientation. You know the term homosexual and heterosexual were invented less then 200 years ago. Did google scholar tell you that? In addition, if i claim this would it be true? if others do wouldn't it be true? It's the 21st century, people don't have to choose one of the three common sexualities placed in front of us, when can chooce to be like many ancient cultures and not claim an orientation and simply go with what feels right.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CoolJuno411. This is the last warning to remain civil. Your comments are becoming more and more offensive and disruptive. Please stop making sarcastic comments directed at other users. Undeath (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that i offended you. But i think i have every right to questions peoples motives on why they made that opinion. People should place opinion and reason for opinion. I only reply to people who do not completely justify their answers.
They do justify their answers, you just do not always understand their justification. Don't badger the other users. Undeath (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please ref. where i do not "understand their justification", when i respond i am generally telling them that their justification is insufficient and that they need to go into more detail why. Or i have been asking if they even read the article, because saying this is a form of asexuality or bisexuality, which has been the two most common suggestions, just makes me think that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article or even googled the term.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there you go. "...that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article or even googled the term". Just because they state something that may seem vague to you, does not mean that they did not do any research. Most AfD debates will have a simple delete with a simple explanation. Having the article's creator badger them over it is bad, and it also shows a bit of article ownership. Undeath (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said it "makes me think that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article..." and if people have the "right" to say it is a form of asexuality, then i should have just as much right to think that they didn't read the article and question their motives on their answer. And i don't have a sense of article ownership i am try to protect a legitimate article form being wrongfully deleted by people who i think haven't even read or researched the article. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done arguing this with you. Just stop attacking other users on wikipedia. Let the course of AfD take it's own route. Undeath (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please ref. sites that have a different def. please, i would like to see them.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BUt there is a major difference that does not allow them to be similar. Pansexual is an active sexuality, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Anthrosexuality is an unclaimed sexuality. See article for more information, there is a whole sub portion on the difference between the two.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subsection you added yesterday has no references, it's hard to evaluate the supposed difference between these two topics on the basis of a section that appears to be WP:OR. Your concept of "active sexuality" seems quite different from the examples that turn up in the first few pages of hits on Google Scholar, and appears -like this article- to be Original Research. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a problem with "if I am to believe CoolJuno", and "perhaps was what CoolJuno meant by", which is that an encyclopedia is supposed to be a compendium of reliable information, not a compendium of CoolJuno's opinions. Without reliable sources to document the veracity of the claims made in this article, the article is worthless.

Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree completely, Pete.Hurd. I wasn't intending to defend the article's validity, nor CoolJuno's authorship - I think it's pretty apparent that they aren't acceptable for Wikipedia - but to clarify my proposal of a parenthetical sort of inclusion of it in Pansexuality, saying "some individuals self-identify as anthrosexual, which may be a similar construct"...a little like we've done with omnisexual, which is treated as synonymous. That said, I understand the argument to be had in waiting for anthrosexuality to be documented in reliable sources before including it in anything, period. I've been in the mindset of giving it a mention, because it cropped up in the pansexuality article - in the form of a disambiguation note saying "not to be confused with anthrosexuality" at the top. As a result, I was under the mistaken impression that anthro had more of a general presence on wikipedia - until about 2 minutes ago, when I just checked and realized it was CoolJuno who added it. --99.231.118.172 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have messaged the users who currently belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, if for some reason this AfD is about to end soon, please allow the people who specialize on these subjects to have time to voice their opinion. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Instead of messaging over 30 people about this AfD, it would probably be best (and save you time) to post a topic at WT:SEX. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality I reviewed this article as well as the current Wikipedia article for pansexuality as well as doing a google search on the topic. Generally, I feel this term is ill-defined. Just when I thought I understood its meaning the Urban Dictionary article on the topic turned my understanding up on its head. There seems to be a confusion and conflation between the terms "gender" and "sexual orientation" between the anthrosexual entries themselves. It is true that there is a history to the creation of what we know as "sexual orientation," and particularly of people not assigning meaning to their sex acts under the rubric of an identity or orientation. One needn't go back so far as ancient Greece for the evidence. You can find references to this in Chauncey's book Gay New York going back to the not so distant past. However, 1) as this viewpoint of defining one's sexuality by sex acts rather than orientation was never a phenomenon that was historically and particularly named (par for course considering what we are discussing, yes? In this sense the term "Undefined sexuality" is actually more appropriate.) And 2) The term does not seem to have a definition that is currently used and understood by those in the field of sexuality. I feel that the *information* raised here should be moved to a different article if it hasn't already been highlighted elsewhere. Perhaps if appropriate with a note that an emerging term with small usage, "anthrosexual" is beginning to emerge in pop culture to describe this way of viewing sex. As it is, this article seems to be more of the beginning of the creation and legitimization of a term rather than the definition of a term that is already understood. Also the definition given is a quote on the users page and the definition is a Livejournal article. This does not suffice as references. Links to recognized organizations, activism and social movements, terminology used in sexuality documents, academia or other verifiable research, would be convincing. That is my opinion as of now. I will return if there are any amendments.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: With such a strong keep, can you give any sources to improve the article? It's sorely lacking in them right now. Aleta Sing 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- Aleta Sing 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But it needs RS to exist on WP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that chat rooms, online groups, and other organizations that have been formed around Anthrosexuality is a good enough RS for me. By deleting this article, we are simply denying it existence, but we have to own up to it, it does exist, and i don't think we have the right to deny its existence just because it doesn't turn up a search in google scholar. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well strictly speaking we do. Without proper sourcing of articles Wikipedia perpetuates something that might not be properly defined and thus becomes the source of other peoples definitions Self Perpetuation. I can't say strongly enough that Wikipedia just doesn't pre-empt scholarly debate. -- BpEps - t@lk 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cooljuno, that comment indicates to me that you need to read and seriously consider WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. Aleta Sing 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that whole paragraphs (if sections) need to be deleted for sure; but that's apart from deleting the whole article. User:Lighthead þ 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing to light the article on Pomosexual, i can see these articles having a strong relation in the future. I also believe that this article helps debug the argument of a deleting Anthrosexual with the argument that it falls under as neologism. I don't know exactly if this word is a neologism, but i know indefinently that the concept of anthrosexaulity isn't anything new. I feel that this article has every right to be on this site, even if it is a neologism. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But can you find some more reliable sources? I would love to see it stay - properly sourced that is, and blogs don't cut it. Aleta Sing 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giving things another look, my position would probably be better defined as "weak keep", and I've changed it as such. There definitely seems to be historical evidence that the concept exists, and I'd hate to see the article go, but there just isn't a whole lot out there about the actual terms "Anthrosexual" and "Anthrosexuality". Because of this, it's going to be hard to confirm that the term itself actually describes the mindset being discussed. I've continued searching for references, but I'm just not finding much. If the article is deleted, hopefully someday there will be more published works about Anthrosexuality out there and the article could be recreated. —Mears man (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's currently a discussion at Non-western concepts of male sexuality about including perspectives of sexuality and sexual orientation that are outside the western, American Psychological Association-style mainstream. The discussion is currently focusing on, e.g., the Native American two-spirit phenomenon, but there's certainly room for a larger-scale (and well-sourced) discussion about incorporating alternative sexual concepts into WP's sexuality and LGBT articles. But a crappy stub of an article is not the best way to have that discussion. Fireplace (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not orig. research. Concept proven in ancient greeks. Did you even take a look at the article and read the history section?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did read the article. Whilst there are bits which are sourced and may be factually accurate they largely do not directly related to the subject of the article and are likely covered elsewhere in other articles on sexuality and/or ancient history. Most of the sections which link all of the information together and with the article title are tagged as "citation needed" and without sourcing I think it is likely that this linking of the subject matter is original research. To me it seems like these sections are fundamental to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not orig. research. Concept proven in ancient greeks. Did you even take a look at the article and read the history section?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume that nobody has read the article. If I invent a concept called "frizzigiggy" and say it refers to the Ancient Greek practice of creating olive oil, that doesn't mean it's been "proven". Existence is not the same as verifiability or tertiary research.-Wafulz (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cooljuno, people have read the article, and are making their critiques thereon. Even though some related ideas are discussed relative to the Greeks, there is nothing in the article that shows that "anthrosexual" is used to describe the situation in the Greeks. For you to combine the two ideas constitutes synthesis, which is considered a form of original research, and not allowed on WP. Aleta Sing 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to share why you feel the article should be deleted? —Mears man (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to, but since you asked, I advocate deletion per almost all of the above comments. While I don’t necessarily doubt the existence of the phenomenon described in this article, it is not verifiably defined as "Anthrosexual" or "Undefined sexuality" to my satisfaction. The meat of this article is original research. The article seems to be an attempt to coalesce ideas and attach them to these terms rather than showing that these terms are actually strongly associated with the concepts discussed or even that these concepts have been concretely identified. It is, in short, putting the cart before the horse. The most solid ideas in this article might already be found in History of human sexuality and other articles. I’ll add that although it’s not a factor in my vote, I feel that Cooljuno411 could better advance his or her viewpoint through the consistent use of a more polite tone. Few flies are caught with vinegar in AfD debates. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 02:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continental L/TSIO-360-RB[edit]

Continental L/TSIO-360-RB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whole page is just list! Normandiefawn (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human-centered computing (NASA)[edit]

Human-centered computing (NASA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very little information; notability unclear; no refs; orphaned. MaxVeers (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the nom did not check carefully if there are really references available or not. I smell disruption with this kind of irresponsible nomination. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure), author requested deletion TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Conference (Football)[edit]

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

I created this article before i knew that it already exsisted as Midwest Conference. They're the same article but i didn't knkow untill i found the other. Sorry. - hdxstunts1 8:57pm 2/29/08

Gotcha, I was going by this nomination TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gilbert_Public_Schools. - Philippe 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Valley Junior High[edit]

South Valley Junior High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not even claim the school is notable, let alone give any reason why, or evidence. Zsero (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual-OS[edit]

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

Originally deleted as a PROD by myself, but restored and sent here per a request on my talk page. Virtual OS was deleted three times, and seems to be a spin-off of that article. A bit confusing, but I am not so sure this product is notable, and seems to be just a jumble. Jmlk17 07:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Virtual-OS ( virtual-os.com ) refers to an application being developed by Advanced Webhosting Network in Mississauga, Ontario with provincial approval and funding by the Region of Peel. To the best of my knowledge their 2008 release is still in closed beta despite their 1st quarter release projection. I can still access the active 2007 beta support forum at chat.virtual-os.com but there's no additional information about the 2008 beta other than it's only open to Twine users.

The article "Virtual OS" ( coreweb.virtualos.net.eu.org ) which is erroneously referred to in the PROD pertained to an unrelated project by Sin Com (Europe), although I'm assuming that it was discontinued due to trademark infringement regarding the actual application in question.

The Virtual-OS project asserts notability based on a highly publicized security breach in 2006 that spurred a wave of news reports in the Greater Toronto Area regarding "online information privacy" concerns which featured Virtual-OS as a prime example.

Side Note: Ironically, partial snippets of the 2008 "Vixen" source code seem to have been leaked already and can be found via Google, although an official distro package has not been released. http://www.google.ca/search?q=Virtual-OS+Vixen

99.229.222.154 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is located in ontario[16] and seems to only comment on Virtual OS related topics, especially keeping wikipedia pages from being deleted.

Note: The original application use to be publicly available and can still be downloaded from unauthorized mirrors. It's alot like YouOS except you run it on your own server rather than using someone elses service. I also beta tested the closed 2007 revision which required sign up but it didn't have all the features of the original release. Notability wise it was reported on prime time news in Toronto and in the press. Good or bad, either way it seems to me to be significant in the timeline of events relating to remote desktop systems. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL Note: I believe the disclaimer that has since been removed in a rather odd flurry of recent edits/vandalism actually granted wikipedia the right/license to unlimited reuse of the Virtual-OS trademark to abide by GNU licensing schemes. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search Result Note: The dual exact strings search used by Wisdom89 yield results limited to mentions of BOTH the actual developer and the application; where as queries such as "virtual-os" + "security breach" yield more relevant articles and broader queries such as "virtual os" (with or without quotations) shows that virtual-os.com is the top result above even the monolithic vmware.com and the application is also mentioned in several of the secondary top results out of 9,210,000 google hits for the term (141,000 exact string query). There's also related content indexed in MSN, Yahoo, DMOZ, etc. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SNOW. No valid reason to delete and appears that there never will be. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden[edit]

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

Marsden is not particularly notable - the article is more trouble than its worth, the site of constant drama and the subject wants it deleted. SuperVideoGameKid (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

  • There seems to be a growing trend of "Please delete mah article" on AfDs these days... Celarnor Talk to me 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think thirteen minutes might be a bit quick for a snowball keep. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a prediction that this did this Afd did not have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding - it is the closing admin's decision when to judge the probability of that prediction's chances of being true is sufficiently high to close. Regards, Skomorokh 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Tree Friends deaths and injuries[edit]

Happy Tree Friends deaths and injuries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

32 kilobytes of unreferenced trivia that belongs on a fansite. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improbus Atrum[edit]

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

Non-notable Myspace band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jobian Day[edit]

A previously A7 deleted biography that cites no sources. The article makes claims of importance but I can't find anything to verify the content. I think the article may refer to this MySpace profile and I can't find any results relating for the person outside of MySpace - which is not a reliable source. Guest9999 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G7 as the original author blanked the page. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace Demos[edit]

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

Not-notable, unreleased album ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has already been deleted once today as Speedy A7, Does it need to go through AfD or can it just be speedied a second time? Eve (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). No delete comments, some consensus to merge; merging is a question for talkpage discussion. Skomorokh 02:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaalu Atoll Hospital[edit]

Dhaalu Atoll Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A sentence is not an article, incurable failure of WP:ORG for local orgs. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Magazine[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:V. 'Nuff said. ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source your claim and bring some references to prove the article is under wikipedia guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiring conference[edit]

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

Reads like an essay. OR, and possibly a veiled promotional piece - see final para. ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop This Car[edit]

Stop This Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and unreleased song which may or may not be released as a single (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Test 02[edit]

Crash Test 02 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources provided, none found. Fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National BackUp Day[edit]

National BackUp Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is both a personal essay and a soapbox for the author's page www.nationalbackupday.com Gihanuk (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no independent nontrivial reliable coverage at all. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as all above. Not "article" enough.
O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. he made his professional debut. . - Philippe 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danleigh Borman[edit]

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

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league [20] (the PDL is not professional). Claiming that he will play (as the article's creator has done on his talk page) is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, as for all we know he may get injured and have to retire before ever playing. The article can easily be recreated as soon as he actually crosses the threshold and makes an appearance. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:ATHLETE, Borman has played in the Rhode Island Stingrays, the U.S. top-level amateur men's competition of the United Soccer Leagues, leading his team in 2006 in goals. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm - There seems to be no record of him playing for South Africa. His uncle, Randall, played for the national Under-20s and Under-23s, but there's no record at safa's official site of DANLEIGH playing for S Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.153.18 (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gargantua-1[edit]

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

Real-world notability not asserted. shoy 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Break the Dawn[edit]

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

Unreleased single (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to remain civil and discuss the notability of the subject, not the motives or the character of the nominator. Corvus cornixtalk 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The song has not been released as a single. You can't buy it or download it and radio stations aren't playing it yet. The only way you can listen to it is by streaming it on the People website. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as advertising. - Philippe 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zabala vineyards[edit]

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

Written more or less like an advertisement. I was unable significant coverage from third party sources and seriously doubt that any such coverage exists. It only makes sense to keep articles about specific vineyards if it has a sufficiently rich history or a place among the world or the region's most celebrated producers. This one fails on both counts. Perhaps a redirect to the wine-region is an option. Pichpich (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. While I would love to tease consensus out of this, I'm afraid that I can't, and I do not believe relisting is likely to help. Arguments on both sides of the debate are within policy; this article's fate seems to hinge on the question of WP:N and whether or not coverage and contributions are trivial. Contributors on both sides of this have put laudable effort into resolving this question, but rational disagreement persists on this divide.

Although the larger concern raised by this AfD—specifically, the reliability of the individual as a source in other Wikipedia articles—may be a serious matter for consideration, it does not necessarily relate to the individual's notability. Notability is distinct from importance; notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles. The question of the authority of this individual's writing is a matter of what sources about this individual actually say and may be better handled by shaping the content of the article than citing its existence or non-existence.

Of course, it may be appropriate at some point to revisit the question of notability and see if a more clear consensus can form. In the meantime, the weight due this individual as a scholar in other articles may be separately addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Polak[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable person. Jehochman Talk 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Notability (people)), Christian Polak does fulfill the notability guideline: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." PHG (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the main assertion to notability is as a scholar, WP:PROF (rather than WP:BIO, which you cited) is the operative guideline. I do not see the requirements of WP:PROF being satisfied in this case (see my comments below). If one were to assert Polak's notability as a businessman, WP:BIO would be the correct guideline to use, but I have seen very little to justify his notability as a businessman. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Nsk92, if a subject meets any notability guideline at all, the subject is considered notable. WP:Notability explicitly states the general guideline is an alternative to any of the specific guidelines, and WP:BIO has similar language. WP:PROF probably should have that language, but, regardless says the same thing (second sentence, "Criteria" section), so we're entitled to shop around. Noroton (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, he doesn't seem to meet the WP:Notability standard of "substantial" (more than a little detailed) coverage of him by independent, reliable sources. WP:PROF is probably the best guideline to look at.Noroton (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF is a subguideline of WP:N, so WP:PROF is not meant to override the general requirements of WP:N (which still always apply) but rather to detail them. Nsk92 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respond below at the 01:32 April 3 edit. Noroton (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added in the article a sampling of books and publications which use Christian Polak as a reference for Franco-Japanese relations. Regards. PHG (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has also been described as "the best specialist of the history of Franco-Japanese relations" by Philippe Pons, Japan correspondent for Le Monde (2005). PHG (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Being mentioned does not make somebody notable. The subject needs to be written about, as a subject, not merely cited or referenced. Writing about oneself or other topics especially does not count towards notability. Again, Abd, your choice to involve yourself in PHG's business and add noise to the discussion is disruptive. Jehochman Talk 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When editors are piling on to find and complain about every deviation from the strictest interpretation of the standards of Wikipedia, ranging across the entire set of contributions of the editor, it becomes harassment. An arbitrator just suggested that one user involved might drop the crusade, though milder language was used as befits that body. I'm involved in Wikipedia. I'm not following any user around and jumping into every spat I find. Rather, this particular one (the situation with PHG) inserted itself in front of me, as a particularly egregious abuse of an ArbComm decision, and when I commented, legitimately, I was attacked. I'm allowed to state facts, and a decision that those facts are irrelevant, which is up to the closer of this AfD, does not make the statement of them disruptive in any way, unless they were clearly irrelevant, which they are not. And Jehochman just repeated his attack. "Disruptive" is grounds for block. As I wrote before about this, make my day. But, don't do it unless you desire to disrupt the project, because it would be exactly that.--Abd (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are allowed to state facts, but the problem, Abd, is that you have a tendency to make incorrect assumptions about the history of a dispute, and then you start chastising people for perceived misdeeds. You often act as though you know what's going on, even though you don't, and indeed, your participation tends to considerably increase confusion, for those other readers who can't tell who is right and who is wrong. This type of activity is not helpful. --Elonka 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small point. PHG was found to have, in a few cases, out of voluminous contributions, misinterpreted sources. This was not considered serious enough, apparently to prevent him from editing in general, and the topic ban was only as Elonka stated. ArbComm specifically encouraged him to edit outside the banned topics (and within the topics through Talk, similar to a COI editor; the theory seems to be that his errors were due to his enthusiasm for what may have been original research). The article on France-Japan relations is *solidly* outside the field of "medieval" history, and that it has "some information" which is "almost" medieval doesn't change that, the focus is clearly as stated, 19th century, and does not make it even mentionable as some kind of violation, which has been done, unfortunately (not so much here, but definitely elsewhere), nor does that article -- nor this one -- seem to be promoting any novel theories or extraordinary claims. Yes, knowledgeable opinions sought, and sensible editorial review from those not involved with what was obviously a bitter content and behavioral dispute.--Abd (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, please review the updates being considered to the Arb case where they clearly state they were signaling to PHG that his behavior needed changing; it is not helpful to anyone, least of all PHG, that you hamper the possibility for those changes through your misguided advocacy. You continue to misstate the breadth of the sourcing issues and the scope of the case despite several editors informing you of your errors; you continue to twist the facts to help your "cause" and advance these supposed "theories" that in truth belong only to you. Your habit of jumping from dispute to dispute to stir the pot is starting to grate. Shell babelfish 05:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that GoogleScholar and WOS are pretty awful when it comes to humanities. And I agree that a mention of a scholar as an expert in a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a respected press is coverage by a reliable source. But one or two such mentions are not enough to indicate notability. Yes, establishing notability for academics in humanities is a difficult problem but we still have to use some kind of positive and verifiable evidence. I have a couple of thoughts on this (although, being a mathematician, I am a bit of an outsider to the world of humanities). First, it seems that GoogleBooks is a more reliable indicator of notability in humanities than GoogleScholar, WOS and Scopus. Second, I noticed that in other AfD discussions DGG often cites information about how many libraries carry books by the academic in question. I don't know where and how DGG gets this data, but it could be used, including in this case, as an indicator. I hope that DGG will participate in this discussion as well. Coming back to GoogleBooks, I did searches for the notable musicology names you mentioned. For "Thomas Forrest Kelly" there were 184 hits [35] and for "Christoph Wolff" there were 674 [36]. By comparison, for Christian Pollak, the total humber of hits was 28, from which at most 9 appear to be about him.
As an experiment, I did a GoogleBooks search for a few other people that I picked, more or less randomly, from the websites of the history departments of several U.S. universities (not particularly major). The first is Sarah Kovner, who is a faculty member at the University of Florida (the web site says that her PhD is 1995 and that she is an Assistant Professor[37]; her area is listed there as "Japanese History, Gender History, and International History"[38]). A GoogleBooks search gives 57 hits [39], most of which appear to be about her. Another person I checked was David Bachrach, an Assistant Professor in the history department at the University of New Hampshire. His area is listed as Medieval History[40]. A GoogleBooks search for "David Bachrach" midieval gives 13 hits [41], all related to him. (Without the midieval addition one gets 154 hits, but many of them are not about him). Another example: Thomas J. Finan, Assistant Professor, history department at the University of St Louis (PhD 2001), specialization listed as Medieval History: [42][43] GoogleBooks gives 38 hits,[44] at least a half of which seem to be related to him. All three of these cases concern fairly junior researchers (Assistant Professors), and in all three cases GoogleBooks results are better than for Polak. Nsk92 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my bad French, but I translate that last as "the best specialist of the history of Franco-Japanese relations". Am I mistranslating? These appear to be reliable sources, therefore the criterion is met, therefore WP:PROF is satisfied, therefore he's notable, therefore keep.Noroton (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
second thoughts: The first item I cited, where Terry Bennett calls him an "expert" is not enough. WP:PROF wants "significant expert" (emphasis added). There may or may not be a second reliable source that essentially calls Polak a significant expert, but it one potential second source was added by User:PHG and, given the RFA, and given that online translators give different wording, it's too difficult to put any faith in the accuracy of the translation. I've put a note on the Talk:Christian Polak page about it. If that translation holds up, the article unquestionably meets WP:PROF. Noroton (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) -tweaked wording (replaced "it" with a phrase) Noroton (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are certainly valid references, but I don't think just these two references are enough to justify that he is regarded as a significant expert in the field. In practice, when WP:PROF is applied, one needs either a substantial amount of coverage of the person in question in the mainstream press as an expert in a particular area or some substantial evidence, in the form of citations in scholarly publications and books, academic awards etc, that the person has made significant impact in the field. This is how WP:PROF has been consistently interpreted in other AfD discussions related to notability of academics. The same is true for the general applicability of WP:N and WP:BIO: having one or two references by reliable sources regarding the subject, even if they explicitly assert notability of this subject, is almost never sufficient for satisfying the notability requirements. So having just two mentions of him in the mainstream press does not, in my view, satisfy the requirements of WP:PROF in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with WP:PROF AfDs, and the past practice may well be just as you say, but I try to follow the exact language on the guideline page. At WP:PROF, Criterion #1 doesn't require any substantial coverage from those particular sources. That's true with some criteria you find in other notability guidelines, such as WP:MUSIC. Each notability guideline sets up alternate criteria to WP:N that do not rely on a substantial amount of coverage by individual sources. I find in that in AfDs there are too many different interpretations of the policies and guidelines, so the way I do it is by going with the exact wording I see on the page (and, of course, common sense). I think closing admins, when they need to interpret policies and guidelines, have to look at them the same way. Noroton (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the language of WP:PROF needs to be clarified but I am fairly sure that I am correct about how criterion 1 has been traditionally interpreted. This is supported, in part, by an example explicitly given in WP:PROF: "An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." This seems to be on the mark in this case since the number of references to Polak in traditional newsmedia is very small. I should also mention that, in my understanding, WP:PROF is a subguideline of WP:N and it is not meant to override WP:N (unless explicitly stated so) but to detail it. Nsk92 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that example. I read that, but not carefully enough. I'll probably wind up voting delete. But reread the first sentence in the "Criteria" section. WP:PROF and all other notability guidelines provide alternate routes to notability that don't depend on WP:N requirements. I don't think there's any other way to interpret their explicit language on that. Noroton (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 1[edit]

Very weak keep.. DGG (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to raw standards, I agree. Frankly, though, the harm to the project by keeping this is minute, if there is any at all, and is far outweighed by the fuss created by the AfD, which was blatantly created because the nominator is involved in a conflict with the author of the article, as is another contributor here intensely arguing for deletion. (Whether or not they were originally neutral would be irrelevant; their comments here and elsewhere show some serious personal involvement.) I would never have become involved here if this were not part of a pattern of harassment of the user, intended or not.--Abd (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement by Abd, as usual, is incorrect. The nominator is not involved in the conflict with PHG. Administrator Jehochman did start the ArbCom case, and this AfD, and has offered comments and statements, but to my knowledge has never interacted with PHG on any article talkpage. I am extremely familiar with the last several months of this dispute, and I would be hard-pressed to identify a single article that both PHG and Jehochman edited. In fact, Jehochman unblocked PHG when he had been blocked for disruption in December.[47] Next, Abd, your comment that another person involved in the conflict is "intensely arguing for deletion", who exactly would that be? I have reviewed this page several times and cannot identify who you are talking about. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of incendiary claims, try to provide diffs to back them up, otherwise it is just more empty accusations which tend to confuse the issue. More "smoke than light". --Elonka 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the ulterior motives happening beneath the surface (and they might exist for all I or anyone knows), the AfD issue here is really about whether we can research and write an encyclopedia entry based on the policy and guideline criteria. Regarding the argument that it doesn't do any harm to the project by keeping this article, here is an interesting essay that covers that issue as one of the "arguments to avoid" in deletion discussions (see WP:NOHARM):"As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes - it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here." It's a legitimate and thought-provoking point, I think. J Readings (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, to Abd:) Thank you again. I agree that, for similar reasons, there is much more harm to WP by deleting than by retaining. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JR, to expand on your good point, and considering my latest sources, any harm related to any less-than-verified portions of this article pales in the face of the harm that may result from setting a precedent that literally any article can be deleted for nonnotability (which is not provable) without a fair chance to show notability (which can take time to prove). As to the harm that may be engendered by either deletion or retention being misused as a demonstration of consensus in the larger personality conflict, I think that either evens out or tips in favor of retention being less harmful. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your last point first, I think you're referring to the bad faith that a couple of editors are alleging against a few other editors here. In my personal opinion, it's not helpful to focus on that issue if the AfD attracts third-party editors who were not involved in any of those previous scuffles. Speaking only for myself, I'm here for the subject matter as it relates to Japan. Second, despite a common misperception, an AfD is not a vote. The closing admin is entrusted to read through the arguments as they relate to the substance of the subject in relation to the policies and guidelines. Third, in terms of that substance, I think that it's helpful to remember that we're trying to establish the notability of a biographical subject (which is possible within a 5-day AfD), not completely re-write the article within 5 days (that can come later). On the former, the six databases I mentioned (JSTOR, WorldCat, LexisNexis, Factiva, Google News, Google Books) are excellent sources of information. The general notability requirements call for independent, third-party sources that are both "reliable" and "significant" in their coverage of the subject. To quote the notability guidelines: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." The problem with Christian Polak, excluding his own books which are irrelevant for the AfD and the few one-sentence mentions in newspapers and magazines, is that there hasn't been any "significant coverage." That's the issue that needs to be addressed. If his writings are notable, where are the book reviews in reliable newspapers? Where are the academic book and journal citations? Where are the "major" write-ups in the media, more generally? As far as I can tell, having researched this gentleman over the past couple days, he hasn't experienced any of that coverage (yet). J Readings (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google News: zero articles.
LexisNexis: 14 articles, most of which are false positives. Only one makes a major mention of Polak in connection with his comments on the Tom Cruise movie, The Last Samurai (not a good start for writing an encyclopedia entry). The rest are one sentence mentions that don’t conform to the criteria of WP:N.
Factiva (English): five articles linking him with Japan, so as to avoid false positives. Once again, he gets one-sentence mentions in these articles, but they are not about him or his ideas. These do not really support the WP:N requirements.
Factiva (French):17 articles—obviously a slightly more substantial accumulation for Polak in the French media, but still we’re talking about single-sentence mentions within these articles.
Google Books: 28 hits, some of them are false positives. For example, “Millie Graham was a Christian, Polak a Jew, but their real religion….” Looking through the books, I found a few that do indeed mention Polak in passing, but nothing substantial to indicate that his work was being cited or taken seriously.
JSTOR: zero hits. The fact that academics have not cited Polak at all in any academic journal article that is recorded on JSTOR hurts his notability substantially.
WorldCat: only four hits. Two of which are books that Polak published Paul Jacoulet (in French) and another entitled Kinu to Hikari (in Japanese). A third and fourth book (are the same, different editions), apparently written about Honda in Spanish, mentions “Christian Polak” in the keyword search, but it could be a false positive.
J Readings — continues after insertion below I appreciate your work. Please note the third book in WorldCat is in French and Portuguese (not Spanish), and Polak is listed as collaborator, per the Details tab. [48] All three are now listed among the seven or eight books mentioned in the article. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're using a different WorldCat site (my entries were in Spanish but it's restricted access). In any case, fair enough. This one appears to be in French. J Readings (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, strike. You're right. I went back and checked WorldCat again. See [49] They're in French and Portuguese. My apologies. You're right. J Readings (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my last comment. This article is really a delete, in my view. Having looked thoroughly through these six databases now, there is not enough objective material to justify the article's notability requirements which will likely lead -- sooner or later -- to a lot of primary source citations (if any) and puffery (none of which is really good for a tertiary source like Wikipedia.) J Readings (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JR, I politely disagree with your idea above that 5 days to establish notability is proper in this case, because (1) no other steps were tried by the nominator in the 7 hours after creation, (2) one bio tag and one source question at talk do not constitute sufficient prior steps by others, (3) the nominator (and the questioner) were just in arbitration with the creator, and (4) the desire of these two parties to assist the new-article patroller is certainly understandable within good faith, but any good-faith explanation for this particular choice of forum is at least as weak as you think the notability is-- good faith would be more likely to wait more than 7 hours before AFD. But even so, the article seems clearly to have surpassed WP:HEY by now. (Also I don't think I'm referring to any bad-faith allegations made here, although of course the ArbCom case was documented to have many bad-faith allegations.) As for the possibility that rewriting can come later, recall your !vote and that ArbCom is considering a ban on the creator reworking deleted articles in his userspace. Since I don't think "his own books which are irrelevant" and "few one-sentence mentions" are a sufficient characterization of everything unearthed, I guess I need to make my own list:
John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below The Google News was accidentally set for "last month", so yes it was a mistake. Unfortunately, your "all dates" isn't much better. "Christian Polak" and "Japan" still receives no hits whatsoever. As for just "Christian Polak" you need to be aware of false positives which could very well exist without reading every article in detail. Sorry. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below Single-sentence mentions amount to little, I'm afraid. Sorry. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below John, where did you read that JSTOR is "weak" in academic fields such as diplomacy, history, international relations or the humanities? Surely, not from JSTOR itself which is actually quite strong in 47 disciplines with 1,856,206 full-length articles. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need to interject a comment on this. JSTOR contains 1100 journals total, including about 5% of the available academic titles in the humanities ; more important in this connection, it is almost totally limited to journals published in English. Very little French, no Japanese. A negative result in JSTOR is in my opinion meaningless here. DGG (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further follow-up based on this discussion [50]. I did check two major French-language academic databases Francis and Répère. There were no hits on either.Slp1 (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below Which, once again, has nothing to do with independent, third-party reliable sources covering a subject. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing for "no consensus", I'm pushing for a full "keep notable" on these grounds. WP:N: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; "sources address the subject directly in detail". WP:BIO: "subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". WP:PROF: "regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources"; "collective body of work is significant and well-known" (it is in France); "received a notable award or honor" (no one has questioned the notability of the Légion d'honneur, though I grant it has 100,000 recipients); "academic who has published a book or books of general interest ... or non-academic articles in periodicals with significant readership is likely to be notable as an author (see WP:BIO), regardless of their academic achievements"; "academic repeatedly quoted [not 'small number'] in newspapers or newsmagazines" (the wikiblur is obvious between "repeatedly" and "small number", but I think 40-50 is on the safe side); and note emphasis added in "numbers of publications can be judged quantitatively to a degree". Thanks for your attention. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This is the Monthly newsletter of the French Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Japan. It has a 2 pages review of Sabre et pinceau. The article describes the content of two of Polak's books, first "Soie et Lumières", which explains "how Japan's raw silk saved the silk industry of the Second Empire, in exchange of what France brought the technologies necessary to the Industrial modernization of Japan". Second, it describes in details the contents of Sabre et pinceau, as a book focusing on military and artitistic relations. In conclusion it says that "Sabre et pinceau is like a time-machine. As for the first book Soie et Lumières. Sabre et pinceau draws from first-hand original documents, gathered over a period of more than 30 years either from French, Japanese or foreign official archives, or from private archives, especially those of descendants of Frenchmen who lived in Japan, or still from new documents found among booksellers in Paris, London, New York, Kanda inn Tokyo or elsewhere, or documents purchased in auctions around the world on the occasion of personal travels, and also from Internet." Later on: "This is a true time-machine, delivering with sometimes violent strength the reality of the past.". Cheers PHG (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since a lot of folks here don't speak French, I can confirm what PHG said is in the article, but unfortunately it was written by the subject. Shell babelfish 16:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooops, sorry for that, you're right Shell. Just saw it. Thanks for the keen eye (the font is barely visible on my printer, and I missed it). I understand better now why John J. Bulten was mentionning WP:SELFPUB. I guess we'll have to remove this part from the article then. Cheers PHG (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thank you so much monsieur! To explain my meaning, WP:SELFPUB would tend to exclude some things from the CCIFJ's review because they are close to Polak and the claims might be controversial, such as "true time-machine" and "saved the silk industry". However, within the limits of WP:SELFPUB, basic noncontroversial claims can be gleaned, such as that the books are about the interaction and trade between Japan's silk trade and France's technology, and about the military and artistic relations of the two countries. I will add that source myself. Merci again! John J. Bulten (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC) For me, I can't tell whether it is intended that the article or the book reviewed is by Polak. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 2[edit]

I was told to strike my above comment by Jehochman[51], but all below discussion is related to the title, so I do not alter it. --Appletrees (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the list misses him, or PHG made up to glorify the subject in order to prevent the article from being deleted. If he forged the information, I would retract my vote and start reconsidering whether his seeming established articles have credibility.(Franco-Mongol alliance looks interesting, so I intend to translate it) However, the article looks great at this status. --Appletrees (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ran a Google search and cannot find any reliable source that makes this claim. I do not trust PHG's obscure foreign language sources, given the results at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Jehochman Talk 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the reference is written in Japanese and according to the source, he received the honor. (平成元年、フランス政府より国家功労賞(シュバリエ)受勲。平成14年、フランス政府より国家功労賞(オフィシエ)受勲) However is "the site" reliable? I'm not sure.--Appletrees (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting. I checked Factiva (French) and there was no mention made of him being granted these honors. Le Monde makes mention of a Pierre Polak being granted the Légion d'honneur in 1995, I believe, but nothing for Christian Polak in 1989. Curious. I welcome other people to double-check the results just to be sure. That said, Appletrees is correct. The Japanese does say that the French Government bestowed two national distinguished honors upon him, one being the "Shubarie" in Katakana. Whether that's the Legion d'honneur or not, I don't know. The Japanese just literally translates as "national distinguished service award." In addition, it's unclear whether the source is reliable, but that's a separate issue. Someone should doubt-check if this website is not affiliated with Christian Polak, which would definitely be a WP:SELFPUB problem. I haven't looked yet. J Readings (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the page, in English, it says "Copyrighit 2004, Nekono ebook publisher All rights Reserved." The URL necom.cool.ne.jp has a Google PageRank of 3/10. My personal website is 5/10. From all appearances this is self-published information on a very minor website that has not been verified. Jehochman Talk 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, 国家功労賞 seems to be Ordre national du Mérite. シュバリエ is Chevalier (the first rank), オフィシエ is Officier (Officer, the second rank). Would somebody have access to the list of recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite? PHG (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just checked their website, but Jehochman beat me to it. According to the Japanese on this website, it reads: 猫の本屋さんは、インディペンデントな電子本作品を販売するオンライン書店です。Nekko-no Honya-san is an online bookstore which sells independent soft-copy (digital) works. ????? Whether that qualifies as a reliable, independent third-party source with editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking leaves is huge question mark. The more I read the website, the more suspicious I am that they're not simply taking whatever the author gives them and running with it. Incidentally, I just checked: no mention made on Factiva (French) of "Christian Polak" and "Ordre national du Mérite", but I'll check again to be sure....nope, just checked again. Nothing. Curious. J Readings (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It is getting interesting. How about this site? My French is ....very poor, but I can find his name on the list.[53] Au grade d'officier, M. Polak (Christian), président de société (Japon). Chevalier du 29 septembre 1989. However, the cite looks also far from reliable sources. --Appletrees (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like unreliable sources quoting from each other. In the United States, it is a federal crime to falsely claim winning the Medal of Honor, or any other military award. Jehochman Talk 20:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence sounds threatening. The claim is from the Japanese site and also dubious French site not from PHG even though PHG has the responsibility to introduce the unconfirmed claim to Wikipedia.--Appletrees (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need for big words or Legal threats :) This is actually a French Administration site (admi.net), publishing the announcement of the "jo" ("Journal Officiel", the official medium to convey Government decision) [54]. This is a highly reliable site: nothing more official than "Journal Officiel" announcements. Thank you Appletrees for finding it! PHG (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, the bottom line is that Christian Polak did receive the Medal of the Ordre national du Mérite (Chevalier on Septembre 29, 1989, then Officer on April 30, 2002). Source: Journal Officiel Avril 2002.PHG (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PHG, thanks for absorbing this correction so quickly. This is a very slight dent in my argument above, but nothing serious. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm guys, I've searched the official site http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr and can't find his name listed as ever winning this medal. It doesn't make sense that it would be in some random supposed copy of the official records, but not in the official records. Do we have any reliable source which states he won this medal? Shell babelfish 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't find any recipients in the official site. I tried to find several people with the title in the site, but none returns. --Appletrees (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With Slp1's help, it is proved that the same official site still has the same list as the one looking dubious. http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000408880&dateTexte= It is also confirmed that search engine is not reliable either. --Appletrees (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a question for the French speakers. What does "promotions et nominations" mean in this context? Does it literally mean just that: nominations? And if so, which "nominees" are distinguished from the actual "promotions" on the list? This situation is curious and still quite unclear. J Readings (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Nomination" means "appointment" in French. I think that people are given the Order at various levels (nomination)and then some are later promoted up the echelon of honours from one level to another (promotion). --Slp1 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the reliability of the French site, did Polak received the honor according to the source? --Appletrees (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well here is the thing. I don't actually doubt for a second that Polak got the Ordre (not the Legion d'honneur, though, of which more later). But the proof appears to be posted on some sort of mirror site,[55] which despite PHG's claims, does not seem to be a government administration site (see the ads at the bottom of this part of the site [56] and the link to the official site at the top). The link at the top goes nowhere, though assuming good faith as I do, I assume it did at one point and that after 5 years or so, these things become history on a government website. And indeed the Wayback Machine comes up trumps [57], showing that yes, Polak did get the Ordre. (Yeaaah, my hunch was right!). However, what I find disconcerting is that PHG would leap to the conclusion that he had received at Legion d'honneur when presumably using a machine translated version of this Japanese blurb for a book, which doesn't say Legion d'honneur in Japanese [58] or in the English translation,[59]/ (I can't see that online Japanese-French translation is available, but I may be wrong) and that s/he would claim so confidently that admi.net/jo/ is an "administration site" when it isn't anything official at all. [60] On the plus side, PHG did delete the info posthaste when s/he realized s/he was wrong.--Slp1 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think AGF is that warranted. Let's just say he deleted in information quickly once it was apparent that it would not be accepted quietly. — Coren (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right, but then I tend to try and find a bright side somewhere! And I guess this is still an improvement on previous strategies of fighting tooth and nail for a lost cause.Slp1 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who came up with the right translation (Ordre National du Mérite). When I make a mistake, a gladly acknowledge it and readily apologize. If I believe I am being wrongly accused however, that's a different matter :) Best regards. PHG (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rank given by French government is verified with a "reliable source"[61] and you missed people's saying over it. --Appletrees (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no I didn't. That's what "which it appears to be" means. I dispute the fact that it makes its holder notable. — Coren (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, you blocked him because Jehochman reported that PHG deliberately introduced error with the information before this AFD is even closed. --Appletrees (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicts) I think you have misunderstood Coren's remark, Appletrees, which clearly states that Coren believes that the honour has been verified, but that getting the Ordre doesn't make him that notable per se. The Legion d'honneur, as originally claimed, would have done. I agree with Coren in this. We don't need articles on every one the 100s of people who are given this award every year.--Slp1 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicts) Huh? I did not. Even though I'm not a native English speaker, I know that "even if" is not telling current fact. That is the subjunctive. I "understood" his argument as it is but I disagree on his point and his blocking PHG. --Appletrees (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Discussion about the block does not belong here. Please join the AE thread where a more detailed rationale can be found. — Coren (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG's block[edit]

Moved to Talk; let's stay focused on the issue at hand with minimal distractions and fragmentations. Thanks. El_C 00:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by PHG

Please find my comment on my Talk Page: User_talk:PHG#Comment_by_PHG. Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 3[edit]

Restoring comments to this page which were understandably moved to talk page along with other potential tangential: (John J. Bulten (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In haste, Appletrees, this from gouv.fr shows that PHG's unofficial (?) archive has official sanction, as can be told from the page numbers when WP:AGF is applied. That means that AT MINIMUM Polak received the Chevalier of the lesser medal and was nominated for the Officier, officially. There is probably a better analysis available to someone at convenience: I'm too busy changing diapers and writing unblock defenses at PHG's talk. If we were mistaken about Polak receiving the Officier, we were under immense pressure. Again, if anyone has any questions about other statements made on this page, ---> John J. Bulten (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your comment Gwen. I do agree that incredulity towards little-known non English-centric subjects seems to easily translate into rejection sometimes (I paid for it). These subject are crucial however, if indeed Wikipedia is supposed to be a universal tool, "the sum of all knowledge". France-Japan relations (19th century) for more information. Best regards. PHG (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. What I would like to know, in all seriousness and after great scrutiny, is why we are unable to find serious third-party academics (indeed any academics at all) and third-party journalists (emphasis on the word "third-party") who have reviewed Polak's work. Surely this is a puzzle and problem for even PHG because he is essentially relying on the limited soundbite quotes of a Japan Times staff writer (who made the "expert" comment in passing), two ostensible colleagues and/or friends of Polak writing in 2 of Polak's book forewords (hardly reliable third-party sources by any means), and the passing mention by an outside author of art books to make the case that Polak is a notable academic. Slp1, DGG, and I have looked through several databases and indices (including French academic databases) without being able to find anything of third-party substance on Polak. Rather, what is cited in this AfD is always the same: the limited throw-away comments of someone who is sporadically used for soundbites by an obscure newspaper staffer or Polak affiliate. The argument that these -- what I would call "throw-away" -- comments somehow justify an encyclopedia entry is still a puzzle in need of great explanation. I'm astounded that we cannot find an academic journal article or newspaper article written by a reliable third-party source not affiliated with Polak who reviewed or focused on the substance of his work. Like the many other contributors in this AfD, I remain unconvinced of any clear objective notability of this gentleman. J Readings (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an appearance that this article was cleared to establish that Christian Polak as an expert. PHG has been citing this fellow in other articles, [62] sometimes as the only reference. [63] If this person's work has not been independently reviewed, it is unreliable, original research, and it should not be cited elsewhere. I remain concerned, per the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence, that PHG continues to create walled gardens or original research. Jehochman Talk 14:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gap (book)[edit]

The Gap (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BK; non-notable book by non-notable author - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect. Singularity 06:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scheherazade (Soul Calibur)[edit]

Scheherazade (Soul Calibur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor character from an upcoming video game, about which the article even admits we know little. Doesn't really merit a separate article. Graevemoore (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CMGN News[edit]

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

Possible hoax - no Ghits or Yhits on company name, Max Croft or Theo Croft. Hits on Annabel Croft say nothing about this company. In any event, not notable and no RS. ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep" It doesn't possibly have to be a hoax, mainly because it only ran for six weeks and isn't very notable. But I think it can become an article if people worked on it and it's interesting enough.
O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portable games[edit]

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

The article needs a complete re-write as it's pretty much unintelligable. I thought I'd have a go, but I've found it next to impossible to find any sources (not that that worried the article's creator!) I suggest deletion - if any reasonable sources are found, the article can be recreated. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, only blatant and obvious hoaxes can be speedied. Adding a new 20th century US President would be obvious, but this one is much less so, as the discussion above suggests. Let's get a little more consensus that this is a hoax, and then we can snowball this AfD. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retagged G3. The picture is of a console released thirty years after the article says it was. It is quite obvious. DarkAudit (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame High School (Calgary)[edit]

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

Non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, sites no references. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC) WP:SCHOOL does not state that High Schools receive a free pass on notability.AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a criteria for inclusion WP:SCHOOL, just because a school exists does not mean it should remain on Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you referenced are that the school was planned and that it opened. That imho isn't notable, the references also doesnt link to the articles themselves. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia defines what kind of sources meet Wikipedia's standard over at WP:Notability#General notability guideline where the guideline says that the article is safe if objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Newspaper articles devoted to the opening of a school will necessarily cover the subject "substantially" as WP:N defines it -- that is, with a substantial amount of detail. It's not reasonable to believe that these two articles don't do that. Noroton (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to WP:NOT#NEWS, a simple announcement that something is opening or being built does not add to it being notable. Also the link of a reference should be to the reference, not to the search the news site page. WP:VER requires a reference be "cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question". A link to the "search the archives page" is not precise or clear. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there were any notability according to WP:SCHOOL then you may have a point. But there isn't any and no references to even suggest that there are. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOL bows to WP:Notability and also allows some schools to pass AfD with a different notability standard, so meeting one or the other standard can allow a school article to be kept. Noroton (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think so, under that definition the Walmart down the street is notable, so is the sewage treatment plant they are planning on building on the next county. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG makes the individual WalMart difficult. Find sources for the sewage treatment plant in the next county that are as good as these for the school, and WP:N is no bar to it. Your argument is with the guidelines. Noroton (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, imho, the articles saying something is opening or being built only prove it exists. Everything is planned and opened, that doesn't mean it should be included in wikipedia. Its an announcement that its being built or opened WP:NOT#NEWS. Also the references should be to the reference, not to a "search the paper" page. Otherwise it is private, and being private is not notable. AlbinoFerret (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination wasn't that it hasn't been expanded, but that it lacked notability. Please find some references that suggest the nominated school is notable according to WP:SCHOOL criteria. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... well apparently somebody deleted that part of WP:School in the past 2 weeks... It is in effect, none the less, so modify my previous statement to "keep per what should be in WP:School". Or -- keep per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)‎.Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay, written by you! Not only that , it was written this morning[64]. It also is contrary to WP:SCHOOL, the work of multiple editors that suggests that schools need to show some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Are you saying that I can't cite my own essay when !voting in AfD? Is there some rule about that? If so, I think I'll ignore it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that it holds no weight. Its not a guideline or policy. You might just as well have written it here. That you didn't disclose that you wrote it when you posted it here. I could write an essay saying that schools that don't show notability should be removed from Wikipedia, at least that one wouldn't conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unusual in AfDs for users to point to essays for further information on a point of the debate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lawn High School[edit]

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

non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, sites no references AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) WP:SCHOOL does not state that High Schools receive a free pass on notability.AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a criteria for inclusion WP:SCHOOL, just because a school exists does not mean it should remain on Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there were any notability according to WP:SCHOOL then you may have a point. But there isn't any and no references to even suggest that there are. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay, written by you! Not only that , it was written this morning[65]. It also is contrary to WP:SCHOOL, the work of multiple editors that suggests that schools need to show some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Are you saying that I can't cite my own essay when !voting in AfD? Is there some rule about that? If so, I think I'll ignore it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that it holds no weight. Its not a guideline or policy. You might just as well have written it here. That you didn't disclose that you wrote it when you posted it here. I could write an essay saying that schools that don't show notability should be removed from Wikipedia, at least that one wouldn't conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Water Academy[edit]

Clear Water Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC) WP:SCHOOL does not state that High Schools receive a free pass on notability.AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a criteria for inclusion WP:SCHOOL, just because a school exists does not mean it should remain on Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there were any notability according to WP:SCHOOL then you may have a point. But there isn't any and no references to even suggest that there are. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SCHOOL, there must be "significant coverage in secondary sources". The Fraser institute that the reference links to is a primary source since it releases the report. Therefore it cant be used as a source of notability according to WP:SCHOOLAlbinoFerret (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect - it is independent of the school so it is a secondary source. WP:SCHOOL is, in any case, only a proposal and cannot be cited as a standard. To argue that the best elementary school in a province over 5 years is not notable is frankly bizarre. TerriersFan (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read up on secondary sources. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The Fraser Institute report is not a secondary independent source about this school? If you think that, then I would suggest you read up on secondary sources. --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay, written by you! Not only that , it was written this morning[67]. It also is contrary to WP:SCHOOL, the work of multiple editors that suggests that schools need to show some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Are you saying that I can't cite my own essay when !voting in AfD? Is there some rule about that? If so, I think I'll ignore it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that it holds no weight. Its not a guideline or policy. You might just as well have written it here. That you didn't disclose that you wrote it when you posted it here. I could write an essay saying that schools that don't show notability should be removed from Wikipedia, at least that one wouldn't conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. Canley (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cassette Vision[edit]

Super Cassette Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is already information about this console at Epoch Cassette Vision. I would suggest that the articles be merged.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial High School (Calgary)[edit]

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

non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC) WP:SCHOOL does not state that High Schools receive a free pass on notability.AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any notability according to WP:SCHOOL then you may have a point. But there isn't any and no references to even suggest that there are. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination wasn't that it hasn't been expanded, but that it lacked notability. Please find some references that suggest the nominated school is notable according to WP:SCHOOL criteria. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay, written by you! Not only that , it was written this morning[68]. It also is contrary to WP:SCHOOL, the work of multiple editors that suggests that schools need to show some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Are you saying that I can't cite my own essay when !voting in AfD? Is there some rule about that? If so, I think I'll ignore it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that it holds no weight. Its not a guideline or policy. You might just as well have written it here. That you didn't disclose that you wrote it when you posted it here. I could write an essay saying that schools that don't show notability should be removed from Wikipedia, at least that one wouldn't conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millicent Lovejoy[edit]

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

Some doubt has been cast over whether the page is a hoax. However, on close inspection there appears to me to be nothing reliable verifying any notability of this person. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per WP:BIO#Athletes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Alamo[edit]

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

Contested prod (by an IP without explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league [69] (the PDL is not professional), and claiming that he will play for them is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, as for all we know he may get injured and have to retire before ever playing. The article can easily be recreated as soon as he actually crosses the threshold and makes an appearance. Also nominatinf Vito Higgins [70] for exactly the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus to delete; I'd like to see this made into a category, though. - Philippe 02:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional magic users[edit]

List of fictional magic users (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is pretty much an indiscriminate collection of information, due to the fact of the sheer number of fictional universes that have "magic" in them, is much better covered in related categories (ie. Category:Magical girls), and completely unsourced. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If deleted, please place a copy of the list at the time of deletion on a subpage of my userpage so I can rework it into List of fictional magic users by universe and address the 'making it better than a category' issue. Celarnor Talk to me 06:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I can see this being useful as a list of lists, but as a general catalog of all fictional magic users I can see it being VERY indiscriminate. Nearly every piece of sword and sorcery fiction has a magic user, many video game characters can be considered magic users, many comic book characters have a magic user class... television... horror fiction... I just don't see how this list can ever be useful for actual research as it is currently formed. It appears to me as indiscriminate as a list of fictional characters who use guns.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would be wrong with that list? Celarnor Talk to me 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then where do we draw the line for indiscriminate? The point can also be raised that I can't find any actual guideline (not essay) that specifically discusses any criteria for deleting lists, so AfD's like this I always feel are a little bit of barking in the dark. List AfD precedent is split on the matter [72] [73] and I think it comes down in most cases to personal opinion. If I'm very far out of the park, please correct me.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of chemical compounds with unusual names isn't discriminate at all, for obvious reasons. It's entirely subjective, as is list of fictional obese characters. My general test for whether or not something is indiscriminate is by taking this first possible thing that could go in. If it's debatable at all whether it should be in there or not, then I see it as indiscriminate. In this case, we have a clearly defined criteria of what goes into the list: This list includes fictional characters who use actual magic, in fictional worlds where it exists. Celarnor Talk to me 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to finding some policy, a lot of people throw 'indiscriminate' around with lists, but the indiscriminate that the policy in question refers to actually refers to Wikipedia as a whole, not lists in particular. Relevant information may be found at WP:CLN and WP:Lists (stand-alone lists). Celarnor Talk to me 15:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list (and most WP:LIST lists) do not closely match any of the actual items claimed to be "indiscriminate information". The sheer vagueness of that very problematic label makes it an inviting substitute for "I don't like it". Some people hate detailed coverage of fiction with the same vehemence that I hate management-fad gibberish. The other arguments about "indiscriminate information" expanded beyond the text boil down to arguments aimed not at the merits of lists, but rather at the diligence (or laziness) of editors. That a list or category contains a large number of entries that potentially qualify is not a good reason to delete it in my opinion. Perhaps the most indiscriminate, arbitrary, and hard to maintain list of all, Category:Living people, exists because of Office mandate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to keep in mind regarding this last point is that Wikipedia is not working toward a deadline. It's perfectly fine if a category and a list sharing a subject don't match up at any given point in time. Celarnor Talk to me 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why I believe these types of AfD's are difficult to assess, they really hang on personal viewpoints and I just personally think this list might be too wide. In response to Celanor's criteria for inclusion here are a few more precedents that might apply better, but I'm sure you'd be able to find just as many to bolster a keep. There really needs to be some kind of consensus on list guidelines. [74],[75],[76],[77],[78]--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These things that you keep pointing to are generally lists of things that aren't notable (List of basilisks in fantasy fiction and games) in and of themselves; the information in the list doesn't have to be sourced within the list, it has to be sourced within the linked article. Since there aren't many notable basilisks on Wikipedia, that list isn't going to be very useful. Same with the list of women in playboy by birthday. Others suffer from verifiability and RS issues (List of Final Girls, List of people who have taken psychadelic drugs). With the possible exception of the last one, none of those were indiscriminate collections of information. If anything, they were too discriminate. Celarnor Talk to me 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, everyone but you seems to be just fine going on our existing guidelines. Celarnor Talk to me 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some would argue that fictional characters don't deserve a place on wikipedia because they can not be sourced outside of the fiction that they are part of, and that too has a split precendent. Just a note.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe they deserve a place unless they can meet the notability criteria. However, there are several that do. news pieces and scholarly articles are written about characters all the time. Thinking just in terms of this list and off the top of my head, Gandalf, Saruman, and Faust come to mind. All have been the subject of scholarly literary research. Celarnor Talk to me 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your point of view, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic and let the AfD run its full course. I'm just voicing my thoughts on the matter, same as you, and I will gladly accept whatever consensus is offered up, but I most likely won't make further comment.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When this is over (assuming it doesn't get deleted), I'll get something going on to the talk page to try and move it to List of fictional magic users by setting and make it so it's something other than an alphabetized list. Celarnor Talk to me 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While it's just an essay, WP:USELESS does make a valid point re: the previous two "delete" !votes. If these characters are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries, nothing in policy excludes a list of them. While it can certainly be better categorized (see the comments above) there's no valid cause offered here for deletion. Zahakiel 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But -- not all of them have their own Wikipedia entries, and what is going to stop anyone from adding characters with no entry? And just because they have entries doesn't make them notable or the article not a typical candidate for deletion. Take Ezekiel Zick which I picked at random. It redirects to List of Monster Allergy characters, another list. Or Caster (Fate/Zero) - I'm not clear about guidelines about characters, but if barebone plot articles don't meet guidelines, how do these?Doug Weller (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a content problem, not a problem inherent to the list. The list itself is perfectly discriminate. As is standard, the articles that are listed have to contain references to the information that they are magic users. The ones you listed should be removed from the list and replaced by verifiable, sourcable articles on characters that have their own independent coverage, such as Gandalf, Faust, Saruman, Skeletor, Merlin, Andrew Ketterley, Albus Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Harry Potter, for starters. Remember that this isn't a "we should delete this" argument, this is a "we should improve this list" argument, as the problem is fixable by methods other than deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no issues with the notability of the list entries or putting refs in the list. Why would you need refs there rather than in the main articles (unless this list had additional data, which it does not)? My reason for deletion is that a list is the wrong format for this information. It should be a cat.Halfmast (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With resepect, Wikipedia:Lists is a style guide and says little related to this discussion. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates is a better guide and gives the advantages and disadvantages of lists v cats. All of the very sound arguments you make to keep the list also apply to a category. Converting this list to a category would not remove any significant content or functionality, but it would add automatic sorting and updating. It's what you seem to want and more. Halfmast (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with a category on this. At least a category could be manageable.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would remove the potential for improving navigability. As a category, it could never improve beyond what it is now; i.e, it would just be a page with a bunch of names on it. You couldn't organize it in any meaningful fashion for humans, rather than the MediaWiki software to read. Celarnor Talk to me 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Weir[edit]

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

Weir is a political activist who apparently created her own page, which she apparently edits, mostly citing herself on her own importance.

She did make it into actual newspapers twice. Once when she gave a talk at UC Berkeley and cliamed that she had gotten a death threat about which she make a big fuss.

A second time when a private party (i.e. not an organization) booked a room for her in a public library and the library board tried to cancel because of the "offensive" nature of her material. There was a fuss not particularly about Weir but about library policy, which stated that any citizen of the town could book ar room and bring in a speaker.


I attempted to imporve the page by documenting these two incidents, bu it still seems a paltry record to justify a page.Thomas Babbington (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbingotn[reply]

The original aouthor of the article has not been notified because s/he has been banned from editing WikipediaThomas Babbington (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]

Delete doesn't seem like a bio page as much as a self-promotion/advertisement for views and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Thomas Babbington (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]
Good move. Noroton (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 awards.. - Philippe 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Texas[edit]

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

seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment She's been nominated Best New Starlet by XRCO and AVN. Whether that counts as a serious nominee for an award that satisfies wp:bio, I'm staying out of it. Heh, since I uhh nominated her. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merged and redirected to Islands of Kesmai. Black Kite 08:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Kesmai[edit]

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

No references. Nothing to indicate satisfaction of WP:N guidelines. 229 relevant ghits doesn't give much to pick from. Best I could find was an interview (with a developer?) [79] but I'm not convinced about the reliability of the site. Marasmusine (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 06:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist-Islamist Alliance[edit]

Leftist-Islamist Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is structured around a supposed "political neologism" or catchphrase. However, it's not actually about any one neologism; instead it stitches together a series of unrelated sources (mostly unreliable, such as a Free Republic message board posting alleging that Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho was a sooper sekrit Mooslem![www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1819044/posts])

The only common ground between the sources is that they claim a nefarious connection between the far left and Islamism. While the topic of Leftism and Islamism might well be worthy of an article, it's impossible to write an neutral article on this topic, without resorting to original research, as long as it is based around a dubious conglomeration of nonce phrases. <eleland/talkedits> 10:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Yes, I suppose it would be impossible... if you try to delete it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm saying is, the concept of a relationship between the European Left and radical Islam might well be notable, however, when it's framed in terms of a "Leftist-Islamist Alliance" or a "Marx-Muhammad Pact," we are stacking the deck. If the only people who use such terms are right-wing Islamophobes, then the article effectively becomes a soapbox for right-wing Islamophobia. If you can find a handful of reasonably mainstream sources discussing the term "Leftist-Islamist Alliance" in depth, then maybe we can write a neutral article. If not, then it's not compatible with Wikipedia policy. <eleland/talkedits> 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Right-wing Islamophobe" has as much credence as a neologism as "Marx-Muhammad pact."--WaltCip (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; that's why Right-wing Islamophobia is a redlink. (A redirect to Islamophobia might be in order, and would not undermine the point here.) <eleland/talkedits> 14:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep, without prejudice against renomination. - Philippe 02:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odette Krempin[edit]

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

Contested prod. I'm sure this is a worthy person, but I can't see anything biographically encyclopedic here. Docg 10:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author: Please, the article is being rebuilt now. What's the reason it is being submitted for deteletion and what shall i do to keep it. jose ugs (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk page. We need an indication of why this individual is notable (per the guidelines and we need independent evidence (reliable sources) showing that importance.--Docg 11:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, i just find myself lost reading all these details and guidelines ... i will think of an indication of why this individual is notable and also the "independent evidence" ... you're not making it easy for the rookies in here jose ugs (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put a ((hangon)) at the top of the page will hopefully give you a bit of breathing time while you dig out some references too.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep some RS coverage of her work as a designer. Are there other language sources available? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems to be a moderately well-known African designer. [80][81]. (Africa designers as a whole seem to have much less on-line coverage than US counterparts and I would not vote keep on this coverage for a US designer.) Halfmast (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom withdraw. Dustitalk to me 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quartz Hill High School[edit]

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

The usual bog standard school - utterly unverified stuff written by people with first hand knowledge and the normal target of IP vandalism adding alleged porn stars to the alumni. Docg 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to schools via that silly "notability" thingy, however, this article like most others of its kind has proven unmaintainable. Unsourced target for vandalism. Basically, not very encyclopedic and not worth the hastle of maintaining.--Docg 13:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, close as keep because the result is obvious. But really, the keep arguments are pretty crappy. "A 40 year old high school is notable"? No, actually where 40 years is not remarkable - nearly all are. And the last argument is silly, and invites me to respond that keeping unsourced vandalism targets just burns people out even faster. But whatever.--Docg 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merged and redirected back to Kangaroo word. No idea why it was spun off, really. Black Kite 08:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Kangaroo Words[edit]

List of English Kangaroo Words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an apparently original-research list of words that contain the letters of another word "with the same meaning". The article does not provide any sources, and the subjective nature of whether or not two words have "the same meaning" just makes this an indiscriminate list. The Kangaroo word article already explains the nature of kangaroo words and illustrates them with sufficient examples. --McGeddon (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Aren't these more-or-less self-referencing? No interpretation is required to directly determine whether a word-pair are kangaroo words. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at some of the examples I think that there is definately a level of interpretation required. For example most of the words don't actually have the same meaning, they have very similar meanings or they relate to the same subject area - are these considered kangaroo words? How far can the definition be stretched - I don't think this is even made clear in the Kangaroo word article. Guest9999 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Skinner (footballer born 1972)[edit]

Justin Skinner (footballer born 1972) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

2 Premier League games is hardly Notable Aiden Fisher (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 05:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediism[edit]

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

The phrase is an obvious neologism. A would not even spell this word that way, if it was a word at all.Aiden Fisher (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Kids playing. A similar 'article' was deleted the other week. Don't know if the culprits are the same.special, random, Merkinsmum 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, blatant copyvio. Singularity 05:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Madoyev[edit]

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

I'm having a hard time gauging whether this guy is notable or not. Looking his name up on Google gets under 1000 hits, many of them on YouTube, a few puff pieces on forums here and there, but nothing substantial that would befit the claims this article makes. JuJube (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily deleted by Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Walk Through Salem[edit]

A Walk Through Salem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be purely a vanity article with no hope of notability: it appears to be about an art project for whose existence there is no evidence except on its author's own website, which refers to this very article as "our new Wikipedia Ad!" Needless to say, Wikipedia is not a place for would-be artists to advertise their own local vanity projects. "A Walk Through Salem" does not appear to be mentioned on the web sites cited in the article as external references, or on the web sites of institutions described as being involved with the project. AJD (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

: Speedy Delete. This is an ad. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. Lack of sources doesn't always mean delete - it's an invitation to clean up, and I truly hope that the editors of this article will do that. No prejudice against later nomination for deletion.. - Philippe 02:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceships of EVE Online[edit]

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

This was nominated for deletion in April 2007 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online - and kept. However, I believe that the those calling for a keep were largely motivated by WP:ILIKEIT arguments, and additionally, that community standards have moved even further away from such articles being acceptable.

For example, Ashenai argued that "Pages like this one are par for the course for popular MMORPGs, see Runescape skills, or Classes in World of Warcraft." However both of those articles have since been deleted and redirected via AfD discussions here and here.

The article is 100% game guide material, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. There are no reliable third-party sources. In short, this article's content is of exactly the same nature as many that have previously found consensus to delete.

Additionally the entire content can be found on www.eve-wiki.net, see [85]. Stormie (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. Either lose everyone's work by force, or cut and paste it somewhere else congenially. Don't delete the whole thing! (If you're more of an inclusionist, pretend I'm saying keep). Xavexgoem (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Retracted per Minimaki's comment below. I just get the feeling this is dealing a sharp blow... Xavexgoem (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

***Um, yes, it would. eve-wiki is terrible unless you're looking for shield resistance bonuses by level or something. Celarnor Talk to me 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Well, apparently it is there; it's odd that I didn't know about it. Celarnor Talk to me 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That the article cannot comply with WP:RS (is entirely based on primary sources and game play experience) simply underlines that this article is of no interest to anyone not playing the game. It's all in-universe. By contrast, the Businesses and organizations in Second Life and TIE fighter articles (for all their failings) do relate the subjects to aspects in *this* world. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game reviews are generally considered reliable sources for videogames and there are many reviews for Eve Online that could be cited in this article.[86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] The in-universe material can be rewritten. And I'm sure some of the reviews contain information on the development and design of ships in the game. Google News also turns up several potential third-party sources.[94] --Pixelface (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this article won't lounge about for another year doing nothing upon which we'll have this discussion yet again. Nifboy (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; hardly worth merging.--Kubigula (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School of Physiotherapy[edit]

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

Non-notable constituent school of a larger university with improper naming, lack of reliable sources, and has been orphaned since November of 2006. Noetic Sage 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; Single event notability. - Philippe 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Bronson[edit]

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

Article is about an extremely minor player on the Wisconsin Badgers basketball team. His best appearance in a game resulted in 4 points and 12 minutes, which both are minor. His claim to "fame" is being a walk-on for the team in his first year at college after starting out helping fill water bottles. I don't see how he's notable, even if being a walk-on results in some national press coverage. A single human-interest story doesn't necessarily make someone notable. Royalbroil 05:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. No matter how minor he is I think as long he is in the team, he should have an article. Maybe a cleanup? Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 05:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Sorry - he is very minor, changed my mind. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 05:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was REdirect to University of Technology, Sydney. Anything noteworthy can be merged in there. Black Kite 08:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHU Sydney Institute of Language and Commerce[edit]

SHU Sydney Institute of Language and Commerce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An institute inside a university with little reason for inclusion, including a lack of reliable sources. I don't believe this article will ever satisfy notability criteria because no sources appear to sufficiently cover this topic. Noetic Sage 04:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kennesaw State University Student Recreation Center[edit]

Kennesaw State University Student Recreation Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A recreation center at a university is hardly notable by any criteria, but this article specifically fails to provide independent, reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject. Noetic Sage 04:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. Cronin[edit]

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

Borderline case for WP:BIO. Television actor who has a 30-year career but as far as I can tell, has never held significant roles. I seriously doubt that we can find reliable sources to build anything beyond the current stub. Pichpich (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 One of many disruptive nominations by possible sock. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 19:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Wishnow[edit]

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

Very non-notable individual, no sources, no RS, only one link to the IMdB that contains millions of non-notable one-bit actors. Delete it. fails WP:BIO. NewAtThis (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources provided for notability (which need adding). Black Kite 08:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Redstone[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. While his siblings have done big things, Brent has not. His parents own big corporations, and his sister does too, but not Brent himself. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clearly notable, nom has bad habit of disruptive AfDs. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin von Wahrendorff[edit]

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

this article on a non notable subject should be deleted it is a possible hoax, does not cite any RS or any sources whatsoever, does not assert notability, no external links, is not verifiable, i can go on. DELETE IT! NewAtThis (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Student body president. I'll do the redirect with the merge left to interested editors. Tikiwont (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student Body Vice President[edit]

Student Body Vice President (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This subject is probably not worthy of an article. We do not need an article on every possible position of a student government body. There is one source for one particular college. This is a position that is not well defined across all colleges, so I think a comprehensive article is impossible, especially based on just that one source. Metros (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this article does not stay, then the article named Student Body President should also be deleted then. They both have a purpose as many people might have a question over this particular title, especially after the tragic death of Student Body President of the UNC. Not to mention this can be used for educational purposes so other people can learn about the different types of leaders a school can have that are by the highest ranking working with the school principal and other administrators. Article is also relating to education.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksuwildcats10 (talkcontribs)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nagrant[edit]

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

Tailback for a Division II team, no evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE B (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 04:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Brooks[edit]

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

This article is completely unsourced and does not assert notability nor provide any reliable sources or any sources at all. This may even be a hoax, no proof of subject's existence. Should be deleted at once! NewAtThis (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article still does not assert notability nor provide any sources, reliable or otherwise, my vote is till deleteNewAtThis (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Eisenberg[edit]

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

This article should be deleted since it fails WP:BIO and is a poorly formatted, shoddily written, unreferenced article regarding an individual that fails WP:N, this article has serious WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR issues. Essentially this is a promotional article about this person's superfluous small time company. The article has generated no substantive edits aside from the creator, regardless of notability and wikify tags that have led to no where. Delete this mess already.NewAtThis (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

abuse!!?? NewAtThis (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"poorly formatted", "shoddily written", "superfluous small time company", "delete this mess". All unnecessary to make your point. The first two are irrelevant to deletion as we have cleanup tags and hundreds of thousands of articles needing it. The second is a personal judgement of the value of someone's contribution to the world, which is not what we are doing when we look objectively for notability. The last is just commanding people to follow your lead, which is inconsistent with developing WP:CONSENSUS, a core policy.--Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree the article is indeed poor and shoddy..i don't think wikipedia should have poor and shoddy articles about people without any references. Someone who owns a superfluous company is not of note because their company is not notable. If her company was not superfluous then she would deserve inclusion. The article is a mess by anyone's measure. That's why you suggested cleanup tags, thanks for proving my point. Crappy articles should be deleted, end of story. I suggest you learn to spell judgement the next time you accuse someone of judging others. As for her contributions, they are valueless here, if they were not people would vote keep. Why list something for deletion with a deletion rational if i don't want them to develop consensus for delete. Perhaps we should list articles for consensus. But we don't do we. It's called articles for deletion so i'm gonna promote deletion thank you.NewAtThis (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lot's of people are verifiable, that doesn't make them notable. This woman certainly isn't.68.27.12.1 (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is convincing evidence that 68.27.12.1 and NewAtThis are the same person. - Dravecky (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, whom exactly did you have in mind with regard to that "sock commenting" remark? Deor (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Dravecky's comment above about IP 68.27.12.1. Jfire (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, it was obvious that the IP was NewAtThis, and that was pointed out by Dravecky. I've been accused of wikilawyering on occasion myself, but I think that it's probably a bit much to say "start over" when there are four "delete" opinions (other than the nominator's) and only one "keep" opinion (other than your procedural one). I don't appreciate having to comment several times on the same article merely because a nomination has been deemed to be somehow invalid. I've chastised NewAtThis for ridiculous nominations, commented at AN/I with regard to such nominations, and !voted "keep" for several articles he's nominated, but I don't think that making everyone repeat their opinions regarding this article is a good idea. Deor (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to direct your attention to two statements (with emphasis added by me) in WP:SK: An article may be speedy kept if "the nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it (since calling a nomination vandalism does not make it so, and vandals can be correct)," and "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)." I think it's clear that this doesn't qualify for a speedy keep. Deor (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1; insufficient context to even establish existence of article subject. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirlmere Primary School[edit]

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

No sources are given in the article and having done a Google search it seems unclear that an institution by such name exists in the United Kingdom. If the institution does exist by another name then it will probably be hard to identify it since the only identifying feature given in the article - the name gives no results when matched with the name of the school[110]. As it stands the article may be a hoax and even if it's not without evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources, it is likely on a topic which is not notable. Guest9999 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to speedy deleteNewAtThis (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 22:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teodor Keko[edit]

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

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and after 21 months it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability.

I PRODded the article, but the PROD was removed with only the comment "decline prod", so I am bringing it to AFD — the problems have not been fixed.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who declined the prod. I did so because its author, PDH, who is no longer with us, was one of the finest editors we've ever had, and in my opinion any article that she saw fit to create is prima facie encyclopaedic, and should not be deleted simply because she is not here to defend it. I am satisfied now that this has come before the wider community. I myself have no comments to make on the merits of the article. Hesperian 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that he was a MP, by longstanding practice here all members of national parliaments are accepted as notable. DGG (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was del `'Míkka>t 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subconscious (band)[edit]

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

No WP:RS, non-notable. Delete. Bstone (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 05:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NoteBurner M4P Converter[edit]

NoteBurner M4P Converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. Not much more to say, except "contested PROD". Zetawoof(ζ) 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butt harp[edit]

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

Non notable sex toy. The only mentions are by the one person, RICHH on some blog. I can't find any other mentions on the web. Also, the book entry states only a mention of the device, but fails to give any description about it. I say delete per WP:N and possibly WP:V. Undeath (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Undeath[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete. - Philippe 03:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fat cat (term)[edit]

Fat cat (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is a mere dictionary definition, something which Wikipedia is not. A very good definition already exists at Wiktionary. While encyclopedia pages may begin with a definition, Wikipedia policy requires that they have something beyond merely lexical content to survive at Wikipedia. Despite a number of attempts on a number of different pages, no one has yet found any content that was any better than the Wiktionary entry. I see no future potential for expansion past this dictionary entry. But if I'm wrong, the page can always be created when that non-lexical content is created. In the meantime, we should continue to point the people who want to write dictionary entries over to Wiktionary where the editors and policies (such as the verification rules) are better tuned for pages about words. Rossami (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The essay you just linked to states "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." Guest9999 (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
look it up on google - just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean that it hasn't been significant. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, if this word is deleted, are we going to destroy everything in Category:Political_terms too? Cause that's the implications of the deletionist tone being voiced here. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wax anyone? Anyway, to your question; ABC countries is not a dicdef, it is a short article about the pact of 1915. Absentee ballot is an article about methods for casting votes without turning up, not a dicdef. Absurdistan is a dicdef and I would vote for it's deletion if it was up on AfD. The aestheticization of politics looks to be a stub about a concept, there is little other than a dicdef there as of now but that I feel has more to do with it's stub status than anything else. So using the excellent sampling method of picking the articles in alphabetical order and a broad sample of 4 articles we find 2 that is not dicdef's 1 that probably could become more than a dicdef and 1 article that probably is a dicdef. Does this answer your question? Taemyr (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Dennett[edit]

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

Russell Dennett was not a full member of The Human League but was retained as a musician. This is the article’s only claim to notability. His time with the Human League was unremarkable and as he is no longer active at that level of the music industry this article will never be more than a stub. It appears from recent edit summaries that he personally does not wish to be on Wikipedia, nor be associated with The Human League. If this is genuine (and in good faith one assumes it is) the claim to notability is even thinner. This article was WP:CSD on creation. andi064 T . C 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC) - Nabla (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is listed as a band member for 10 yrs at their article. Neither that, nor his article, reflects the nominators OR assertion that he was "not a full member". Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 05:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mud Mud Ke Na Dekkh Mud Mud Ke[edit]

Mud Mud Ke Na Dekkh Mud Mud Ke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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