< March 6	March 8 >

Guide to deletion

The result was No consensus to either keep or delete, which by precedence defaults to keep. there are good suggestions towards renaming this, which is for the talkpages, not for AfD. No prejudice against a renom if nothing changes/moves to address deletion concerns in 1-3 months time. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of omitted Bible verses[edit]

Hopelessly POV. Who is to say whether the modern versions omit verses, or whether the KJV added them? StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Does it make a difference? This is a list, with well referenced sources that describes omitted verses from the modern versions. Besides, where is the facts upon you saying that the KJV added them? Tavix (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not referenced at all - that is to say, all it demonstrates is that the verses are present in the KJV but absent in modern versions - not the same thing as omission! StAnselm (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title and intro paragraph present the issue in completely the wrong terms (modern translations are not "omitting" parts of earlier translations, but making different text-critical judgements). Even if the POV is fixed, the list is arbitrary (what's unique about the KJV that makes divergences from it noteworthy?) and unmaintainable (we can't possibly list every verse in the KJV omitted in any more recent English translation, and there's no justification given for listing these in particular). EALacey (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I hate to say delete because I find this topic really, really interesting. However, it constitutes original research if it is without references (and, I searched, couldn't find a single reference). Renee (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was surprised to learn that the New International Version actually omits verses like Matthew 18:11 i.e., it skips from 18:10 to 18:12. This should probably be moved to "List of Bible verses ~~omitted from~~ not included in the New Interantional Version" and have the commentary removed. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They weren't omitted from the NIV; they were added to the KJV. It's simply pointless to have a list without discussions of the Greek manuscripts that drove these decisions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, they were "not included" in the NIV, and I've changed the comment to so reflect. It seems like a good starting point for an article, given the differences between KJV and NIV. Let's not forget the POV, and perhaps a trip to the DMV in my SUV, and I missed a show on MTV. Mandsford (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why pick on the NIV? The issues with the NIV are basically the same as 90% of the Biblical translations done in the 20th century. The issue is the underlying editions of the Greek New Testament.--

Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that much about which of the Bible translations is the top competitor to the King James Version for English-speaking Protestants; the New International Version sells well, but maybe there's one that's more popular; neither do I know if there are others besides the NIV that have a niche to show where a verse wasn't included (as in the case of Matt 18:11). Not sure how other translations handle the 13th floor issue. The point of the article is that there are verses that are in KJV but that aren't in more recent translations. Mandsford (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title presumes there's a standard list of verses, some of which have been omitted. There's not. Locating at the article, it strikes me as non-encyclopedic. An encyclopedia article shouldn't be an incomplete list of verses out of context without explanation. What explanation there is WP:POV; see Matthew 18:11 for one example that assumes the verse was removed to change the meaning on the bible. (The quote-unquote reliable source use for that says "F.D. Maurice was the principle man that Satan used to inculcate Unitarianism, Communism, and Universalism into Christianity". Not a source I'd quote as accepted fact.) I can see the value in an article that discusses the changes in the source texts for the Bible, and in fact Textus Receptus does a decent start on this. But neither the title nor the contents of this article are encyclopedic or NPOV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Under-referenced with serious POV issues. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "they tried to delete Matthew 18:11". The article seems to imply an ulterior motive on the part of biblical translators since the KJV. Prewitt81 (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article isn't saying that the KJV was used as a standard by which to judge omissions. It merely cites the KJV as the main source of the verses shown. Still, the article gives no information as to what standard was used. Modern Bible versions are increasingly inaccurate and incomplete, with loose, extensively abridged paraphrases such as the New Century Version often presented as if they were translations. A list of omitted verses, however, doesn't really do justice to the problem. Valerius (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Variations among Biblical translations could certainly be an encyclopedic subject, although an essay would be the more appropriate form. If this list had focused on the documented reasons for the variations I would have a different opinion, but this article does not document its claims (in fact, I don't think it even sources its statement that the verses are omitted. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have pointed out already, this is hopelessly POV. Klausness (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Rename it Textual Differences,with a redirect from the current title. Then add verses like 3 John 1:15 to the list. In theory, this article could get into the differences between versification schemes at the verse level, as it is a badly written subset of Chapters and verses of the Bible. .jonathon (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the best first step toward fixing POV concerns, particularly since people feel strongly when it comes to the virtues of the Bible they use... the way people talk about it, you'd think it was holy or something. Mandsford (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bad nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, !voting here. "bad nomination" tells us nothing about why you disagree with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for improvement - this is not POV - it expresses the fact that certain text appears in KJV and not in modern versions, such as NIV. It is a genuine subject, but needs to be developed further. Their omission from modern versions reflects the fact that the verses appear in only some of the ancient manuscripts, and note those now regarded as the most authentic. The translators of the KJV and its predecessors worked from what was then available to them. A properly worked up article would explain the reasons for their omission. The present title is unsatisfactory, as a list it is not really encyclopaedic. I suggest Bible verses not included in modern translations. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Recent changes have made the article a lot better. StAnselm (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. I'm trying to see potential, rather than what's there now. The title is entirely, though unintentionally, POV, as it implies a deviation from "the standard." I like the "Textual differences" suggestion above. There should be some mention of the different underlying source documents (Textus receptus vs. Codex Sinaiaticus and Codex Alexandrinus to provide context for the differences, and go from there. However, I am pessimistic - this has coatrack written all over it. Xymmax (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think this is encyclopedic. Perhaps on Wikisource or somewhere, but not here. The verses themselves don't have any accompanying explanations or anything and I don't see why a list of omitted Bible verses is particularly significant anyway. Well, not significant in an encyclopedia. If anyone wants to move it somewhere else they should feel free I guess, but I don't feel it is appropriate here. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One difficulty with the article title is that it seems to take a position on which view of the Bible is correct. If the article could be renamed only slightly, e.g. List of King James Bible verses not in contemporary versions or similar (doubtless there is better wording than this), we could get past this issue and focus on whether the list is sourced or is original research. Right now, there are no Bible commentators or scholars sourced, so we don't really know if the list is accurate or if the statement about most translations after 1881 is really true, so right now this article fails basic verification and needs sourcing to avoid a delete. If someone has time to work on this, it would be much better to provide a detailed discussion that explains the different positions taken on the text involved, rather than a simple list, but that's not an AfD issue. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure how it's POV. It's a straightforward list. These are verses in the KJV that are not in the NIV. A more descriptive title would be warranted, as Shirahadasha suggests. --MPerel 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The POV is that the comparison is to the King James version, as if that were somehow the original version. The King James translators made many decisions about what to include and what to exclude, and there's no reason to suppose that their conclusions are somehow the standard against which all other translations should be judged. If this were turned into something like "List of Bible versed not included in all translations", then that would eliminate the POV. But that would be a very different article, and it's not at all clear that the current article would be a reasonable starting point for such an article. Klausness (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, the article title is wrong - this is not about "omitted Bible verses" but about differences between the KJV and NIV translations. Further, there is currently no proper sources, instead this looks like WP:OR with a WP:POV selection on text passages. However, the title could be adjusted, and there is tons of literature available comparing those two Bible versions - so the topic itself could have an article. If that seems better than having the information e.g. in Authorized King James Version or New International Version. --Minimaki (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Arguments presented for deletion are not reasons for deletion, but improvement. If there are verses present in past versions of the bible, specially KJV, wich has been used as a standard by several groups, and this verses are omitted in later versions, it is perfectly encyclopedic to recollect said verses. There is ample room for improvement of the article, and probbly a precision in the name "~ from the KJV" or whatever, but this is no reasson for deletion. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per above. These arguments are not reasons for "we should delete this stuff". These are things that should be discussed on the talk page; if you feel it is too POV, then propose a change to the article name or the wording in the header rather than push for the removal of the material altogether. Celarnor (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Work on NPOVing the article and consider a more NPOV name such as Bible Verses found only in the King James version. No article should be deleted if the problem can be fixed through editing as per Wikipedia:Delete#Editing.

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.

This article has the potential to have the POV removed from it, so it is a clear example of keep. KV(Talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that it does have that potential. The POV starts with the title, which is not a good sign. And Bible Verses found only in the King James version isn't much better -- it still implies a special role for the King James version, and it's not really accurate (since most of these verses are presumably found in some other versions, just not in all of them). My suggestion above of "List of Bible verses not included in all translations" (or something similar to that) might work, but I've seen no evidence that anyone is actually interested in creating such an article. As far as I can tell, there's only interest in comparing the King James version to the New International version (whether under the current name or under a new, more neutral-sounding name), and I think that has a POV built into it. Klausness (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reading the comments, it is obvious that the title of the article is wrong. It either should be Textual Differences, and cover the differences between all of the various editions of the Bible (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Old Church Slavonic, Armenian, Coptic, etc) or KJV-NIV differences, and focus exclusively on the differences between the KJV and NIV. [Since there are a dozen versions of the KJV (in English), and half a dozen versions of the NIV (in English) it is theoretically possible to write an article encyclopedic quality on just those two translations --- assuming that Oxford University Press, Cambridge Universe Press, and Zondervan (copyright holders/administrators of the texts in question) don't object on the grounds that the quotes exceed "fair use".] I think an article that focuses on the verse differences between manuscripts would be more useful because it explains why some translations of the Bible omit Mark 16:9-20, whilst others omit Mark 16:8-20, and the other variants on how Mark ends.jonathon (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to soemthing like Textual differences in the Bible or Verse differences in the Bible or whatever. Seems notable, of research interest to college students, and well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 13 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 result was withdrawn by nominator. Bduke (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makeoutclub[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Relisted to gather more consensus; previous outcome was no consensus, despite long and contentious discusion. Social networking website that fails WP:WEB, not notable, and borderline WP:SPAM (it was worse early on). Site operators lobbied users on its front page to vote on previous AfD. I'm relisting this largely on procedural grounds, but my vote is to delete; my reasoning from the previous discussion still stands. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest we do to get our entry "okay'd" ? The sources and references provided prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the site has been an influential online destination for nearly 8 years. What more really needs to be done? The tone isn't spammish or an advertisement, although at this point it has been widdled down to a confusing entry that needs some work, which we plan to do. We want to work with wiki here and do this the right way. Please help us. - Gibby Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.34.194 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because press coverage equals notability. --House of Scandal (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It disturbs me that this is renominated just 3 hours after the previous nomination was closed. OK, it was closed as no consensus. That was the conclusion. The editors of this page should be given some time to take account of the critical comments of the previous nomination. They should not have to be continually watching AfD to stop it being deleted. This nomination should be withdrawn. --Bduke (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable per WEB, much of the keep argument in the previous AFD appears to be from a SPA username--Professor Backwards (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY CLOSE Bad faith nom. Either take it to DRV, or to the article's Talk page. This is WAY too early to open up a second nom -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The timeline of this entry seems peculiar. The same users are the ones pushing for deletion but unable to convince anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.63.134 (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to all above: The admin who closed the previous nomination did so in error, as discussions which do not have a consensus are normally supposed to be relisted. I don't know why the "no consensus" outcome was applied without relisting. If the discussion had previously been relisted with no consensus, I could understand the closure. Frankly, even though I favor deletion, I suspected the outcome would be an outright keep. It could be that the matter of open campaigning by the site operators made it difficult to tell which votes resulted form the campaign and which didn't. I think the issue should be resolved one way or the other, so I was bold and relisted it myself. (Note: I didn't nominate it the first time). By the way, RoninBK, DRV would not apply here as the article was not previously deleted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is just wrong. It is quite common as far as I recall for AfD to be closed as "no consensus" without being relisted, and DRV is for reviewing any AfD closure. If you thought the closure was incorrect, you should have taken it to DRV and that discussion might have called for to be relisted, but it might have just endorsed the closure. --Bduke (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't DRV stand for deletion review? I may be wrong about this, but I thought DRV was simply for reviewing deletions. Since there was no deletion, I would assume DRV would not apply. Am I missing some arcane policy here? Not arguing, simply asking. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after further review, it does appear that a DRV is used in the case of an AfD closed because of a no-consensus outcome. I never would have thought that DRVs had anything to do with this but, by gosh, it's right there on the WP:DRV page. So since I goofed up here, I'll withdraw this nomination, and instigate a DRV — but I'll wait a little while to do that, to see how this all shakes out. I'll comment further on the article talk page. Admins, you many now close this discussion. My apologies for any problems caused. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 05:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Bews[edit]

A porn star whose notability is questionable, and most of the references for this article appear to be trivial ones. Back in January, I nominated this article as part of a bulk nomination (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josephine James), but withdrew it following comments from other editors who thought a bulk nomination of porn stars was not such a good idea. However, I am now giving this subject its own afd discussion, so what is the view of the community on this particular topic? Egdirf (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO due to the apparent lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, unless these are provided - and I did search for some.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Boyd (wrestler)[edit]

This is only a high school wrestler who has won a state title. There are probably 1,000 such wrestlers each year. There is nothing here that would be at the standards of WP:BIO. This could probably even be a speedy deletion candidate under WP:CSD#A7 if anyone would like to tag it as such. Metros (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further note According to this PDF, the subject did not win the highest level in the state. Metros (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability Confirmed That PDF that you linked to confirms that the article's subject competed in that tournament. How does that dispute Wikipedia notability requirements? Dimension31 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So every single wrestler in every single high school state championship deserves an article is what you're saying? Metros (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC
    - I don't recall ever saying that before. Dimension31 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's essentially what you're saying here. You're saying he's notable because he's wrestled in the state meet of champions which you claim to be the highest level he can ever achieve. So if he's notable, then anyone else who wrestled in that tournament is notable? Metros (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please do not say I said things that I never said. Dimension31 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I must admit that I am also at a loss for any other interpretation of the "notability confirmed" part of your comment than as an assertion that mere competition in the tournament qualifies. If that's not what you intended, please clarify your comment above. Rossami (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I intended to note that the PDF that Metros linked to is further evidence of the athlete's notability. Dimension31 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, If you look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), notability is considered to have been achieved when an athlete has "competed at the highest level in amateur sports." This individual has competed, and won, in the highest level of competition in the state of New Hampshire. Dimension31 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The highest level for this wrestler would be the Olympics, not the state high school finals. Metros (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Olympics does not include folkstyle wrestling. This individual has competed in the highest level of his sport.Dimension31 (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then he could go on to win at the collegiate level which, even then, could be debatable. Metros (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Collegiate wrestling organizations are completely unrelated to high school wrestling organizations and use different rules and regulations. This individual has competed in the highest level of his sport. Dimension31 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        According to collegiate wrestling, folkstyle=collegiate. Therefore, he could go on to the National Collegiate Athletic Association and wrestle when he reaches college. Metros (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Collegiate wrestling using folkstyle wrestling as its style does not mean that collegiate wrestling is a higher level of folkstyle wrestling than high school wrestling. The NCAA is not some kind of wrestling overlord organization -- the sport is made up of many disconnected entities, many with their own rules and regulations. Dimension31 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I don't think that Wikipedia:Notability (people) was meant to be interpreted that way; I think we have distinct WP:BLP1E issues here. We have one article in one local newspaper; that's just not enough to cut it, particularly for a biography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has a number of sources on the subject. Dimension31 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The opening statement uses extreme hyperbole. With only 48 states participating in this form of wrestling, wouldn't that mean that there are only 48 state champions in this weight class? 48 is not equal to 1000. This point was brought to my attention by User:Cube lurker. Dimension31 (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was multiplying that across all the weight classes across all levels/divisions. If there are 14 weight classes and 48 states, that's 672 wrestlers. And that's if you just consider meet of champions winners. If you then consider division/group/sectional whatever the state calls their size divisions like you're insisting we have to do, you have well over 1,000 high school "state champions". He's not one of 48 state champions. He's not even his own state's champion; he's just the champion of his division. He lost at the meet of champions. Metros (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was a state champion. You don't seem to be familiar with what the NH Meet of Champions is. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's articles on the sport of wrestling before trying to delete important articles on the topic. Dimension31 (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know very well what a meet of champions is. It's where the winner (and often runners-up and wild cards) of every group/division in the state wrestler to see who's the top in that event. So, he won his group, but lost amogst all the groups. So there are people in the state who are better at his weight class than he is. Therefore, he is not the state winner, he just won his division. Metros (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you had familiarized yourself with the NHIAA policies and procedures you would understand that each division champion is considered a state champion. Dimension31 (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I honestly don't know why we're wasting this much discussion on a page that will be deleted in 5 days. Metros (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think you have the power to decide on your own that an article will be in deleted in 5 days. Dimension31 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 48 U.S. champions in this weight class this year. Multiply by the number of weight classes and years, and a thousand doesn't seem high, even before we remember that there are many other countries and states in those countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but the US is the only country that has this style of wrestling, and Metro specified that he was referring to this year. Dimension31 (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - He is not state champion in his weight class. "Division 2 state champion". Division 2 consists of smaller high schools. Division 1 is the higher class. Some U.S states divide high school sports into three or more classes, which would multiply the number of champions correspondingly. Quale (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - He is a state champion in his weight class. Are you saying that the sources in the article are saying things that are incorrect? Also, by the way, the number 1 is less than 2. Dimension31 (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning one state HS division championship is not sufficiently notable by itself to warrant an article. We've deleted NCAA state/regional champs and Junior world champions based on the consensus that that was still short of the highest level of competition, I'm going to need more than continual repetition of the claim to convince me that this is top of the line. Also well short of general, as the sourcing is weak. If there was an impressive level of coverage it would be another story.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing as an NCAA state champion. NCAA wrestling has nothing to do with the form of the sport that this wrestler competes in -- they aren't some kind of master wrestling organization that goes around dictating what every wrestler in the whole world does. Dimension31 (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw NCAA California champion listed as an amateur wrestling accomplishment in a now deleted article. I figured if that one existed it was a feeder to the regional tourney. Regardless, it wasn't believed to be anywhere close to a sufficient claim to notability. You claimed that High School counted as the top level of competition, however it's been pointed out the NCAA uses folk wrestling. Additionally, the AAU holds a Folkstyle World Championship[1] and Nationals along with the Grand National and Ironman that require competition in all 3 versions. So there's a lot above the state HS level to compete in at folkstyle, and I'm not even sure winning most of those would confer notability as a single event.
    It's understandable that NHIA considers the divisional state champs equal. However, that doesn't make it a more notable accomplishment in its own right. Winning the state MOC would probably have swayed a few people. Winning the New England Regional TOC if it's still around may have convinced me to argue for keep, even with marginal coverage. This was a respectable accomplishment, but it's not enough to meet WP:BIO. The sources aren't even ankle deep, and there isn't a large quantity of them which means there's no real claim for general notability either. Horrorshowj (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no such thing as an NCAA California champion. Dimension31 (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. State Division 2 high school champion falls well short of the bar. (Division 1 is a higher level of competition in the same state, and even a divison 1 high school champion wouldn't be notable.) Quale (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Division I is not a higher level of competition. What gave you that idea? The two divisions are split based on school enrollments, not wrestling abilities. Dimension31 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I get it now; he didn't even win state, he won his division at the state level. That is, he won the division level, not the state level.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - He won the Division II State Championship, so he won at both the divisional and state level. Dimension31 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dimension31. Nominator may have nominated in all sincerity, but appears not to have read their own cited sources properly - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly did I misread? The subject is a divisional state champion for high school wrestling. He won his division in his weight class. He did not win the entire state during the state meet of champions tournament. This is not the highest level of competition he can achieve as he can go on to the college level to compete. What is it that makes this subject notable? There are thousands of student-athletes each year who achieve the exact achievement he has, should we have articles on every single high school wrestler who wins a state title? In fact, according to this interpretation of the guidelines that is being suggested here, we have to include every wrestler who just competes at the tournament because the guidelines say "competed at the highest level", not just won. So are they all notable? Metros (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Metros, I would like to see some evidence of your claim of thousands of student-athletes winning this wrestler's exact achievement. Also, by the way, the Meet of Champions is not a state championship tournament. Dimension31 (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I showed it right here. 642 would have won if you just consider 14 weight classes with one champion for the entire state for 48 states. If you then consider that a lot of states have several divisions/groups, it just increases. And what do you call the guy who wins the meet of champions? The state champion. He is better than every single wrestler in his weight class across all divisions. Metros (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have yet to give any concrete numbers. You haven't even mentioned the fact that some states use a different number of weight classes, and haven't specified the number of divisions in any states. The guy who wins the Meet of Champions is the Meet of Champions winner. You can't accurately compare him to the state champions without additional information. Dimension31 (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After carefully reading section 2.6 of the WP:BIO guidelines it clearly reads as follows "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Even if the athlete in question has achieved the highest amateur level he can I just don't see where he meets the general criteria of secondary sources. The criteria of secondary sources can be found in section 1 of WP:BIO. The sources provided do not give in-depth coverage of the athlete, most are rosters and placements from the wrestling organization and supplied news sources cover more than just this particular athlete. If there were more media coverage of this particular athlete he might pass the standard.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This athlete does meet the general criteria of secondary sources. Dimension31 (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PDF linked by Metros. I'm not expert on the subject, but as far as I can tell this athlete has competed at the highest level of competition in his sport, which is exactly what Wikipedia guidelines specify. If there's a problem here, it's with the guidelines, not with this article. Regulator15 (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out sock vote. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The state championship for HS wrestling is not the highest level he can achieve. It's already been well stated that he could go on to college and beyond. Metros (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that that has been well stated at all. All I see is you saying that and others refuting you with strong evidence to the contrary. Regulator15 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who are these "others"? Other than Dimension31, no one has refuted it. Metros (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The others are Dimension31 and now me. After reading more on the topic I now see that this athlete's sport is a different form of the sport than the other organizations you were trying to say he should compete for. That's like saying some kickboxer should have to win the Olympics in regular boxing to be considered notable in kickboxing. I disagree with you. Regulator15 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have already shown (as have others) that collegiate wrestling is the form also used in high school. So he could go on to college to wrestle. Metros (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You have not shown that. To show that would be impossible, since they do not use collegiate wrestling in high school. Dimension31 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not how that clause was meant to be interpreted. The arguments to keep require us to parse the notability criteria to such a narrow population that essentially everyone becomes "notable" for something. We do not want and can not support articles at that level. Rossami (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that isn't how the clause was meant to be interpreted I believe it would have been written differently. I do not think it is up to editors to interpret the guidelines according to our own opinions; we should just read them as they are written. Dimension31 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As someone who was here when the page was first written and who has carefully watched the evolution of the page, I can tell you with certainty that we never intended future readers to blindly apply the words on the page. Look at the Talk page archives if you want all the color and nuance. Or apply common sense. The intent was to allow coverage of Olympians or their equivalents. That's not just my opinion - that's demonstrable fact which can be confirmed in the archives. Rossami (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is a farce. The International Mathematics Olympiad is also the "highest level of mathematical sport" since there is no international maths competition between countries beyond high school competition, and the same applies for physics, chemistry etc. By this reasoning offered by the keep advocates, any guy who got a state award would qualify (South Australia is so bad that none of the top 100 biology students in Australia are from SA), let alone a student from a weak third world country who got < 10% would get a wiki-bio. Nope. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- dude math aint a sport. it's a class. just thought you should know. CApin2win (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a big difference between the International Mathematics Olympiad and New Hampshire high school wrestling. In fact, I do not think that the International Mathematics Olympiad organization is notable enough to merit an article. Dimension31 (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there is a big difference, NH wrestling is <<< than IMO. I think you need a reality check. Do you want to compete against kids who have been trained for 6-7 years in specialist science/maths high schools by uni professors who live all year round in a math/science boarding academy? I think you need a reality check. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you wrote, "I think you need a reality check." twice. Why are you asking me if I want to compete against kids in whatever competition it is you're talking about? How is that relevant to this article? Dimension31 (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was directed toward your comment regarding IMO. The IMO is an international competition, that pits the best and brighest from one country against another country's elite students. There have been a number of high school IMO students who went on to become famous mathematicians (Grigori Perelman and Terence Tao, for example). High school wrestling just brings the top people in one school to face the top from another school. That's the difference. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why would he ask me about wanting to compete against kids though? Dimension31 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        He was giving you a "this or that" option. Would you rather face someone in wrestling or would you go against some kid (Blnguyen means high-schooler) who has almost a graduate degree level of knowledge in a particular subject? Anyway, it's not really relevant to this discussion, so let's drop that matter. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree. Dimension31 (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, some people are saying that folkstyle is different from freestyle in its variations, so therefore it can be treated totally differently. By this reasoning, a guy who wins the US 50yd freestyle swimming title is on the same league as Alex Popov winning the 50m at the Olympics because of a slight variation. Not relevant. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Freestyle and folkstyle wrestling are different sports. 50 yard and 50 meter freestyle swimming events are the same sport/event at different distances. Your comparison does not apply to this article. Dimension31 (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blnguyen. He isn't Alex Popov; he's nobody in particular. Forkstyle and Freestyle should be treated as essentially the same thing in this case. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should sumo and thumb wrestling be treated the same too? Dimension31 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's high school thumb wresting, it's not notable. WP:UCS. Sorry. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then why should freestyle and folkstyle wrestling be treated the same? WP:UCS. Dimension31 (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATHLETE says "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Boyd is not the complete center of focus for any of the sources used. [2] provides the most details about Boyd, but it just offers details about his year, rank going into the tournament, and weight. Also, this article will remain a two line stub for as long as it is on Wikipedia. Unless he stars in collegiate wrestling, there's not going to be any expansion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article not having room for expansion is grounds for deletion, then why aren't all the articles about dead people being deleted? Dimension31 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say that was my grounds for deletion. I just merely pointed that out. Also, short articles on dead persons are sometimes deleted under WP:CSD#A1. The other 2 line articles about dead people can be expanded, but no one seems to have gotten to it yet. I don't see that as being the situation with Matt Boyd. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why did you say that this article is two lines long? Dimension31 (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because it looks like two lines in Firefox 1024x768. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think that all of Wikipedia's decisions should be based on how Wikipedia pages look on your specific computer, on your specific browser, with your specific resolution, with your specific text size. Dimension31 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I already said that the length of the article was not part of my deletion rationale. If you want to make your case about keeping this article, I suggest you address my real deletion rationale. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed by user:Metros) at 02:14, 02:16 and 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC). Restored and replied (below) by user:Nishkid64 at 02:25. The version below was added then modified several times by user:CApin2win at around 02:30.[reply]
NOT SURE i read the rest of this page and it says since he competed he is notable so the article should stay but i read some more and now someone is saying the guideilnes are wrong? wtf is this — Preceding unsigned comment added by CApin2win (talk • contribs)
- Your vote was deleted last time because you said "DELETE this wrestler sucks he shouldnt of one states". That's not a valid rationale. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough to warrant an article of his own. Despite his accomplishment, we can't have articles about all winners of the "highest level of Division II wrestling in the state of X." Imagine how many articles we would have. He is simply not notable enough -- yet. Khoi khoi 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not convinced the local newspapers cited are reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's evidence of some rather obvious votestacking by sock-puppet accounts here. I was requested to run a checkuser here, and can report the following: Confirmed - CApin2win (talk · contribs) = Dimension31 (talk · contribs) = Regulator15 (talk · contribs), confirmed by checkuser - Alison ^❤ 07:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Didn't see that coming at all! Strangely, CApin2win initially voted delete because "this wrestler sucks". Why would the one account vote delete while another vote keep? Maybe it's a school IP? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually did suspect this. I think the whole CApin2win voting delete was just to be disruptive more than anything else. I've also assumed the other connection with Regulator15 for awhile, so it's good to see the evidence is now out. By the way, check out how CApin2win suddenly started being coherent after hours of nothing but bad spelling. Metros (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable; he won a high school level competition. Fails WP:BIO and probably WP:BLP#1E too. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only in the rarest of instances is a high school athlete even close to deserving an article (I'm thinking along the lines of LeBron James, whose high school games were broadcast on ESPN for crying out loud). This kid doesn't come close. So he won a state championship - congratulations, but so what? (Warning: rough math ahead!) High schools in the United States are typically divided into three divisions based on the number of students, in order to level the playing field when it comes to athletics. Let's be conservative and say there are ten weight classes. That would mean there are thirty high school state wrestling champions in each of the fifty states every year, or in other words 1500 such students do what this kid did every year. There's nothing notable about it. My soccer team won state my senior year - do I get an article too? Of course not. faithless (^speak) 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, NH is a small state of 1.2 million people, 0.4% of the US population. It's not like he won in a large state like CA or NY or TX. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdraw. This article is prone to recreation, so this stub will at least help to fend off various unreferenced nonsense. `'Míkka >t 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dendrophilia (paraphilia)[edit]

there is no solid evidence that such paraphla exist other than in various lists circulating in the internet. The two references provided are just dictionary definitions, without any confirming evidence. `'Míkka >t 23:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:CORP. Company has received only trivial coverage in the media. Article was previously deleted in October 2006, and has been continuously tagged as an advertisement since it was recreated in November 2006. —BradV 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only trivial coverage in the media? I've added a reference to the article from one of the 559 Google news archive hits which says that this is the leading drug manufacturer in the world's 7th most populous country. You can't get much more notable than that. If there are problems with the content they can be fixed by editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Per Phil Geoff Plourde (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - silly nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was unanimous delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Pickler sophomore album[edit]

All but one source from fan sites, too early for article Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Eric444 (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was My bad… I misread WP:N! Speedy keep due to withdrawal Computerjoe 's talk 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Blenkey[edit]

Only temporarily notable. NN murderer. Delete Computerjoe 's talk 22:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. If he was notable at any time, he's notable, period. Chuck (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is he 'NN'? Why does notability expire exactly? There's no rationale for deletion here. Nick mallory (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was unanimous delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure P's untitled solo album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pleasure P's untitled solo album

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and almost no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a link saying he's going to release an album yet includes no details, and no further sources, means there is no way there's enough information to warrant a separate page here. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think that Myspace is a very reliable source. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Mathematical constant, redirect to disambig. --Salix alba (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constant[edit]

Two users have expressed their doubts (see talk page or below) as to the legitimacy of the existence of this article. Also, I think this article may need to be deleted.

"I have not really thought about it, but it might be best to have a disambiguation page here instead of an essay "constant" about concepts that are not really that related to eachother. Some constants are defined, others are mathematics, others are measured, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)"

""I really do think that the scientific concept of a constant can be dealt with as a whole". Here we clearly disagree; I think the various notions that are called "constant" are too diverse and disparate to be amenable to a meaningful joint treatment. --Lambiam 13:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)" Randomblue (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mathematical constant, which is what I think that you three guys have been talking about on the article's talk page. Most of the recent edits have been done by the three of you, though there have been some minor edits for form, and some vandalism that is being policed appropriately. I hope that you can accomplish the merger smoothly, then do the appropriate redirect. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on procedural grounds: AfD is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. No-one's suggesting that if someone types "constant" into the search box and presses return they should only get a page of search results. The argument is not over whether there should be an page on "Constant" but whether it should be a disambiguation page or an article. There's already a separate Constant (disambiguation) page. The question seems to be over whether to merge and if so whether the page should be a full article or a disambig. Suggest you read and follow WP:merge and WP:DISAMBIG. Qwfp (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userify, if requested) this indiscrimate collection of information. Whether the dab page should be moved here, or a redirect made to it, or whatever, is (as Qwfp says) another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or merge. If this is deleted, most of the information in it should get merged into one or more other articles. And constant (disambiguation) should then get moved to this title. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of it does appear to be in the linked articles; the only omission I can see is the claim from here about Apery's constant and the gyromagnetic ratio. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a vital article, and it's at AfD. I have no opinion here other than that.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That says more about WP:VA than anything else; but a redirect to Variable, as an antonym, would be one possibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The real problem with this article is its first sentence, the article would be improved if it were replaced by "A constant is a number which is frequently referred two by a name related to a formula or equation which references it." And that's a really bad sentence. The problem is that the concept is so intuitively clear that it's hard to find a verbal way of expressing the idea. But just because fixing a problem in an article is difficult doesn't mean we should give up and delete the article. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Censure nominator for wasting AFD's time - it says right there on the front page that you only nominate stuff for deletion - you've brought AFD an editorial matter you could have solved yourself with a bit of WP:BOLDness - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response "wasting AFD's time", that's nice of you. As you can see, the issue isn't that trivial. Indeed, I would have gone for redirecting the constant article to the disambiguation page and merge the article in mathematical constant, but out of the 6 who have replied (not counting you), only 2 have proposed merging, which isn't an overwhelming majority. I think consensus should be reached before I waste my time doing anything that doesn't please the community! Randomblue (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not understand the nomination by Randomblue (talk · contribs), who created this article. He can merge the content into mathematical constant or into the articles about the different constants listed there, if he wants to. As I suggested on talk:constant, this article can be made a disambiguation page. There is no need to delete it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split/merge generally I prefer this article to Mathematical constant which is just a list. Adding some explanation to the individual constants gives a lot more context, whereas the list only fits the needs of mathematicians who already know what these constants are. --Salix alba (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mathematical Constant. This should definitely not be deleted. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or merge or rename or refactor or whatever - but why is this even on AfD when (almost) no-one is suggesting that this page or its contents should actually be *deleted* ?? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll redirect the article to disambig page and merge content to mathematical constant How do I close this AfD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomblue (talk • contribs) 12:41, March 11, 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete fails WP:PORNBIO criteria. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 08:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Dogg[edit]

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria; unreferenced AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable third-party sources covering this person, and Google just turns up gay porn - as one might expect.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Dogg meets the criteria for the inclusion of Pornographic actors on Wikipedia as per WP:PORNBIO as having made a "unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre". He has conceived, created and starred - with his name in the title in a series of (currently) NINE full length feature videos collectively entitled DAMON BLOWS AMERICA. He has in each video gone to a different city across the country. To date this has included Portland, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, New Orleans, New York, Los Angeles and most recently Fort Lauderdale. His list of movie credits at imdb.com show 15 titles that he has starred in since 2002 in addition to numerous DVD's in which he is credited as either the cinematographer or the editor. He was also recently featured in the book "Rough Gods" by photographer Michael Alago. Cainebj (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starring in a series of movies that shows him giving bj's to guys isn't a unique contribution to the porn genre. You said he conceived and created the series. You know this how? Where is the RS that states this? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this user has claimed he works for the company that produces these movies (here), which is a WP:COI, and you can read the full discussion here of the COI and copyrighted image issues. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A gay adult performer who gets title star billing in a series of videos is a unique contribution to porn in my opinion. He is listed as the director on these works on aebn (http://theater.aebn.net/dispatcher/movieSearch?theaterId=24356&searchString=Damon+Dogg&searchType=DirectorName) and he is credited as the cinematographer and editor for them on the imdb.com. In addition, I have just learned that Mr. Dogg was also nominated for an AEBN 2007 VOD PERFORMER OF THE YEAR Award. (http://www.gayasiantheater.com/dispatcher/starDetail?starId=23579&theaterId=43045).Cainebj (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it does indeed fail WP:PORNBIO and I can't find any significant third party coverage. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was unanimous delete as advertisement and COI. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DefenceIndia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/DefenceIndia

Notability not established, article reads like advertisement - --House of Scandal (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's reasoning; perfect for an ad, not for WP AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so many bad articles like this come out of India it embarsses me! --Raj Krishnamurthy (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement and conflict of interest - its creator, User:Amanbandvi, whose sole mainspace contribution this is, acknowledges he is the site's editor on his user page. Biruitorul (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nonm. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, advertising -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely surprised at the comments. I value Wikipedia's comments as we use the site for our research regularly. Similar articles with corresponding intent and content are flourishing on Wiki - it does not seem right to have different standards.

Whilst we at DefenceIndia would appreciate Wikipedia, we take offense to the comments of Mr Raj Krishnamurthy. An article - good or bad - does not and can not be a measure of a nation's pride or as an embarrassment yardstick for nitwits as Raj. As for the rest, we will abide by the deletion order with Thanks Amanbandvi (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Aman Bandvi[reply]

The result was Speedy Deleted as hoax; WP:CSD#A3. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bithlo High School[edit]

Bithlo High School does not exist. See www.ocps.net, the county's school board website for confirmation. Mteevin (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom; appears to be a hoax. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may well be a hoax, but check out the fourth comment down, by the blogger herself. Odd. I still assume it's a hoax, based on the Google results. Maybe there's some local lingo that involves Bithlo. I can't believe there's a spelling mistake involved. Noroton (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent hoax school. The Orange County Public Schools website doesn't even list the school [3] Ctjf83Talk 04:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Type-7 particle weapon[edit]

Non-notable on it's own. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 21:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently this is not part of the game itself, but is part of a user-created mod. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable article. Macy (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re-write anything that's salvegable into F.E.A.R. (re-write to avoid GFDL concerns but there really is nowt here) Pedro : Chat 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pedro and also WP:GAMEGUIDE. Reputable game sites appear to note its existence as a weapon in the game, but little else. The article is a poorly-sourced game guide entry. • Gene93k (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge into separate season articles once again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Tree Hill DVD releases[edit]

I have worked a lot on this article in the past, but following a number of discussions stemming from, amongst others, a discussion on a talk page about a similar for Lost here, and a Featured List candidacy that I put forward, it now looks to me that it looks like WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:FAN, WP:ADVERTISING, and WP:DIRECTORY. And without mentioning something about how many units have been sold, or whatever, it also seems to fail WP:Notability on WP:PRODUCT. These points were raised in a number of discussions A list of this kind can never stand up to be the best that Wikipedia can offer, which is after all what Featured Status is all about, so I think this page should be gotten rid of. Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a condensed version with the main series article. Discussion of DVD releases is a viable topic for series articles, but you probably don't need to go into extensive detail. See Twin Peaks for an example of how DVD discussion can be incorporated into a series article (though maybe without the images as that's a no-no now). 23skidoo (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each DVD to its appropriate season page for the show. The page has plenty of good, reliable sources. Ctjf83Talk 04:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I don't like the idea of it appearing in the season articles Russell [ Talk ] 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into seperate season articles as the product itself isn't notable. This is "listcruft" but the information could be relevant merged into other articles. If this closes as merge I'll be happy to do it myself. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with a merge is that did that once already and redirected the page to One Tree Hill (TV series), but then it was all reverted, and put back into this page. I fear it will happen again. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is reverted you should point them to this discussion, revert them and tell them that they can have a seperate page if they can show that there is a consensus to have it (by talk page discussion or deletion review). -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you could ask an admin to protect the redirect if people start edit warring over it. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, merge the information as you did before, then redirect the page and solicit protection based on this discussion. Eusebeus (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a sub-article of One Tree Hill (TV series) and perhaps start a merge discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as was already done before, and lock the redirect to keep it that way. The individual DVD releases of a television series have no notability and should only be covered in the main series article or in the relevant episode list. Collectonian (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and lock per Collectonian. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as not notable --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.WOLF[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A.WOLF (2nd nomination)

Non-notable rapper. Enough of a notability claim to forgo CSD. Still, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Previous AfD (as A-Wolf) in May 2006 ended in no consensus, artist has not increased his notability since then. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not released a notable album and his radio airplay is limited to 2 radio stations. -- Atama ^chat 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, just a local San Francisco musician. Ctjf83Talk 04:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TBS-MBS 6pm[edit]

The unnotable time slot of a single television channel. Mostly OR and NPOV stuff. Collectonian (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mostly a POV, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, and looks like an ad to watch those channels at 6pm Ctjf83Talk 04:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do we have other articles on timeslots? Either way it seems to be mostly POV and has no sources. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 13:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Udo Prambs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable chef. This was already through AfD once before, in 2005, and was deleted then, but I don't know how similar the two versions are. A chef in Campbell, California and Dayton, Ohio doesn't seem particularly notable. If he were a four-star chef who writes well-received cookbooks, that might be a different story. Corvus cornix_talk 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-representative summary. He is not a chef in Campbell, California; he is a Chef Instructor at the Professional Culinary Institute there. He was a chef in St. Moritz, Switzerland. And at Hunstrete House near Bath, England, as well as the Four Seasons Hotels in London and Hampshire. And in Eilat, Israel, at the Neptune Hotel. And in Venice, Italy. And in Stuttgart, Berlin, and Munich. And at L'Auberge, in Dayton, Ohio. The only one you mentioned accurately is perhaps the least notable; L'Auberge only has a four-star rating, and that only for the past 17 years. The rest are 5-star. Maybe he is an actual chef, and not a book author? Could that still be notable? Eleven even (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, he worked in Five Star European hotels and restaurants including the Kulm Hotel (Switzerland), Maritim Group (Germany), Da Ivo (Italy), Four Seasons Group and Hunstrete House (England), and the Neptune Hotel (Israel). Based on the article, he might have been a busboy. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. He is a chef. The work a chef does is cooking. Eleven even (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But really your comment did give me pause. So I researched a little; he started his career in Germany. Before he left for Switzerland, he was a Certified Master Chef, a Certified Master Restaurateur, and a Certified Master of Hospitality Business. Overqualified to be a busboy. Eleven even (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I saw pictures of his work; Tear drop Salmon, slow poached in olive oil & filled with asparagus served on a rectangle of chardonnay sauce with beads of beluga caviar, and wild sauteed mushrooms in an asparagus crown served on a yellow pepper sauce. Gorgeous. Eleven even (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a bit of a borderline case because he's "notable" to the extent of doing product endorsements. However, I couldn't find any mention of him that wasn't an independent reference. Mangoe (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I found the page from 2005 quoted elsewhere: I can see why it was deleted. I copied it to the article's talk page. Eleven even (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Also, Udo is included in a list of 28 top US chefs, including Wolfgang Puck, Julia Child, Jeff Smith (the Frugal Gourmet), Paul Prudhomme, and James Beard, here [4]. Eleven even (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC) He's on page 2 of this web listing of "Celebrity Chefs". a[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleven even (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC) OK I'm reaching. Didn't I say somewhere that I wasn't attached to this article? Eleven even (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, based on the lack of opinions (only three editors participating to date), and the recent introduction of new assertions of notability brought by User: Eleven even, I'm relisting this for a stronger consensus. Abstaining, this is not an endorsement of keeping or deleting this article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless 3rd party reference is provided.--House of Scandal (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I kind of want to keep this due to his job here and this article does seem to have some mention of him (but I can't see, it's a paid access site :(). However, I can't find anything else so his notability seems to be very limited. Delete with no prejudice to recreation if more solid sources are later found. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Image[edit]

Non-notable band with no 3rd party references. Probably is CSD-able even, but author contested prod tag, so I'm going through this process to get consensus. Jaysweet (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable music band. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No sources, no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC - no inherent notability, no notable members, no awards, no charting, no reliable coverage in secondary/third party sources. Hits on google turn back myspace, official website, blogspot and other trivial mentions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, notability not asserted. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed the speedy tag, but my only reason for doing so is that the article has been around for over a year, so I'd like to let the AfD process run its course. I doubt it will survive, but let it run through. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I saw this while on Huggle, I would tag it with db-band. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Canadian Travel Company Ltd.[edit]

Non-notable travel company Think outside the box 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added three newspaper articles as references. --Eastmain (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless further sourced). No significant reliable coverage from independent sources. The three newspaper articles (so far) look like advertorial reprints of press releases. Any newspaper "article" about a tour operator that goes down a list of offerings and ends with the phone number to call the operator does not look like the kind of impartial editorial process that would verify the claims or establish that the subject is worth noting. Looking at the fundamentals it has several dozen employees and $20 million in gross revenue (if one trusts the article claims). It's not clear if "gross" means their gross agency fees or it's based on the entire cost of the package. In the latter case that's about $3,000 per exotic package they sell X 7,000 packages per year, or about 20 tourists per day. That's a large-ish independent travel company to be sure, but unless there's something special that sets it apart I'm dubious that such an outfit is really worth covering here. Wikidemo (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The newspaper articles are independent and represent the results of editorial filtering and judgment. Providing contact information at the end of an article is no different than providing the name and address of the venue at the end of a concert or play review. The newspapers considered this company notable because of its distinctive and uncommon offerings, such as trips to view polar bears in the wild. --Eastmain (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, not in this case. Every one of the newspaper articles is written uncritically, in more or less the same style as a neighborhood paper would announce the opening of a new store. A concert or a play is a more singular thing, but those kinds of reviews don't establish notability either. If that were the case then every restaurant in in the world would be notable. Wikidemo (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spam doesn't travel well. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the secondary sources cited are clearly promotional pieces and not reliable, so there is no evidence of notability. Overall, I would say the tone and content of this advertorial fail the spam prohibition.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Elder[edit]

Person/politico of strictly local note. Lots of sources, but tangential to the subject, and lost primary. Paddy Simcox (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has plenty of reliable sources which seems to prove notability. Meets point two of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. EJF (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She hasn't held an important office. She's not notable at all. Nick mallory (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per above. --House of Scandal (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantital coverage in reliable third party sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - subject is clearly at least locally notable, and it's a reasonably well-written article that mostly preserves NPOV. Hell, it's better than fancruft. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fairly obviously I'd have thought - David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for both local significance and the study on abortion. Marc Alexander (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines destinations - Codeshare with Alitalia[edit]

It is WP:AIRLINE policy not to include codeshare destinations of airlines, as they are used for marketing purposes only, meaning that airlines, particularly those of the large airline alliances could potentially market that they fly to thousands of destinations. Russavia (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRLINE Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect to Malaysia Airlines destinations. Maxim_(talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap.

Malaysia Airlines destinations from Kota Kinabalu International Airport[edit]

Squarely goes against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Info is covered already in Malaysia Airlines destinations and Kota Kinabalu International Airport articles. Russavia (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicated information as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malaysia Airlines destinations. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 13:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Most of the content was merged into Brigitte Gabriel. --Maxim_(talk) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because They Hate[edit]

Polemical book that does not appear to meet any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books) and has no reliable sources to verify notability. I've found no evidence that it's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. I've found a number of mentions in passing, but no actual reviews of it. The mentions in passing are basically a small number of interviews with the author, a Jan 1, 2007 Publishers Weekly brief (basically a short PR puff that promotes a book to retailers) and a Michigan Daily article of Dec 5, 2006 that mentions the book in connection with a speech by the author [6]. As for the other criteria of notability, it certainly hasn't won any literary awards, it hasn't been adapted for film or television, it isn't used for educational purposes and its author cannot be described as "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable" (a sample indicator for "historical significance" is "a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study", like Shakespeare or Lincoln). One "external resource" is linked from the article - a speech by the author that in no way corroborates its notability.

It's not enough for a book to be mentioned only in passing (that's why Wikipedia:Notability (books) talks of non-trivial references). To quote: "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Also, when assessing third-party references to the book, bear in mind that the reference itself needs to be a reliable source: "'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable."

(I should note that the editor who created and maintained the article, CltFn (talk · contribs), was banned by the Wikipedia community in January 2008 for extensive disruptive editing. I've not notified him of this discussion for the obvious reason that he can't participate in it.)

I realise that some editors may have strong views on the book's political thesis but please confine comments to whether or not the book meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Please bear in mind that deletion discussions aren't votes and their outcome is determined on the basis of the evidence put forward. Unsubstantiated assertions aren't useful in helping to determine a course of action. Please provide verifiable evidence, with reference to Wikipedia standards, to support any recommendations that you make. ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author may be notable but the book is not, in my humble opinion. No articles about it in google news that are part of the mainstream press, all 3 are conservative publications or brief mentions. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, there is a smattering of coverage, but I agree — I haven't found anything that is both non-trivial and published in fully reliable sources. (I say "fully reliable" because I'm not all that familiar with some of the conservative and U.S. Jewish-community sources at issue.) Also, it apparently made it to #12 on the NYT bestseller list [7], which actually leads me to be surprised that there's not more coverage, especially given the, shall we say, incendiary views of the author. IMO a single review from a mainstream publication, even if it was just a few sentences, would justify flipping my vote. <eleland/talkedits> 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia isn't the daily kos. 'Conservative' publications still count. Since when is it 'incendiary' to write about muslim terrorists? Nick mallory (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, "Please provide verifiable evidence, with reference to Wikipedia standards, to support any recommendations that you make." What criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books) do you think the book meets? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has nothing to do with the particular POV expressed by a given book. This book isn't notable, and it doesn't matter what the subject matter is.PelleSmith (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the publication in question is not notable and does not appear to have non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 20:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, plenty of books in Category:Books critical of Islam are less notable than this. I don't think we have a clear enough policy in general in regard to both "pro" and "anti" Islam books but I think we need to so that we can support neutrality across articles and eliminate systemic bias of either deleting "anti" Islam books and keeping "pro" ones or vice versa. That being said, I favor inclusionism and would like to keep but I don't want to keep this one if it will create bias when other books of similar note are removed. gren グレン 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be the result of a single, now banned, editor cultivating a walledgarden of such articles. I'm in favor of applying WP:NOTBOOK evenly whenever articles come up for deletion, and proposing non-notable books for deletion whenever I find them. <eleland/talkedits> 07:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two points: first, notability is not inherited (the argument that it is has long been regarded as one to avoid in deletion discussions), and "other stuff exists" is likewise generally regarded as an invalid argument. Second, in response to Eleland, you're right that CltFn did create a number of articles on books critical of Islam. Several have been deleted after being PRODded or through AfD (I nominated one of them - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom). I've reviewed the rest and am satisfied that they meet the notability criteria. This one didn't, hence this deletion discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brigitte Gabriel. Sole book by this author. Appears to have spent some time on New York "Times Political Best Seller" list. Objections to the creator and content notwithstanding, we have notability, but the article is very sparse. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oddly enough, "appears on a bestseller list" isn't a criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (books) (I'm a bit surprised by that omission). However, merging sounds like a workable solution. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Brigitte Gabriel, no afd necessary. If the article on Brigitte Gabriel is itself judged to fail WP:BIO, consider merging into Criticism of Islam and/or Islamophobia. dab (𒁳) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged. Redirect article to Brigitte Gabriel pending outcome of this AFD. I'm not sure if it is proper for redirect pages, but it might be desirable to leave the existing categorization so Category:Books critical of Islam still links to this item. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom.Bless sins (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being polemical doesn't make it non-notable, if anything notoriety increases notability. Being #12 on the NYT Bestseller list certainly makes it notable enough. --MPerel 08:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, appearing on a bestseller list isn't actually a notability criterion. We have to use the criteria we have, not the ones you wish we had. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Frankly, the guideline appears to needs work, it defies common sense since appearing at the top of the New York Times bestseller list is obviously notable. And actually on quick perusal, it appears the book does in fact meet the first criteria which includes television reviews, since the author has made rounds on the talk show circuit discussing the book. There are interviews with conservative hosts Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Townhall.com[8]. She also discusses her book in this CNN interview, this Hannity and Colms interview, and this Duke University interview. Gabriel also presented the book on Book TV CSPAN-2. --MPerel 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I saw those interviews but they fail the first criterion of WP:NB, that the sources should be independent of the book itself (note the clarification below, which specifically excludes sources "where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.") Looking at the WP:NB talk page, it seems that the issue of "notability deriving from sales figures" is one that's come up before and has been rejected as a criterion. I can sort of see the point in that, given the appearance of trivial things like sudoku books in the bestseller lists. Brief public popularity doesn't automatically equal historical notability - after all, what is the notability of the #12 book on the NYT bestseller list of 11 March 1908? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose I can see the logic of a book's notability not being based on exposure on the public talk circuit, which is really mostly about marketing. I am a bit surprised that after being on the NYT Bestseller's list and being highlighted on these major talk shows, there doesn't seem to be any book reviews of substance out there that I can find. Mind you, I still think the guideline has set the bar too high on book inclusion, but then I would find an informative article on just about any book valuable and see no good reason to be exclusionary. --MPerel 07:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've not looked at the timing in any detail, but it wouldn't surprise me if the book's appearance on the bestseller lists was directly related to its exposure on the public talk circuit. The exposure is actually entirely about marketing - post-publication interviews, talks etc. are invariably arranged by the author's or publisher's publicist with the specific intention of boosting sales. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, taking into account that there isn't any real content. If it exists, it comes back, presumably under a different title.Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inho Village[edit]

Very short stub for village in South Korea that I'm not sure exists. In the history, it was longer, but is unclear but implies that it is fictional (there is a link to a Disney Channel website, but I couldn't find more information there). I couldn't find any mention on a Google search. It's an orphan. Rigadoun (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - suggest contacting the author of the page and asking for a reference of some sort to obtain the veracity. I'm loathe to label this as a WP:HOAX. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any links to it at all except the Wiki site. Renee (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - NN at best, some kind of in-universe cruft at worst. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I tend to believe that the spelling is incorrect and thus cannot find any links.Thright (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]
Delete without prejudice. If it is found to actually exist as a village, it should have an article as all towns/villages are inherently notable and it can be re-created.--Oakshade (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2008 warm-up matches[edit]

Although this set of matches has defined inclusion criteria, these matches have never been officially designated as part of the UEFA Euro 2008 competition. In actual fact, they are just friendly matches that involve one or more of the teams that will play at Euro 2008, and so they are not inherently notable in themselves. – Pee Jay 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a mere, not notable, list of friendly matches. --Angelo (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nobody said that these matches are a part of UEFA Euro 2008, but they are an important part of preparation for the competition. UEFA.com, for example, launched a predictor and a fantasy games for Euro 2008, and these games will include the warm-up matches starting from March 26. I therefore don't see how these matches are not notable. AR TYOM 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The concept of 'UEFA Euro 2008 warm-up matches' as a sporting event is not notable and only seems to appear in SPS. Are there are second party sources to be found? --neonwhite user page talk 22:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: everybody is interested on those friendlies before the big tournament - take a look at Uefa.com . P.s.: some users should concentrate on making positive contributions to Wikipedia for once...--Jcer80 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure everybody's interested in such friendlies? I'm certainly not. – PeeJay 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Me neither; and please note Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac. --Angelo (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, you're only interested in edit wars and deleting contributions from other users --Jcer80 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Less of the personal attacks please. – PeeJay 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Stop hiding behind "personal attacks": it's true, just try to be more constructive--Jcer80 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There's a difference between being constructive and just creating articles with gay abandon. In fact, I would deem this AfD as constructive as it is helping to weed out the unnecessary articles. I'm still yet to see a reason why this article is necessary. – Pee Jay 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a list of things that have nothing to do with each other. Punkmorten (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Punkmorten BanRay 11:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator is, despite sincerity of nomination, apparently ignorant of the topic area - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to explain what that accusation is based on? I've been contributing to football-based articles on Wikipedia for about two years now, so I'm fairly sure my knowledge of the topic area is pretty good compared to most people. – PeeJay 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, here it is the explanation of your behaviour: you're better than the other users!--Jcer80 (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice of you to say so, and you're right, I would consider myself more informed about this subject than the majority of Wikipedians (that's everyone, not just the ones who contribute to football articles). Anyway, can we stick to the matter at hand please? – Pee Jay 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies for intruding your "conversation", but I think I should mention that this very article has been referred in several locations as the BEST and ONLY complete list of pre-tournament friendlies. Sadly, I cannot provide any links, but you may take my word that a link to this article has been given in at least two Finnish newspapers, and I use it as my reference when writing articles to a Finnish magazine. Deleting this article (or even discussing about it) only seems like a horrible waste of time. There are numerous articles in Wikipedia that are less useful than this. --130.232.125.28 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that was a vote to keep this article, then I doubt your motives very much. You say you use Wikipedia as a reference when writing your articles, presumably as a primary resource. However, Wikipedia is by its own definition a secondary or even tertiary source. This whole website is built on information that has been sourced and verified from other sources, so obviously the information in this article can be found elsewhere. If you want a list of friendly international football matches, I suggest you look at FIFA.com, which has a full and comprehensive list of all friendlies that have been ratified by FIFA (here). Nevertheless, the matches documented in this article are almost as non-notable as they come (perhaps apart from a friendly between Guam and Samoa) and do not deserve an entire article about them. – PeeJay 14:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was not a vote, merely a comment from an "outsider". As far as I'm concerned, I am not allowed to vote as an unregistered user. I am very aware of the resources that have been used in creation of this article (FIFA, Futbolplanet), since they are also listed in the "External links" -section of the article. However I prefer this article since it usually is the first one updated when a new friendly match is decided. It takes several days before FIFA adds these events on its list. It also lists ONLY the matches of Euro 2008 -teams, while from the other sources the same matches have to be filtered from amongst several other international matches. Basically the differences aren't that remarkable, but this Wikipedia -article is remarkably easier to use. It is also not important to talk whether or not these friendlies are "notable" or not. Most coaches do think the results are irrelevant, but the matches are not. Notability in this case is a matter of opinion, and should not be a reason to delete the article.

I must also mention that I do not like this deletionistic trend in Wikipedia. I sincerely believe all articles that make sense (=aren't rubbish) and are important to just a few people more than the original "contributor", should be conserved. I'm certainly not the only person on this planet who regularly visits this very article and finds it extremely useful. My personal opinion of Wikipedia has dramatically dropped during the last months, since it starts to look more like a playground of wannabe-politicians than an encyclopedia created to provide information to normal people by normal people. Lastly I beg your pardon for going slightly off-topic and for possibly writing horrible English, since it's not my native language. --130.232.125.28 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I would like to follow what we have done at 2006 FIFA World Cup. There is no warm-up matches articles there. All matches are not compulsory enough to mention before the game started. Raymond Giggs 04:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZADZADZ[edit]

Doesn't seem notable - many references are that of the actual website. RT | Talk 07:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very notable. Houston Chronicle. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Numerous University papers. TheDroidsYoureLookingFor (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles in the Houston Chronicle and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel qualify as multiple, non-trivial sources.
Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Do)
19:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - bad nomination, per noted sources - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Partlett[edit]

This person seems to have done very little if anything noteworthy. As the current dean of a law school he certainly merits mention on the article about that school. It seems he has done nothing more of particular note other than being the dean. Aar☢n Bruce^Talk/_Contribs 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a resume. I agree with the nom, put a short mention on the school's article unless sources can be identified that prove notability beyond the fact he is the dean of a law school.
Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Do)
19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). SWik78 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that he passes WP:PROF. His citation record reported by Google Scholar looks distinctly underwhelming. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted as attack page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Crotchpuncher III[edit]

SPEEDY candidate: name change vandalism. emerson7 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie's eleventh studio album[edit]

Minogue's tenth album was *just released*. It hasn't even been released in North America yet. This is WP:CRYSTAL as well as having an informal tone to the article's title. Completely unnecessary article. eo (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some references can be given. If someone finds some, at least rename to Kylie Minogue's tenth studio album. Rigadoun (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Albums should never have articles until, at minimum, the artist or the label has provided a firm title and track listing. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a hypothetical article on the album can provide the title, tracklist, and specific release date, and have this information cited from reliable sources independant of the artist and record company. At which point it will be created at the correct title anyway. -- saberwyn 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd say this is all speculation, but what speculation? WP:CRYSTAL I guess. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- per WP:CRYSTAL. - Longhair\^talk 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's been said Get Dumb 07:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much all of the above. tomasz. 09:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL and no reliable sources. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Canadians[edit]

I do not understand why this should be up here. This page just gives a few names, no references. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Canuckle (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perfectly valid disambiguation-type article, although I'm not sure it really warrants the ((disambig)). --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ditto, although I think this could be more than a simple disambig; I've known people who were "three of the above" but identified as British rather than (any one of (whichever of) the three. And what about Manx Canadians? Cornish Canadians? Skookum1 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder if this might be more considered a disambiguation page for the nice four ethnic group articles that are listed there. It should also be noted that this article was less than 3 minutes old when nominated. (Edit conflict: Dhartung agrees). DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If retained, I guess this could become the main article for Category:British Canadians or its master cat Category:Canadians of British descent? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also already a tiny section on this at British_people#Canada. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I do agree with the above comments that if retained, it should be as a disambiguation page, as articles like Scottish Canadian do a fine job of chronicling the histories of each of the UK national groups in Canada. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with a category. GreenJoe 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories already exist, per above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Skookum1. Black Tusk 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This serves no purpose except to tell us that English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh Canadians are also "British Canadians"... perhaps the author speaks for all of Canada, but I can tell you that "Irish-Americans" sure as hell don't think of themselves as "British Americans". Thus, I question whether this is someone's point of view rather than something that can be sourced. Mandsford (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to Canadians of Northern Irish, which doesn't have or I suspect doesn't merit an article, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain you're aware that at the time of Canada's settlement, Ireland was part of the British Empire? And certainly only some Canadians are "Northern-Irish-Canadians"? The point is to help the person with the wrong/obsolete/too general term find the article they want. --Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, at the time of America's settlement, Ireland was a part of the British Empire too, but you don't see the Union Jack on St. Patrick's Day. For that matter, a lot of the world was "part of the British Empire" when Canada was being settled, an argument which would cut both ways. I think the point that Shawn is making is that the majority groups are "British Canadian" and "French Canadian", and that within the British Canadian community (sources would be helpful here), and that there are further ethnic divisions among English, Scottish and Welsh, more so than in the USA. For instance, I'm not aware of any American celebrations of "St. David's Day" or even a strong "Welsh-American" community (you sometimes see a bumper sticker); and there's no analog in America to Canadian tartans to symbolize Scottish-Canadian pride. However, I picked up that context from reading the articles, and I urge Shawn to put more context, with sources, in the page itself. Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if it ends up being retained as a disambig page, which now seems likely, should we be populating it with a lot of text? I don't think so, per MOS:DAB.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page. "British Canadian" seems just as likely a search term as any of English Canadian, Scottish Canadian, etc. EALacey (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a valid disambiguation page as EALacey says above. --Bduke (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of removing the cats and placing a disambig tag on it, as there seems to be a consensus on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - any nomination with the words "I do not understand" is liable to wide quoting as an example of systemic problems with AFD in general - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No making vote Agree with you. I have problem with nominations made with the words I do not understand, but I am learning for new words the meaning each day, so I understand the words, email, I will explain, OK. 63.84.72.153 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page. Coffee4me (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My initial reaction was to call for the deletion of it and of the articles, listed, but I now realise that the article is describing genuine published research. Since Canada was largely settled by British colonists (except Quebec), I very much doubt that being of English, Welsh, Scottish, or Ulster is a defining characteristic for most Canadians, and I presume that intermarriage has meant that many Canadians fall into two or even three groups. I would therefore oppose categories for these groups. The present page should be retained as a disambigation page, and tidied up to look more like one. The Northern Ireland article is missing, and should become a red link, or initially a redirect (with possibilities) to an article on Canadians of Irish descent. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can tell on personal experience that being English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish is a defining characteristic for many Canadians, rather than any generically British origin. Regardless, we agree that this has value as a diambiguation page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZUIAF[edit]

Non-notable company. Claims to notability in the article appear to be false: Google results are few, and the references listed at the bottom (particular the 7.5 MB PDF file) don't even mention the company. —BradV 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Do)
19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. OF course the pdf doesn't mention the company: it only lists the top 25, and zuiaf happens to be the 26th. Too bad we can't verify it! Fram (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Gbemie[edit]

Contested PROD. Has not played in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Article states he's a "member" of the Liberia squad, but provides no reference to suggest he's played for them, and a search on Google provides only this article as a source to suggest he has anything to do with the national team. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete---The section on his personal life is definitely not in Wikipedia format, and he does not show up on any Google searches for playing on a professional team. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Daze (Austin band)[edit]

Non-notable local band. Their main claim to notability, and the reason that the article survived CSD, is that they were filmed for a 2009 release movie. Will (film) mentions them in passing, but they appear to be far from the center of the movie. But IMHO this still does not satisfy notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm the one who removed the speedy tag yesterday as I felt the article asserted notability, and I wanted to give the creator a chance to show it in the article. However, I could not come up with reliable source references that the band meets WP:MUSIC and I don't think that the movie appearance is sufficient for notability under the basic notability guidelines. Xymmax (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too have made an attempt to find sources, in Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. I found nothing. Delete in the absence of reliable third-party sourcing. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SingCal 01:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a picture of the band on set. The name of the band is on the bass drumFitzsimpson (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the band actually performed for the movie, but whether that performance is enough to get past the notability requirements as set out at WP:MUSIC. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ashley Chase[edit]

No evidence of notability; the only source is an obituary in his company newsletter. Notability requires independent sources, and/or multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. This is just an article written by a family member, for vanity essentially. Dicklyon (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an employee and auditor, a noble prefession, but no one special. Emeraude (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the founders of the largest entertainment companies in the world should be intrinsically part of the historical record. The source material is good enough for me since I found it in about 1 minute when looking through WB archives. People that want to remove this article are doing it due to their own vanity because they have not been successful with previous attempts to do so.Joegillus (talk) 07:05, 6 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, Xymmax (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the founders of Warner Borthers? There is certain to be more material. keep and expand. DGG (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Don't understand why it was put up for deletion, but it undeniably must be expanded. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's because there's nothing published about him, as far as I or anyone else has been able to find. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of weakest of keeps. I hadn't seen that this was nominated again. Last September it was kept. I'm not persuaded that he merits the description "one of the founders of Warner Brothers". There certainly are not any sources available online to credibly expand the article other than his NYT obit. (the sole result on GNews Archive) --Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted (author request). Canley (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Math[edit]

I have nominated this page for deletion because upon first review, the content suggested that the upcoming games name was "Halo Wars", not "Halo Math". I then proceeded to move the page to the appropriate title, which already existed. Therefore, this page is a duplicate. — Johnl1479^(talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No original research is a core Wikipedia content policy, and synthesis is original research. An article that cites sources that don't support the statements they are claimed to support is worse than bad -- it's deceptive. Nandesuka (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human trafficking in Angeles City[edit]

Lots of original research, a probable POV fork, undue weight, mess of a thing. The sources don't really describe any detailed problem with human trafficking in this city and it appears to only exist because of undue weight concerns in the main article. A good example of sourcing that doesn't source the article subject. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the "main article"? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Angeles City Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you suggest this information (where sourced and so forth) be merged to that article? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not convinced its even worthy of that. what large city doesn't have prostitutes? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That argument has been made before here. Since the early days of Clark Air Base, Angeles City has become known as a center for prostitution. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes and it appears this article is an attempt to circumvent the concept that it wasnt worth including in the main article. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "Wasn't worth including" is one perspective. Someone else might call it tendentious editing by editors WP:OWNing that article. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The sourcing is so poor in this article that it appears that the nameless ones you're talking about were right. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.

The first sentence alone has three sources, the first of which references prostitution in 1989 [9], the second of which mentions Angeles once, amongst a list of twenty two cities an organisation is going to concentrate on [10], and the third saying that a man arrested for sleeping with minors owns a club there [11]. Whilst these suggest that there is an issue of prostitution in the Phillipines, they (a) don't actually state that Angeles specifically has a 'significant' issue with it and (b) I'm not convinced that the fact that a city has prostitution is really worthy of a seperate article - as 'Weighted Companion' notes, what city doesn't?

After reading most of the sources, I think it might be worthy of an article of human trafficking in the Philippines, but I don't see the justification for having one specifically for Angeles, as a lot of the sources mention Angeles briefly and usually talk about the wider issue of trafficking in the Phillipines. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're understating the significance of the 3rd link.

Agnew, who lives the life of a millionaire, moved to the Philippines seven years ago from Northern Ireland where he served as a sergeant with the RUC. And he soon opened up a string of go-go clubs in Angeles City. ... Next week Agnew will learn whether or not he will face a more serious charge of trafficking in females.

And the article has 100 more references. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that none of the sources back up the statements made - this is a case of WP:SYNTH. As I stated, I have reviewed the rest of the sources and imo in the majority of cases they don't actually say what the article says. The use of the first three sources was just to make my point. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The nature of the article, with the long quotions in the references, makes it clear that this is a POV essay in guise of a WP article. The references are individual articles about individual events, amounts to the use of OR. Not saying a suitable article cant be written, but this is not it. Better to start over. DGG (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but tag with WP:NPOV. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, The article is extensively well sourced, one must review all the sources and look at those sources as a whole, rather then picking one or two. When for example, one looks at the documentary http://www.hopeinheavenfilm.com/index.htm it may be asked how many cities in the world have documantaries made about the human trafficking problem...very few indeed. How many vities in the world have thousands of children as young as 10 years old forced to service up to 20 customers a night...not many. This is a stand alone article, it is a very valuable addition to wikipedia, and an article that is offers a good reference point for those researching the suject of human trafficking in Angeles. It may be there are some issues with the presentation of the article, but its only a matter of some experienced editors being involved.Susanbryce (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I see documentaries about prostitution in my home city of Sheffield on TV all the time. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are some sources talking about Angeles City in particular, most of the sources discuss the Philippines generally (for instance, citation #27, Amnesty International). The current article fails WP:SYN badly. It may be salvageable if rewritten extensively to deal with Human trafficking in the Philippines. I have no idea why the author felt this particular city was important enough amidst the wider problems to merit its own article, but there certainly do not seem to be sufficient sources dealing with Angeles City in particular to support some of the claims. That, using the same example, Amnesty International has pointed to abuse of prostitutes by police in the Philippines should not be used to support a claim that police in Angeles City did so, unless cited much more carefully than the current article does. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is little more than a POV fork. The sources do not reflect the specificity of the article therefore, per Dhartung, it would better if the material was about the Philippines as a whole. As it is, this merits little more than a line or two in the article about the city. Rockpocket 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Human trafficking in the Philippines and clean-up - significant amount of reliably sourced content. Addhoc (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete POV article of a clinically paranoid and raving nature. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork as far as I can see, and as brought up, many of the sources don't back up the central assertion. Really, what city doesn't have prostitution and human trafficking issues? If the city is really that notable for it, mention it in the main article. But this is unnecessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as we should not be deleting good quality material, which this is. We give endless coverage of the first world but when we get some good third world coverage people want to get rid of it. Which totally baffles me. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i see little in this that qualifies as good quality material of any world, first or third. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a well-sourced article (one candidate is mentioned above) about human-trafficking issues in this region in a broader context. The emphasis on one particular city appears to be disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those pointing out this is a POV fork, pointing out that this is synthesis, and pointing out that it seems to be the focus of ownership by one editor with an agenda to push. I could perhaps see an smerge of a sentence or two to a broader scope article, per NYBrad... ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or strong transwiki to Wikiversity. --Emesee (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated above. — Κaiba 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Stubbify, and Completely Rewrite -- The article in current form is very much a diamond in the rough. There are a number of good sources, but the content is a quagmire of purple prose, yellow journalism, and other colorful text. --SSBohio 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's rationale does not justify deletion. He said: "Lots of original research, a probable POV fork, undue weight, mess of a thing". "POV fork" to what? The entire article is not OR and includes a number of supporting sources. Any content problems (undue weight etc.) should be simply fixed. No reasons for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the sources? Barely any of them support the claims in the article. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever content that is not OR in this article can be added to Human trafficking in the Philippines and this article can then be deleted. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would echo some of the comments made by the editors that have posted a delete. I have followed this article since its inception and believe that it has always had some severe WP:NPOV problems. The edit wars and debates on this article have always been pretty intense. I would also like to point out the original author of the article posted the user talk notice they received about the AfD to the following user's talk pages. User_talk:Gscshoyru, User_talk:Addhoc, and User_talk:SqueakBox. The guidelines on WP:CANVAS seem quite loose. So I simply provide this as additional information for all to consider. I would characterize this article as WP:TEND using WP:SYN by an editor that seems to clearly have an agenda. I also strongly agree with the comments from User:Merkinsmum, User:Dhartung, User:DGG and User:Lar
Dhartung, you mentioned:
I have no idea why the author felt this particular city was important enough amidst the wider problems to merit its own article, but there certainly do not seem to be sufficient sources dealing with Angeles City in particular to support some of the claims.
FYI, the author of this article has previously admitted to growing up in Angeles City --HurryTaken (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While this was posted top my talk page I dont believe the poster knew which way I would vote, and besides I cannot take the blame for that. once I had been informed I analysed the situation (as one does with any afd on an unfamiliar article) and made my decision, so whatever my comment is as valid as anyone else's. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was not my goal to suggest that anyone did anything wrong or that anyone's comments should be discounted or invalid. I tried to word the above information about the User Talk page posts are neutrally as possible and as an FYI given the notice at the top of this page that states: "This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here."--HurryTaken (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think posting 4 notices on talk pages is at all excessive, unusual, or appropriate for a comment. That notice at the top was not appropriate if that's all the "canvassing". DGG (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ((!vote)) template is not hurting anything. For what it's worth, this AFD has also been listed in Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge or redirect to Human trafficking in the Philippines would suffice. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThankYou Lenticel, your input here is much appreciated. I should offer an explanation here as to why I started a seperate aeticle human trafficking in Angeles to human trafficking in the Philippines as for those people who are outside of the Philippines it is hard to understand. Although most places in the Philippines suffer from problems of human trafficking, we can say that human traiicking within these places is there, but it does not control the city.

In Angeles it is a completely different situation, the whole city was built around the human trafficking trade after the closure of the base. Organized crime shifted from Manila to Angeles and took control of the city. They control everything through restaurents, hotels, police, polititions, elections, etc. As such, the article has been kept seperate from the human trafficking in philppines article, so as not to give the reader or researcher the wrong opinion. Human trafficking in Angeles is vastly different from the rest of the Philippines, and if we merge the article it is going to give the reader and researcher a totally different and false view on the facts. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia needs to present this information in the best possible and factual way. This is why I think the merger is probably the wrong way to go here. Kind RegardsSusanbryce (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also now be noted that a number of quality experienced Editors have engaged themsleves on the article and did some quality work on improving the article, so I think some of the original concerns are now been resolved. Ive always stated from day one I have no education, english is my second language and as such ive struggled in my articles on wikipedia. But that should not be a reason to delete an article, and with the invovlement of quality editors now in the article, as Ive said, I think the original concerns are being addressed. Kind RegardsSusanbryce (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- but the improvements aren't doing it. there are still bunches of paragraphs that have nothing to do with angeles city, and i'd remove them if i thought it would be fair during the deletion discussion. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put a bunch of work into it awhile back.... The article was and still is a mess. OR, POV issues... basically this is not an article. It is a collection of "facts" many of which are not supported by the sources. There could be an article on this subject. This is not that article. Devalover (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue cleanup, which has been very active during the past week (see article history page). Comment on suggestions to merge: Human trafficking in the Philippines and Angeles City are both far too large for merging to be considered an improvement. — Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No content has been added whatsoever, no less than any single person that voted to keep the article. Does the article contain any sources that assert notability at all? And just to make note, IGN acknowledges plenty of lesser content than a demo disc. If the people who want to keep the article don't care about the article, why should it be kept? A Link to the Past (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a little devoid of good sources but seems to have encyclopedic worth and as previous afds have suggested it is more significant than other demos. --neonwhite user page talk 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All content must be sourced. I'm against people saying "well, I'm deleting until there's sources!", but that's to an extent. I've given them many, many, many months to add sources. I think it's gotten enough slack - why should we assume that it's notable, when there is literally no evidence collected by anyone to assert its notability? I'm sorry, but the fact that no one has added any sources at all asserting notability screams to me "they don't exist", not "they're probably out there". All that can be said is that it was bundled with the GameCube. That's its notability. Basically, everyone who voted keep cared enough to want it to exist, but didn't care enough for it to be good. Now, why shouldn't the lack of sources and lack of any editing in many months be enough to get it deleted or merged? What makes it deserving - the fact that people say it is? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nominator. FightingStreet (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is relevant and has some degree of importance. Kirix (talk) 12 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.217.91 (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Why is it that no one has ever established this? If the article is kept, it'll be kept because of majority rule, not because the article actually DOES deserve to be kept. I have a really strong feeling that no one who voted keep in this AfD or any previous AfDs will care about this article past keeping it. So basically, no matter how much it sucks, it should be an article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I admit when I first made this article I did a very lazy job of it and I haven't looked at it since I first made it. I saw Nintendo Gamecube Preview Disc as a red link from another article and I wanted to fill the void. Now that I have taken notice of how far its come I want to make an effort to make it a reputable article. I like how you only reply to Keep votes but you don't bother to correct Faithlessthewonderboy obviously flawed argument because he's voting on your behalf. If you really want to see this article deleted then I am sure you will find a way to do it but I still want to make it right. Kirix (talk) Friday, 2008-03-14 06:46 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.217.91 (talk)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 09:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the AfD closer - you must take into account a single fact that any evidence provided for this article's notability is imaginary. The only source for its notability is "it was on IGN", which is true for many things that don't deserve articles. I'm tired of this article surviving despite the lack of quality in the keepers' arguments, while the people voting delete are basically given the brunt of the debate, having to put in extra effort. I've given every single person who's voted keep in this article's history a chance to improve the article. If no one's added a single source or added any single inkling of notability in nearly five months, why should they be allowed to have the article kept? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's been reviewed by IGN. Looks notable. --Pixelface (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being covered by IGN is certainly not an assertion of notability. If being covered by IGN = notability (in fact, enough notability to be the one and only thing showing its notability), then you agree that every single Official PlayStation Magazine demo disc is notable too, since IGN covers each one of them individually. Do you? Either being covered by IGN asserts notability for all demo discs they cover, or it asserts notability for none of them. Pick.
- By the way, it was not reviewed by IGN, ever. It was covered in a news article. Hardly an accomplishment, since Nintendo advertised the disc and bundled it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Seriously? A demo disc!? And the next time I buy a magazine with a CD included in the mylar bag shall I write an article about it? Completely non-notable, first AfD showed a consensus to delete IMO. faithless (^speak) 07:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Maxim_(talk) 14:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shahana[edit]

Total horror show of an article, subject gets a few googlehits, but none nontable enough to justify an article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim of notability and I think technically eligable for speedy delete. Better, however, I think to go through this process. House of Scandal (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources, for example: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Phil Bridger (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. matt91486 (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering sources have been found. By the way, doesn't "horrorshow" mean "good?" :) faithless (^speak) 07:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Strategies[edit]

This is but one of many SEO conferences (albeit probably the largest). Only citations for notability are press releases or blog posts by Danny Sullivan, the creator of the conference itself. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable; you can find at least a dozen fine sources in this news search. Lawrence § t/e 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I see there are news wires of press releases, not independent articles where SES is the subject. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should look closer, then. Lawrence § t/e 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten seconds of looking past the releases got me: [18][19][20][21][22] all these, and there are many, many more pages. Lawrence § t/e 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great - add them to the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the AFD proven wrong, will you withdraw? Lawrence § t/e 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those actually seem mostly trivial mentions of SES, or simply a blog's posting of what was discussed there, but not "significant coverage". I'd rather wait for more opinions on the matter. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Conversation with Eric Schmidt hosted by Danny Sullivan on Google.com domain WP:V Eric Schmidt is the CEO of Google. Igor Berger (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying its notable since Eric Schmidt attended? (I'm just trying to understand your position). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per passing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even per nom; it's the largest in a major field. DGG (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:N "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." Igor Berger (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point, exactly? We're working on seeing if consensus exists right now... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you doing is canvasing for your POV. Look at the votes, they are all keep, that is the consesus. Igor Berger (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what "canvassing" and what "POV"? Please assume good faith and don't accuse me of such behavior. Yes, there are 4 keep votes, but there is a deletion process to follow. (And while its certainly possible some other editor might come along and decide to close this per WP:SNOW, that hasn't happened). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it seems that you have been canvassing a POV: here and here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touche..:) But seriously, what makes you think this article is not notable? Igor Berger (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I still wonder what POV you think I have been canvassing. I see no evidence for such an accusation. And my reason for nominating is clear above. There haven't been any reliable sources where this conference is a subject of significant coverage. I don't doubt its importance in the SEO community, but many conferences are important to many communities - that doesn't make them encyclopedic. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is sound, but if Google CEO Eric Schmidt attends the conference and Google publishes the trascript on its domain would that not make the conference notable per Wikipedia guidelines?

Keep It has good sources and is a reasonable page Brokenspirits (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of the oldest, and some people would argue the most important, industry event today, which got more competition lately, but that competition cannot take away what SES already accomplished in conjunction with other things, the establishment of an industry that didn't even exist 20 years ago to a multi-billion dollar industry that is established and respected. Industry events like SES allowed the formation of organizations for the industry etc. Real life get-togethers of people from the same industry are the foundations for the creation of any entity or body to self govern that industry. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why can't we find citations that aren't just press releases or from Sullivan's own blogs? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Google and other search engine execs doing keynotes at SES was already mentioned, but not the facts that Google throws every year a party (for SES attendees and invited Googlers only) right at the Googleplex during Search Engine Strategies San Jose. It was mentioned in USA Today once for example [23] if you don't believe me. Product launches or new features of search engines and search marketing related vendors are also often introduced (with a bang I suppose) at SES events. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today ref at least provides an independent mention of the conference, although we could use stronger ones that make more than just a passing mention of the event. However, given this new reference, I'm comfortable withdrawing the nomination. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kulikovsky[edit]

If one takes out the description of his relations, there is no article. Entirely lacks notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Gareth. If I am personally related to George Washington, I still have to do something myself to be notable. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said above. He didn't really do anything himself to be notable. Hatmatbbat10 Talk to me 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He did nothing to be notable, So he doesn't deserve an article. Apex Glide (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding many more of these articles now that I'm looking...Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of even limited aristocratic notability (title, etc.). Wikipedia is not Majesty magazine or whoever it is that considers these people important. --Dhartung | Talk 19:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as hoax. Nandesuka (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Heinz[edit]

This article seems to be a hoax. All other edits by the article's creator (Phyl-opus-jackson (talk · contribs)) have been vandalism. The two external links provided as references are about other individuals, "Heinrich Bär" and "Heinrich Trettner". Olessi (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax or no, the first five pages of a Google search for the exact phrase "Heinrich Heinz" yielded no results about anyone who is remotely similar to this person. If he really did live at some point, I doubt he is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for creating fictional Nazis. There were enough of the real ones out there. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nandesuka (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Chinese Wikipedia[edit]

The Classical Chinese Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Classical Chinese Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.

I recommend a delete' for the above reasons. I recommend extra care be given to consideration of the issue, since Wikipedia damages its credibility to the extent that it suspends its own policy to favour listing its own websites.

A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date AFD closed	Result	Wikipedia Links to AFD	Visits per day [24]	Article count (official) [25]
2007-02-22	Keep	List of article pages	n/a	n/a
2007-10-09	No consensus to delete	Kashubian	???	1,600
2007-11-12	Redirect	Kashubian 2nd nom	???	1,600
2007-02-22	Keep (part of the List of article pages AFD,above)	Scots	???	2,200
2007-08-02	Delete	Scots 2nd nom	???	2,200
2008-03-07	Redirect	Hawaiian	???	322
This AFD	This AFD	Classical Chinese	31	2,000

Keep I think careful consideration leads to the conclusion that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not. --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; redirecting seems more appropriate in cases of short articles with only statistics, but this has some nontrivial content. It actually has more content than many of the articles included in last year's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Also, the article on the French Wikipedia is translated from this article, so the authorship information shouldn't be deleted per license requirements as I understand them (although that obviously raises dilemmas...has this been discussed?). Rigadoun (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator fails to understand the "encyclo-" part of "encyclopedia" - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a description of a foreign language WP. It lacks external sources, but so do many other WP articles. It is a genuine subject for WP in a well-used language (or rather script), and should certainly be retained. I suspect that it will be difficult to find English language external sources on this, and ma not sure of the merits of using Chinese ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's odd to call a classical language a well-used language, though of course it was once, and the existence of the Wikipedia implies there are many interested in keeping it alive). I did look for sources in (modern) Chinese, and found numerous blogs and forums, but couldn't find any (which doesn't mean they don't exist). Rigadoun (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Maxim_(talk) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amharic Wikipedia[edit]

The Amharic Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Amharic Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.

A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date AFD closed	Result	Wikipedia Links to AFD	Visits per day [26]	Article count (official) [27]
2007-02-22	Keep	List of article pages	n/a	n/a
2007-10-09	No consensus to delete	Kashubian	???	1,600
2007-11-12	Redirect	Kashubian 2nd nom	???	1,600
2007-02-22	Keep (part of the List of article pages AFD,above)	Scots	???	2,200
2007-08-02	Delete	Scots 2nd nom	???	2,200
2008-03-07	Redirect	Hawaiian	???	322
This AFD	This AFD	Amharic	31	3,000

delete per past AfD's — Johnl1479^(talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Past AfD's on other articles have nothing to do with this article. Even past AfD's on this article would have no bearing on this AfD, because consensus can change. 152.3.246.241 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironic. You claim to perceive a prejudice against these kinds of articles, even as your subjective argument for keeping them betrays a prejudice in favor of them. 152.3.246.241 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think DGG is right in that there are editors prejudiced against coverage, often citing WP:ASR, even as Wikipedia has become a top-ten website and the subject of news headlines. It took several days for a mention of the Marsden controversy to be mentioned in the Jimmy Wales article, and there were numerous attempts to delete the Essjay controversy, even though it was arguably the most widespread coverage of any Wikipedia-related topic. But objective evaluation of this topic by the primary notability criterion does lead one to a conclusion. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree. 152.3.116.193 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not.--Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is not seeking deletion of this article "based on other AfD's." He said he provided the table for reference purposes (standard practice at AfD). I think you might find the nominator's actual reason for deletion to be located right above the part where he wrote I recommend a delete for the above reasons. Just a hunch. 152.3.116.193 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "standard practice" ??? no it is not, not that I have ever seen. I see it as an attempt to create undue influence. I still believe that all 5 of the current "cookie cutter" nominations shoud be sent to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - They shouldn't. It might turn out that some of these Wikipedias being nominated for deletion pass WP:WEB, while others do not. Does this one? (This AfD should focus on that question, but so far only the nominator and Dhartung have addressed it.) 152.3.48.13 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In a Cookie Cutter nomination (yes, word for word in all 5 nominations), How is this nom addressing this Article, doing what you are asking us to do. The nomination is fundamentally flawed and has been closed as such in several of the other nominations. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fundamentally misguided nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB is fundamentally misguided? 152.3.48.13 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is only a stub at present, but covers a genuine subject. Let us hope this WP prospers. I see no reaon not to have English language articles describing foreign language WPs. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Maxim_(talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania German Wikipedia[edit]

The Pennsylvania German Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Pennsylvania German Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.

A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date AFD closed	Result	Wikipedia Links to AFD	Visits per day [28]	Article count (official) [29]
2007-02-22	Keep	List of article pages	n/a	n/a
2007-10-09	No consensus to delete	Kashubian	???	1,600
2007-11-12	Redirect	Kashubian 2nd nom	???	1,600
2007-02-22	Keep (part of the List of article pages AFD,above)	Scots	???	2,200
2007-08-02	Delete	Scots 2nd nom	???	2,200
2008-03-07	Redirect	Hawaiian	???	322
This AFD	This AFD	Pennsylvania German	???	1,600

Delete per very detailed nom. Merge into List of Wikipedias or another central location. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Inactive wikipedia that isn't particularly notable.--TBC ♣§♠ !?! 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right. 'Small does not mean non-notable. Even if it were to be discontinued, it would still be an appropriate subject. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to List of Wikipedias, Not very notable and Notability isn't inherited, even if it's a Wikimedia project. Inclusion in List of Wikipedias will be just fine. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote to Keep because of things pointed out by users below, it really looks like the nom is on a mission to delete all small-sized wikis. The table did strike me as odd when I saw it, but that had nothing to do with my original vote. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not.--Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator is wasting AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect there has always been consensus that small wikis that doesn't meet the sourcing guidelines should be redirected or deleted, I don't see why this one is more different than the others, and commnents such as nominator is wasting AFD time isn't a valid reasoning. Secret 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an Englishman, I had no idea that this language even existed, but the article on it clearly inducates that it does. The existence of the WP in the language is noteworthy, even if the article is only a stub. The considerationas are the same as for the Amharic WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoruba Wikipedia[edit]

Closed as Keep as per WP:SNOW - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Yoruba Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Yoruba Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.

A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date AFD closed	Result	Wikipedia Links to AFD	Visits per day [30]	Article count (official) [31]
2007-02-22	Keep	List of article pages	n/a	n/a
2007-10-09	No consensus to delete	Kashubian	???	1,600
2007-11-12	Redirect	Kashubian 2nd nom	???	1,600
2007-02-22	Keep (part of the List of article pages AFD,above)	Scots	???	2,200
2007-08-02	Delete	Scots 2nd nom	???	2,200
2008-03-07	Redirect	Hawaiian	???	322
This AFD	This AFD	Yoruba	33	6,100

Keep I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right. 'Small does not mean non-notable. Even if it were to be discontinued, it would still be an appropriate subject. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not.--Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator is working robotically - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Faith No More. Maybe there is a volunteer, otherwise I'll do a rough merge later. Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith No Man[edit]

As the article says, "For all intents and purposes, Faith No Man is actually an early incarnation of Faith No More". I tried to redirect it to Faith No More but was reverted twice. Now the community should decide if this (virtually empty) article on a band which clearly fails WP:MUSIC is necessary to the project. John (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does meet WP:MUSIC #6. I see no discussion on the talk page regarding the redirect but a redirect seems very appropriate. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Faith No More as part of the band's early history. Should there be a separate article on "The Primettes" before they became a trio and changed their name to "The Supremes"? - eo (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, keep page title as a redirect to more notable Faith No More. Xymmax (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. There simply isn't enough material for an article, and this is best handled as part of the lineup history of Faith No More. --Dhartung | Talk 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real reason for this to have a separate article from the one on the much more notable band it evolved into. Merge and redirect to Faith No More. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge better suited as a single subject. Chubbles (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, usually these sorts of cases are not independently notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Faith No More, it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. I suggest expanding the section on Faith No Man in the Faith No More article by including the information here that's not there (which is basically what a Merge is anyway). Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 15:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sorry, RHaworth. Nandesuka (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Hall, Loughborough[edit]

Contested prod. Utterly non-notable student hall of residence in a UK university. andy (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) andy (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might, in fact, be just barely notable but there's no assertion of that in the article. --House of Scandal (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's either notable or it's not. andy (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My son, George says "Keep - Royce Hall was good - I went there". So for myself, I will abstain! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
University residence halls are very rarely independently notable — and on the occasion that they are, it's not just because they're university residences. Delete. A redirect to Loughborough University would also be suitable...not that there's actually much content to merge, though. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable with minimal content. May qualify for Speedy Delete as it does not appear to even assert notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable - no third party coverage in reliable sources. It is correct that student residences are rarely notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia[edit]

Closed as Keep as per WP:SNOW - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.

A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date AFD closed	Result	Wikipedia Links to AFD	Visits per day [32]	Article count (official) [33]
2007-02-22	Keep	List of article pages	n/a	n/a
2007-10-09	No consensus to delete	Kashubian	???	1,600
2007-11-12	Redirect	Kashubian 2nd nom	???	1,600
2007-02-22	Keep (part of the List of article pages AFD,above)	Scots	???	2,200
2007-08-02	Delete	Scots 2nd nom	???	2,200
2008-03-07	Redirect	Hawaiian	???	322
This AFD	This AFD	Scottish Gaelic	54	4,900

Keep I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right. Small does not mean non-notable. Even if it were to be discontinued, it would still be an appropriate subject, given the discussion of the validity of having it. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not.--Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is far more important than yet another pokemon or starwars character —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete nominator - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Martin Slidel. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 07:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steal Hear[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage; only reference is an Amazon link. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the album is unkown, the album is going to be created by an accomplished artist and should be keep for "comprehensiveness." If the album never released, then the article should be deleted and added as a note on the artist article. Rob (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a crystal ball, if there are no sources for this album then it fails notability. We don't usually keep article because they may become notability, they are just recreated if they do. --neonwhite user page talk 22:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a crystal ball. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Recreate it when it happens. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statlanta[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media attention. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are 3 sources to cover it. --Flesh-n-Bone 12:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1st source—Eminem fansite; 2nd source—confirms there's a mixtape called Road to Statlanta, nothing more; 3rd source—just an audio track with user comments. None of that is independant coverage from a reliable source. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No actual reliable sources, no sign or hint of real-world impact, notability, or notice. --Calton | Talk 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, doesn't matter how notable the artist is. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Dear Air Force: please don't bomb me. I come in peace. Nandesuka (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey Straight Whiskey[edit]

Contested prod for newly invented drink. Subject appears to be unverifiable, as the only Google hits referring to the drink are other Wikipedia pages.[34] Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Allen3 ^talk 14:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be made-up Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 14:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems made up, I agree with the comment above. Apex Glide Apex Glide (talk)
Delete This article does not make any sense. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A name for a drink consisting of two shots of whiskey, consumed one after the other. What will they think of next? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy, snowball delete. Kids or students at play, bless them. :) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How was any drink or anything created for that matter if no one made it up? This is a local drink that has become popular with the military in Minot ND.Retrovertigo99
The issue is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place to summarize existing published knowledge, not a forum for announcing new creations and discoveries. As a result, all articles must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. As you have provided no citations to independent published sources and the above Google search finds no mention of this drink in any online bartender guides there is no reason to believe that the sources required to meet Wikipedia's verification requirements exist. --Allen3 ^talk 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrovertigo, read The Scrabble Analogy. That should clear up what we mean by "made up one day" Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 15:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - even if it's not made up, there's no notability, verifiability and no GHits for anything other than the wikipedia article. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 07:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery T.H. Lee[edit]

Delete. Non-notable librarian, won a minor prize 15 years ago. WWGB (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overdue for deletion. He apparently received the third and lowest level of recognition for the Singapore Literature Prize, not a win. That's not poetry to my ears. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable.DGG (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erotas (season 1)[edit]

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's too much to have separate articles for each season of a soap with only local interest. Part of what is included here can be incorporated in the main article for Erotas and this could be deleted. User:Odikuas 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consistent with treatment of other shows and with WP not being a paper encyclopedia. Would be prefereable to have these three AfDs joined. JJL (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the fact that internationally famous soaps (The Bold and the Beautiful, The Young and the Restless) do not have separate entries for each season. Odikuas 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and just because a program isn't well known in the US doesn't disqualify it from being featured in such articles, and especially for a soap opera season articles are preferable to individual episode articles. In response to Odikuas, that rationale is not really valid because it's just a variant of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If there's no season articles for those shows, it just means no one's gotten around to writing them yet. 23skidoo (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a standard article fork. It could do with sourcing, but that's another issue (as it's plainly notable it's a cleanup issue, not an AfD issue). Other articles split their season summations in to pages like this, and have even gotten them to Featured List status in some cases; see The Simpsons (season 8) for such an example. Other shows that do this include Lost: Lost (season 1), 24: 24 (season 1), Smallville: Smallville (season 1). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - editorial matter, therefore a waste of AFD's precious time - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a very good article, but other season pages exist. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erotas (season 2)[edit]

Closed as Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consistent with treatment of other shows and with WP not being a paper encyclopedia. Would be prefereable to have these three AfDs joined. JJL (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and just because a program isn't well known in the US doesn't disqualify it from being featured in such articles, and especially for a soap opera season articles are preferable to individual episode articles. 23skidoo (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reason as outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotas (Season 1). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - editorial matter, thus a waste of AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it doe not seem all that necessary. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erotas (season 3)[edit]

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consistent with treatment of other shows and with WP not being a paper encyclopedia. Would be prefereable to have these three AfDs joined. JJL (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and just because a program isn't well known in the US doesn't disqualify it from being featured in such articles, and especially for a soap opera season articles are preferable to individual episode articles. 23skidoo (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reason as outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotas (Season 1). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - editorial matter, thus a waste of AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at related AfDs. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NewsLink locations

The result was delete per db-author. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of NewsLink locations[edit]

Delete. List of non-notable retail outlets, bordering on spam. Wikipedia is not a directory. WWGB (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, agree that it seems like spam. Renee (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NewsLink stores are in all major Australian airports. It shouldn't be labelled as spam (in my humble opinion ) because I don't work for NewsLink or have any affiliation with them (I've bought from their stores a few times and that is all). If we can't keep this, I don't see too many reasons why Qantas destinations can't be deleted too. I think they're both WP:NOT-failing directories. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - OK, I understand. I will put it up for speedy deletion as it is clear that the consensus 'turned against me'. Littleteddy (roar!) 00:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Littleteddy that this is not spam and no worse than Qantas destinations. But it is an inappropriate drectory and WP:OTHERSTUFF is no reason to keep; perhaps the whole Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists needs to go up for deletion. Matchups (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lists of hotels have been deleted on the same basis. These are barely newsstands. No prejudice against inclusion in the small main article, as that's up to its editors. --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article. List appears to be complete and is not too spammy, it would be a shame to lose it all. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The list is certainly not complete. NewsLink has 68 Aust outlets. WWGB (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Fir Bolg. Maxim_(talk) 14:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Builg[edit]

Unreferenced stub, allegedly about a pre-Celtic Irish people who lived in County Cork, at least according to the theories of T. F. O'Rahilly, who sounds like his alone on the matter. I don't have any printed on that period, but a google search seems to mostly throw up typos of the word "build", and while I'm sure that they must have been lovely people if they came from Cork, it seems that the only evidence for their existence is an outdated theory of a lone historian. I'm not sure whether to recommend deletion, or merger/redirect to T. F. O'Rahilly. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. I searched news and an academic website and the word did not come up. If secondary sources could be added then it would be an interesting article. Renee (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fir Bolg. I've had a skim through O'Rahilly and he regards the Builg and Fir Bolg as identical (Builg seems to be a nominative plural reconstructed from the genitive plural Bolg), and the Fir Bolg certainly had a literary and possibly a historical existence. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fir Bolg. I find the same - Builg and Fir Bolg are treated as the same; A New History of Ireland (Moody, Martin, etc,) says Fir Bolg got their name from their bags, which they made boats out of (builg). --Rbreen (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that per Nicknack009 and Rbreen, a redirect to Fir Bolg sounds like the best solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Hotel[edit]

As far as I can see, there is no notability for this record. The sources are, essentially, all press releases. I see no sources available through a few web searches that reviews the record or talks about its success at all. Metros (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like promotional site. Renee (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It looks very notable, with that lineup of musicians, which makes it hard to believe there appears to be no independent coverage or even a major news outlet reprinting the press release. --Canley (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. faithless (^speak) 07:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirigi (DC Comics)[edit]

Non-notable comic book character. Note; this is not the Kirigi of Marvel in the Daredevil/Elektra series. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant character in Batman's history; a version has appeared in animated form also. JJL (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use improvement, but character is a significant part of the backstory of one of the most notable superheroes. Edward321 (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if he's "backstory" to Batman supporting characters. The article has no sources to demonstrate real world notability, which is the requirement. Besides, it's not like he's Ra's al Ghul-important within the universe. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like a significant character, or possibly merge into Batman supporting characters. --Pixelface (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we're not paper - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with supporting characters. Fairly significant part of the origin of Batman and Bronze Tiger, with links to the League of Assassins. I think that's enough to be "notable".D1Puck1T (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Every character interacts with the other characters in some way or the other (except maybe The Watcher). This character is not notable by Wikipedia's definition of notable. It seems that all the users who want to keep this article are doing so via WP:ILIKEIT, which is to be basically ignored. I also note that some people's second choice is to merge. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deletion under criteria G3. Marasmusine (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wofgo disc[edit]

Procedural nom. Was tagged for speedy G3 with the concern that this is a hoax; there are no meaningful google hits. However, I don't think it is an obvious hoax. I can't see any mention of WOFGO at the two websites cited in the article. Marasmusine (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Text is copied from Holographic Versatile Disc. WWGB (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Marasmusine (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the user who nominated this article for speedy deletion, and I still think it should be deleted. And if it makes a difference to anyone, the search engine I used was www.yahoo.com. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. faithless (^speak) 07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1930 FIFA World Cup - Group 1[edit]

Contested PROD. Original concern was "Article shows few signs of expansion beyond its current state. Line-ups from the 1930 World Cup are hard to find, so this article will probably never be able to reach the standards of, for example, 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A." Further to this, in its current state, the article adds nothing to its main article. – Pee Jay 11:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 11:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. I'd like to keep the article. --necronudist (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered in the main article. Lugnuts (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per lugnuts. Renee (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - material is covered in main article. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Line-ups can be found in the official match reports on FIFA.com [35]. AR TYOM 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Artyom, match reports and lineups are available (e.g. [36]), so this article could be expanded to the standards of 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A. Jfire (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the test is not whether the page is likely to be expanded, which is an unknowable quantity, but whether it can be expanded. As shown above sources are available to enable expansion. I have suitably tagged it. BlueValour (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 11:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Line-ups are not hard to find. If the 2006 one stays, so should this one. BanRay 11:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs improvement. -- Alexf⁴² 12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination ignorant of subject area - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be a case of presentism. matt91486 (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information is already included in the main article, an at present is just a repeat of that NapHit (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BanRay and other arguments about sourcing and expansion. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as keep - As nominator, I have been swayed by the arguments raised here, and I withdraw the nomination. – Pee Jay 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-admin I'm somewhat reluctant to close this, so I'll satisfy myself with a keep instead - sourcing is possible, but improvement is needed. EJF (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maynard Nottage[edit]

No sources to show notability or even existence. Ghits only show up blog entries and yahoo questions, which seem to be dead ends, so suspect WP:HOAX JD554 (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: at least until the sources are published. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per SynergeticMaggot. Renee (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repeated calls for references have been ignored by the main contributor to the page, Solseven (talk · contribs). Without any reliable or verifiable sources, this fails to meet notability requirements. --clpo13_(talk) 07:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at the very least, fails the core verifiability policy.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy close, duplicate of ongoing discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eve_Carson. Non-admin close cab (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Carson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

First of all, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Prior to her tragic death, the only aspect that stands out about her is that she served as the UNC student body president. Student body presidents are generally not notable as they do not receive significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. A Google News search shows that Carson hardly received any coverage from these type of sources prior to her death. The majority of the articles in the Google search that mention her are from The Daily Tar Heel, UNC's student-run newspaper. BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a national news story. There is no necessity of deleting it in a big hurry. See how it plays out first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marie Fadier[edit]

Not apparently notable. The article itself is (probably) a translation of the fr.wikipedia entry, but my French isn't good enough to work out if it is or not - whether inclusion in the fr version automatically qualifies them for inclusion in the other language versions, I don't know. The article itself should be biographical, but says nothing about the person, other than a place and date of birth. No references or external links are given to justify inclusion - google returns limited hits on the name, and the article creator seems suspiciously familiar.... CultureDrone (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage in GNews Archive or GBooks that I can find. If there were other-language versions of the article, they are not there now. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a couple of mentions on Google - second assistant camera on a couple of movies, took part in a gallery exhibition, but nothing really notable. The French article is here: [37] --Rbreen (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finest gallerist bullshit a la Francaise. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Modernist (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Eat a Tasty Animal for PETA Day[edit]

Non-notable holiday. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Junk article really, and certainly not notable. Jmlk 1 7 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, it certainly fails WP:N. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete junk. Renee (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Nonsense. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not nonsense or junk, but it isn't notable. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eunuch's fiddle[edit]

Unreferenced, apparently unverifiable; fails the Google test, since all references I can find appear to have this article as source. The Anome (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering the internet, a google should have come up with something. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs references. Renee (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exit, to a tucket of Mirlitons. If it'w 1.) about sex, and 2.) not on the Internet, that seems a pretty good indication that it's a hoax. I'd heard of eunuch flutes before, but not this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pace Twin PVR (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

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

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

I came across this page from a forum posting[38]. The article subject is not notable and any mention of being the first Freeview PVR could be mentioned in the Pace Micro Technology and/or Freeview articles, which are notable. There is no verification of any information and a Google search mostly finds forums and pages which sell the PVR amongs a few interviews. There is not enough information to prove notability or give this set-top-box its own article. There are more noteworthy set-top-boxes which still wouldn't pass the notability criteria.

Besides these concerns, the article is also written as a instruction manual and a frequently asked question guide. Any good faith attempt to edit the article to make it anywhere near worthy for Wikipedia ends up with the article being reverted and classed as vandalism.

Regardless, there are more noteworthy set-top-boxes which wouldn't pass notability. --tgheretford (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of sources whatsoever leads me to beleive that this may be an advertisement or completely made up.--DerRichter (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, it's a real (if obsolete) product - plenty of GHits and I know enough people who worked on it! It's been out of the marketplace for a long time though. Not a very good article though, and NN status (obsolete PVR product?) is definitely open to question. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - real thing, notable in the lives of many thousands, utterly pointless nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is important and simply needs expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampackgregory (talk • contribs) 17:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Avalon (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloob[edit]

No assertion of notability (WP:V), no references (WP:V). Marasmusine (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable website, pretty obvious. Jmlk 1 7 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, alexa says it's the 1000th most visited site on the web (down from 500th earlier this year). Pretty remarkable if it's based in a country where most people don't have internet access. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 11:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear. Has this been commented on by any independent, reliable sources? Marasmusine (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page indicates it's the 6th most popular site in Iran. I haven't been able to find press coverage, but that's not unusual for topics of interest in the 3rd world. See WP:CSB. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 12:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CSB says nothing about ignoring core WP policies, like WP:V, in articles of interest in the 3rd world. Nothing in the article is verifiable via significant coverage in reliable sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will say to delete it, unless someone can at least find reliable sources written in Persian, to make me doubt my vote? Gary King (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have included some Persian links in the article's talk page. Also here it officially claims to have more than 510,000 registered users (of course most of them Iranians,) which I found quite verifiable using its Search People service. Further, it is significant while talking about Internet censorship in Iran. Cloob appeared just after Orkut was shut down, it grew to half a million users, and now it is censored in its own place. Saintali (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 831[edit]

This article appears to be either a hoax or an obscure conspiracy theory. The claims made about this unit are nonsense ("Unit 831 have access to bleeding edge technology some five to ten years in advance of current technology" is an example). No sources at all are provided and nothing appears on a Google search: [39]. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as they are similar nonsense and unsourced conspiracy theory articles related to this article and created by the same editor:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Sort of obvious that the article's a hoax once it gets to the "Foo-figthers" (sic) and "Fu-Go Ballon Bomb" part.--Tree Biting Conspiracy !?! 08:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These articles appear to be unedited machine translations from some foreign language. The translation got the tenses all wrong. These topics appear related to World War II. Fg2 (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked google for "831 部隊"[40], which I suppose would be the name of the Unit in kanji (as per analogy of the name of Unit 731 in Japanese and Chinese), and there's only a sprinkling of Chinese pages that use the phrase. As far as I could see from the autotranslator, none of these deal with the unit in question. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the lot as obvious hoax/nonsense. -- The Anome (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have loved to have speedy deleted them, but unfortunetly hoax/nonsense isn't one of the criteria for speedy deletion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles that are blatantly false may be speedily deleted as patent nonsense and/or vandalism. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wish that were the case, but CSD#G1 states that "This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.", and I'm not 100% sure that this was intended as a hoax - it's clearly nonsense, but the editor who created it might think that it's a valid conspiracy theory - so I'd be uncomfortable deleting it under CSD#G3. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, in that case the policy doesn't quite match the practice, or perhaps the pratice doesn't follow the policy. Take Superhumanultramicroscopicsilicrispyhulahoopyosis; the article wasn't quite incoherent, but it was blatantly untrue (as opposed to just "implausible"), and it even admitted that it wasn't factual. It was marked as patent nonsense and I have deleted it as such. Should I have taken a different criterion (say, an editing experiment), or even brought it to VfD? And this is just one example. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's all subjective; ie how blatant does a "blatant hoax" have to be to constitute vandalism?--Tree Biting Conspiracy ♣§♠ !?! 14:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are not obvious hoaxes. They are bad translations. Fg2 (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, both is the case - they are badly translated hoaxes. Delete. (Speedy deletion, regular deletion, at least the articles will be be gone.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As hoax or nonsense and as lacking refs to show notability. But the closing admin should make sure that this nonsense is not just a bad translation of some article about a cartoon show, because those are presently immune to deletion because of an injunction from arbcom. Edison (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Arbcom injunction only deals with articles about single episodes and characters, which this one isn't by any stretch of the wording. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't tell if this is a conspiracy theory, haox, or in-universe backstory for a work of fiction. None of the obvious search terms find useful related information in English, which I would expect if it were the first. Am withholding !vote pending further investigation by those who read Japanese and Chinese. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article appears to be a poor translation, perhaps about material related to Unit 731. --Pixelface (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no sources. Some text in the Mitsubishi "Raimaru"/"Kamaru article looks like it came from bibleufo.com or Geocities or this Australian site (Captain Alvah M. Reida was piloting a B-29 bomber...). --Pixelface (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not exactly nonsense, but close to it. This is a rare case that I say, start over. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are added. Wikipedia:Verifiability states, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." These articles make exceptional claims, but list no sources. The user who started the articles, Josl22, can copy them to his or her user space prior to deletion for further work on providing sources and polishing the translation, and when they're ready, create the articles again. Fg2 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are added. I agree that these appear to be badly-translated by a machine, particularly bad, in fact. I also agree with Fg2 that userfying them would be fine if the creator of the articles can find some sort of sources to back up the content. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the best solution: Delete after a copy is made in the author's userspace, to work on sourcing and cleaning up. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Elaborate hoax with mixing facts like (Fu-Go) Ballon Bomb. Oda Mari (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the nature of the material in the articles (eg, an secret occult Imperial Japanese organisation from the 1940s with super-advanced technology!), I'd say that it's impossible that any reliable sources can be found. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Quasirandom, I can't tell if this is a conspiracy theory, hoax, or in-universe backstory for a work of fiction. Google yeilds plenty of hits for Unit 831, but none appear to have anything to do with this article. [41] Edward321 (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are nothing but hoax. What is matsuraboshi? There is no such word in Japanese. The Japanese name of Hyades (star cluster) is 釣鐘星/Tsuriganeboshi. And I found this when I G-searched Matsuraboshi. Oda Mari (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC) I found the right word. It is Mutsuraboshi/六連星, not Matsuraboshi and it is another name of Pleiades (star cluster) or Subaru, not Hyades.Oda Mari (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the kamura one due to inability to add sources, but keep the Matsuraboshi one as sources do seem to exist for that one. Also delete Unit 831 due to lack of available sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I wrote above, the name Matsuraboshi itself is a doubtful word. Le Grand Roi des Citouilles, could you show me how the word is written in kanji? Oda Mari (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MusicRadar[edit]

non notable website. alexa rank 112512. Uni12 (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Future Publishing. Site isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article.--Tree Biting Conspiracy ♣§♠ !?! 08:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems promotional. Renee (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree - slight bias. I've removed some of the unneccesary stuff from 'site features' so it's more neutral. There was also two references to Future's magazines, one of which I've removed. Don't see any reason to delete though - 40,000 registered users in 3 months is significant. 212.113.198.67 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any notable mentions of it. It appears to be a run-of-the-mill music website in many ways. Gary King (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a major venture by the one of the largest publishing houses in the UK and there's plenty of stuff about it on Google. It's also a huge site. It has many Digg and Stumbleupon entries and 40,000 users. The Alexa rank is low but is probably because it's a new site. What would count as a notable mention? Also, if it's run-of-the-mill site, what other sites are there like it on the net?Tentacle (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete Nandesuka (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multitorrent[edit]

non notable torrent search engine website Uni12 (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references. Renee (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Dekisugi (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's non notable and there are many torrent sites out there that do the same thing as this. Apex Glide (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete no references are provided as this is not notable, and fails WP:WEB - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is completely non-notable, per WP:WEB. Cannot find any notable mention of the website anywhere besides the fact that torrent sites typically result in a lot of search results. Gary King (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Nah keep it. Theres quite a few torrent sites with pages on here. Why not this one?

Do Not Delete Here it is mentioned: ghacks.net - Best Torrent Search Engines and www.ghack.net is an important website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.194.69 (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete From discussion page of Multitorrent: The pirate bay, isoHunt, Mininova.... and others torrent sites have a wiki page under bittorrent websites category .... Is wikipedia a really free and democratic encyclopedia? This article describes a public service and was inserted under the right category.

Do Not Delete From discussion page of Multitorrent: Exactly put it back up please admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.8.199 (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Directory of Custodian Banks[edit]

non notable website, Google Hits 23. Uni12 (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't fail the Google test, as it has not 23 but 976,000 hits ([42]). Littleteddy (roar!) 10:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your search is flawed: if you don't enclose the phrase in quotations, you get links to every website containing these words, which are considerably more numerous than sites mentioning this particular drectory. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A version of this same article ~~International Directory of Custodian Banks 2007 and~~ International Directory of Custodian Banks 2008 has already been speedied. I'm finding five Google hits, four of which are wiki-related. The article ssems to be some sort of advertisement for a product of Global Custodian Magazine. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. For someone doing research in this area, this article might be useful, but it needs proper sourcing, which it lacks. Renee (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amol gavankar[edit]

Insufficient notability; not "famous". Promotional article. — ERcheck (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable promotional junk. Jmlk 1 7 08:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable to the Houston, TX community with some national ties. drapg (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His current link to the Houston community seems to be from his postings on Houstonist.com. Houstonist is not a widely-distributed newspaper. It is a blog network, with unpaid contributors; current alexa rank of 569,077. — ERcheck (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - non-notable and filled with false information (a "first" blog in 2002?) Grsz 11 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article for a non-notable. Paxsimius (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, redirecting and merging can be done by editorial process. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hooves and Harlots (Xena episode)[edit]

Fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. Completely unnotable episode article. Per the injunction, article can not be physically deleted yet, however it can be AfDed and marked to be deleted after the injunction. Collectonian (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems that reliable sources do at least mention the episode; Google Scholar search and Google book search. This is more sourcing than most TV episodes ever get. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know it's trivial? The way Google sets up the searches, you can't see most of the text. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've explained on the talk page, however, in essence, the search results provide 3 trivial mentions. Addhoc (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Feminist Media Studies source is embargoed. Google can't read it. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that's true, however the article explores how Xena has been depicted on a cross. In this episode, she wasn't placed on a cross, so I guess the coverage isn't very in depth. Addhoc (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then let's give this episode the benefit of the doubt. For all we know, there are other sources out there that aren't as easily found. There are many episode articles on Wikipedia that are unambiguously non-notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment isn't there an Arbitration on at the moment which until it's completed, means that we're not allowed to delete episodes of TV progs? Or am I getting it wrong? The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in my nom, per the injunction, the deletion can't happen, but the injunction does not block AfD nominations or normal discussions. If the result is delete, then when the injunction is lifted (which should be soon since voting appears to be done), then it can be deleted. Collectonian (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok I didn't spot that, I put a tag at the top so everyone knows.:) The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 22:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable Colonel Warden (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, I've listed those sources and shown they are trivial mentions. Addhoc (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - violating Arbitration decisions with nominations suggests a severe lack of good judgement on the part of the nominator; probably a good idea to remove all their deletion nominations and keep them from nominating any more for a suitable period of time - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not violating the ArbCom injunction, and your remarks are inappropriate. The injunction does NOT block AfDs. Collectonian (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, if you look at the article history, it was created after the injunction, and so isn't covered. Addhoc (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete. _GB^T/C 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe (Comic)[edit]

Please delete. Yes, I know it has become near impossible to delete non-notable webcomic spam articles these days, but these things still fail our content policies and prevent us from reaching our goal of creating a useful encyclopedia. Here we have a comic called Joe which makes no claim of any sort of historical impact or significance. It also has no citations to non-trivial reputable sources. Or any sources whatsoever. So, it fails pretty much every content policy and guideline we have. But it's a webcomic, and it exists, so here we are so we can debate whether this actually belongs in an encyclopedia. For what it's worth, I wasted far too much of my life trying to research this comic at my library. I found nothing to do with this comic, although there is a Dustin Saxton who has just opened a skateboard shop called California Dreams on Business 65 in Hollister, a Dustin Saxton grade nine who won a top Junior High Achiever award, and a Kurt Harder who had some of his motorcycles stolen. Even if any of these are the same people that make this comic, these types of trivial newspaper mentions do not give a webcomic encyclopedic notability. Dragonfiend (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. No claim of notability. Nom-ed for speedy. -- Swerdnaneb 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting debate, albeit short. Naerri's links are quite interesting, so I don't think there's consensus to delete just yet.

Wikiseek[edit]

Nonnotable piece of software Laudak (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reference of and to Wikipedia not withstanding, the article does not appear to demonstrate any notability whatsoever. Wikinews mentions it, true - but there are no other sources to refer to, and a Google News search comes up pretty thin. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough notability to use as a reason for allowing this article to continue its existence, per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as well as the TechCrunch article I found this from Seach Engine Land and a passing mention here. If this closes as keep I'll expand the article a bit. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikkiTikkiTavi[edit]

Nonnotable piece of software nobody cares tagged since October 2007 Laudak (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial RS coverage and ghits are forums, blogs and howtos. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Travellingcari RogueNinja_talk 19:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it fails WP:WEB and has only trivial third party mentions. I think something that has been tagged for notability since last October and has had no one come along to at least add a semblance of evidence for notability shows that it's probably not notable enough for an article. Tons of scripts like these exist to be honest, I don't see any evidence showing that this one is significant. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. After carefully reviewing all rationales given here (and purposefully letting my eyes glaze over re: the unnecessary and unhelpful delving into personal and incivil commentary that was extremely off topic from both "keep" and "delete" proponents), I do not see a strong consensus one way or the other here. (If you're wondering, the raw !vote count, BTW, is 35 to keep, and 22 to delete, with other "merge" and "rename" suggestions mixed in). There are strong arguments given with good rationale for both opinions, but many seemed to boil down to "Keep it for now because it's already here and we can revisit in 6 months" vs "Delete it for now and we can revisit it in 6 months". These arguments in many ways cancel each other out.
There is clearly a divisive meta-issue that underlies this AfD that goes way beyond Ms. Carson, and as could be derived from Wikipedia history and precedence, (again, cited by both sides), this particular AfD is obviously not the first of its kind and unfortunately likely not the last. That to say, I give much credit for proactiveness (regardless of the outcome) to User:Fritzpoll and his proposal at village pump and in his userspace to hammer out a guideline for this type of inevitable article that can address these continual and almost 100% predictably heated debates. They've happened before, certainly, ad naseum even, and they will happen every time the nightly news reports a new horrendous murder that reaches beyond local coverage. No consensus was arrived here, as is true of previous debates, for deletion or keeping this article, which by precedence, defaults to Keep.
Also, several editors mentioned valid rationale for a rename to either "Murder of..." or something similar. I have no opinion regarding a rename of the article to correctly document the event vs. the person, that is a non-AfD action that is more appropriate for the talkpage of the article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Carson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:MEMORIAL 24.124.109.67 (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is not a notable person. This is an encyclopedia. I am sorry for her death; I pray for her and her family in this time of disappointment and loss. Would I add her to the Britannica at this moment? -- No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.36.226 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- I hate to break the news to you, but this ain't the Britannica. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This may not be the best place to ask, but since I've never looked at the Britannica, I'm curious as to what their standards of inclusion are like.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can reasonably assume that they are a lot stricter than this site. For starters, they wouldn't be letting IP addresses be doing edits. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's obviously not user-generated content. But I'm wondering just how deep their coverage of obscure topics is, because Wikipedia profits from being so comprehensive and is still growing.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what their coverage is for world-shattering topics such as the Yankees / Red Sox rivalry, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NON-NOTABLE. Selurmsiladnav (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FOR NOW - At least until all the facts are in. There is no necessity of deleting it in a big hurry. She was the UNC student body president, and it's a national news story. [43] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that the nomination was made by an IP address with a recent history of vulgar entries. Anonymous, cowardly - like the murderer. [44] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment the above is incivil and violates WP:AGF. Please confine remarks to whether the article complies with policies and guidelines, without personal attacks against the nominator or other editors participating in the AFD. Edison (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't operate in a vacuum. The nominator's motives are subject to scrutiny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could easily argue that Natalee Holloway is no more notable than Eve Carson is, because no one outside of her circle ever heard of her until her disappearance. So why does she merit her own article? Only one reason: Intense media coverage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact I couldn't even spell her name right tells you how "notable" she personally is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson (2nd nomination) as a duplicate discussion; the nominator's comment from there was:

Regards, cab (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my explanation above. Thanks for pasting it here, CaliforniaAliBaba. BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Redirect to Murder of Eve Carson. I agree with the other editors that she is notable, but her death is. Readers doing research on the media's case of missing white woman syndrome will be interested in this article. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst a tragic death, being the victim of a crime does not automatically make someone notable. Inclusion of this material would be acceptable if the individual had other claims to notability sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. From what I can see from the sources and discussions on the article talk page, this is not the case. I therefore conclude that the article fails WP:BIO because the depth of coverage in cited sources is insufficient to assert sufficient notability for inclusion. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a current event of national note, and someone might come here expecting to actually find out something about it - as I did, since you all hadn't deleted it yet. Ironically, this article is better researched than a lot of the junk on this so-called "encyclopedia". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikinews exists to note about noteworthy events such as this one. Wikipedia holds a different purpose. BlueAg09 (Talk) 11:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - the fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to retain an article that doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines. - Fritzpoll (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off for awhile per WP:IAR. Emotions are probably very raw at this point among anyone who knew her, and the AfD notice might add insult to injury. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 11:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable person and being murdered doesn't make her so. WP:NOTNEWS/WP:ONEEVENT/WP:BLP1E. As to whether an AfD would upset someone who knew her -- I find it far more likely this was created by someone who saw the news rather than family/friend as if they're mourning her death, the first stop would probab;y not be Wikipedia. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikinews is the proper venue for breaking news stories. Purely a memorial article at this point. Fails WP:BIO. Also delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If in the future it turn out there is a murder case and trial which is notable, and which leads to societal changes or new laws, then Eve Carson murder could be created. Edison (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Change article to 'Death of Eve Carson Everyone is right, the circumstances of this case don't all of a sudden make Carson notable, but her death and the investigation into it's circumstances could certainly warrant an article. This article wouldn't be a memorial as it would have very little to do with her life.Gwynand (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to something along the lines of Eve Carson murder or Death of Eve Carson. Eve Carson does not merit an article; her murder, however, has received significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. The victim is not notable, the event is. Not to break Godwin's law, but a comparable example would be the average Holocaust victim: individually, most are not notable by Wikipedia's standards, but they were involved in an event which was notable. faithless (^speak) 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. We have no idea how notable this will be. As for her being famous for just being a victim, that's okay. We have lots of entries for people that are famous mainly for being victims of crimes- See Donna Lass, Natalee Holloway, Shafilea Ahmed, see [[Category:Unsolved murders]] for more. Remember (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It can be better re-evaluated with the perspective of time in six months or a year or five years if there's still significant feeling at that time that she's not notable. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, and if the article is deleted now but it's decided in a year or so that she was notable after all, the work that has already been done is lost and has to be re-done. Also, I'm opposed to moving this to Eve Carson murder or Death of Eve Carson. While there doesn't seem to be any uniform policy on Wikipedia, and examples of both can be found (that is, there are articles on people notable solely for being murder victims directly under the person's name, and there are articles on people notable solely for being murder victims under the event), it seems looking at the various subcategories under Category:Murder victims, that it's much more common to have the article under the person's name directly. (Granted, not all of those people are notable solely on account of being murder victims, but many are.) Chuck (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To both the above comments: if this becomes notable later, then the article can be recreated. The point is, as you imply in your comments, that she is not notable now and we cannot have an article on the basis that it might become encyclopaedic in the future - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where do I imply in my comments that she is non-notable now? Chuck (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the line It can be better re-evaluated with the perspective of time in six months or a year or five years if there's still significant feeling at that time that she's not notable - if she becomes non-notable in the future then that would be irrelevant if she were notable now, since, per policy, notability does not expire. Really this latter point was directed at the first comment than yours. - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If the national and international news organizations consider her death to be notable, then I'd say it meets the Wikipedia criteria. - Damicatz (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She was not notable prior to her death, and her death does not make her notable now. People die everyday and make the news. We're not a record of the world's deaths. Lara❤Love 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with the assertion that a person who is not otherwise notable cannot become notable through the manner of their death. If that were the case, Thich Quang Duc would not be notable, a conclusion which I find patently absurd. (This is not to say I am certain Eve Carson is notable, only that I find "she was unnotable prior to her death" unconvincing as an argument for her non-notability now.) Chuck (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On further reflection, I may have misjudged LaraLove's comment, as it admits two possible readings. If LaraLove meant "No person who was non-notable in life becomes notable due to their death," then I disagree, as above, but I see now LaraLove's comment might also mean "Eve Carson's death in particular was not sufficient to make her notable," in which case my comment immediately above was not relevant. Chuck (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm saying she was not notable before her death and her death does not make her notable now. People makes the news with their deaths every day. People who would otherwise not be in the news. That alone does not establish encyclopedic notability. For that reason, this article should be deleted. Lara❤Love 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then why aren't you over at the Natalee Holloway page beating the drum for that article's deletion? If anything, Holloway was less notable before her disappearance than Carson was before her murder. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure, people make the news with their deaths every day. Very very few of them receive as much news coverage as Eve Carson. This is hardly a case where the lone independent reliable source is a one-paragraph obituary on page E13 of some paper. Chuck (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Carson was the student body president at a major university and she died under suspicious circumstances. Many people will read the news article about her death and want to know more about her. Wikipedia is the first place that many people turn to in order to find out such information. Because of this there is no reason to delete this article. Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia, and if the people are interested in reading biographical information about a person in the news then they should be able to. There is no need to delete it at this time. If in the future the story dies down (e.g., if it turns out to just be a random shooting and doesn't evolve into the next Stacy Peterson or Natalee Halloway case), that would be the time to reconsider its inclusion in wikipedia. - BenjamintChip (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned by others above, Wikinews is this purpose. Wikipedia is not intended to document current events that are unlikely to be notable in the future. If it is notable in the future, then the article can be created in the future. But it is not notable now, so the argument is that should not be included - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then they would have to start from scratch. Right now, the info is here. It's better to decide to delete later, when the news impact has died, and have everyone say, "Well, yeh, OK", than to be pushing this during the "heat of the moment." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess a lot more people know what wikipedia is than know what wikinews is. This business of trying to manage the thinking of the internet reader is patronizing and offensive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from accusing me of being patronising and offensive. I am making an argument in a deletion debate based on my interpretation of the policies of Wikipedia, which have broad community consensus. I tend to find that people actually use search engines to find people, but end up at Wikipedia if it is high in the search rankings - but such an argument is irrelevant in the context of a deletion debate. Regards - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim that you are personally patronizing and offensive. I claim that your words are. You are trying to dictate how the public should use wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I am trying to suggest that the policies of Wikipedia preclude this article's inclusion at this time. See WP:NOT#NEWS for the policy I refer to. - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikinews is this purpose. Wikipedia is not intended..." are words that attempt to dictate how the public should use wikipedia. And again I ask, what policy makes Natalee Holloway more notable than Eve Carson? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained repeatedly in response to your comments, this is to do with Wikipedia's policies, and your interpretation of what I mean is therefore incorrect. As to your second point, this too has been answered on this page, and I ask that you take any further comments regarding this topic to my talk page. For reasons of space, I will not clog up this AfD by responding to your comments on either of these matters on this page - Fritzpoll (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The public perception of wikipedia as a (hopefully) reliable source of information is more important than boxing wikipedia's content in by arbitrary rules. If someone comes to wikipedia to find information about this story, then they should be able to find it, some way or another. And they shouldn't have to somehow know that they should be looking at wikinews. If they go to wikipedia, then wikipedia should, at least, give them the link to the wikinews article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this comment on my talk page - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, we can create an interwikimedia link to the WikiNews article just like this. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I come to wikipedia looking for info, and I enter the name, and it takes me someplace that gives me the information, that would seem to be the important thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at least, there have been lots of university shootings as of late that I think are important to inform people about, and its possible that this falls under the same umbrella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth0707 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment addressing objections several people have raised (I already recommended "Keep" above): In response to those citing WP:NOT#NEWS, it says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." While murders are regrettably far more routine than they should be, they are still significantly less routine than "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism," so I do not see that as an argument against an article such as this one. In response to those citing WP:ONEEVENT, it says, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The purpose of this, as I read it, is to prevent someone noting that, for example, a friend or teacher of Eve's was quoted in a news article about her, and creating an article about that friend or teacher, but Eve herself is hardly "low profile" in relation to this event. After reviewing WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ONEEVENT, and WP:BLP1E, I withdraw my objection to moving this article to Eve Carson murder and redirecting Eve Carson there. Although this does not appear to be the most common practice on Wikipedia with respect to people notable solely on account of being murder victims, it does appear more in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Chuck (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everybody is famous and special and has the right to have a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzy1976 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the more sarcastic "keeps" I've seen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability in her life to warrant a WP article. Death should not determine notability. Seems like another case of MWWS to me. WWGB (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A death that receives significant coverage can easily make an otherwise non-notable person notable. See Thich Quang Duc for an example. Chuck (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't quite understand this zeal to eradicate knowledge from the encyclopedia, particularly when this is exactly the sort of information I come to Wikipedia for, not simply when it is a current event, but in the years after it occurs, to see what information has been uncovered over time. Her death is a strikingly important event for the UNC community, for the state of North Carolina, and for the nation, and I have to disagree that the nature of one's death has nothing to do with notability. I also have to argue that maybe the boundaries of taste and human kindness should lead us to postpone these sorts of discussions about victims of murder until some time has passed (a delay which cannot, I think, harm the integrity of such a capacious and idealistic project as Wikipedia); there is something really unseemly about having such extensive (and dismissive in tone) public conversations about Carson's notability at this moment. Would we say make this sorts of assessments in person in front of her family and friends right now? I don't think so, but internet discussions are no less public. This is an important discussion, but perhaps it is best postponed so that no one else will have the shocking experience of going to the page and finding her (by all media accounts a very accomplished person) called "non-notable" at this particularly sensitive time. Porpentine (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps we could save the family further distress by not having these articles appear with such haste after the death. Current news belongs in Wikinews, not Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to wikinews would cover the bases. But the above argument has nothing to do with policy, and I'm sure CNN is much more likely to cause the family stress than wikipedia would. Also, "insufficient notability in her life"? She accomplished more than Natalee Holloway did. Natalee Holloway is less "notable in her life" than Eve Carson is. Yet she has her own article, driven strictly by media coverage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it is as possible as you imply to separate policy and the ethics of human consideration. Certainly journalists and scholars consult this ethics of appropriateness constantly when they consider their work and the way they talk about it. Also, I am sure that all kinds of media coverage (news and scholarship) is distressing to the family, as is the very fact of the event, but it seems we can avoid a great deal of offense (which I would define differently from distress) not just to the family but to a much wider community by postponing a discussion which may involve repeated assertions of how non-notable this person was. Later I would love to participate in a debate about whether notability must be earned in life (it seems to me that death is one of life's events, and can affect notability quite profoundly), but I am reluctant to go any further than that at this sensitive time.Porpentine (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. This haughty, shameful discussion of whether she's "notable" or not, i.e. whether a bunch of anonymous editors (me included) think she's "worthy" of inclusion - in a website that considers articles about cartoon characters to be "encyclopedic" - is about 100 times more offensive (and 100 times more likely to cause "distress" to the family) than the mere statement of facts in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews does not, however, serve the same encyclopedic function of tracing the development and accumulation of information regarding the case to present an authoritative set of information about it over time. This is why I came to wikipedia for information on this very subject. We have to ask ourselves what is to be gained for Wikipedia by deleting an article like this? I can only think that it will mean that information will not be there in the future for those, like me, who are bound to search for it. In response to the comment that it would save the family further distress not to have encyclopedia articles appear so quickly, I can't say I understand that logic, particularly paired with the assertion that the same information should appear in Wikinews. My argument is that the information about the case, which is of prominent importance on the national stage right now, and will be of importance on the level of state and university for some time to come, should be provided dispassionately (as befits a mutable and communal encyclopedia), but that the discussion of this widely mourned figure's non-notability can't help but cause offense at this time. It shocked me, and I have no personal connection to the victim beyond a shared alma mater. One doesn't have to be a family member to find this a distasteful debate. In other words, I disagree with this move for deletion on both the levels of policy and taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porpentine (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is completely emotionally detached from this, I just have to say that Wikipedia has a series of policies about what does and does not warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. Your only edits to Wikipedia have been to this page, so you may not be aware of these, but one such policy is WP:NOT#NEWS, which seems to cover this perfectly. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, editors have to try to remain dispassionate about the subjects of articles - and this includes considering those that are nominated for deletion. If it is important to the university as you say, then at some stage place a subsection in the University's article with appropriate information. It may seem unfortunate that our reference to policy in this regard is "non-notable", but in the context of many of the comments above, I don't believe it is offensive. - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me the policy that explains why Natalee Holloway is more notable than Eve Carson. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is about the article in questions. The relevant guideline to this point is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - namely, that the existence of other, similar material on Wikipedia is not a good argument for retention. I have no opinion on the other article as I have yet to read it, and have no intention of doing so any time soon. It may, however, meet the deletion criteria, but has yet to be nominated. Who knows? The argument here has to be about the article Eve Carson, and on the basis of the article's own merits, I believe it should be deleted. - Fritzpoll (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Near as I can tell, it was never even brought up. Yet it was a totally news-driven story. There is nothing about Natalee Holloway herself that would seem to fit the "notability" criterion. But no one on this page is in any position to know whether the Eve Carson story is ultimately "notable" or not. I don't understand this rush to delete stuff. Well, I think I do understand it, but let's not get into that just now. But it's unfair to delete it now and 6 months later have to rebuild it from scratch. Why not wait 6 months and then decide? Or are you afraid that the energy for deletion will have been lost by then? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to my question, by the way, is that the Natalee Holloway story is notable because of the way it was covered, not because of Natalee Holloway herself. But the article isn't called "News coverage of the Natalee Holloway disappearance". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the history, and it doesn't appear that an AfD was brought up for the article you keep bringing up. That says nothing either for or against whether this article should be included, as I state in my comments above. If we don't know if the subject is notable now, it's because there is no evidence that she is, in which case she is non-notable per policy and the article should be deleted. There is nothing wrong with recreating the article at a later time if notability is established - the "rush to delete" as you put it is to prevent every little event and insignificant piece of information going into the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I really don't have a great personal desire to see the deleted - my participation in other AfDs indicates that I support retention sometimes as well as deletion, so I am uncertain what your latter comments about being "afraid" refer to. Please take this discussion to my talk page - Fritzpoll (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to wikinews is unacceptable on the basis that the two sites operate differently. It will not be an encyclopedic article and such direction does not work. A link to a Wikinews article within the Eve Carson article is doable, though. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notable later on -- right now she might be notable per US news, but is she notable later on?Guroadrunner (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You won't know until later on. You can't possibly know now. So later on, the subject could be brought up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a small mention in University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for now. Wikipedia is not a news service.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - That's for sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To reiterate on the above, although this is written in an encyclopedic fashion, she doesn't appear to be especially notable for anything in particular during her life, and at its core it's just a sad news story, and not necessarily an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia. I think it merits a mention in the relevant educational institution's article, though.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Doesn't appear to be" is the keyword there. Neither you nor anyone else can know yet. Give it some time. You can always delete it later. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Need I remind people of the controversies surrounding the twice Afd Anna Svidersky article? ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for lack of lasting impact at this point. Until her murder, Miss Carson failed WP:BIO, prominent though she was at her school. Now, she's made a lot of headlines, but whether her impact remains beyond this week or next remains to be seen. Let's delete at present and, should her case continue to have an impact, recreate the article in half a year or so. Biruitorul (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lasting impact?" From 3 days ago? And how do you plan to get the information back? It's more efficient to keep it than to have to start from scratch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, exactly - we can't tell if 3-day old events of borderline notability will have a lasting impact, so that's why it's best to wait a while. There are three ways of getting the information back: you (for example) can copy the text onto your hard disk or e-mail and upload it again in a few months; an admin can un-delete the page then; or we can Google "Eve Carson" then and re-create the article. A bit cumbersome, but at least it would enhance our reputation for scholarliness. Biruitorul (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Scholarliness"? That's funny. Tell me another one. P.S. I already did. But why go to that trouble? Why not just revisit it in 6 months or 3 or whatever and then delete it. There is no shortage of disk space. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note I said it would enhance a reputation that isn't that great at present. Since this debate is likely to end in a draw, let's agree to that - in June or September, we'll think about the "lasting impact" part of the equation. Biruitorul (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This really baffles me. Every single time that someone dies, and it makes big headlines / national news (like this case), Wikipedia has the same exact AFD debate as above. We could probably just cut-and-paste, word-for-word. Why do we keep re-inventing the same wheel, over and over again? Can't "we" (Wikipedia) just come up with some standard on this issue ... so we don't have to reinvent the wheel every single blessed time that a death / murder news story makes national headlines? The debate always comes down to "yes, she's notable" ... "oh, no, she's not" ... "oh, yes, she is" ... "oh, no, she's not" ... like a bunch of kindergarteners fighting. Everyone here has too much free time on their hands --- and are too itchy to demonstrate their "authority" and perceived empowerment (i.e., lacking elsewhere in their lives) --- if we need to go over this very same issue ad nauseam each and every time. Who (somewhere at Wikipedia) can just come up with a policy -- for once and for all, through consensus -- about how to handle these new-breaking stories of death / murder? Or, alternatively ... I am sure that this very same (exact) debate occurred for Natalee Holloway, Laci Peterson, Jessie Davis / Bobby Lee Cutts, etc., etc., etc. Why are we constantly re-inventing the wheel? For some reason or another (good, bad, or indifferent) ... the Holloway, Peterson, and Davis articles are still in existence (i.e., survived deletion). This case presents the exact same arguments, nothing novel. So, ultimately, what is at issue here? Or -- rather -- hasn't this "issue" already been decided umpteen times over, ad nauseam? Certainly, no one in the USA (or, internationally, for that matter) ever heard the names of Holloway, Peterson, Davis before they died. Yet, they (and a myriad of others) survived AFD's. Yes, you can be non-notable before your death ... and notable after (indeed, because of) your death. So, what's the big deal? Is this a new concept? I feel like going over to the AFD debates for Holloway, Peterson, and Davis ... cutting and pasting them here --- since it is all the same exact issue --- and concluding with "no consensus to delete". As happens every time. Why do you (we) Wikipedia folk insist on spinning your collective wheels? Some famous person (who?) defined insanity as doing the same thing over repeatedly and expecting a different result. Why can't we accept past debates on similar issues (i.e., Holloway, Peterson, Davis, etc.) and just be done with it? Or, from this issue, just get it over and done with in a collectively-agreed upon policy? Unreal behavior. Really baffles me. People just like to hear themselves talk, and argue, even though the very same issue has been already decided 1,000 times in the past. And I am sure there is no unique, novel distinction that this case brings to the table that all of the others didn't. You wonder why Wikipedia sometimes resembles kindergarten recess time, with kids fighting over some stupid toy and -- once they get it -- they don't even want to play with the toy. They really just want their own way. They just argue for the sake of arguing -- and want the toy only because someone else wants it. Unreal behavior. Any feedback? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Of the articles you quote, only one has ever been nominated for deletion (resulting in "no consensus"), one doesn't have an article, and one redirects to "Disappearance and murder of...". I agree that it would be good to have some kind of fixed consensus, and have started a discussion at the Village Pump based on your proposal, but for now, we can only judge the current article based on its own merits, not on the availablility of other information on Wikipedai - Fritzpoll (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on its own merits"... Well, it seems to be written factually and even-handedly and is well-sourced - more than I can say for a lot of the stuff that appears here. Meanwhile, I wonder how many of this panel of nose-in-the-air "notability" judges were college class presidents and whose own deaths would be national news? I'm guessing not many. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up: Furthermore, if Eve Carson indeed is not notable ... how would it possibly be that everyone here on this page (and in the USA, for that matter) knows her name? Let's use some common sense. We all know Eve Carson's name ... we all know Eve Carson's story ... hence, notable. If I dug up some random murder story from the Nome Alaska Daily News that says "Alfred Q. Rickinstock was murdered yesterday" ... no one has ever heard of Alfred Q. Rickinstock's name ... no one has ever heard of Alfred Q. Rickinstock's story ... hence, not notable. Come on, people ... is this rocket science? Is this brain surgery? Let's get a dosage of common sense somewhere along the line. And, really, let's be clear ... no, you are not the editor-in-chief of Brittanica ... you are just a regular Joe Schmo sitting at home in your pajamas, editing Wikipedia. That's all. That's neither good, bad, or indifferent --- but it is what it is. Come on, already. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Whilst Joseph A. Spadaro raised some valid points here, he should have done it in a different manner. Although he did not name individual editors, the diatribe (which actually had some good points in it, I think) that he just posted is bordering on a personal attack, which is definitely not allowed on Wikipedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Above Comment: To "his space research" ... thanks ... yes, of course, there are indeed many valid points. However, how in any way is this a personal attack? And, by extension, how is this in any way disallowed? Against whom (i.e., which "person") is this alleged "personal" attack? Perhaps, I am attacking a silly and inane Wikipedia process (if you can even call it that) ... as opposed to some fictitious Wikipedia person ... no? Your post that my post is a personal attack should be retracted. Please re-read my post. I am clearly attacking an ineffective and inefficient Wikipedia process that serves none of us well. You also state that I should have done it in a different manner? In which manner would that be? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Unforetunately, a year from now or when B. Spears does something stupid, the public will move on and say "Eve who?""--70.188.129.189 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hinted at it earlier, and your questions demand an answer, so here it is: There are certain editors who have made it their mission to watch for this kind of article and to push for deleting it. That's why they are called "deletionists". They want to keep wikipedia in a box. Their first priority should be to serve the public, but no, their first priority is to destroy anything that doesn't fit into the box. That's what this is about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Baseball Bugs. But -- yes -- I know the underlying politics. But, it's not answering my question of: why can't this "issue" be decided for once and for all ... via policy, consensus, whatever. Why the need to reinvent the wheel each time? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There are equally a number of editors who see it as their duty to rush into print every time some pretty young thing with a toothy smile gets bumped off. It's like a badge to be the first to post an article. Perhaps if they showed more restraint, and waited a decent period of time to see how the issue develops, then the other side wouldn't see the need to restore some balance. It's very convenient to "blame the deletionists" for causing all this trouble, but the ambulance chasers are just as much to blame for these ongoing conflicts. WWGB (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever. Do you even know what an "ambulance chaser" is? In a nutshell, the people who post these articles (even if quickly) are not trying to get money / pay / compensation for doing so ... are they? What are you suggesting ... that person X dies ... and we should wait 4 years to write the article? Or 4 months? What time frame suits you --- since it can't be "right away" ...? Also, you seem to have quite a bias against pretty young (murdered) women ... which is no different than a bias for them. No one on this page -- or anywhere that I've seen -- is talking about "a pretty young thing with a toothy smile getting bumped off" ... and if that's your perspective, then that says a whole lot about you. I don't think people care if they are pretty with white smiles. I think people care because these are young, bright, intelligent, hard working, ambitious, creative, gifted people ( ... with 100 more adjectives I can throw in ... regardless of being pretty or not ...) and they are being killed in the very prime of their lives. They, their family, and all of society as a whole is being robbed. Hence, as a whole, we in the world lose a future doctor, lawyer, researcher, professor, or whatever. Someone who was going to make a difference in the world. We all lose when a bright young life is senselessly taken. It has nothing to do with whether Eve Carson is or is not pretty. She clearly was going to amount to something, when she got older and entered her career / professional life. Heck, she was already "somebody" now at the age of 22. So, your whole MWWS syndrome argument is baseless. No one cares because they are pretty white women. People care because these victims (and all of us as a whole) lose when such gifted victims (pretty or not pretty) are taken from us. When some crack-addicted drug-dealing prostitute gets murdered --- you can bet that there will be little sympathy, generally speaking, on a widespread scale. It's not because the prostitute was pretty or non-pretty. It's because she was contributing zero to society ... and, if anything, was draining society. These pretty young murder victims are only contributing to -- building up -- society, independent of them being pretty. I am not saying that murdering a prostitute is right -- it's still illegal. I am saying that public outcry and reaction is much greater (notable) when a promising future is snuffed out versus when a low-life "nobody" is snuffed out (by their own doing, typically). And, I assure you that I am not the only one who thinks like this. So, please get off your MWWS soapbox ... and your bias against "pretty" murdered women. And see the issue for what it is, rather than creating some emotional and inflammatory diversion. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And, by the way, many editors on Wikipedia respond quickly / instantaneously to events. I am sure that the very second someone won the Super Bowl, some editor typed that info into Wikipedia immediately. The very moment that Coen Brothers won Academy Awards, the info was immediately put into Wikipedia. Within seconds, literally. That's how Wikipedia works. Ya ... so what? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. As others have said, this debate comes up whenever some random person dies in the news. And every time their article gets deleted -- this case is no different. Wikipedia is not a news website. 24.126.197.197 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The Natalee Holloway article is still there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The poster above states, quote: And every time their article gets deleted. Uhhhhhhhhh ... Natalee Holloway ... Laci Peterson ... Jessie Davis ... do you want 1,000 more examples? When did Holloway, Peterson, Davis, and the other 1000 get deleted? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Excellent point. Obviously, he's wrong about it getting deleted. This is entirely a function of the amount of media coverage, despite protests that, for some reason, "it shouldn't be." And what Mr. Spadaro said earlier is also true - obviously, the notability guidelines are either flawed or are being applied only whimsically. The problem is with the guidelines. Presumably, that needs to be addressed, i.e. challenged on the guidelines page. Meanwhile, if Holloway, Peterson, et al, can stay, so can this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is also deju vu. A couple of weeks ago, the deletionists were arguing against an article about the NIU shooter. They lost that one, too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale of Benjamintchip, and she potentially more notable in her own right than Natalie Holloway. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been immense media coverage of this case. It is not Wikipedia who decides which articles to keep, the media has already made this case far more important than other murders. EgraS (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading refs from John below Keep Meets notability. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 22:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per noteability and memorial. --70.188.129.189 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:MEMORIAL. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you had best get busy pushing for deletion of Holloway, Peterson, et al. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that WP:ONEEVENT would support a move and redirect to Murder of Eve Carson, not a wholesale deletion. Chuck (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Baseball Bugs We get it with the Natalie Holloway reference. Repeating the same WP:ALLORNOTHING argument over and over and over and over doesn't make it any more valid. Please use a new approach with unique arguments or stop filling this AfD with this. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you don't get it. You have yet to answer the question: Why are you not pushing for delete of those other articles? What's special about this one that you're so anxious to delete it? Why are you applying the guidelines arbitrarily and capriciously, instead of uniformly? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment to Comment to Baseball Bugs: Regardless of how many times he has (or hasn't) said it, Baseball Bugs is correct. Murder victims like these either are or are not notable ... let's just pick one, for once and for all. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. It is a collection of many articles. That is, Holloway and Carson (and others). There does need to be some internal consistency - or enforcement - of a "policy" ... otherwise, why have (and indeed, what is) a "policy"? The argument that people keep throwing out (Other Stuff Exists) is nothing more than a red herring. Perhaps "other stuff exists" because it has been deemed non-deletion worthy. In which case, it is indeed relevant. Just because "other stuff exists" does NOT mean (as some would like us to believe) that it only exists because it has not yet been nominated for deletion (assuming that it would be deleted if a nomination had occurred). In fact, quite the opposite. Many times "other stuff exists" because, after a deletion debate, it was found that it should indeed exist. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    - This is oversimplifying the issue. Each article contains its own set of unique facts and should be judged separately. Oversimplifying all dead person biographies by assuming that they all contain the same information and categorically declaring them as either notable or non-notable based on these limited facts is inappropriate. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only "unique fact" about those other cases is overwhelming media coverage that would make wikipedia look stupid if we didn't have an article about it. Every argument that's been used against the Eve Carson article can also be leveled against the other cases. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - To User 24.124.109.67 ... you are not wrong. Clearly, every case is unique and presents its own set of facts, etc. That's stating the obvious. So -- as Baseball Bugs indicates -- what is the distinction (if any) between all of these rather similar articles? If they are all indeed similar, they should be treated similarly (either all deleted or all kept). As, presumably, we are applying the same standards / policies to all. As you say, different facts may call for different conclusions. OK, that's fair enough. So, as Baseball Bugs asks, what is the distinction here ... what is the set of unique facts about the Eve Carson case that would call for deletion when the other (arguably similar) articles do not? In essence, all of these articles boil down to "she wasn't notable prior to death and her death ( does? or does not? ) make her notable now". So, if the Eve Carson case has special facts, please illuminate. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: Most everything has been said and discussed. This article is necessary. The ultimate truth is that WikiNews and Wikipedia, despite any efforts by either to make them individual entities, must at some gray area overlap. RShnike (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Meets notibilty Scanlan (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is notable and the article deserves to be in there. --Reezy (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We can probably all agree that no one ever heard of this woman prior to her death. But so what? Who ever heard of Sirhan Sirhan before he killed Kennedy? Whoever heard of Charles Manson before he killed Sharon Tate? Whoever heard of Mark David Chapman before he killed John Lennon? Whoever heard of Joran van-der-whatever-Sloot before he (in my opinion) killed Natalee Holloway? For that matter, whoever heard of Marion Cotillard before she won the Academy Award? At one moment, people are non-notable ... and perhaps in an instant, they (or their story) become notable. And, clearly and obviously, sometimes that one instant is a death/killing/murder/etc. ... whether criminal or victim. What vacuum-sealed planet are some of these posters living on? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Chapman and Sirhan became famous because they killed very famous people, and the reasons they did so, are also of more than family interest. In this young lady's case, no one outside her immediate family and colleagues would have counted her notable. If I was murdered in identical circumstances, I wouldn't want to be up on Wikipedia either. For a start, it's an invasion of privacy without any justification on the grounds of general and widespread interest. Hate to break it to you, but this is not global news.Be best (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

Uhhhh ... yeah, I think I'm well aware of who Chapman and Sirhan murdered. My point was that some people become notable after only one event and sometimes (oftentimes) that event is their death/murder. Furthermore, when did "global" become the barometer for Wikipedia notability? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Duke and NC State are playing a memorial game for her. I'd imagine her colleagues number quite a few. I think we should set a precedent by deleting Holloway or McCann before we deloete this. I am very much opposed the Missing pretty girl syndrome or something like that but hey, its a national story. Editor of the wiki 10:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable person, personal tragedy, nothing that notable about the crime either. Sad, but so are almost all murders.Be best (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a national news story. Let's see if it turns out like Holloway. Give this some time to settle thinggs out and then you can nominate it again. Editor of the wiki 10:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a tragedy, no doubt, but no page existed prior to her death and once the commotion settles there will almost certainly be no traffic to this page. The precedent has already been set to NOT setup individual pages for the vistims of other school shootings like Columbine High School massacre (Rachel Scott is a notable exception, but there's a fair bit extenuating with various causes in her name that merits a Wiki entry for here). If something similar comes from Ms. Carson's death, then it may merit a page ... but for now I vote for deletion or a possible merge with the UNC page. Mike Helms (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a concurrent debate going on right now that has very similar facts as to the one here. 24.124.125.33 (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, similar stories that are both being well-covered by the media. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Lauren Burk. This article is important as one of a series of similar murders during a time frame. If you want to combine articles, that's ok but a little confusing....People say notability. Well, that's the notability, similar crimes over a similar time. Otherwise, an isolated killing isn't always noteworthy, I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepkeepkeep (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Keepkeepkeep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete newsworthy is not noteworthy. Reso lute 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikinews:Eve Carson. Notability is not temporary, BLP1E, etc. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would keep the history intact in case it needed to be resurrected, right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. If this develops into long-term notability, then the content would quickly be accessible for an article. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable as of yet. If some big conspiracy develops that resulted in her murder then a deletion review can be requested. Otherwise this reads like an obituary.Renee (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO1E. Not everyone in the news is Wikipedia notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that WP:BIO1E would support a move and redirect to Murder of Eve Carson, not a wholesale deletion. Chuck (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability guidelines. -- No Guru (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. SuMadre (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the WP:ONEEVENT argument: first, I believe this supports my argument that the article should be moved to Eve Carson murder or something similar; the person is not notable, but the event unquestionably is, having received extensive national (international?) coverage. As the policy states, Cover the event, not the person. Second, I believe this is a fundamentally flawed policy; Leon Czolgosz, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Mark David Chapman, Thich Quang Duc, the list goes on and on. Most murders aren't notable; then again, very few murders receive the amount of media attention as this one. Non-notable person, but notable event. faithless (^speak) 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't make sense to delete this and then keep others listed under the Wiki Category:Murdered students. If you delete this, you might as well delete the others also. Msw1002 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Possibly Rename as Murder of Eve Carson Though Eve Carson is not herself not necessarily notable outside her murder, she is one of many people whose murders have made them notable.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notable even before her death, as per her stature as president of a student body of approximately 30,000 students and as evidenced in numerous articles about her in notable secondary sources (The Daily Tar Heel) prior to her death. (To those who would argue that the DTH is a non-notable source, I would respond that it is the newspaper of record in a community with more citizens than many of America's medium-sized cities. It has a circulation much larger than many local newspapers serving such cities. It has a strong reputation for, and has won awards for, its unbiased and impartial coverage of events relevant to that community. It meets every criterion for a Reliable Source with flying colors.) The fact that nobody bothered to make an article about her presidency prior to her death reflects only that Wikipedia was not the most efficient source for such information at that time (the DTH website was more than adequate). Now that she is notable on a national scale (her national notability does extend from her death, yes), people across the country who have never heard of the Daily Tar Heel predictably turn to a national source of information such as Wikipedia and expect to find information about her there, including links to sources like the DTH where they can learn more about her life. Others have pointed out some of the more disturbing dimensions of this debate (zeal to diminish the "notability" of a person so soon after that person's death, in violation of a widely accepted social norm not to speak ill of the recently dead; the fact that this exact same debate happens after any previously-non-national public figure dies; the fact that as a reflection of (or in spite of) all Wikipedia policies, numerous biographies exist on Wikipedia for persons whose notability stems only from their death and whose lifetime accomplishments are much less than those of Ms. Carson; the fact that despite Other Stuff Exists (which, in case some of us need reminding, is not Wikipedia Policy in favor of inconsistent editorial decisions but instead an essay discussing the challenges of maintaining consistency), consistency IS IMPORTANT in editorial decisions and it would be a mistake to break with Wikipedia precedent in this praticular instance. As a final observation, I would point out that if the events that had caused Eve Carson to reach national notability had been of another kind (say, e.g., a corruption or sex scandal, I predict that all the editors arguing here for non-notability on the basis of publication in the Daily Tar Heel would instead be arguing that Eve Carson was a public figure for the purposes of the First Amendment, not entitled to legal protection from defamation, citing exactly the same articles in the DTH.Yls07 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You did not address the fact that the Daily Tar Heel is not a THIRD-PARTY source. It is the official student newspaper of the university, so of course it's going to publish her name multiple times. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources. Prior to her death, she has been only mentioned in the DTH. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I take it you have scanned every newspaper in America before making that bold statement? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Take a look at this Google News search, which I also linked above. BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- agree with various statements about major incident at large university; ALSO: (1) we have many other school shootings on here -- i.e. Virginia Tech -- I understand that this is only one person, but what do we OBJECTIVELY decide is the tipping point for deserving an article? Three victims? Five? Eight? How can we do this objectively? Until that question is answered, I think it would be too hasty to delete this article. (2) this article belongs here in the name of completeness of coverage of two topics: school shootings (of which there has been a scary string in the last decade), and mixed-race killings (black guy killed a white girl). More knowledge is always better than less knowledge, especially in an encyclopedia. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This wasn't a school shooting. She was a student, yes. But all this was was a normal murder, just like Lauren Burk. They just both happened to be students. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Normal murder??? Holy Moly! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Lets everyone bear in mind that the inclusion or deletion of this article isn't based on our own personal feelings on how the for-profit news media determines what constitutes newsworthy coverage. It seems this discussion is becoming an indictment of that. I think we all agree that this is yet another example of "news product" ala Natalee Holloway, as opposed to something legitimately worthy of our collective extended attentions, however, as long as the Wikipedia model predicates "validity" on the number of google hits or the number of reliable sources which can be trotted out in support, we would have a hard time arguing a lack of newsworthiness given that the coverage has been very extensive thusfar. Like anything else, interest in this will eventually die out, but that isn't a be-all threshold. I haven't seen fresh coverage of Jon Benet Ransey or the Hindenberg recently, however, they were both events in a place and time that received a great deal of coverage and because of it, whether they deserved it or not, they represent something "newsworthy," as would this murder. --LoverOfArt (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nicolasdz (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Altmin (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - — Altmin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for the biography of every murder victim who happens to make the news. LaszloWalrus (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one, I believe, is arguing that every murder victim's bio should be reposited in Wikipedia. If that's the basis of your argument, then you have zero argument. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Prompted by a discussion at the Village Pump, where I am trying to forge a consensus of sorts, I read the Holloway article to see how to answer the questions about the differences between the articles and spotted a difference immediately: the Holloway article doesn't have an entire section devoted to who she was, what she did while she was alive or anything, except where it directly informs the event. This is in contrast to the Carson article, which spends the majority of the article talking about the life an memorial of the victim, and not about the event which is supposed to be notable. Consequently, editors favouring deletion are seeing this as a memorial page with little evidence of notability, but the page does not document the murder significantly. Can I take this opportunity to invite discussion at the Village pum, please [45]? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another major difference is that the Holloway event occurred on an international level. High school student on senior trip to Aruba, allegedly abducted by a European. In contrast, Carson and Burk were just random murders at home. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That has to do with the notability of the incident, not the notability of the victim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, But ...: The above two or three posts are misguided (not Baseball Bugs, but the two or three posts above him). Regarding difference to Natalie Holloway and Eve Carson, etc. There are two very different issues at stake here: (1) deleting an article versus (2) improving the content of the article. This entire debate above is premised (by virtue of an AFD) that "this topic is not notable and therefore this article should be deleted". That is an entirely different matter than "let's keep the article and improve it by doing x, y, and z to it". So, the comparison between Holloway and Carson is not a valid comparison. Since you are comparing "how to improve and make an article better" (the very stuff that a Talk Page forum is used for) ... versus "getting rid of a non-notable article period" (which is why we are in an AFD debate). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment First of all, I think that it's clear that despite major disagreements on this page, there will in some form exist an entry for Eve Carson. The level of strong consistent efforts that would need to be shown to forever exclude her from wikipedia alone demonstrates her notability. I see many delete voters who seem to be analyzing the facts of Carson's death itself and making a decision based on how simple the event is. Others seem to resent the presence of media sensationalism of certain deaths over others. One person even comments that “news-worthy isn’t noteworthy”, whatever that means. Notability has nothing to do with our interpretation of the facts of the case or if we believe that the media shouldn’t have covered it to this extent. The fact is, the case of her death has been covered in newspapers, TV and the internet, to the extent of being the top national story in many cases. The queston of Why?, simply doesn’t matter. Wikipedia doesn’t screen reputable 3rd party sources, rather, reputable 3rd party sources create wikipedia. Attempts to ignore these sources, which probably number in the thousands at this point, would be inappropriate and simply doesn’t make sense. The issue at hand is avoiding memorializing Carson and making an article that focuses on her extremely notable death, and not previous trivial elements on her life. Reports of the astounding media coverage surrounding her death itself would probably also be appropriate, as I imagine there will be news reporting on this aspect as well. Do you realize that a decision to remove information regarding this story would cause a controversy itself, with likely media reporting on Wikipedians deeming a major national news story as “non-notable”?Gwynand (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gwynand makes some excellent points. Third-party others create the notability ... Wikipedia merely reports it. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  - We're starting to get somewhere. How about main articles called "Natalee Holloway case" and "Eve Carson case", with standalone "Natalee Holloway" and "Eve Carson" redirecting to those case files? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree, although not sure about use of "case" as that seems to refer specifically to the law and order. I think Murder of Eve Carson works best. I think Holloway should be Dissapearance of Natalie Holloway, just like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. In either case, if a body were found then the possible naming could be changed.Gwynand (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Am I missing something here? Is this debate about (A) whether or not this event is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article ... or (B) what to name this article? Clearly, two different questions. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        You aren't missing something, because the answer is really yes to both. AFDs often include discussion on redirects, merges, and moves, so as not to be redundant. Some editors here (including myself) don't believe the article should be totally deleted, but rather renamed and its focus changed. It would be a waste of time and frankly deceiving to just simply agree for this to go through as a delete on notability guidelines, then the next day create a Murder of Eve Carson article. Rather, it should be discussed here. Gwynand (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I understand all that. Much of the opposition (to keeping the article) centers on its (supposed) "non-notability". I am not seeing much above to indicate "Oh, yes, it will become notable as long as we change the title". That's all I'm saying. In other words, most of the delete-advocates above want it deleted, period, as non-notable. They could care less about the title --- but, rather, the content/event/murder. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        Maybe, but two things. First, I think a lot of the delete votes are responding to an article that is about Carson herself. Up until recently (I actually changed this myself) half of her article was a section called "Biography". I can see why people want to delete, they are looking at a trivial biography. The page was poorly put together and inadequate, and a lot of the info wasn't notable. Second, from the way this afd has gone I think there is virtually no chance of an admin closing with a consensus delete. In these cases without consensus, the article always stays. I'm looking for ways to improve the article, redefine what it is and hence clearly show the notable aspect of it. I might be getting ahead of myself, I admit. Gwynand (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems sufficiently notable, since she has been in the news, because of the murder and her high profile within the UNC student body. As a testimonial, I read in a random news article that "Eve Carson" was murdered. "Who in the heck was Eve Carson?" I asked. Typed it into Wikipedia, and bam! Thanks for the info! -- Yekrats (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is a problem that the article as it stands insufficiently describes the event for which she is notable, and should defer all the unnecessary details about her life that do not relate to the murder itself. I am trying to work on a guideline with BaseballBugs and Joseph A. Spadaro at User:Fritzpoll/Victims of crime guideline to clarify this. In the meantime, I vote move to Murder of Eve Carson and rewrite to discuss the crime rather than the individual. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mourning Sickness. This victim, nor this murder seem to be notable. Rather, the REACTION to them is notable. Rooot (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/delete. For those attempting to keep this article for no other reason than because an article on Natalee Holloway (note the spelling) exists, that argument isn't very strong. Holloway has been missing for three years, and after more news coverage than any other missing person case, she still comes up in news reports. Eve Carson, while equally missing, has not received the same amount of coverage (which is one of the main aspects of notability to the Holloway case). Like Lauren Burk, this article should be deleted. It's a sad situation, but death alone doesn't makes somebody notable. - auburnpilot talk 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - You miss the point of the arguments that say "Eve Carson isn't notable, the murder is". Likewise, I say, "Natalee Holloway isn't notable, her disappearance is." The point being, the fact that it happens to be Natalee Holloway doesn't matter. What matters is the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my God. Read what you just typed. "Someone who was killed three days ago has not accumulated the same amount of news coverage that someone who was killed three years ago has." Uhhhhhh ... ever take a Math class? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  - I've taken many math classes. Have you read our civility policy? This has nothing to do with math, but the bottom line fact that this is not a notable case or murder. There's no other way to say it. - auburnpilot talk 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all, why is asking a simple non-controversial question ("have you ever taken a math class?") uncivil? Second of all, it has everything to do with math, if we examine the premise of your prior post. You stated that a person whose case has been in the news for 3 days has not achieved the same amount of press coverage as a person whose case has been in the news for 3 years. That's nothing but simple math. Let's see ... 3 days versus ( 3 times 365 = ) 1095 days. Wow, do you mean to tell me that a person with 3 days of news coverage does not equal one with 1095 days of news coverage? Honest? Unreal. Furthermore, your bottom line "fact" is that this is not a notable case or murder. Well, then, I guess the debate is over? I mean, after all, Auburn pilot has issued her bottom line. Does the world stop spinning now, too? Do you even know what a "fact" is? Unreal. Get a grip. Or, at least, provide some meaningful input into the debate. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      - By the way, I am offended by your implication that I am being uncivil ... which, I guess, makes you guilty of the very policy that you are quoting - no? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        First of all, I'm male. Second, yes you are being quite uncivil. No, it does not make me uncivil. No, it's not about math. It's about the fact that somebody being shot in the head happens every day. Eve Carson, while unfortunate, is dead. That does not make her notable. Sorry if that's beyond the "grip" you've asked me to get. Not every death is deserving of a Wikipedia article; what you want is Wikinews. - auburnpilot talk 00:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, Auburn Pilot -- male or female -- you must be a very simple person ... one unable to comprehend anything other than simple statements. (1) So, you conclude that I am uncivil. No reason. You just rule on high that it's that way just because you say so. Oh, ok. (2) No, you are not uncivil. No reason. You just rule on high that it's that way just because you say so. Oh, ok. (3) It's not about math. No reason. You just rule on high that it's that way just because you say so. Oh, ok. (4) etc etc etc ... with all your statements. (5) She is not notable, just because you say so. (6) Not every death is notable, just because you say so. (7) In the prior post, it's a "fact" that this is not notable just because you say so. So, basically, all of your arguments go like this ... you make whatever statement you feel like making. You offer no reasons, rationale, or support. And you concllude with "it's that way, just because I say so". Hm. Interesting argument techniques. Why do I feel like I am arguing with a seven-year-old? You must be a very important person (are you perhaps George Bush or the Pope) if you feel that way. Or - more likley - you just feel that you are so important that your word is the be all and the end all of the debate. Unreal. I guess I acted like that when I was, ummmmmm, in third grade also. So, I hear ya. And, furthermore, you gave no substantive replies to any of my points whatsoever. Other than your ubiquitous "just because I say it's so" response. Wow, this debate will progress real, real, real far if we all did that - huh? "I'm right and you're wrong" ... "No, I'm right and you're wrong" ... back and forth 100 times. No reasons, no rationale ... just the statement that your way is correct. Seriously, get a grip. Learn how to participate meaningfully. You bottom line conclusion is not correct just because you say so. Hate to break that news to you. When you enter (developmental) adulthood, you shall see. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        Adulthood? I'm just waiting to get the training wheels off my bike, and a new pacifier. My tricycle is in the shop, but I sure hope they get the dent out real soon...Gee golly. - auburnpilot talk 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your clear lack of any substantive response on any adult level speaks for itself. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        Joseph A. Spadaro, your reliance on sarcasm and descent into vitriol is not reflecting well on your arguments or you as an individual. WWGB (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I hardly rely on sarcasm or descend into vitriol. I guess I assumed that if people engage in argument, they actually have a clue about how to argue. How mistaken I was, clearly. Making a statement as your conclusion simply because you made the statement does not render it a conclusion. In baby English ... something isn't so just because you say that it is so. If people have no clue how to present a cogent point (other than the kindergarten tantrum throwing "it is because I say so") ... then they oughtn't be participating in making "points". If they can't meaningfully contribute, they should not contribute. I can type a lot of meaningless drivel too, you know. I passed that phase at age 7 or so, however. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        
        It doesn't happen to college class presidents every day, and doesn't get significant media coverage every day. She's more notable as an individual than is Natalee Holloway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it is sad, and has effected that community. I don't think that she is notable, nor was her death. Being murdered is not really a claim to notability. While I have sympathy for her friends and family. I don't think she should have a Wikipedia article. ScurvyD (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep this article, at least for now, until more turns up. Maybe merge it with a more general article on school shootings and such later on but I think an AfD notice might just be uncalled for right now. Obviously, anyone who is here right now has probably searched for her, and thus wanted information on the subject. 71.58.60.134 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC) - Previous commend was by me, I forgot to login first RevenantPrime (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment - I would like to point out that I think the massive media attention garnered by this case, and the fact that WP:NOTPAPER, we shouldn't be worried about giving a few kilobytes of space here. I don't think this page should be a full fledged biography commemorating her every action, but a simple description of the murder is notable. RevenantPrime (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is notable as the subject of intense media coverage over a protracted period of time and as the victim of a college shooting, which is its own phenomenon of late. Anyone wishing to study college violence and how the media has covered it would need to consider this individual's murder in the big picture. Mooveeguy (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability and verfiability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia and Natalee Holloway and other trivial information is listed in here. If you look at the headlines that have been generated, this is news and as such probably deserves a space in this "encyclopedia". Was her life notable, probably not as much as some entries but more so than others. My question has more to do with the harm there is in having this entry. Is this not a place for information? If so is this not information? It has attracted national attention so it would seem that while wikipedia may be debating if this is news worthy, the real news media has already determined it is news worthy. The other issue is simply does not wikipedia want to be more encompassing than the other encyclopedias? If so this should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.217.24 (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very few of the "Keep"ers have addressed WP:BIO1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." (While noting that it says "may be unwarranted" not "is unwarranted.") Sbowers3 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eve was the student body president and her contributions before her death were legion. The issue you are proposing was addressed many times. EgraS (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Death is very notable, and achievements in life and coverage of life both before and after death warrant the article being under her name. For what its worth, examples of articles mentioning her published in papers other than the campus paper (all BEFORE her murder) include [46] [47] [48] [49] and [50]. This means that reliable sources cover her in far more situations than her death. Dozens if not hundreds of more citations can be found in the campus newspaper, which is reliable (if not third-party). Her death has received major national news media attention, notice in the congressional record [51], etc. -- and most of these stories discussed her death but also the many achievements of her life. The same should be true of the article. --SecretAgent (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any of those stories would count as more than trivial, passing coverage of just her name. None of them are about Eve Carson, but rather only mention her name as having something to do with some other event. Several are just about her voting on a grading change at the university. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retain for now. If this is still all over the media in a month, keep it for good. If it's gone, delete it then. Cougar Draven (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one time story, this is not comparable to the Natalee Holloway case that dragged on and on and generated far more public interest. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Natalie Holloway herself is less notable than Eve Carson is. Hence the need to make these kinds of articles more like case files. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFor the information of editors, the Natalee Holloway article (recently promoted to GA) has survived three AfD debates, two of them in the last few months, and while we do not vote here, an overwhelming majority of editors voted to keep, to such an extent that the last AfD was stopped after only a few hours under WP:SNOW. I don't have a preference here, but I think clearer guidance on notability might be helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out that calling the article "Natalee Holloway" vs. "Natalee Holloway disappearance" is mere semantics. Maybe so, in which case the Carson and Burk articles could remain named as they are, but with more emphasis on the cases and less on the biographical. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment I'm still seeing a lot of WP:ONEEVENT delete arguments being made, so I'd just like to reiterate that Wikipedia is chock-full of people who are notable for only one event; those I previously mentioned, Leon Czolgosz, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Mark David Chapman, Thich Quang Duc, plus Sirhan Sirhan, Günter Parche, Gavrilo Princip, John Hinckley, Jr., you could go on and on. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, but rather pointing out that having a policy that says that we shouldn't have articles for people notable for only one event is clearly flawed. faithless (^speak) 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The extensive media coverage of Eve Carson in multiple reliable sources cited in Eve_Carson#Notes and Eve_Carson#External_links clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. While WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is often misinterpreted to imply that "subjects whose notability is derived solely from the manner of their deaths are not notable for Wikipedia's purposes", the plain language of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clarifies its purpose
Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues^[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of Eve Carson cited in Eve_Carson#Notes and Eve_Carson#External_links would therefore suggest that this person is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". WP:BLP1E arguments do not support deletion, since the policy expressly advises us to "Cover the event, not the person": as we presently have no article on the Death of Eva Carson, it would be far more efficient to move this article to a page title descriptive of the event in question, and adjust the style of the writing where appropriate, than to write a completely new article relating to the event. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence.

^ WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

John254 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murder of Eve Carson and make the article focus more on the murder and less on her life. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone who has 2000+ people attend wakes and funeral services is notable. She was not just the innocent victim of a crime. She was student body president, active in the community etc. If there is not consensus to keep the article, maybe a merge into University of North Carolina would be acceptable. Truthanado (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of those folks went because they were each given a shiny new quarter by wikipedia editors, to make the subject appear to be notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article should be deleted. Subject of article not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.237.139 (talk • contribs)
Delete and transwiki anything newsworthy to wikinews. Deletion should be without prejudice, but recreation would require significant coverage of this as more than a single newsworthy event, no matter how intricate or sensationalized things might get on the news (it is the news, you know how they do it). If this event becomes more than news . Note that "this is a great example of missing white woman syndrome" is total WP:OR, and that is not a justifiable reason for keeping it (I won a spelling bee, I was even in the news, and it is a great example of winning a spelling bee, that doesn't mean I get an article). If anything, MWWS is an indication that she is not notable, despite the disproportionate coverage she receives in news media. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not necessarily her that's notable, it's the story. "Missing white woman" is OR unless it can be cited. But I say again that this subject, as a person is more notable than Natalee Holloway. The Holloway story is more notable than this one just because of the massive media attention it got for awhile. But both of these stories are national media stories and thus are both notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page for now. It's not hurting anything and Wikipedia probably has plenty of disc storage space.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If it's decided to delete this article, then we also need to delete other non-notable people such as Jessica Lunsford, Natalie Holloway (as mentioned previously), and Jessica McClure. The point is that this story made national news and has been in the news for over a week. Encyclopedias, like Britannnica, generally do not cover events such as this. But this isn't a bound book that you will find in your grandfather's basement. Wikipedia has grown to be an encyclopedia of events in addition to wars, countries, and three-toed sloths. Eve Carson wasn't just some random college student. Outside of the basketball team, she's probably the most recognized and dare I say important student at UNC. Wallstreethotrod (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable. Frankly its a no-brainer, this has been covered extensively by the media justified or no, which alone meets notability guideline.D-rew (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have MSNBC on right now and there is some kind of breaking news being reported regarding the case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is similiar to history of college students and intern persons who worked for US government that are recorded as important part of America's violence. I do hope this suspect deserve to be on a death pentaly because I do not like that people who committed murder for money or other valuables are enough to be demons without real common senses and they deserved to be destroyed. Killing her for money is a demonic way so I think that she deserved to be angelic memorial article like Laci Peterson who was murdered with a baby by her husband, Scott that the world has not heard. Wikipedians who want to delete this articles should be ashamed on them for making fools including one who mentioned Britannic Encyclopedia. Britannic Encyclopedia was designed for intelligent people, Wikipedia is general online encyclopedia. Britannic will not display most famous Elvis Presley in articles so shut-up. Cculber007 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, redireting to Battle cry. Nandesuka (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BattleCry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Video game does not appear to be notable. Previously discussed last year, there was weak consensus to keep the article, pending improvements. Since then no improvements have been made. —BradV 04:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing to show that this is a notable video game. So I support deletion. Addendum: I agree that subsequent recreation as a redirect to Battle cry would be useful.seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
replace with redirect to dab or battle cry at the very least. if kept it should be renamed to BattleCry (1991 video game). 70.55.84.89 (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete KLOV lists the date as 1989 [52] not 1991, and google is not good for finding more information. In any case, nothing for an article, even though it's a real 80s arcade game - so delete unless someone can dig out a (most likely only available in printed form given the time) review about it to show notability. --Minimaki (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article as a valid arcade game supported by MAME. But some of my other video games have been deleted and as a result I don't really care anymore. Whatever. Sandman30s (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no sourced assertion of notability. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that there appears to be no sourced assertion of notability. While there is an uneven standard applied to arcade games, they should meet a reasonable level of importance. Stormbay (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn/snow keep, as notability-granting souces have been added. seresin | wasn't he just...? 14:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'incroyable Vérité[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/L'incroyable Vérité

Album that is not notable. The only external link is a directory-style listing that does not give notability. I had prodded, but someone objected (I think). seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Main release by a notable artist, plus the article is like a week old. here's a link to the album review on AMG. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More external links have been added, as well as context regarding the album's release. Just64helpin (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, in some form or another. There are valid rationales given for merging this into one article or one descriptive list. That's a matter for interested parties to go to the talkpages to gather consensus one way or the other, not AfD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChalkZone characters[edit]

Non-notable characters, articles fail WP:FICT and WP:N. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, not notable outside the ChalkZone universe. Nothing but fancruft here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment don't forget about the arbcom temporary injunction. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ChalkZone or delete all. The main article already contains the voices, and the articles are just WP:NOT#PLOT otherwise, with little chance for encyclopedic expansion. I note that List of chalk characters from ChalkZone, which is a stubby list, could be included in this AfD as well, or may serve as a merge target. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination relies on Wikipedia jargon. Obvious redirect targets. Catchpole (talk) 17:27, 21 February 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) 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when are policy or guidelines dismissed as "jargon"? Links to the relevant guidelines are provided in the nominator's rationale. That's not "jargon", that's saving space in a discussion. Do you really want the entire guideline posted in every AfD where it is invoked? Your "keep" opinion has nothing to do with the article or the guidelines it may or not fail. DarkAudit (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ChalkZone. Does this mean that that injunction has been lifted? If so, break out the erasers on this one. Mandsford (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since all we can do now is discuss it, the first one at least would appear to be a major character in a continuing series and thus appropriate for her own article.DGG (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Just as a note, the first character is actually a boy. Anyway, the only information in the article is about different episodes the character appeared in and what the plot of that episode was. These articles, since they are both short and unnecessary, should be merged into the main ChalkZone article. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 23:57, 5 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, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - violating Arbitration decisions with nominations suggests a severe lack of good judgement on the part of the nominator; probably a good idea to remove all their deletion nominations and keep them from nominating any more for a suitable period of time - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge info along with List of chalk characters from ChalkZone into List of ChalkZone characters then redirect the articles. They are reasonable search terms and redirects are cheap. Ursasapien (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Lists are better anyway. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start a merge discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was void; improperly listed and speedy deleted prior to any discussion. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skullcandy[edit]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Giardina[edit]

insufficient, questionable or undocumented notability Oo7565 (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited by instructors of famous people. No coverage in GNews Archive or GBooks. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not appear to reach a level of encyclopedic importance. --Stormbay (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gossamer (band)[edit]

For such a long article, there is surprisingly little information on the web. None of their songs have charted and sales of the albums are very low.

The redirect Christopher Gray should be deleted at the same time. —BradV 03:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Allmusic has only a partial discography and no biography. (The presence of an Allmusic biography tends to track closely with whether a band will pass WP:MUSIC.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried Google News archives and also a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and was unable to find any other sources. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this discussion. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per it failing WP:BAND. Jmlk 1 7 09:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Bird[edit]

Article does not assert notability of subject to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. No major awards, press coverage or significant impact on the genre in which he writes (beyond being a prolific writer). Ozgod (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Being the "world's most prolific bridge writer" is an assertion of notability in itself, and with 97 books, it's clear that he's made a significant impact on the genre. Tons of hits in the NYT and elsewhere: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. I'm sure many more can be found. Jfire (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bird is a highly successful writer of bridge books as well as writing a column for a UK national newspaper. JH (talk page) 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - hugely notable in the bridge world as an author. Described by Alan Truscott in the NYT as "long one of the world's top bridge writers". (I've added it to the page.) BlueValour (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks notable to me.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can't stand the game and even I've heard of him. Definitely notable. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator, though sincere, is apparently unable to clearly judge "notability"; likely all their nominations should be removed from AFD just in case - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – definitely not notable as a player, but prolific indeed as a writer, and popular. Not many of his books break new ground, but that could be said of many authors. Contrary to the previous entry, I think the question raised is appropriate: personally, I don't think I would call this article a biography. Hmmm... Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Maxim_(talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sources were added.

International Masonic Union Catena[edit]

This is an NN org. It is an umbrella group of only seven members of a small offshoot (mixed Masonry) of an offshoot of Freemasonry (Co-Masonry), with no assertion of notability despite a 48-year history. According to their webpage, they have a small festival every year, and that is it, and there are no reliable third-party sources available. MSJapan (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source material has been added to prove the notability. Pvosta (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The International Masonic Union Catena is one of three organisations in which the liberal masonic lodges have united, not a splinter group.Pvosta (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pvosta, Welcome to world of WP:BIAS. English speaking UGLE Freemasons outnumber English speaking liberal Freemasons. So you are splinter groups, your articles will always be under pressure for deletion and you must accept that. With all good faith, they would rather you didn't exist and it is simply a matter of numbers, nothing personal. JASpencer (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom and for the same reason as the ones below. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Does not meet the notability requirements stated at WP:ORG... Added source seems to be internal. None of the organizations that belong to this umbrella group are notable in themselves, and the umbrella organization does not seem to have any sort of roll other than host a festival. Independant secondary sources are non-existant. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there is only one small English speaking constituent, hence there is a poor representation on the internet, this is still notable as it has a number of liberal lodges as members and seems quite important in co-freemasonry. JASpencer (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as independent sources indicating notability have been added. Pvosta (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, which of these sources is an independant secondary source? Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Secretariat of the Masonic Adogmatic Powers and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CLIPSAS. JASpencer (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - don't be silly - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be uncivil. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. 20:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep--Vidkun (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep.(non-admin closure) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLIPSAS[edit]

NN group, despite an existence since 1961. The one thing about them that would be notable was that they were formed at the suggestion of the Grand Orient de France, but the GOdF never actually joined the group. Effectively, then, they are a splinter group of a splinter group, and there is neither any assertion of notability nor any to be found. MSJapan (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source material has been added to prove its notability. Pvosta (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... the source material provided all seems to come from the organization itself... which shows that the orgainization thinks itself notable, not that anyone else thinks it is notable. I think independant secondary sources are needed. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLIPSAS is one of three organisations in which the liberal masonic lodges have united, not a splinter group.Pvosta (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regretably, I can't read most foreign languages, but it seems to have been referenced in "Le Monde" several times as per here. I can't myself speak for how significant the references in the sources linked to are, though, because I can't read whatever language it is that it's written in. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Continental Freemasonry is notorious for it's schisms, breakups, reformations, arguments, re-schisms, etc. Umbrella bodies are constantly being formed and reformed. The key to this debate is that all the players are tiny non-notable factions. If a large and notable body such as the Grand Orient de France (GOdF) or its rival the Grand Loge de France (GLF) (the two largest Masonic bodies in Europe) belonged to this organization I would have no hesitation in calling this notable. I am also concerned that the only sources come fom the organization itself. As stated above, I think the article would need independant secondary sources to establish the groups notablility. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the strength of who belongs to it we have the Grande Oriente Lusitanio, the Portugese grand lodge, the Grand Loggia d'Italia - the second largest Italian lodge, and the liberal grand lodge of Turkey. It is the largest "liberal" body by members and is almost certainly the largest body of non-UGLE lodges. It was set up by the GOdF and many of the jurisdictions in the GOdF's orbit are still there. The fact that it is very weak in the English speaking world, and it is hated by the UGLE, should not mean it gets deleted. JASpencer (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I've just noted that there are five Wikipedia artilces in other languages. One or two may not suggest notability, but five? JASpencer (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as independent sources indicating notability have been added. Pvosta (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Which are the independant secondary sources? Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Le Monde, Paul Bessel and Pietre Stones are all listed. JASpencer (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if Bessel and Pietre Stones are what WP:ORG has in mind by independent reliable sources... both are Masonic in origin. I would think that WP:ORG, when it requires sources "independent of the subject", implies a source beyond the relatively insular world of Freemasonry. Le Monde would certainly work in that reguard... except that the article does not actually cite Le Monde (much less cite it for anything that indicates notability).

I also have difficulty with saying that Bessel and Pietre Stones establish notability, even if you stretch the idea of "independent" to include them. Bessel is essentially just collecting documents issued by CLIPSAS and similar orgs; he does not discuss them or comment on them in any detail... and The Pietre Stones article is an overview of the regularity issue... ie a Mason from Group A explaining the history behind why Masons from Group B are not considered "regular". Neither goes into enough detail to tell us what make CLIPSAS notable. These sources are really more appropriate for use as External Links than sources.Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tosh, Blueboar. WP:ORG says "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." International. Check. Sources independent of the organisation. Check.

As far as the point about notability what matters is that the activities are verified not whether they can be wikilawyered away about whether they meet notability criteria. JASpencer (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Secretariat_of_the_Masonic_Adogmatic_Powers and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Masonic_Union_Catena. JASpencer (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - don't be silly - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - of course. This is the largest and worldwide Liberal umbrella organization. The GOdF was one of the founders, but left CLIPSAS to found SIMPA.

The Internationales Freimaurer-Lexikon is one of the oldest and the most reputable Encyclopedia of Freemasonry in Germany:

Eugen Lennhoff (1891-1944), Oskar Posner (1878-1932), Dieter A. Binder (1953-): Internationales Freimaurer-Lexikon: "[CLIPSAS] wurde am 22. Januar 1961 unter der Federführung des Grand Orient Frankreichs und jenem Belgiens gegründet, um die "liberale" bzw. "progressive" Freimaurerei in einer "universellen Bruderkette" zu vereinigen. Siehe auch "Appell von Straßburg". 1966 gehörten 28 Länder mit rund 65.000 Mitgliedern dieser Vereinigung an, [...] 2005 waren im Centre 54 Obödienzen in vier Erdteilen vertreten. [...]."

Obviously this deletion request comes from a non-liberal freemason.

Here's the list of members: http://www.clipsas.com/en/members_f.htm

--Liberal Freemason (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if a simple list of various Grand Lodges and Grand Orients that belong to the organization helps here... some of these are extremely tiny (with a total membership of under 50)... others are larger. The issue of whether the nominator is a "non-liberal freemason" or not is irrelevant... since this discussion should be about the article, not the organization itself or its rivals. The key here is that the article needs to establish the notability of the organization (which it does not do at this time) and it needs to cite reliable independent secondary sources in doing so. The simple fact is that this article does not meet the requirements of WP:ORG. it is one thing to claim notability here... it is another to establish it in the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's effectively the point - if there is "outside" coverage, you need to define outside, and again, there are irregular GLs that AFAIK consist of 2 individuals. This does not make them notable, though they do exist. An umbrella group that does nothing that directly affects its subordinates (whose NN is not contested, BTW) doesn't strike me as being notable either. There might be 300 members for all I know, but if those 300 are the same 30 people in ten places, and they don't do anything anyway, how do you support notability other than by claiming an agenda? There are plenty of NN mainstream Masonic orgs and people, and I've AfDed those too (who do you think got Knights of the North SALTed as NN advertising?), so I don't see any supposed bias. MSJapan (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Blueboar: As you might see, The Internationales Freimaurer-Lexikon is a reliable independent secondary source. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't speak German, I can't really opine as to its reliability. Who publishes it? Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As written above, it's author is actually the historian Dieter A. Binder [59].

The text says: "[CLIPSAS] was founded on 22 January 1961 under the auspices of the Grand Orient of France and of Belgium to unite the "liberal" or "progressive" Freemasonry in a "universal brotherhood chain". See also "Appeal of Strasbourg." In 1966, there were 28 countries with approximately 65,000 members part of this association, [...] in 2005, 54 obediences of four continents were represented in the Centre. [...].

Amazon

Publisher is the Herbig Verlag, a division of de:Langen Müller Verlag. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This brings us back to a few problems: one, if people have sources, why are they never added until the article is up for AFD? Two, as we all are generally aware, Masonry is not now where it was in 1966. Three, how does this self-created centre meet notability on its own? History shows that there is no unity, obviously, or SIMPA et al. would never have been formed. I'm still not satisfied that the group invoves itself enough with its constituent members' conduct and/or activities to merit a claim of notability. MSJapan (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is a frequent problem in Wikipedia. It often takes the threat of deletion for people to bother to improve articles (although I am not sure if tossing a few references in at the bottom of the page counts as an improvement... it would be nice if the article actually asserted what makes the organization notable, and used inline citations to back that assertion). So far, all these sources back the fact that the organization exists... but do they establish notability? I have serious doubts. Has the organization never been discussed in the press, or by academia? If the only sources that discuss it are Masonic in nature, is it really notable? Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the only sources that discuss it are Masonic in nature, is it really notable? I could probably use that same argument for a number of "regular" Masonic orgs which have articles on wikipedia.--Vidkun (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True... if we have articles on "regular" Masonic orgs that are only soucrced internally, we should question whether they meet the criteria at WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Vidkun (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Maxim_(talk) 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Secretariat of the Masonic Adogmatic Powers[edit]

No assertion of notability - the group is under 10 years old; their own home page (and single article source) is dead, and they are a splinter group of a splinter group. MSJapan (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added to prove its notability.Pvosta (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The International Secretariat of the Masonic Adogmatic Powers is one of three organisations in which the liberal masonic lodges have united, not a splinter group.Pvosta (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UGLE don't recognise the Grand Orient de France for the same reason, atheism and not lack of notability. JASpencer (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An obvious delete. No outside sourcing. It's too young to be accepted and it's not even recognized by the UGLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SynergeticMaggot (talk • contribs) 10:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - Some explanation is called for... This is an umbrella organization, designed to coordinate discussions between several European Masonic bodies on items of mutual interest. But it is not a supervisory body or something that has any real binding influence on Freemasonry in the various jurisdictions that belong to it. It is sort of like having a regularly scheduled conference of City Mayors, who might meet to discuss issues such as how they all deal with wellfare reform and crime. It is one of several such organizations in European Freemasonry that are constantly forming, breaking apart, and reforming. What makes this particular one more notable than the others is who is a member. This group has the participation of a few of the largest and most influential of the miriad Masonic Jurisdictions in Europe (note... these particular Jurisdictions are all considered "irregular" splinter groups by the vast majority of Masonry world wide, which is why we have the "splinter of splinter" issue). Of particular noteworthiness is the Grand Orient de France (the largest of three Masonic Grand Bodies in that country). The question is whether having a few noteworthy members equates to the organization itself being notable, I think it does... just. However, I am extremely concerned about the lack of independant secondary sources in this article. Essentially, all the sources are internal... which tells me that the group considers itself notable, but does not establish that the world at large considers it notable. If this is kept, reliable secondary sources are a must. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the international body of the French and Belgian lodges. It's clearly notability. JASpencer (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Its one thing to claim notablity. Its another to substantiate it. It doesnt satisfy org. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as independent sources indicating notability have been added. Pvosta (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Which are the independant secondary sources? Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer Pietre Stones and Paul Bessell. JASpencer (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article does not list Bessel as a source (though it could). Secondly, I am not sure if Bessel and Pietre Stones are what WP:ORG has in mind by independent reliable sources... both are Masonic in origin. I would think that WP:ORG, when it requires sources "independent of the subject", implies a source beyond the relatively insular world of Freemasonry.

Third, I have difficulty with saying that Bessel and Pietre Stones establish notability, even if you stretch the idea of "independent" to include them. Bessel is essentially just collecting documents issued by SIMPA and similar orgs; he does not discuss them or comment on them in any detail... and The Pietre Stones article is an overview of the regularity issue... ie a Mason from Group A explaining the history behind why Masons from Group B are not considered "regular". Neither goes into enough detail to tell us what make SIMPA notable. These sources are really more appropriate for use as External Links than sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also *Note See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CLIPSAS and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Masonic_Union_Catena. JASpencer (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ignorant mass nominations - should all be removed owing to clear lack of judgement on part of nominator, despite sincerity - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per Blueboar and others above. Also, regretably, being a "splinter group of a splinter group" is factually irrelevant to this, or any, such discussion. The same term could be used to describe most of the religious organizations on the planet, of which several thousand have extant articles, and many others could have. 207.160.66.129 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not even recognized by the UGLE doesn't matter to Wikipedia.--Vidkun (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Beard[edit]

Articles does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO - no major awards, significant press coverage or impact on field in which he performs. Ozgod (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems minimally notable per article and Google. JJL (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "seems" doesnt make the cut. I'll change my decision based on sourcing and verif. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prewitt81 (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's argument is very, very strong, which was deciding factor for me to close it as a delete completely against the numbers (if the number-counters are interested).

David Alexander (author)[edit]

Article does not assert subject's notability beyond listing all the books written by the author. No references or external links are provided to substantiate any awards, press coverage or significant impact author has had with his collective body of work. Ozgod (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Author's notability is assured by looking at the publishers who have put out his books. Needs additional sourcing and wikifying, but he definitely satisifies notability as far as I'm concerned. Lack of sources is not necessarily a reason to AFD the article. You should added one of the citation tags to the article instead to draw attention to the fact it needs improvement. 23skidoo (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment if the subject is in fact important, lets see some evidence of it, rather than a discussion of what evidence there ought to be. DGG (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is, per above, clear violation of the deletion nomination rules - nominator shows lack of judgement - David Gerard (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - author seems notable enough - the article could do with some more assertions of this though. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find real reviews, not the blurbs given in the article. --I checked for library holdings--the 3 non fiction books here are held in 86, 52, and 22 US libraries, respectively, which is remarkably low for popular non-fiction. The two novels listed are in 56 and 33 libraries, equally low for science fiction. His latest, USMC, only 55. Not a notable author. The article says they're respected, but I see no evidence of that. David is right, that In the absence of evidence we don't know whether or not he's notable, so I've looked for evidence, and this is what I found. DGG (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gehennah[edit]

Band does not meet the requirements at WP:MUSIC. —BradV 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Could be on the edge, but from what I see, fails notability and WP:MUSIC. Jmlk 1 7 09:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There appears to be little notability and a lack of independent sources. --Stormbay (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Poor quality version of Brotherhood of Makuta which was recently deleted by this AfD. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood of makuta[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That and it looks like a cut and paste job. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wasn't this already deleted as Brotherhood of Makuta? Though as I recall, the previous article was in much better shape than this one. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourceable in-universe article - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brotherhood of Makuta. As I can't see the latter article I can't tell if this is a Speedy G4 candidate. Appears to be a direct cut an paste from the bionicle wikia site - Peripitus (Talk) 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per WP:CRUFT and A7. bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape moderaters[edit]

Delete Entirely original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. I've added a ((db-a7)) tag to the article. --Pixelface (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy of information[edit]

Almost entirely original search; user's own opinion, kinda soapbox-y too. Very much a user's essay, not in any way suited to WP. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 02:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. Obvious essay.--Dacium (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before I write an article on Thor, and why he stinks: Personal essay, and WP not a free web host. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article. Prewitt81 (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. "If I have information to share I can post it on Wikipedia.org". Yeah, but if it's gonna be like this, it won't stick around on here for long. I suggest a WP:SNOW closure because there's no point in debating this further.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read the whole essay and it seems to me that the creator of this page fails to understand what Wikipedia is not.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richfife's comment soundly defeated the only keep argument.

Tom Thumb players[edit]

I actually was a member of this as a kid. It was fun. But it was ultimately no more notable than your average high school drama department. Sooo... I hereby offer up a cherished part of my youth for your AFD pleasure. I think I just crossed the line from frog to scorpion. Richfife (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aw, that's so sad. This obit calls them "nationally renowned", but that's the only source I could find. Jfire (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like fun, but doesn't appear notable. Like JFire, I found the obit and some mentions of their performances but nothing that establishes notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems to be at least as much a biography as an article on an acting company. It's possible that the Nevsky here should have a fuller biography, and he might pass the notability bar, but children's acting studios have a rough time making a significant impact on the wider culture. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs sourcing, but it sounds like this is a historically notable organization. Given the (currently unanswerable) question that we can't find out right now, I lean to keeping it. The fact that they haven't performed in so long just makes it hard to find on the web. Chicago wikipedians to the rescue? --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- About half a mile from where I live is a Karate / Gymnastics studio that caters to young kids of about the same age group. They've been around for 20+ years and the founder trained with some world class martial artists. It seems like they can make basically all the same claims that Tom Thumb Players can, but no one would consider them notable. At least, I don't think they would. There probably should be a way to prove a strong link between membership in Tom Thumb and later professional status, which I don't see. - Richfife (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canon Rock (music)[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE and WP:WEB. DannyDaWriter (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 10 most watched youtube videos of all-time. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could do with a bit of cleanup, but sufficiently notable per WP:N due to its huge popularity on YouTube and coverage by mainstream media sources, including [60] from the New York Times. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass the spirit of notability guidelines. Fosnez (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Famous arrangement. Arogi Ho (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly ignorant nominator, despite sincerity - other nominations should be closely examined - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Victory[edit]

NN WP:BAND Viewplain1990 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Brewcrewer. Risker (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and no secondary sources. Renee (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Start the record label page, then the bands. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched in Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and I found no sources. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while a search is problematic, it doesn't reveal anything more than MySpace and gig listings. Doesn't appear to meet any criteria of WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced; no indication of notability. Bry9000 (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Carter[edit]

Contested prod, article still does not assert notability. Roleplayer (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability per WP:BIO is unestablished. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no references, nothing. Renee (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to verify his sole claim to quasi-notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per A7. No assertion of notability. Prewitt81 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Network for Human Rights Information[edit]

Procedural nomination from DRV. Originally speedily deleted as CSD A7, listed on DRV and then recreated. Article is somewhat promotional in tone, although it was argued that this did not reach the criteria for CSD G11. Article is still missing reliable secondary sources attesting to notability and is substantially composed of a long block quote. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability per WP:ORG is established. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep.~~ ~~I think this is adequate (barely) as a stub and that if it is a real bona-fide organization it has the potential to be an interesting article.~~ I suggest placing a stub template on it and researching it. Renee (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I entered the name of the group in Google news and many articles came up. I've re-worked the piece and added several reliable references. I actively searched for criticisms of the group and could find none. I think we should remove the reference and AFD templates and add the stub template. It must be a fairly new group as most of the newspaper articles on it are within the last couple of months.Renee (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand. Stub it but tag it for more secondary sources that are more reliable to strengthen it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this is something like the Arabic equivalent of the ACLU. Geo Swan (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I hope the nominator could explain this "Procedural nomination from DRV." My first experience with DRV was over Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. Nominator nominated the article for deletion within its first minute. Closing admin deleted it in spite of the ((hangon)) I placed on it. I now realize this should have been a completely open and shut case. It was a very unpleasant surprise to see the article nominated for deletion as soon as it was restored. Based on this experience I thought ((afd)) were automatic when deletions were overturned. I found it very unpleasant to be told this wasn't true. Is an ((afd)) following restoration really discretionary? Then what justification is there for this one? Geo Swan (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm thinking the answer to your question lies in the suggestions of a few of the participants of the DRV in question. A lot of users find its best to leave it up to the community to discuss it since it was in fact recreated and hence, no longer a matter for DRV, then left up to the rationale of the admin closing. I'd close it myself but I shy away from speedy closing afds I've participated in. Hope this clears up a bit. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable, English google news alone finds close to 100 articles mentioning it, and the current version of the article can be seen as a stub (some base info like where? when? who? really would be nice, but if I want to I can add that myself). --Minimaki (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good point. I added some of the requested information. Renee (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and comment. It seems there is some confusion regarding what the procedural nomination means. Because there was consensus that the article should be listed on AfD as a result of the DRV, I did this. I myself am not expressing an opinion if the article should be kept or not and don't feel that it is is proper in my role as DRV closer to do so. So, I'm neutral. It should, however, be listed for the full 5 days. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's no deadline here. The very large number of quotes from this group in world media is pretty strong evidence of notability. I'm sure that Arabic-language secondary sources exist, even if we haven't incorporated them yet. <eleland/talkedits> 14:30, 7 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 by indef-banned sock. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les Dégonflés[edit]

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

not notable Viewplain1990 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly notable, and sourced from two reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its sourced with realiabe sources but the coverage isn't substantial. The articles about them are more human interest-cute stories then real articles that make them notable. The group and its shtick will probably be gone before you know it. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well referenced, citing prominent anglophone magazines, Wired and The Times, demonstrating international notability. They may fall out of notability in the future, but that's difficult to speculate. At its current state, I !vote keep. Billscottbob (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nom has been previously accused of using sock puppets in AfDs. Billscottbob (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it needs expansion and some clarification and could do without the forum links, but English RS coverage includes The Guardian, Observer and Wired, in addition to those sourced within the article and some French language sources. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:34, 7 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. Banned user. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artpace[edit]

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

not notable Viewplain1990 (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim/Merge/Redirect to Culture of San Antonio. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-write, it's spammy and a copyvio "our program" although I can't find the source text to prove it. That said, it appears notable with significant non-local and non-trivial coverage. It needs to be blown up and re-written, a task I am not handling tonight. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:31, 7 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. WjBscribe 00:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man (truck)[edit]

Spider-Man (truck) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable Viewplain1990 (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A truck can't have long-term notability.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course a truck CAN be notable. This certainly isn't another Grave Digger (truck), but if it's a winning or popular truck that gets written about in secondary sources, it's notable. --Dhartung | Talk 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is not sourced according to WP:N and WP:RS, please feel free to contact me if this situation chagnes and I will change my !vote. Fosnez (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Big Foot (truck) may be notable by being featured on any one of a thousand commercials playing regionally across the US, or by being referred to in The Simpsons, Ally McBeal, Friends, or some other pop culture phenomenon, but it did not get that notability by being a truck or by being big or by being on the monsters of mass destruction rodeo and fair circuit. It got there by reference by outside media, lots of it. This big truck and Saudi Arabian revenue stream is a truck. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:30, 7 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 procedure. Nom was a banned user. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Themo Lobos[edit]

not notable Viewplain1990 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE nominator is banned sockpuppet - suggest speedy close. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable to me. Creator of a comic that spawned an award-winning film. Lots of Google hits. --Allen (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the ghit links are in Spanish I don't know if he's recieved substantial coverage from reliable sources (i.e. the notability requirement), but worst case scenairo it should be merged/redirected to Cucalón (comic strip). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one looks like it might be, but I don't read Spanish either. --Allen (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see the interlinked Spanish WP article; pretty clearly notable. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 7 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 as notable. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMA Device Management[edit]

OMA Device Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable Viewplain1990 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not assert notability. Lacks reliable sources.--Tree Biting Conspiracy ♣§♠ !?! 08:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced article about a class of tech products, and a recursive TLA to boot. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added references and established notability. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - this is a notable standard with plenty of GHits out there linking it to major players in the mobile space. OMA is a major organisation and this is a major standard. Pete Fenelon (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - research is better than AFD nomination - wasting AFD time like this is antisocial - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 01:02, 10 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 Redirected. Since the article was redirected, it seems that deleting now would be moot. Early close. Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anika Rahman[edit]

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

not notable Viewplain1990 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Americans for UNFPA. Notability isn't inherited but people will most likely do a search for her on Wikipedia. Best if redirected, in my opinion. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per User:On the other side. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirected since a) it's common sense and not likely to be controversial as the org is notable, she isn't and b) there appear to be questions about the legitamicy of the nom/nominator. However I don't feel comfortable doing a non-admin close of another's AfD so I'll flag someone to do that if no one wanders along. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:50, 7 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 close, merge, and redirect to Bellevue School District. Please see notes below. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Middle School (Bellevue, Washington)[edit]

Chinook Middle School (Bellevue, Washington) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary criteria. In addition, it makes no attempt at establishing any other type of notability or using a single source. It should be redirected to Bellevue School District. --DerRichter (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — DerRichter (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Merge/Redirect to Bellevue School District per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close because there is no one here proposing deletion. AfD is regularly one hundred articles per day and sometimes pushing two hundred; articles which don't need to be deleted in the first place should not come here. If you want more attention, try Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or the WikiProject talk page. If there's an edit-war regarding whether something should be a redirect or an article, try Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Or you could simply trybeing bold and redirect it yourself first. cab (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to District Not enough here to warrant more than a mention in a district article. No claim of notability. And agree with cab, should have been redirected when found. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and agree with Adam and cab. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bellevue School District. insignificant to have its own page. Brokenspirits (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as per cab but I also argue keep as there appear to be plenty of RS, e.g.: GoogleNews. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position, it is Delete AND Redirect. But if those two things don't go together, if someone would please tell me how to redirect this article or where the page for "articles for redirection" is, that would be great. I feel as if Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is just for deleting redirects. Or do I not need anyone's consensus to delete a page and redirect it? Thanks--DerRichter (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we don't delete and redirect is that we try to maintain the page history if at all possible. If we delete the page, then we lose the old revisions of the page and can't show that this was at one point an article. By merging any useful content and then redirecting the title, we retain useful content and allow others to have a sort of "starting point" (the old revisions) should there ever be enough information to justify an actual article. In the future, such discussions should be sent to WP:MERGE for proposed mergings, however in a case like this, it's unlikely anyone would be too troubled if you were to simply complete the merge yourself. No worries, though - this is why we have the snowball clause. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:47, 7 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. WjBscribe 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Ball[edit]

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

Non-notable sport. No references provided to verify its existence. ~~It looks like this may be something somebody made up one day.~~ Requests for sourcing have only led to the deletion of tags. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I also worried this was WP:NFT. But I did find that the local government authority knows about it: [61], at page 51, section 4.2.1.6. The google maps link on the page also shows the court. Given that, I think it's not a total hoax, and the authors should be given a chance to establish it. Certainly if no better references can be found it should go, but I think they should get more than five days to work on it. Tb (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the Newcastle Coastline Management Study makes only a passing reference. This is not sufficient for the verifiability hurdle. Also, I can't get a relevant hit with a Google search on either '"bat ball"' or '"bat ball" newcastle'. —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly verifies that "bat ball" is not something they made up one day. That's why I think they should get a chance to establish notability and references. Tb (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me amend my comment slightly. If it's known only in Newcastle, NSW, then it certainly fails notability IMO; if it is known outside Newcastle, NSW, then it probably passes notability. So I think we need to give them a chance to find any references outside that one court in that one city. If they can't, Nuke it. Tb (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From some of the content it just seems to be a game played between a group of friends and nothing more, certainly from the names of those involved.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable sport if not WP:NFT. --DAJF (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whilst there are few articles available on the internet, and no official league exists, the sport is quite popular in Australia. Perhaps the article will encourage more people to post their local courts. -- 03:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.69.130 (talk)

Delete doesn't meet WP:N --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Private or regional passtime, not a sport that has sufficient adherents or discussion to warrant inclusion. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete this speedy candidate. non-notable, non sourced, local game that has no encyclopedic value. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable sport. —Moondyne click! 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NFT. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:32, 12 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7Seas[edit]

7Seas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails WP:N, third party reliable source proving notability is lacking. Google search gives only 10 hits [62]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Otolemur has failed to show how it fails WP:N. The evidence and reasoning provided by Otolemur is a paltry one google search string, based on a narrow search terminology that doesn't even take into consideration how the group in question is actually spelt. Searching for the terms like - 7seas terrorism - brings hundreds of hits. The article meets notability and links to articles from the Seattle Times, CBC canada, CQ Homeland security magazine, and the wave magazine. One of the members, Shannen Rossmiller, has hundreds of articles also, and has been mentioned widely in the news. The article certainly meets notability, but definitely needs clean up. --Evud (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Shannen Rossmiller. There's nothing out there that mentions the group in any other context but a profile or interview of her. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling shows that the name shown gives far more hits to an Indian game development company; using the full name produces only three hits that don't trace back to us. Also need to delete Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems, the successor organization, which gives only three pages of hits, all but two or so being directory listings. Mangoe (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move, replace with disambig Checking shows that there are many real sources using "7-Seas Global Intelligence Group", which should be real name of article. Googling for "7seas" produces a huge range of hits including especially a prob. notable Indian game development company. Mangoe (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea actually what to do. It looks like a non notable organization, so my first idea would be to delete. But the problem lies in the different names of the organization, making it harder to judge it accurately. If kept, merge with Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems which is almost completely the same article, and is about the (current name of) the same subject (and which gets a not so impressive 2 Google News hits[63], where only the first one could be considered "in-depth"). Fram (talk) 13:49, 5 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, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel guilty about deleting becasue none of the mergers really work. Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems is a new group and Shannen Rossmiller used to part of the group. The group - on its own - apparently fails WP:ORG and I even suspect that this group has disbanded. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Amateur terrorism experts = amateurs. We need to see some significance to this group, some testimonial given by the world it has affected, some measure that people are going about, reading references to "7seas" and needing to go to Wikipedia to find out what it is. Wikipedia is not a business listing, not a testimonial to everything that exists, and not an advocacy forum. It cannot legitimate or diminish anything. It is an encyclopedia that chooses to explain the world to the world by contextualizing elements that have had a clear effect. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:27, 7 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. Tikiwont (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Center of Syracuse[edit]

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

Tagged for failure to provide any claims of notability and speedy deleted for that reason. Original creator immediately recreated the article. He claims that WikiProject Buddhism is planning on creating an article on every Buddhist temple in the world. They ought to start by proving how this center is more notable than a run-of-the mill church. Corvus cornix_talk 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* delete no evidence of notability presented - what "notability" is asserted just seems to be an attempt to get around CSD. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree; I'm coming up blank as to why it is so notable. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you look down the page of this project you will see all the article we still have to write. User:Mind meal/Sandbox26 Thanks for being tolerantGolgofrinchian (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Buddhism in the United States if it's truly one of the oldest Zen Centers in the US. If there's a source for it being one of the oldest Zen Centers in the US then it should be Kept. If not, Delete. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, the source is James Ishmael Ford in his book Zen Master Who?, which is properly referenced in the article. By oldest Zen center, the key word here is continuously, which is what the source says. (Mind meal (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It doesn't really fit in the main Buddhism article. If you check around wikipedia you will see several Zen Centers and Buddhist temples, each with their own page. Golgofrinchian (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~* delete~~ The sources I can find indicate the actual centre is not nearly as old as the article claims. The current centre seems to be merely the lastest in a long line used by a small group of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two of many Rochester Zen Center Zen Center of Los Angeles

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep criterion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally should every one on this list be deleted also?List of Buddhist temples Golgofrinchian (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Being the admin that originally speedied this for failure at WP:A7, I feel that it still deserves deletion (though AfD is the right way to go - probably doesn't fail A7 now). _Talk Islander 01:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Weak Keep. When nominated for AfD, and when I !voted delete above, this article was definitely delete-worthy. It's now been brought up a few notches, and although I'm still not 100% convinced of it's notability, there are many hundreds of articles less notable that are in no danger of being deleted, so keep. Just. _Talk Islander 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

by deleting this article you must also delete every temple/center listed on the List of Buddhist temples many of which probably have little or no more notability over this center. Is this a form of religious persecution? Of course not that would be ridiculous Golgofrinchian (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an accusation to make, make it - nobody likes mealy-mouthed comments and they make the person making them look weak. If you have something to say, have the strength of your convictions and say it - otherwise don't. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not everything has to be deleted because one thing is. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Its not religious persecution at all, its applying the same rules for notability to Zen centres as to other categories which don't have a separate article for every example (books, albums, tv shows, etc. etc.) So far the only claim to notability seems to be the centre's age, which is both in doubt (external sources indicate the centre is much newer, though founded by the same group as earlier closed centres) and significantly younger than other examples. --BrucePodger (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am relatively new to this editing thing. It is a learning process. Instead of lifting a person up that has an obvious desire to do good work here on wikipedia, the general feeling I get is one of obtuse indifference. This article has no less merit than any of the hundreds listed on the List of Buddhist temples. This is not a Christian/Muslim/Judaism or any one of those faiths place. Being there are very few Buddhist admins I do not feel represented in my plight to save an article. All I have is reference to other articles and I get the smart ass WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment. This is supposed to be part of a much larger project and I am not being represented. That is how I feel.Golgofrinchian (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel I'm being a smart arse, not my intent. The 'othersuffexists' and other similar pages exist to document standard policies and guidelines (if you read it you'll see its completely neutral and has no anti-buddist bias), inserting the link is simply the best way of explaining those policies without having to type it all out longhand every time and also emphasises that they're standard policies, not a biased opinion. As it happens my original insertion of this into this page was a direct cut and paste of a response I recieved myself once. --BrucePodger (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bruce it was not a total comment directed at you. I am just very frustrated and trying to answer all of the uphill battles I am facing by trying to work on articles. This has not been the first article I have written to only have it speedy 30 seconds later. Being I am not an admin I have 0 idea what goes on behind the scenes and from my viewpoint I think you could understand my frustration. I am not adding any advertisements or blatantly flamebait material but I think I am treated as such sometimes. I have been playing around editing here for over 4 years but not until recently have I been actually writing any articles. Of the 9 that I have written I have had to fight for five of them very hard. If that is to be expected then so-be-it. Once again I dont mean to be difficult I was just answering the comment that I should really say what I feel.Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. A suggestion for you. I think its unlikely you'll get every Zen centre accepted as sufficiently notable for their own article. What seems more likely to suceed is a page with basic details of all centres (perhaps done in a similar style to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens), with only those likely to be accepted as notable by the wider wikipedia community having their own page. This could also provide a useful framework where a short piece on a centre could be developed without likely deletion before being moved to a separate article once it aquires sufficient length and reasons for notability. This is perhaps a plan to discuss with the WikiProject Buddhism --BrucePodger (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bruce, I did that article already a few weeks ago: Zen Center. I can see how it would look like a church sort of place but in Buddhism they are something else. It is difficult to ascertain the differences and being I have never been to a Jewish Temple or Muslim one I cannot speak to the differences. However, if you check on the list I linked youll see a huge variety of ones that also have their own wiki page that I have had nothing to do with. I do appreciate the kind suggestion though thank you. Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is included in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so I have no idea why that's always quoted. But I do think that there's a valid argument to be made that this afd suffers from WP:BIAS. A comparable church or synagouge of church would probably fare a lot better. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I resent your accusation and want to point you to my nomination, which specifically says that this is no more notable than a run-of-the mill church. Corvus cornix_talk 03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relax! I wasn't refering to your nomination. I was refering to the way the concensus was forming in this discussion. Notice I said "would probably fare a lot better." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its being quoted here because its being used as a keep reason by the article's author, I'm posting the link precisely as a way to point out its considered an argument to avoid. I actually think a church or synagouge would have a harder time of it; I think there are more of those, so notability becomes more difficult to establish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been reworked and notability has been established. (Mind meal (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep in recognition of the excellent WP:HEY by Mind meal. Author, note well what was done to save this article, and apply those lessons in future editing. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reworked article goes someone towards answering my concerns about its actual age (it does at least mention relocation. I'm still unsure if this really counts as being the same centre or just a different centre with the same founders though). The involvement of the first female Rinzai adds a second reason for notability though.

Delete: The actual age isn't so very impressive, really. 1972 was the year that all of those Alan Watts books touting Zen were out, so the impressive thing here is merely that this one has kept a single name going (not a single center). There is no indication that this center has achieved notoriety except within the rarefied air of "Zen centers in the US." I'd like to see something that this center has done that will make outsiders refer to it. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree. I don't see how being 36 years old makes something notable just on the basis of that. Corvus cornix_talk 18:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Tell me what age even has to do with notability, anyway? Notability is established by sources, not by being "special." Might I refer Utgard Loki and Corvus cornix to WP:N, perhaps? (i.e. "There is no indication that this center has achieved notoriety except within the rarefied air of 'Zen centers in the US.'") I think you meant notability, by the way, as notoriety is negative attention. Also, there does seem to be at least a small pattern to the the kinds of articles nominated for deletion by Corvus Cornix, i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Bowman. Please see the very first version, and decide whether or not it deserved AFD? (Mind meal (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. A run-of-the-mill church could not claim to be custodians of a potentially historic building. The centre's letter to the editor seems to have a claim to notability that could be researched. Canuckle (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point the home is an historical landmark that the center won 2 awards for their restoration. I will have to work this into the article somehow.Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Zen Buddhism did not really come to America until the late 60's. Its recent in American history and just a blink in Earths history, but to people interested in Western Zen Buddhism that is a very long time. Even tough Buddhism is 2500 years old (older if your a practicioner), Western Zen (mostly due to WWII) is very new.Golgofrinchian (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is determined by the fairly objective measure of coverage in independent sources, not by subjective opinions about what is or isn't important. With five decent sources (and a letter to the editor, but I'll let that slide), I'd say the article passes this criterion. If WikiProject Buddhism can write articles of this quality (as opposed to mere directory-style listings) on other temples, then let them. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like quite a reasonable article. No issues with WP:N. WP:N does not require extraordinary claims (oldest/biggest/fattest), it just requires coverage in suitable sources. The article seems to be part of an effort to create complete coverage of Zen/Buddhism, an effort that should be applauded, and which is well within our ambitions (see WP:5P. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I notice 'one of the oldest continuously-running Zen centers' and the fact that there are newspaper references. It is disappointing that the writers of the article had to rely so much on the previous history of the building where the center was located to establish importance; I'd rather know about its significance within American Buddhism. Still, there are enough references that I believe the article could be improved. If nothing changes in six months I think another AfD might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 11 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. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech G5[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Logitech G5

Articles for deletion/Logitech G51

Logitech G5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Logitech 'G' series, although I think the argument could be made to round up to a larger category. Regardless, this has no notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, obviously. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Travellingcari RogueNinja_talk 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two reviews (uncited) currently at the bottom of the article. By pure chance I discovered another whilst browsing a site. I wasn't actually looking, I was just aware of this AFD. Has anyone actually looked for sources? Someone another 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, evidently not. please make sure there aren't stacks of sources available from google by typing -"whatever it is" review- before listing something at AFD. Those came from the first 30 hits, there were more that could be acceptable among those and doubtless others further back. Multiple sources, at the very least some of those pass as reliable, many are very in-depth - it passes notability, easily. Someone another 03:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all appear to be user posted content and therefore not reliable sources. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ETAEven if a small handful of the sources *might* pass WP:RS, which is still questionable, Wikipedia is not a product directory. Merge it to the class of articles and discuss it there.

Are you sure? CNet's editor's review is exactly that. Trusted Reviews' piece is penned by the editor in chief of the site. Tech Spot's review does look like a submission, but is editted by the chief editor, IE editorial responsbility is placed on him - it's a 10 year old site. Extreme Tech's piece is written by a staff member, the site is a sister to PC Magazine. Someone another 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Cleanup - there are sources out there establishing it as a reviewed and well recieved product, but the article needs an overhaul to reflect that instead of just being a spec sheet. In particular, cNet and TrustedReviews have praised the device. It should be possible to cleanup the article citing these reliable sources. Gazimoff (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the links above show that the article at least has a feasible chance of being fixed. It can be merged with something else if the subject is thus covered better, but that is an editing matter. The usual request for the nominator to check the state of matters before acting on it: the deletion process can only work as a collaborative one, which in turn means that we are all on the same side and must not split into prosecution and defense. --Kiz o r 21:06, 15 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.

Matt Kaufmann[edit]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), follows procedure and consensus regarding other individuals who have the same award. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

no assertion of notability. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, there's some RS coverage including the award he won. I think the award asserts notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Along with the award, he has several highly cited publications. But all the ones I found are co-authored with Moore, so it's hard to tell how much credit should go to Kaufmann. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, keep. Everyone else who's won that award has an article. Whilst I think it's a pretty weak claim to notability, it is a claim and his work in improving Nqthm seals the deal. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:11, 12 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jobjörn was the deciding factor here.

Brian Aker[edit]

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

nn. the most notable thing about Brian Aker is that he's the Director of Architecture at MySQL AB and i have to question whether that's notable enough. it isn't notable enough for him to be listed in the MySQL AB article. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreement with the above comment; def. fails notability! --Camaeron (talk) 17:29, 7 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, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major author of a major piece of code. Probably comparable to Alan Cox. Slashdot found it worthy to interview him. Pretty good article that'd go to waste too. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's got [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], etc etc. Has definitely recieved significant coverage in several reliable secondary sources independent of the subject himself. By the way, that he is the Director of Architecture at MySQL AB is definitely not the most notable thing about him. Jobjörn (talk) 14:06, 14 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), Clear consensus to keep SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles)[edit]

Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Quoting User:Sgeureka from Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes: "As for the purpose of wikipedia: if you want to write a sourced not-solely-plot article about an episode, go ahead." The problem is that for all of these episodes, right now, there simply isn't anything written about them beyond the level of TV-Guide plot summaries. Maybe when the DVDs are released, audio commentary will be available, but that time has not yet come Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A single episode, not yet assessed by time, by culture, by ratings, by anything, and therefore OR, on the one hand, and not notable, on the other. A list of episodes with a single line or two is permissible at the article for the series, but not a blurb-o-mat per episode. This is not the Comic Store Guy's blog. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this show's awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.237.159 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreement with the above! --Camaeron (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep episode of notable TV show. --Pixelface (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep episode of a notable TV show. Nomination appears to be an attempt to create of interpret policy and shows bias against recently produced television production. 23skidoo (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you're suggesting that we lower the bar for recent stuff? maybe you should go read WP:RECENTISM Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per 23skidoo's argument. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've opened up a larger discussion on how we generally deal with new episodes of new or established works over at WT:EPISODE which may help to address articles like this. (Tentatively delete as only one other previous episode, the pilot, has shown notability, I would be willing to give this a pass if a couple more have had it). --MASEM 18:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a plot synopsis w/o any reliably sourced evidence of notability. The notability of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles is not relevant to the lack of it in this article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep episode of a notable TV show. Does this mean we need to start deleting all the Lost, Prison Break, Heroes, etc episodes off? get a life! Jonesy702 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i'd need to look at the articles to make sure, but my suspicion is yes - that most episodes of Lost, Prison Break, Heroes, etc need to be deleted as per wikipedia policy Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy is that? --Pixelface (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of Mr. D's nonreply, although not to speak on his behalf, I would guess he's talking about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT as I did immediately below. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which says nothing about deletion. The notion that substandard articles should be deleted (rather than improved or merged) is an inference by some users, not a guideline. It also contradicts WP:GTD, which suggests taking some intermediary steps before nominating an article for deletion. Misterdiscreet does not seem to have contributed to the article, participated on the talk page, or even tagged it before sending it here. If noncompliance with guidelines is grounds for deletion, by his own argument what do you think should happen to him? Fritter (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting WP:GTD, "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Per my initial comments, I believe this article is, at the moment, a hopeless case. The reasons I didn't nominate it for speedy deletion are (1) there's an injunction in place and (2) I think AfD's provide a better venue for discussion then you'd get if I tagged the article for speedy deletion. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion that it's a hopeless article, but I don't think it's "obviously" hopeless; indeed a main reason there is an injunction currently preventing deletion is that reasonable people can disagree about how Wikipedia should deal with these types of articles, and consensus has yet to be reached. Fritter (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i cited the relevant wikipedia policies in my initial statement. WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT". Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that the article has more than just a plot summary now. --Pixelface (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Wikipedia called Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) does not meet the policies and guidelines dictated by Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia: Reliable Sources, and WP:NOT#PLOT; being an episode of a notable TV series doesn't exempt it from those requirements. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are suggestions, not requirements. --Pixelface (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revise. Per WP:FICT a spinout article for an an individual episode may be acceptable if the main article meets notability guidelines, which it does. The problem with this article is not its existence, but its poor quality. It relies excessively on the primary source (the show) and has far too much narration. But this only justifies changing it, not deleting it. The story arc of The Sarah Connor Chronicles is too complex to describe in the main article, short of making it very long and growing indefinitely (should the series be renewed, anyway). In addition to actual time travel, there are lots of flashbacks, changing identities, and questionable loyalties of some characters. Such complexity justifies the spinout articles. These articles do attract fancruft, but the best solution is to more aggressively revise and delete extraneous content, rather than delete the article itself. Fritter (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FICT says to consider it a part of the main article, and as such it would pretty much be an excessive detail of plot. That's not to say we can't have any summary of the plot, or that such summary has to be only a few sentences, but this much is too much without real world context. -- Ned Scott 04:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a season article (that will require trimming) per my comment above. -- Ned Scott 04:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are well taken. But still: are there examples of high quality season articles for one hour dramas that do not break out into individual episode articles? I question whether a complex drama can be adequately summarized and kept to NPOV in the small space appropriate for a tabular format. If the guideline for a plot summary is about 10 words per minute, a one hour drama should be about 450 words (assuming 15 min. of commercials). WP:EPISODE cites Lost (season 3) as a good season page, but the larger summaries are just over 100 words (and do break out to individual episode articles). I don't think you can cram much more text in those tables, and 25% of what is needed to summarize the plot is not going to be valuable to many people. Fritter (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. some episodes do break out into individual episode articles, but a lot (dare I say most) don't. it's also a featured list Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Fritter (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - violating Arbitration decisions with nominations suggests a severe lack of good judgement on the part of the nominator; probably a good idea to remove all their deletion nominations and keep them from nominating any more for a suitable period of time - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you assume i knew about the injunction (although i say i didn't nominate the article for speedy deletion because of it, that's a bit of a misnomer - i didn't know about it, but since it's in place, speedy deletion is quite impossible). also, read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. quoting User:Collectonian from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hooves and Harlots (Xena episode), "Per the injunction, article can not be physically deleted yet, however it can be AfDed and marked to be deleted after the injunction.". he doesn't believe it violates the injunction. what makes your belief that it does so much more right? in any event, if that's what you believe, go discuss it on Template talk:FICTWARN - not here. as is, since your reason doesn't have anything to do with this article, your vote should be disqualified per WP:JUSTAVOTE Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No substantive reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No substantive reasoning from the nomination, or inclusive all the subsequent comments to the same effect? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excessive WP:PLOT violation and no evidence of notability through reliable third-party sources. Episodes are not exempt from the notability guidelines nor is notability inherited from the collective series. Ideally, these episodes should be covered by a list of episodes article with short, concise summaries. --Farix (Talk) 22:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take another look at the article now. --Pixelface (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I started a Reception section to get the ball rolling. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF the article can get just a couple more sources for the reception section (or any other section). Discussion in the New York Post is a good sign. If the sources aren't found then merge it into the list of episodes. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied now that more sources have been added. Keep. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE HAS BEEN REVISED March 12 2008. Please reconsider before deleting. It is now much shorter and cites more references. Not the most notable article on Wikipedia but better than before. I reiterate my position that articles should be challenged and revised when substandard. Fritter (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The new revision is great. Why delete this page for NO reason. There are thousands of other episode articles much worse than this one. As said before, look at Heroes, Prison Break and sometimes even LOST; most of the episode articles are crap, but they are kept. This one should only be deleted when they are deleted. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 07:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is still too much OR and I'm still not convinced of the episodes notability. Sources, alone, are not sufficient. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run.

As for the rest of your post... see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'd delete almost all of Heroes, Prison Break, and LOST if I had the time. I don't. And, of course, I can't episode one episode one by one, using your logic, because the episodes I didn't nominate would always serve as precedent to keep (using your logic). So, I'd have to nominate them all at once. Do you know how long that'd take? Probably several 10's of hours of continuous editing. If that's your bar for getting stuff deleted, nothing is ever gong to be deleted Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see how my logic is pretty stupid, but I do believe in it. Anyways I see your point of view on the issue, but give the article time! Later on we can add more reviews, filming and stuff like that. But that info isn't released yet. Please, just give the article time. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:42, 12 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. Unanimity that this is not sufficiently notable for its own page. However, I think that a redirect is a reasonable way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davos Question[edit]

Not notable two-line stub about a question asked at the World Economic Forum. Nearly orphaned, no sources, not much to expand on beyond soapbox / original research answers to the question. —Lowellian (reply) 16:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination summary. —Lowellian (reply) 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Original research. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete def. original research! --Camaeron (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research with zero notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World Economic Forum -- can it stay as a redirect? I think people may search for it (I was one of them), and at least they'd get some context. Actually, as you can see in the history, I created the article as a redirect, but when Seasonago added some content, I thought he'd be willing to expand it, and even contacted him at the time, but apparently he never edited again... --Waldir ^talk 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Waldir. Not WP:RS-able enough for its own article, really, but certainly notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in en:. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 7 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.