< May 10 May 12 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Johri[edit]

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

Non notable business executive, failing WP:BIO. Fair number of hits on google. About 400, but most seem to be social networking, mirrors of zoominfo, couple of bits in newspapers where is is quoted about something HP is doing. Started a company called Oblix in the 1990s (incidentally the name of the article author) and he is currently a VP of strategy and planning at Hewlett Packard. Nothing earth shattering that would seem to make a prima facie case for notability. Montco (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blueboy96 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sim junta[edit]

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

A freeware game. Google finds blog mentions, bulletin board posts, astroturfing, and no reliable third-party sources at all. Prod was removed by an anon claiming independent sources aren't important for video games. —Cryptic 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark Tom and Travis Story[edit]

The Mark Tom and Travis Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined PROD. This article is about a forthcoming book, that is apparently currently being written. As such, it does not meet the notability guidelines for books. There can be no critical commentary because there is no book, is not available for many of the other criteria, and the book's author does not meet the standard required for works to be automatically accepted. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crunk Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Crunk Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(delete) – (View AfD)
Broken into Pieces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per WP:MUSIC songs must meet the notability criteria which states that to be notable a topic must have received significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. This does not appear to be the case for this unreleased single and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In this case the artist does not even have appear to have a page. Guest9999 (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem clear yesterday that this was the case. I would let the AfD run unless we're absolutely sure that it is what the author wants. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar[edit]

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think the subject of this page is notable per WP:BIO1E. The event he is notable for is, of course, well-known within UNC, but is it notable by Wikipedia standards? Most sources are local to the Triangle. A secondary issue is a large part of the page is also a cut and paste of various letters. It's been a couple of years since the event, so hopefully notability is easier to gauge now. Artichoke2020 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two sections that are letters. I don't know if they are strictly speaking copyvios.
Is it Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar who is notable, or the event? Should the page be renamed to reflect the event over the person. My feeling that it's the event, and so if the event meets WP:N then maybe the page should be moved. If consensus is the person is notable I'm happy for it to stay as is. Obviously if neither, then delete. Artichoke2020 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed the letters / quotes issue. I've also tidied some information that's actually in Wikiquote and Wikisource and probably doesn't need to be duplicated here in full. Artichoke2020 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd agree with User:Artichoke2020 that it is the event which is notable rather than the person so have changed my opinion to move, perhaps to Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack as suggested. Nk.sheridan   Talk 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - event - should we move to a page about the event? (Though I'm not sure I agree it's very unusual from a worldwide perspective.) Artichoke2020 (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is notable as an event, I'm thinking of something like a move to something along the lines of Taheri-azar incident (or at least something better than that). Any suggestions? Artichoke2020 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Ohnoitsjamie under A7 (web). asenine say what? 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotube[edit]

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

Megapen (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per WP:N. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast study[edit]

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

This is merely a summary of a research study. ZimZalaBim talk 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Articles on individual TV episodes are just slightly controversial these days. I looked at the recent Arbcom case and at Talk:List of Happy Tree Friends episodes, to find out the opinion of those editors on having individual episode articles. I'm confident that a Delete verdict (as favored by a majority of the editors below) does fit with current policy. There is no bar to re-creation of the article if reliable sources can be found showing out-of-universe notability. There is not really anything to merge because the proposed target article already has a table entry for this episode containing everything that will fit in the cells. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Arbcom[reply]

Class Act (Happy Tree Friends)[edit]

Class Act (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think that individual Happy Tree Friends episodes meet the general notability guidelines, and that List of Happy Tree Friends episodes is enough. There are many other individual Happy Tree Friends episode article, and though I do not list them all in this AfD, and individual articles should be treated on their merits, notability issues, and the best course of action will probably coincide for most of those episodes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low Level Debug[edit]

Low Level Debug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy and declined prod; WP:NOT a how-to site. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Cenarium (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Soni[edit]

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

I rejected the A7 CSD on this actor bio. Procedural nom, not checked for sources yet, so I'm neutral on the issue for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the IMDB link was there right from the start, so an initial check for sources has always been pretty darn easy! [4]--Slp1 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:NEO. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloglomerate[edit]

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

Neologism, fraught with unsourced POV statements, and if rectified, will likely be little more than a dictionary definition. ZimZalaBim talk 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The consensus is that a disambiguation page should exist at Dr. Acula. Darkspots (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Acula[edit]

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

I rejected the CSD of this band per some coverage, however, it seems to be thin, and mainly press releases. They have two albums out, but not on a major indie label. (at least not that I know of). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. The article contains no information that is attributed to reliable sources. The link to the organization's web site at www.68dli.co.uk is worth keeping, but that website is already linked from the article on the 68th (Durham) Regiment of Foot (Light Infantry). EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

68th Society and Display Team[edit]

68th Society and Display Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no indication that this is a notable organisation, and I haven't found anything that would make it notable. The only Google hits are Wikipedia and its mirrors, and it gets no Google News hits. AecisBrievenbus 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Scottsdale Unified School District. No sourced content to merge.  Sandstein  19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copper ridge middle school[edit]

Copper ridge middle school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rather short article about a nn Arizona middle school. Article does not assert the importance of its subject. Google pulls up some things, but next to nothing to establish notability. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Levy (MMA Fighter)[edit]

Scott Levy (MMA Fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article, suspected hoax; I could not find a record here and that website in effect provides records for all notable fighters. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only unreferenced, but the article is a POV nightmare. I would agree that this looks like a possible hoax. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Www.Revisionists.com speedily deleted (G11) by Jmlk17. Redirect at title below deleted by Jpgordon per R1. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Historical revisionism (revisionists)[edit]

List of Historical revisionism (revisionists) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of "revisionists" from this website. I have no idea what this article is supposed to be (even the title doesn't make any sense to me).There's a pretty large overlap with Category:Holocaust deniers, but according to the source website's bios, not all people on this website are holocaust deniers or even historians. Currently it borders WP:CSD#A1: Speedy deletion for lack of context. Huon (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

    (Deletion log); 16:55 . . Jpgordon (Talk | contribs)
         deleted "Talk:List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)"
         (G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted page) 
    (Deletion log); 16:54 . . Jpgordon (Talk | contribs)
         deleted "List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)"
        (Copyvio; cut-and-paste from www.revisionsists.com)
Sorry for being blunt, but could you please make up your mind whether this is supposed to be a list of people or an article on a website? And do you really think that "People listed on some random website" is a proper topic for an encyclopedia article? Yes, some of the people listed on the website are notable, and we have articles on them: Ernst Zündel, for example. But what makes the list itself "extremely important"? Huon (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) This is intended to be a list of Notable members of the movement know as Historical Revisionism.
  • (2) These individuals are not that great in number and they are quite easy to identify.
  • (3) The 2 articles we have are based on their "Philosphy." Some now wish to distance themselves from Holocaust Denial - and have been quite successful in convincing editors at Wikipedia that there is such a thing as legitimate "Historical Revisionism" (there ain't). But they have apparent been quite successful in their persuation.
  • (4) What's the purpose of Lists at Wikipedia anyway? If there is one, these individuals fit the bill. And they are not shy or sheepish about their views.
  • (5) They also call themselves Revisionist Historians. And they have convinced some that they an extention of everyone who has been called a "Revisionist."
    • For all these reasons, it would be good for our Encyclopedia to identify the notable ones in order for all of us to know that we are reading the views of a particular school of thought known as Historical Revisionism. Unlike the Nazi party members after 1933, this group is as small as Hitler's collegues were in 1923.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again--there is already a list here. Try to pay attention to what people say here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball Delete --JForget 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of military controversies[edit]

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

This page is alleged to be a list of military controversies, but a closer inspection suggests that the page has OR issues and POV issues as well. These are thought by editers at MILHIST to be enough to warrent an afd for the article, as we do not think it can be salvaged, therefore I have filed this afd to begin the process for removing the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin University Publications Committee[edit]

Dublin University Publications Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable internal committee within Trinity College, Dublin; as a comment on the talk page says of this article, "What's the point?"

The only reference in the article is to the committee's own website, and a Google News search returns nothing ... so it fails WP:N (no independent references). —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.m.o.g.[edit]

S.m.o.g. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this neologism doesn't seem to have received the kind of coverage from reliable sources to write an encylopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are people homophobes around here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddygotfingers (talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the attack from the article. It was vandalism added by an anon. Declined the speedy. However, the issue may be moot as this appears to be headed for a snowball close. Dlohcierekim 13:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin University Central Societies Committee[edit]

Dublin University Central Societies Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable university committee. Yes, it's quite significant to student societies with in Trinity College, Dublin, for inclusion in wikipedia it needs to demonstrate notability by substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. A Google News search for "Dublin University Central Societies Committee" OR "Central Societies Committee" returns only one trivial mention in an article about someone else. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Mac Nally[edit]

Enda Mac Nally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist: no refs to reliable sources, let alone substantial coverage of him, so he fails WP:BIO. A Google News search throws up no hits for him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as lies. DS (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice digby[edit]

The 21st no less in line to the Monegasque Throne, now is this claim alone enough to meet the notability guidelines? Personally I think not. Polly (Parrot) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:N. Although unreleased, there is significant secondary coverage and therefore WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project H.A.M.M.E.R.[edit]

Project H.A.M.M.E.R. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has previously been prodded by different editors on a couple of occasions. The game doesn't seem notable to me, it's never been released, and the article's infobox says it's on indefinite hold. I don't see any evidence that this game will ever be released. Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CRYSTAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asenine (talk • contribs)
Delete - If or when it does get released, the article will belong here. As of today, however, it doesn't belong. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - There's lots of articles about vaporware such as SimMars, Duke Nukem Forever, and Starcraft Ghost. This is a pretty notable Wii game that has a decent amount written about it. It's a notable and verifiable game. Just look at the huge number of references. The fact that it may never be released does not disqualify it from wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly received enough press to be worth noting, even if it never again sees the light of day. Nifboy (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:N. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, so it is notable. Una LagunaTalk 06:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ernescliff College; no consensus about the other two.  Sandstein  20:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medway-Sydenham Hall[edit]

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

I am also nominating for deletion:

Ernescliff College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saugeen-Maitland Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All three of these article are about residence halls that do not rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. I would be happy to withdraw this nomination or change my mind if additional evidence were offered. ElKevbo (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have dropped a note on the Talk page for the Universities Wikiproject to generate thorough discussion of this nomination. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Might it be helpful and more worthwhile to go ahead and separate out that article's nomination from the other two? I do not agree that Saugeen-Maitland Hall is notable but I can understand how others can hold that opinion as it is somewhat different from the other two articles. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're the nominator, so you can do what you like. But I should point out that there are many other residences and dorms in wikipedia, so if you nominate these 3, you should nominate all of them. Go to Category:University and college residential buildings and take a look. Going down through the sub-categories, I count over 100, and I'm guessing most of them them are about as encyclopedic as these 3. So if you want to be fair, you have a lot of work ahead of you. Rawr (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One step at a time... --ElKevbo (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ernescliff College and Saugeen-Maitland Hall as well. For Ernescliff College there is nothing in GoogleBooks[7] and a single hit in GoogleNews[8]. Fails WP:N. For Saugeen-Maitland Hall GoogleBooks has 6 hits[9], and GoogleNews has 4 hits [10], all with basically trivial coverage. The article on Saugeen-Maitland Hall cites a bunch of references, mostly to the local student paper, mostly about various goings-on in this residence hall. No independent reliable sources to indicate historical or architectural notability of the building. The bottom line is: fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Medway-Sydenham Hall and Saugeen-Maitland Hall. I must take exception to either Google News or Google Books being lauded as reliable databases. More authoritative and news databases (e.g., LexisNexis) must be searched to make the claim that the item in question isn't notable. With free databases, you get what you pay for: an incomplete picture.Dansich (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per consensus; WP:AIRCRASH. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Cessnas collision[edit]

2008 Cessnas collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These are regular-ish occurences in general aviation. They do hit each other from time to time. If this exposes a massive flaw in Air Traffic Control operations I would reconsider, but for now I think this isn't quite notable enough. Please also see the draft notability guidlines produced by WP:AIRCRASH and the list of past AfD debates collected there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability criteria (no notable people involved). See this AfD discussion for details of notability criteria. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Friday (Northwestern University)[edit]

Jersey Friday (Northwestern University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fan cruft, uncited, not notable. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per consensus; WP:AIRCRASH. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Cessna Compton crash[edit]

2008 Cessna Compton crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a very minor crash. No-one was injured, and hundereds of light aircraft crash in similar circumstances every day, usually with fatalities. Please also see the draft notability guidlines produced by WP:AIRCRASH and the list of past AfD debates collected there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Etemadi[edit]

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

No sign of being covered in secondary sources, first Google hit is his Myspace and the second is this Wikipedia page. No sign of being signed to any label, cf WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ahearn (privacy consultant)[edit]

Frank Ahearn (privacy consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Person is not notable. For someone who "has given talks on popular media", one unrelated Google News hit is not impressive. Punkmorten (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books: 'Out of Darkness Unto Light'[edit]

The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books: 'Out of Darkness Unto Light' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rather like Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (currently at AfD), all we seem to have is an advert: inticement to buy via external links, no evidence of notability and the only content is a table of contents. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete per G11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatWikiGuy (talk • contribs)


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

The result was Delete. The current version of the article does not appear to satisfy the expressed wishes of the Keep voters, since it contains *no* entries for which there is sourced information to show notability. (The closest one is the Afghan friendship group, which is undergoing its own AfD at present). If we restrict the list to include only those friendship groups for which sources are provided, it would have either no entries or just a single entry. That would not be much of a list. I will provide a version of the article for anyone who wants to work on it in their user space, for adding sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistan friendship associations[edit]

List of Pakistan friendship associations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is simply List of non-notable organizations. Per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not an collection of random NN information. The page was prod'd, but the creator has removed prod, so I'm bringing it to AFD. Ragib (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has no superfluous information ... it is just a list. However, the notability of such associations is questionable, and that's what we are discussing in this AFD. --Ragib (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you mean, despite being Non-notable by themselves, you'd support "keep"? --Ragib (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Eden (wrestler)[edit]

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

No notability is shown, and there are no references. King iMatthew 2008 17:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lian Ross[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Wizardman 17:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If notability can be established in the article through reliable, real-world sources, I'll withdraw the nom. Wizardman 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NME: www.nme.com/video/id/ZJcNpM7Bjso/search/%5Blian, dozens of lyrics sites, everywhere I look on Google there is an option to either buy her records or view videos. She is a former Polydor Records artist which immediately makes her notable. http://www.musicstack.com/records-cds/lian+ross. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and this: http://www.zyx.de/ if you go to artists, under L, you'll see her name. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Frankly this AfD has been so distorted by nationalist POV-pushing and votestacking that any result would have been meaningless anyway, even if one side had predominated. ChrisO (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aegean Macedonians[edit]

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

Blatant POV fork    Avg    17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - although the article has an Under construction tag it is already turning into a magnet for blatant POV pushing. I'm afraid it's used for a junkyard for all the POV qualifiers normally not allowed on the other Macedonia-related articles. Considering all this I change my vote from Delete to Strong delete.--Laveol T 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for someone who wants to strongly delete the page, you seem pretty active on it. P m kocovski (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be a bad idea, at all. I'm all for it. Let's hope that our Macedonian editors will show some good faith and not dismiss sources shown in previous talk pages while trying to create a new article spiced with their own brand of POV, though... 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree with this option, perhaps you could add it ("... or merge") to your vote above, to help the closing admin keep track? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please show the google test and state independent (not Slavic Macedonian) sources. Note: Sites like macedonia.org and makedonija.info that show on top of google results are NOT independent sources :-) The term is used solely in a Slavic Macedonian context and it is offensive to Greeks (and this is one of the reasons they use it). Also can't quite understand what seems to be the issue with the diff? The part where I notify Kocovski that I'm quickly putting this to AfD? Rest assured he knows more than me that this is a POV fork. How you link this to WP:IDONTLIKEIT I cannot understand. I gave specific reasons, examples and the context of this issue. A WP:POVFORK article is a legitimate reason for deletion.--   Avg    23:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I mentioned that the issue is by whom and for what reason it is used. I actually checked the links, did you? This is the core of why it is POV fork. I've never claimed this term does not exist. It exists, for a reason. --   Avg    02:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AVG, please. The term is used solely in a Slavic Macedonian context this is wrong, as balkan fever and myself have pointed out. The term is not used by ethnic macedonians only, but as well as serbs, bulgarians, croats. Other references are by Poles, Swedes, Czechs, Bosnians, Slovenians, Occitans, Catalans, Spainards and many others (on the actual, or disambiguation page). It is clearly not a term used by only ethnic macedonians, but an alternative term used by many people including english speakers. So your nationalistic/irredentist argument is baseless. P m kocovski (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a voting option for "Keep your inane comments to yourself"? 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. Have you ever met a greek from macedonia who identifies as an Aegean Macedonian.??P m kocovski (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't met anyone who identifies as an "Aegean Macedonian", full stop. That's not the point. Who lives in "Aegean Macedonia", if not the "Aegean Macedonians"? How do you expect to maintain an article on the latter that excludes practically the entire population of the former? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if not, then the greeks cant be called that. This is what people are not understading, Aegean Macedonian refers to the Ethnic Macedonian people in Greek/Aegean Macedonia while Greek Macedonian refers to the Greek population of all of Macedonia. I have also added at the top of the article not to be confused with greek Macedonians, to address such concerns. P m kocovski (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least put your propaganda terminology in order. In this very article you claim some population figures for "Aegean Macedonians" in Australia, excluding those "Aegean Macedonians" who identify as Greeks [12]. So why don't you decide first who are the "Aegean Macedonians"?--   Avg    17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AVG, Peter Hill has used a source which bases estimates on a combination of things. One is the loss of population in the Florina/Kastoria/Edessa area (eg. Emigration). He refers to what you call a Slavophone Greek as a person with Macedonian Origin but a Greek Self Conciousness. He removes a large proportion of his estimate, because those people do not identify as Ethnic Macedonians. It is a bit hard to claim that he is full of propoganda!, his work is readily accepted all over the world for not being biased!. If you would like further clarification i can give you the context in which it is used. You are quick to lay allegations of POV and bias but when it comes down to the wire, are they viable?P m kocovski (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My, the tenor of the comments from the Slavic users is increasing in shrillness with each "new" user. Why do these people feel they have to accompany their vote with a mini-rant? --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not slavic users, we are MACEDONIANS!!! Accept that.--Raso mk (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope they keep them coming. The agenda becomes even more obvious.--   Avg    01:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly a by-product of what I call "Slavomacedonian Veto Syndrome"? --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to have fun have a look at the abuse I get at my talk page. They have gone crazy...--   Avg    19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy crap. Time for some Arbcom fun, methinks. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note Another new user whose only contrib is the vote he casted here. Clear another case of off-wiki canvassing. --Laveol T 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note - I see User:Giourkas is a trusted member of the community. I think we all know these votes were not cast on rational grounds, except for the ones by non-Greek/Bulgarian and non-Macedonian users. --iNkubusse? 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you admit to casting your vote on "irrational grounds"? 3rdAlcove (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's slander, shame on you. I'm saying that Greeks vote Delete just because they don't like it (because of reasons that I wouldn't dare mention), and to make balance, I mentioned Macedonian users as well. My point is that we cannot solve this by just voting, because it is more than clear that Greeks vote delete and Macedonians keep, no matter their reason. Before you accuse any "party" for canvassing, have in mind that both parties are canvassing, obviously! And I have given my reasons above, I think they're pretty rational. The article is not violating anything. --iNkubusse? 01:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i am aware 2 non Macedonian users have voted keep, while no non bulgarian-greek users have voted delete. P m kocovski (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and at least one non-Balkan editor voted delete. The delete votes have a pretty good reasoning at least. I mean, what kind of a reason is why delete?--Laveol T 06:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who was that (the non balkan user)? P m kocovski (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it a POV-fork when it isn't is not good reasoning, as explained by one non-Balkan editor already. BalkanFever 09:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried my best so far to avoid any involvement in Macedonian related issues but I can't resist commenting on this Balkan versus non Balkan users. It is high time this uninvolved balkan users mumbling seized for good. I find it higly improbable that a trully "uninvolved" non Balkan user would ever give a rat's ass for Macedonia (Greek or Macedonian or "Aegean" or whatever). This whole Macedonia or Fyrom /Greece/Bulgaria situation is so so so frustrating... so much energy spent for nothing. You may think I am naive but why do I get the feeling that the things we actually have in common (all of us) are infinately more numerous than our differences? Could somebody pause a minute and reflect on this for a change?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note - "Aegean Macedonians" doesn't mean "Ethnic Macedonians in Greece"; it's the name for all Macedonians originating from Aegean Macedonia. Many of them live in EU countries, RoM and overseas countries. See Marek Jankulovski as an example. --iNkubusse? 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tips for Safe Trading[edit]

Tips for Safe Trading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

How-to page. Unsourced and made by a company. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn (non admin closure) Cenarium (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Goode[edit]

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

Non-notable judge; news coverage relates primarily to his failed nomination to the Ninth Circuit, in articles that were mainly about squabbles between Clinton and Bush. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like, if I may, to address the preceding five points. On point one, I would direct your attention to the sections of WP:BIO and WP:BLP that I quote in my main comment below. The event is notable, but the person is not. On point two, WP:CRYSTAL states that Wikipedia is not a place for speculative information; if he becomes notable later, then the article can be recreated. As for point three, even if he were the longest un-acted-upon nomination in history, that does not make him notable. In fact, I don't think that event is notable in itself and warrants little more than a passing mention in more general articles about other, related topics. On point five, I would say that if his career as a lawyer was newsworthy, produce the sources to back it up and remember that being mentioned in an article about something is not the same as being the subject of that article which is required for meeting notability standards. I deliberately skipped point four to save it until last as it is the best of the points raised. I will grant that his involvement with the aforementioned scandals nearly invalidates my claim that he is notable for a single event, but I still don't see this as being sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. Simply being associated with a notable occurrance does not make you notable. I can see where you are coming from, but I must disagree on this matter. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to concur with that, despite my above statements. I may have been way off base on this one. The consensus is clear and I respect it. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An overwhelming consensus for deletion. In addition there are no secondary sources to stand up the various claims in the article that consequently fail WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple guru[edit]

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

Either not notable due to a lack of coverage by reliable secondary sources or a hoax, no web results and the link to a myspace page is dead. Guest9999 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Rodriguez Medina[edit]

Pedro Rodriguez Medina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic NPOV essay  Andreas  (T) 16:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add my work[edit]

Add my work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like an inherently POV opinion piece someone's homework on a topic which is likely covered in some form or another in the many other articles we have on, magistrates, judges, courts and the legal system. Guest9999 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The consensus below is that MV Island Sky is a notable ship. Darkspots (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MV Island Sky[edit]

MV Island Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I really have no idea about this: are ferries notable automatically or not? The number of articles we have on them seems to suggest they are, but just what evidence is given here that this ferry - not even built yet - could be considered notable? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, if it's not yet built then is it a violation of our policy regarding balls? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, many of the sources for MV Island Sky on the net are for a cruise ship and not for this ferry - Dumelow (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —Alex.Muller 12:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authority site[edit]

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

Can't see how this could be anything more than a WP:DICDEF. ZimZalaBim talk 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoann Henri Le Teuff[edit]

Yoann Henri Le Teuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, and thus non-notable. His teaching at Matthew Boulton comes from a personal page of his, while his CV here indicates no research after the awarding of the PhD. The rm of speedy claimed hits on Google Scholar - there were none. "Y.H. Le Teuff" gets more hits but the majority of them are not for the PhD work as claimed, but rather a database for which he was not the sole contributor. Therefore, I do not see credible support for the statements in the article that would establish scientific notability. MSJapan (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  19:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jects[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Individual of questionable notability. Of the 19 google hits returned some of those are even repeats of each other. Also nominating his two albums:

--Roleplayer (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. When this AFD started, the only source that would have "confirmed" this was a picture that might have been from Corocoro. However, since then, Nintendo Japan has officially announced this, giving us a reliable source. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Platinum[edit]

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

Nothing on the page complies with WP:BALL. Nothing official has been released (to the best of my knowledge and google searching).
EDIT: Not even confirmed by the developer! asenine say what? 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find, it seems not. asenine say what? 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CoroCoro is not Nintendo. Unless Nintendo itself confirms this, this is crystal-ballism, which is explicitly disallowed. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, KoroKoro is Nintendo. The magazine has been a promotional vehicle for Nintendo for a long time, and has always been the first to announce new Pokemon games. If the KoroKoro talks serious about a new Pokemon game, there is almost certainly something going on. Not enough to write an article about, but worth a mention at Pokémon video game series at this time. Cheers, Face 11:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it is, the series' developer hasn't announced anything yet, and the only information available is from a fansite. I wouldn't be surprised if same list was on that fansite. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 06:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, vote amended. McJeff (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I voted Delete. Some information should be put in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, so that's a Merge of course. Now that I look at the article's talk however, I see there has already been a war about this... I still stand behind my redirect proposal btw: Pokemon Platinum redirect to Pokémon Platinum, Pokémon Platinum redirect to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Cheers, Face 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a double redirect though. What should really be done is have both Pokemon Platinum and Pokémon Platinum redirect to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, then when the article is split, redirect Pokemon Platinum to Pokémon Platinum.-Jeff (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serebii.net does mention it (and was one of the first who did). In fact, it just published a second high resolution scan of the KoroKoro page, which confirms the Autumn 2008 release. I must say I look forward to further developments. - Face 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Ryan[edit]

NOTE: Also included in this AFD is Linus Caldwell.
Rusty Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Linus Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN character per WP:FICT, no real world references Dismas|(talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there's unfortunately little consensus on anything in this proposed guideline, By looking back over the incredible length archives, one can find support in the discussion for anything. It is probably a compromise position to say that any amount of real-world content is sufficient--and there should always be able to be some, because one can & should always find who played it and where in the series the role occurred. This eliminates the actual "real-world" problem, which was the many articles present here a year ago which gave no indication whether or not the people were actually from a fiction in the first place. there's just a little here, and more is needed. Agreed its a low-quality article. sofixit. DGG (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the guideline at fiction gets more and more dubious each day. In any case, the actual guideline in practice reflects what we do in Wikipedia, and this is the place to decide. We are bound rigidly by guidelines even when they do exist, we can interpret them according to reasonableness. And when the guideline is totally disputed not just in detailed wording but in its very existence, asserting t here is a totally bald assertion. Important characters in fiction are appropriate for articles. Les important ones in important fictions are appropriate for merge. nether are appropriate for deletion.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  19:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Lyndon[edit]

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

Attack page (speedy nomination reverted) citing a source that doesn't even mention the person (removed twice, see history); notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-05-11t14:20z


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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lufthansa operated by United Airlines[edit]

Lufthansa operated by United Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a codeshare agreement. It is not a separate entity from the two airlines. Airlines codeshare with other airlines all the time, and such an agreement does not merit its own page Neo16287 (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Dave[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax, I can't find anything on MC MC or Special Dave or the show "Lord Blige Commands" Not speedied in case I'm just not seeing something. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levity Heaven[edit]

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

The article is an autobiography and the author had conflict of interest. She was attempting to gain notability through this encyclopedia. A search for her at Google (excluding Wikipedia and mirrors) received 266 hits. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since the nomination and the one delete comment were predicated on the lack of sources, now that multiple sources have been provided I have given greater weight to the keep views. TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miniconomy[edit]

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

No references (WP:V), does not pass notability guidelines (WP:N (Google shows lots of directory entries; can't see any reliable coverage.) Largely game-guide material (WP:NOT#GUIDE) without any out-of-universe context (WP:WAF). Basically no improvement from the previous two deletions (one expired prod, one speedy). Marasmusine (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's a lot.
  • Inholland centre for E-learning report has a chapter on it. [20] In Holland is the Netherlands' largest provider of education at Hogeschool level.
  • A wiki entry on an educational wiki. Though an open wiki, it is run by Kennisnet, which among other things hosts Wikipedia servers in the Netherlands.
  • The game won a webaward in 2004.
  • another report
  • Basically most of this establishes its notability in this context. The search term is Dutch for 'education'.
  • As I wrote the above, the article's creator added more sources, all of which are reliable, and the first and third are nontrivial: [23]. The third source is from the NRC Handelsblad, the Dutch "Wall Street Journal" to use an analogy. Marasmusine, withdrawal? User:Krator (t c) 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Krator, I'll trust you on the reliablilty of those sources. My judgement is a bit off at the moment (having been awake for 30 hours plus now, don't ask) but if the next person along is happy with those links too then that's fine by me. Marasmusine (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the comments calling for a speedy keep are out of place--the nomination was clearly made in good faith--the arguments raised in favor of keeping the article are persuasive. WP:WEB is a guideline for the application of WP:N, which defines notability as having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". From looking through the discussion below as well as the external links provided, it seems that there is a consensus to keep based on sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources (see, for example, [24] and [25]). While it is clear to me that the article could use some cleanup in order to more clearly present its claims to notability, this should be handled through normal editing means. --jonny-mt 04:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hattrick[edit]

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

This article has no sources independent of the site itself that prove its notability. It has no assertion of its notability from independent sources. Smartyllama (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Smartyllama (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (Failed)
    • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: (No reliable published works found)
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. (Probably the article itself)
      • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
  2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. (No award was ever given)
  3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:
    • Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) (None so far)

Also:

Could you explain what that means? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:ADVERT Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's been used and cited in several acadmic studies. One of these is now referenced. 2. I've found several non-trivial references by Googling +"Hattrick" +"ExtraLives". As mentioned elsewhere on this page, their non-inclusion thus far is not grounds for deletion. 3. Wrong. Read the page. You "doubt the Philippine membership on this site"? Eh? How is that in any way relevant to an AfD. If you bother to check (takes two minutes), you'll find that 275 of the 965,000 active players are Filipino. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how were they able to get those figures? Is the source itself reliable? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again (assuming you're asking about the number of Filipino users), this is totally irrelevant to an AfD. But as it happens, yes, the number will be accurate. Each application for an account must be reviewed by a GM before the account is activated. Each application is tied to the country in which the applicant resides, by IP address. But then, this all explained in the article. The article which now has multiple reliable sources and references including academic studies. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - that still leaves an Alexa rank just outside the top thousand, 966,000 registered users, thousands of inbound links, multiple related forums and fansites and several dozen third-party add-ins - which satisfy WP:WEB. I've since added some more to the article, including awards, Hattrick's involvement in charity, and its use in academia. (Still wondering what "and I doubt the Philippine membership on this community" is about...) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are some Filipinos members of that site? Also, what are those lots of links for? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that its in any way relevant to an AfD, but yes. What are what links? If you mean the references I added, click them and find out. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it's another WP:BIG violation! Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Net Success Interviews (E Loughnane) (Lulu.com, 2005) 624 pages, ISBN 1411626982
http://www.fcha.dk/viewpage.php?page_id=1
http://www.fchattrick.dk/viewpage.php?page_id=2
Multiplayer Online Games Directory - Game of the Month: Available: http://www.mpogd.com/gotm/?Date=10/1/2002
New Business in Computer-mediated Communities. (Helsinki, 2004) (Patrik Ajalin, Tomas Granö, and Kaj Nyberg) Available: http://www.cs.hut.fi/~rsarvas/Sarvas_etal_NewBusiness.pdf Accessed: 11th May 2008.
Title: Time Extraction from Real-time Generated Football Reports (Borg, Markus) Description: Proceedings of the 16th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics NODALIDA-2007. Editors: Joakim Nivre, Heiki-Jaan Kaalep, Kadri Muischnek and Mare Koit. University of Tartu, Tartu, 2007. ISBN 978-9985-4-0513-0 (online) ISBN 978-9985-4-0514-7 (CD-ROM) pp. 37-43. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/10062/2516 Accessed: 13th May 2008.
http://www.homelessworldcup.org/ and http://www.justgiving.com/hattrick
Should be enough to start with... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The key is reliable sources. Are those sources really reliable? They look like community websites to me. We need references from journalists at reputable game sites or news sites. Randomran (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They do? One is a fairly weighty 624 page book - not a website. Two are (real world) football teams. One is an online games site (which, in fairness, is where you're most likely to find news on awards for online games!). Two are academic papers published by universities. Two are international charities. No community websites there, with the possible exception of the online games site. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "article" is in the "Blogs" section. It still asserts *some* notability Nah, looking better, it seems that the section is just a collection of blogs made by people working there, this is not actual coverage of the game [28] --Enric Naval (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well. The number of active users (at least according to Hattrick) is the number of users that have logged in within the last seven weeks. As for the number of accounts that have ever been registered, sniffing through the id numbers it seems that there are at least 7.7 million users who have been registered users. As for WP:GOOGLEHITS searching for "hattrick.org" gives over 3 million hits, and I guess not many of them are false positives. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 10:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Or, indeed, search for +"Hattrick" +"ExtraLives". Its really not difficult to remove false positives. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic series); I have redirected the article. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, cited information. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie-Su[edit]

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

This page concerns a fictional character that is not notable, because it has not received any nontrivial coverage. In other words, there are no reliable sources that have this character as their primary subject. This nomination is not a blanket nomination on purpose. User:Krator (t c) 12:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am arguing that there are no reliable sources covering this subject. I did search and found none. Note that the sources currently on there are not reliable and do not provide for any notability. User:Krator (t c) 13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not reliable. Take a look at the single ref's entire page and you'll see a scan of her official profile.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so if I found that picture on it's own that would count as an independent source?Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it isn't actually a picture, it's a scan of the official profile featured in the comic.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the Sonic Task Force, which I am the leader of, intend to help clean up this article.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything coming from Archie or Sega directly like that would be a primary source. Please see WP:RS for a list of what is considered a reliable source. No amount of cleanup will fix the fact that no third-party sources (i.e. someone not directly related to Archie or Sega) has ever written about her as far as I can tell. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I used actual conversations used by the characters as refs, would they count as third-party as they're from an in-universe perspective?Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Independent, third-party means you'll need a source that is not anything published by Sega or Archie. I claim in my nomination that such sources do not exist for this character. User:Krator (t c) 15:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gotten a reliable prime source and a third-party independent ref, I've fixed most of the things that caused the AfD. Haven't I?Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTN, you're only allowed to comment on an AfD and are forbidden from requesting a merge.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, that's not what they meant. This is completely fine. TTN (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It said you were allowed to comment on an Afd and are prohibited from making a redirect merge or deletion, and are not allowed to request them either.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That meant on an article, not on a talk page. TTN (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're interpreting this too literally. It's fine. Just leave it at that. TTN (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember the time were most Sonic articles were merged into one, and the one shot characters were deleted. That was him.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTN is allowed to comment here, the restriction explicitly mentions he is free to comment on any AFD. The 'request' part does not deal with AFDs but with pages such as WP:PM. User:Krator (t c) 16:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that is what his restrictions specifically said. Read over the facts, next time, kid. Oh, and while I'm here, Keep to find sources, and if nothing sufficient can be found, MERGE. (Goes back on Wikibreak) -ZeroGiga (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a new ref using discussions and intend to do the same thing to help the article, so does that mean your vote is keep? Oh and could you stop calling me kid please, it's really annoying.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the problem... Bridies (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quote: "you might as well delete every page that is related to the characters created by Archie, as none have any reliable sources". That seems like a good plan. However, rashness and blanket nominations have let to idiocy in the past, so let's consider this article alone for now. User:Krator (t c) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting doing it. I was pointing out that your grounds for nominating this article for deletion could be applied to all the other articles for Archie-created characters, as they all share the same sources, and therefore the same problem. Although, I guess it did seem a little ambiguous.--FTEPoSI (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting doing it, and I agree that my grounds for nominating this article for deletion should be applied to all the other articles that fit the same profile. I just think it should be a slow process, not a blanket nomination of 200 articles, as there may be some exceptions we fail to see. User:Krator (t c) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to help out the article. If I can get E-123 Omega to B-class I could help this article out as well. So I believe RP's vote would be keep.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that it is impossible to clean them up because there are no third party sources available. If you think the articke is important and can be cleaned up, please demonstrate how.Bridies (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey there, I think you may be a bit confused after all the above conversations, because this comment doesn't make much sense. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them on my talk page. User:Krator (t c) 10:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed a comment being added and removed, so perhaps some qualification. The fact that the sources are pictures has nothing to do with their use to establish notability. The only thing that matters for that is their being "reliable, independent, third-party". As they are not independent or third-party, they cannot be used to establish notability. Again, not because they are pictures. They can, too, be used as references only in the article itself when notability is established by other sources per WP:SELFPUB. User:Krator (t c) 11:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are you defineing reliable in this case?Geni 20:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[29][30]and from the author[31].Geni 21:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell much about link #1, as most of the pages seem to be 404s. I wouldn't call it reliable. #2 just seems to be some issue directory for an episode that mentions the name of the character in question. I wouldn't call that substantial coverage of her. #3 doesn't seem to contain substantial mention, either. Even so, the artist commissioned to draw the character isn't independent, anyway. Graevemoore (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 and #3 are neither reliable nor independant. I don't get what #2 is supposed to demonstrate. Bridies (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is 1 not independant?Geni 23:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. #1 is independant but not (as I see it) reliable. #3 isn't independant.Bridies (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 is not reliable, 2 is trivial (WP:N requires nontrivial sources explicitly), and 3 is not independent. User:Krator (t c) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a discussion, not a vote. Bridies (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a raildroading based on pedandtry is what it is, just like most afds.68.81.95.231 (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you. Most users they just take one search through the internet find nothing and decide I'll delete it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do feel free to actually back up that statement. Bridies (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah he said that, but hadn't actually done it. It needs to be multiple, reliable, independant sources in any case.Bridies (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't see the afd was closed, sorry for modifying it.Bridies (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Clancy[edit]

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

Totally unsouurced biography for person of doubtful notability, whose only Google appearance appears to be this article RolandR (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the field of aerodynamics and fluid mechanics there are other cited authors who have a biographical article to shed some light on their background and therefore their credentials. For example, see the WP articles on the following authors, all of whom are cited in articles such as Hydrodynamics:
George Batchelor
John D. Anderson
Horace Lamb
Lev Landau
Evgeny Lifshitz
When I cite Clancy, or write about him, there is no conflict of interest. Dolphin51 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but are you seriously comparing Clancy to George Batchelor? The latter produces impressive GoogleScholar results, with his book "The Theory of Homogeneous Turbulence" scoring 1533 cites and the other book "An Introduction to Fluid Mechanics" scoring 488 cites[33]. By cpmparison, Clancy's book does not even register in GoogleScholar[34], nor does anything else by him[35].
In any event, general WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are insufficient; you need to produce positive and verifiable evidence of notability. It might be that Clancy's "Aerodynamics" book is notable and that for some reason GoogleScholar and Web of Science are missing a large number of citations. If it can be shown that the book is notable per WP:BK then it is better to have a WP article about the book rather than the person. It would be easier to satisfy the notability requirements there. Even then, you would have to do some serious preparatory work before creating an article about the book. Look for sources that cite it, reviews of the book, evidence that it was used for courses, etc. Since you are an expert in the field, it should be easier for you to do this than for other people. In the meantime, I suggest that you look up the existing notability guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:N, WP:BK etc. Nsk92 (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even talking about your comparison of Clancy with Lev Landau, a Nobel Prize winner and a scientific giant. Preposterous, don't you think? Nsk92 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nsk92! I have not compared Clancy with anybody; not Batchelor, not Landau, nor anyone else. You are the one who has introduced the concept of comparison of one person with another. If you carefully read my words on this page you will see I wrote only that certain articles (eg Hydrodynamics) cite certain authors and provide links to biographical articles about those authors. (eg Batchelor et al). My words are statements of fact. Thank you for the links to WP articles. I will study them. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamics was published in the United Kingdom. [2] Its content reflects over seven years of teaching aerodynamics to students at the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell UK.[3] It was widely used as a textbook in the UK, Australia and other British Commonwealth countries. It was also published in the USA by John Wiley and Sons, Inc.[4]
Clancy qualifies as a notable academic using Criterion No. 3 given here. He also matches Example No. 1 given here. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the book was intended to be used as a textbook does not imply that it has been widely used as a textbook. If you provide actual evidence of the latter, that would be convincing in terms of satisfying WP:PROF.Nsk92 (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Advisory Editor of the PAES, Air Vice-Marshal A.C. Kermode R.A.F. (Ret’d.) has written “The books in this series are intended primarily as textbooks for students at universities and technical colleges who are studying aeronautical engineering in one or more of its various branches with the aim of obtaining degrees or diplomas in aeronautical engineering or allied subjects.” Clancy, L.J., Aerodynamics, page ii
  2. ^ Clancy, L.J. (1975), Aerodynamics, Pitman Publishing Limited, London ISBN 0 273 01120 0
  3. ^ ”This book is the product of over seven years of teaching aerodynamics to officer cadets and student officers at the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell.” L.J. Clancy. Author’s preface (p. xv), Aerodynamics, Pitman Publishing Limited, London
  4. ^ Clancy, L.J. (1975), Aerodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York NY ISBN-13:9780470158371 ISBN 0470158379


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

The result was revert to redirect. Calling WP:SNOW on this ridiculous... thing.-Wafulz (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirism[edit]

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

Reads like an enlistment brochure crossed with a how-to manual. No references cited. Would need a complete re-write even if it is a valid topic.

User appears to have cannibalized the FA "vampire" for the talk page when the redirect was cut. Matt Deres (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Mania[edit]

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

Article cites no sources to assert notability or verifiability per WP:N and WP:V. Content includes a large amount of information that would be more suitable for a manual or strategy guide per WP:NOT#MANUAL. Article has had maintenance tags on it since September 07 and been through a contested PROD, hence the reason to raise it here Gazimoff WriteRead 10:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  19:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ankhet[edit]

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

No indication of notability (WP:N), no independent references (WP:V). Tagged with notability concern last year, which was removed with the comment "We're working on notability." There have been no improvements since then. Marasmusine (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitive Games[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of stuff made up one day. An article on "intuitive" game rules and gameplay might be workable (if highly prone to authorial POV), but this article only covers one specific "intuitive" game that was invented by the article's creator(s). -Sean Curtin (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Parenting Alliance[edit]

Equal Parenting Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political party. Has 100 members and in the three elections it has contested has only managed a grand total of 232 votes. The article been speedily deleted before but I am bringing it to AFD this time as one of the elections was national not local (Scottish Parliament) but even so the candidate only convinced 124 of the 33,785 people who voted in that constituency. nancy (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, then made into redirect. DS (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From My Cold Dead Hands[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion but that is generally not appropriate for hoax articles, which is what this appears to be. I find no sources whatsoever describing this film and as such assume that it does not in fact exist. Footnoted sources do not actual establish the existence of the film. Should be deleted as a hoax. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 has been changed to remove hoaxes from it explicitly. I believe the discussion was archived, so it should be in the most recent archive of WT:CSD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who is interested, I believe the discussion to which you are referring is here. This article did not seem to be "blatant and obvious misinformation" (though I think it is misinformation) which is why the appropriate course seemed to be declining the speedy nom and taking it to AfD. Obviously in the end this article will not exist (having a redirect makes sense) but we generally err on the side of caution when it comes to speedying "hoax" articles.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity Friday[edit]

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

Completely neologistic day. asenine say what? 07:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to CVECA. There's nothing to merge any more, so I'm just redirecting.  Sandstein  19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caisse villageoise d'épargne et de crédit autogérée[edit]

Caisse villageoise d'épargne et de crédit autogérée (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just a dictionary definition translation, plus it's not clear that this term is in widespread use in English. The given source barely mentions it, providing nothing more than a translation. Powers T 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Despite a clear "keep" majority, some "keep"s are of the weak WP:EVERYTHING and WP:GHITS type.  Sandstein  19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article doesn't assert and there doesn't appear to be evidence that this is in any way a notable camera lens. Ghits are mainly locations it can be purchased with no evidence of any significant reviews other than personal blogs. Wikipedia is not a camera guide or a HowTo, this is far too detailed for an encyclopedic article and I'm not sure that a re-direct to Sigma Corporation#Telephoto Zoom Lenses would be appropriate as I highly doubt this as a search term. Talk to Cari the Busy Bee 03:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sure, and Adorama will also have a listing for all of its 10,000 other products. Amazon and other store catalog listings do not establish notability. that reason is actually a good explanation of why we delete articles like this. We are not an advertising medium. DGG (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with city names in the title[edit]

List of songs with city names in the title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominated for the same reason as its recently deleted sister article, List of songs with state names in the title. Like the aformentioned article, I initially prodded this on the grounds that it was unencyclopaedic, but the tag was removed by the author. The sister article was deleted a day or so ago per AFD discussion, so, considering this list is essentially the same thing, I decided to take this here as well. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by Cryptic (A7: nngroup). Non admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smurfs United[edit]

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

Non-notable indoor football team. asenine say what? 06:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The subject has no significant championship wins to his credit so the question is whether the secondary sources are sufficient to achieve notability. Until the relisting opinion was divided on this question. However, the later commentators have had the benefit of examining the additional sources found during the AfD and have judged them insufficient. There is clearly scope for this page to be recreated if better sources can be located and added to the article, and I am happy to userfy it to anyone who wishes to develop it. TerriersFan (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare (wrestler)[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler with none-barely any information/references in the article iMatthew 2008 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However I don't believe that is enough to cover an article. iMatthew 2008 16:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop of Carnage[edit]

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

Article creator removed db-band and noted that "BoC gained notability in 2008 as being the first Wise County band to upload music onto the internet". I'm not sure that this is sufficient to meet the notability guidelines (and it's uncited, to boot), but it is at least an assertion of notability. There's nothing else to indicate that this band meets the WP:MUSIC notability criteria, Google searches are unusually barren and even catalogue sites like All Music Guide do not have an entry for them. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Mapelz[edit]

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

Hoax -- originally proposed for deletion by Cunard since it appeared to be made up (no Google hits for an supposed NHL player), prod was removed by an anonymous editor who continued to expand the article oddly. ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student Approaches to Learning[edit]

Student Approaches to Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an OR Essay LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per consensus and taking into account meatpuppetry.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Scully[edit]

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

A Google News search gets 22 hits but most seem to be calendar listings. Google Scholar gets 4 hits. The article lacks WP:V or WP:RS, only her commercial website provides some info. I just don't see much there but if people can dig up more, great. Pigman☿ 04:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a great deal of info, including additional books, CDs, mention of Rex Foundation grant, titles, etc. Please review before deciding. Rosencomet (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Egyptology is a serious academic discipline. Does she have an advanced degree from an accredited academic institution? Does she publish her research in academic journals or through academic presses? This spurious claim pretty much sums up her lack of notability by the standards we use here.PelleSmith (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The possibility of a merger can be discussed on the article talk page.  Sandstein  19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian immigrant benefits urban legend[edit]

Canadian immigrant benefits urban legend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article (originally titled "Canadian Refugee Policy") was made primarily to talk about a supposed urban legand. I don't see proof it's a big deal in Canada, and doubt it will be of lasting interest. While some of the original article was about the generic issue of "Canadian Refugee Policy", it wasn't of sufficient size/quality to use anywhere, which is why I renamed the article, and AFD'd it. Rob (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've begin broadening the focus of the article, per the discussion here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the consensus is to do what you've done (broaden it), I renamed the article. Given there's consensus to keep the material, I wouldn't object to somebody closing this AFD early, since any further discussion probably belongs on the talk page of the article. --Rob (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per consensus and taking into account meatpuppetry.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Chernin[edit]

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

After doing a Google news search and a Google Scholar search, I don't really find anything notable on Dennis Chernin. There isn't a single source except for his own website. The article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. If I thought these were fixable problems, I'd fix it myself but I can't find WP:V sources. Without sources, this becomes a bit of a WP:BLP problem. He's written books but I don't find any indication that they've sold well or that they've been cited. Unless more is dug up, I'm leaning toward delete. Pigman☿ 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have to say I find it less than persuasive when his publisher calls him a "Noted author." The second instance you cited above is a bit more interesting in terms of background and content (although it's packed with promotional language because the site is selling his book). I'd still like to see something a little more about him from a WP:V source other than people who are selling his work. Pigman☿ 05:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cdbaby.com link [42] is something but it is still very weak. It is a promo page by the seller of his CD, so it does not qualify as an independent source. The two awards for the CD mentioned there, 1997 Health Information Awards and the 1997 Communicator Awards, need to be put in context and verified by an independent source. From the link given it is completely unclear what these awards are, who gives them, etc. In general, they would have to be pretty major awards to confer notability on the author rather than on the CD. Nsk92 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vittala is NOT nor has he ever been a sock-puppet. He was mistakenly accused of it, and cleared.Rosencomet (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bunky and Jake[edit]

Bunky and Jake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Two albums for Mercury (apparently), but no reliable sources to be seen aside from the Rolling Stone source. Proof in my opinion that WP:MUSIC isn't always set in stone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, never thought to check Google Books. Good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A highly meritorious project but for a page on it to survive it needs reliable, secondary coverage, which it hasn't. There was a unanimous view that the article should be deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youthink Magazine[edit]

Absolutely no substantial coverage of subject in reliable news media. All sources are simply advertisement-like or massive directories. Also, has a 1.5 million Alexa ranking for its website.Electricbassguy (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whilst at first, this AfD was going towards the deletion side, there was extensive work done on the article as the debate progressed. As this was done, there was a large switch in the comments and a clear consensus to keep the article, hence my decision. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to genetics[edit]

Introduction to genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The lead on the Genetics article constitutes an introduction for the layman to this subject. I don't see the point of this article. Perhaps redirect. Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nk.sheridan, I'd like to know why you think a layman could understand the introduction to Genetics. As I explained below, I don't think he could. Nbauman (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My rough count below is Delete 8, Keep 8, Merge 3. So we don't have a consensus to delete.
But consensus isn't just a vote. We have to address issues. I think there is one outstanding problem for keeping that nobody has answered: Genetics is too difficult for a layman or ordinary non-specialist reader. Can somebody address that problem?
If we did delete Introduction to Genetics, then we would have to substandially edit Genetics to meet the Wikipedia requirement of being understandable to the non-specialist. That would start with a rewrite of the lead -- maybe replacing it with the lead from Introduction to Genetics. Do you agree to a substantial rewrite of Genetics? Nbauman (talk)
Comment No, I don't agree with a substantial rewrite of Genetics. Perhaps I've made a mistake nominating Introduction to genetics for AfD. I saw the article as unneeded at time of nomination although I'm currently not sure this was a valid reason for my nomination. Regardless, it appears that the prevailing opinion and best arguments are for keeping the article. I appreciate the expansion work which perhaps I should have done myself! Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nbauman: As I note below, it's not clear to me that you even read the article. Your misplaced criticism certainly seemed to indicate this. It's incredible to me that you'd be proposing a rewrite of it. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If people got defensive every time someone edited their manuscripts, and accused editors of not having read their article, we could never have editing. When you tell people that their writing is difficult to understand, they don't like to hear it. (One editor told me that she marks up a manuscript, sends it back to the writer, and leaves town for a weekend where she can't be reached.) But Genetics is difficult to understand.
Scientists usually write papers to demonstrate how much they know, to their supervisors, who know more than them. You can't write that way for the non-specialist public.
I write about biomedicine for a living and I've had editors throw stuff back at me because it was so technical that nobody would read it. I've learned to write in ways that people can understand. I spend my days reading transcripts of presentations by doctors and rewriting their words so that other doctors (not laymen) will easily understand them. My magazines compete with the peer-reviewed journals for doctors' time, and the reason doctors read us rather than the prestigeous professional society journals is that they can't get through those journals and they can get through my stories. So I have a good sense of how difficult a piece of scientific writing is.
And it's not just my subjective feeling. There's a lot of communications research out there. If you don't believe me, use the scientific method: Find a typical non-specialist reader -- say, a secretary or computer technician who is not a biology student -- ask that person to read Genetics, and then ask them what an "allele" is.
As I keep repeating, if you want to see a good model of how to write about complicated biomedicine in a way that ordinary people can understand it, the best example I know is the Merck Manual Home Edition. I know some of the people who worked on it (and people who edit Scientific American, Discover, and other books and magazines), and they explained to me how they do it.
Most manuscripts that are written by scientists for publication in peer-reviewed journals or textbooks go through at least 3 and often 10 or more drafts. I don't know why you think you can get it right by yourself the first time.
For example, in a McGraw-Hill textbook, editors will check to make sure that every paragraph has a simple topic sentence. In the New England Journal of Medicine, they clearly indicate parallel ideas with an obvious parallel structure, and by introducing each separate idea with "First .... Second .... Third ...."
Let's take an example from Genetics -- the complicated sentence construction. Simple, direct sentences are easier to read. You wrote:
With this molecular understanding of inheritance, an explosion of research that applied this new knowledge to biology became possible.
Why not just say:
This new molecular understanding of inheritance created an explosion of research.
You admit that Genetics in places is "dense." Well, that's not a trivial problem. If you string a lot of dense paragraphs together, the cognitive burden makes it unreadable. (Especially on the computer screen.) I read Genetics (several times by now) and I had trouble, and I already know the content. I read about genetics in Science and I don't have trouble. You don't know the writing tricks that the editors of Science know to make this content easier to understand.
I realize people have an emotional investment in their own writing WP:OWN, and I've been guilty of that myself. (An editor at the New York Times Washington Bureau got his girlfriend a job writing for them, and she came back to him and said, "Darling! They're changing my words!")
But the most important thing I learned about writing is: it's pointless to write something if your target audience can't understand it. The ordinary reader can't understand Genetics. Nbauman (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to own it, I am reacting to the criticisms you gave below that seemed to indicate you had not read the article you vehemently criticized. You are the one that made this personal by explicitly naming me in your criticism. The fact remains: you acted like the article did not define allele, but it did—I think it is reasonable that I interpreted this to mean that you did not read it. You're spending a lot of effort here telling us about how the writing is bad and telling us about your writing experience. I'd far rather you actually just fixed up these articles rather than tell me about how I'm not a Science writer, or a McGraw-Hill writer, or a Nobel prize winner, or a high school teacher. If you want to be credible, be constructive. I'm not upset if someone changes my words, but I am going to react badly when someone spits out an essay or two of rant over an FA article and doesn't make a move to improve it. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anybody who has been through the PhD process is all too used to having their writing hacked, bent, deleted, expanded and reworded by their supervisor, advisers and collaborators. At the moment Nbauman and I are trying to improve the Intro to Genetics article so it is useful and distinct from the main article, since it doesn't look like it will be deleted. Once I've finished (you would be very welcome to help of course) I hope you'll look it over and see if I've made any unforgivable simplifications! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up alleles to try to convince people not to delete the glossary from Introduction to Genetics. I thought it would be very helpful to a lay reader. (The NEJM has glossaries in its review articles, and -- in a journal for doctors -- defines terms like "allele.")
Here's the definition of "allele" in Introduction_to_Genetics:
Alleles are the different forms of a given gene that an organism may possess. For example, in humans, one allele of the eye-color gene produces green eyes and another allele of the eye-color gene produces brown eyes.
and here's the definition of "allele" in Genetics:
At its most fundamental level, inheritance in organisms occurs by means of discrete traits, called genes. This property was first observed by Gregor Mendel, who studied the segregation of heritable traits in pea plants. In his experiments studying the trait for flower color, Mendel observed that the flowers of each pea plant were either purple or white—and never an intermediate between the two colors. These different, discrete versions of the same gene are called alleles.
I'd like to know what other people think. Which definition is easier to understand? Even for a biology student?
And to anticipate the editors who say, "If a reader doesn't understand a technical term, he can just click on the Wikilink," here's what you get when you click on Allele:
An allele (pronounced /?æli?l/ (UK), /??li?l/ (US)) (from the Greek αλληλος allelos, meaning each other) is one member of a pair or series of different forms of a gene. Usually alleles are coding sequences, but sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-coding sequence. An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess. In a diploid organism, one that has two copies of each chromosome, two alleles make up the individual's genotype. Alleles are prominently represented in a Punnett square.
I read that 4 times, and I can't understand it. Does anyone think that a non-specialist reader could understand that? Nbauman (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think both articles can be improved. However, this isn't really the place to discuss how the text of articles could be changed, and since we all now seem to agree that this introductory article needs fixing up and rewriting (rather than deleting) further discussion of genetics and introduction to genetics would probably be best on these article's respective talk pages. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have we indeed concluded that we don't have consensus for deleting Introduction_to_genetics, and that we should not delete it? In that case, someone should remove the AfD tag, right? Nbauman (talk)
That's up to an uninvolved administrator. Not something I can do. 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have an outstanding question that no one has answered, and I'd like an answer. Above, I gave the definition of "Allele" from Genetics and Introduction to genetics. I thought the definition from Introduction to genetics was easier to understand. Does anybody disagree? Nbauman (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I see that the article has been edited quite a bit and it now reads much better. However, I still think it ought to be deleted. Ironically, the better this article gets, the more it looks like a substantive duplicate of Genetics, that is a clear content fork. I think that having content forks is a bad idea, for general policy reasons. I looked at Genetics and that article looks fine to me. I would prefer that people invested their time and effort in improving Genetics and making it more accessible, rather than in building a functional duplicate from scratch. Having said that, I don't have particularly strong feelings on this specific subject. It seems likely, based on how this AfD is developing, that the article will be kept and I am not going to loose any sleep over it. Nsk92 (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm beginning to think Keep and expand would be a better result. — CharlotteWebb 12:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If we delete Introduction to genetics, we will have to edit Genetics to make it simpler for the general audience, under Wikipedia rules.
It may be possible to rewrite Genetics for the general reader, but it would be difficult (probably contentious), and we'd have to take a lot out to keep it to reasonable length. It would be a lot easier to edit and improve Introduction to genetics if necessary.
For my work, as I said before, I write for doctors and scientists, and also for laymen such as cancer patients, social workers, environmental activists, and just interested people. Before I write, I try to talk to people in my target audience to get a sense of what they already understand and what they want to know. I was surprised to find out that even well-educated people don't understand simple concepts like "apoptosis" or "randomized controlled trial." I know by now that they don't understand a lot of the terms used in Genetics.
Some people write about biology and medicine in language that their readers absolutely must understand -- for example, textbooks, medical instructions and patient consent forms. They've done considerable research. When people write for the intelligent general public, they usually write on what in the U.S. is called 12th grade level, or senior high school. It's not Advanced Placement or A level, and it's not college freshman biology level. Here's a good example Merck Manual, Genetics of writing for the intelligent general public.
I have to make judgments about readability every day. I would say that Genetics is on at least the 14th grade level -- that is, more difficult than a good college freshman-level biology textbook (like Neil Campbell's Biology). It's more difficult than a news story in Science or a feature in New Scientist. I use Harrison's Internal Medicine as a reference, and I would say that Genetics is at least as difficult as Harrison's -- except that Harrison's is better edited. It's not Madeline's fault -- Harrison's is written by the leading researchers (often Nobel laureates), and edited by some of the best (and best-paid) medical editors in the business. It's difficult for a good scientist to write for people who aren't her peers. But Genetics is not understandable by the general reader, as Wikipedia rules require.
(If you don't believe me, run the Fleisch index -- or ask an art major to read it.)
Look at the lead: "Genetics, a discipline of biology, is the science of heredity and variation in living organisms. [It cites 2 sources I can't identify or check.] Knowledge of the inheritance of characteristics has been implicitly used since prehistoric times for improving crop plants and animals through selective breeding."
What does "variation" mean in this context? A lot of people wouldn't know. Nk.sheridan says, that's no problem, they can click on the Wikilink of any terms they don't understand. But if you click on variation, you wind up in an entry that is even more difficult for a 12th grade level reader to understand. I understand that you write "variation" to remind me that genetics is related to evolution, just as the New England Journal of Medicine does. For me, and any biology student, you're taking separate ideas that I already know and putting them together in a meaningful context, like bricks in a wall. It helps me to tie together the important ideas behind it all. That's what biology teachers do. That's good. But the general reader doesn't know those ideas already. You're introducing too many difficult terms and ideas in the introduction -- for a general reader. The general reader doesn't have the bricks yet. That's bad.
A high school science teacher couldn't tell his average-level students to look up Genetics on Wikipedia.
Now look at the lead in Introduction to genetics: "Genetics is the study of how living things receive common traits from previous generations. These traits are described by the genetic information carried by a molecule called DNA." That's a good, simple, direct sentence (in contrast to the compound sentence in Genetics). It doesn't have any unfamiliar words on the 12th grade level. The entire article is a simple explanation (appropriate for Wikipedia) of some important ideas that, in the Genetics article, the general reader couldn't easily understand. Best of all, it has a glossary. Biology students have a lot of problems with all those terms. What's an allele? Even the NEJM will sometimes define "allele." (Don't click on the Wikilink for an easy-to-understand explanation.)
Introduction to genetics looks as if it were written by a high school science teacher who understood how to explain genetics to ordinary people. Genetics looks as if it were written by a scientist who understood genetics very well, including some critical ideas, but threw out important ideas so fast and in such shorthand that a non-scientist can't follow them. That's not Madeline's fault; she's a scientist, not a high school teacher. High school teaching isn't as easy as it looks.
Let's compromise. Keep Genetics, tweak it a little to make it easier to understand, and keep it on a sophisticated, biology-major level (even though that strictly speaking violates Wikipedia rules). Keep Introduction to genetics so that ordinary people who come to Wikipedia for an introduction to genetics will have something they understand. Nbauman (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you even read the article? What is an allele? The Genetics article defines an allele when it gets to this term: In his experiments studying the trait for flower color, Mendel observed that the flowers of each pea plant were either purple or white—and never an intermediate between the two colors. These different, discrete versions of the same gene are called alleles. Maybe the information is dense when you shove it into an automatic evaluation, but the article is making a large effort to define each term as it comes to it. It does not have a glossary, because I was avoiding Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK. You'll see that other terms are similarly defined as you get to them.
Your criticism that references are inaccessible is also unfair; most of the references in this article actually link back to textbook sections that you can click on, including many references into the Griffiths book. I've added a link for the first Griffiths citation, since you think it should have one; it didn't before because I was citing the entire textbook as a general reference for the article, per Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines.
I'm not making a vote yet on whether the intro to genetics should be kept, but I resent your cursory dismissal of the main article (one that looks like you may not have actually read it). Madeleine ✉ ✍ 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've rewritten the introduction, but I'm hesitant to do too much work on the article if there is a chance that it will be deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource. Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

The "How genes are inherited" section just added reads painfully like a textbook, with that extended example with cards. Same goes for the glossary.
When I go to Introduction to general relativity I see a fairly complex article. Go look at it! It's not nearly as "dumbed down" as this Introduction to genetics is -- if that "intro to" article is your ideal example, it is if anything showing a lack of need for Intro to Genetics -- it is nowhere near the textbook simplicity that the "Introduction to genetics" article is promoting. Same goes for the other articles. Take those "intro" articles as your standards for readability and reconsider whether you think Genetics is significantly more complex. It seems to me that any further simplification of the Genetics article results in a textbook. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My fault I'm afraid, the cards analogy was a bit strained, I've rewritten this section to try to give it a bit more encyclopedic tone. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better ... I think the glossary is still problematic but I'm removing my delete because I don't want to be voting on this and am a bit conflicted about what should be done. I'm glad you're interested in working on it, I'm worried about making it into a textbook and consequently I have trouble figuring out what to say and whether it's possible to make this article significantly more accessible than the main one without creating a textbook. But I'll let others think about that. Thanks! -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can make it more accessible by removing some of the precision. For example in this article we can just say "genes encode proteins" but in the main genetics article we would need to say "Genes encode RNAs, many of which are translated into protein, but others function by themselves, such as rRNAs or tRNAs" Removing that kind of detail makes it easier for somebody who knows nothing about the area to grasp the principles involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you have to remove some of the precision.
More significantly so does Francois Jacob:
I heard one of the prize winners, Professor Jacob, forewarn an audience of specialists more or less as follows: «In describing genetic mechanisms, there is a choice between being inexact and incomprehensible». In making this presentation, I shall try to be as inexact as conscience permits.
Nbauman (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One-21[edit]

One-21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band with no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, no reliable sources Stormie (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus Witch[edit]

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

Appear to fail WP:MUSIC. Two albums on a record label that is bluelinked, but it's a redirect and doesn't appear particularly notable itself. Black Kite 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page (a member of the band)

Steve Pollick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs)

And I am also nominating their album:

Capture the Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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