< May 12	May 14 >

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

The result was speedily deleted per CSD G7 (non-admin closure). nneonneo ^talk 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane mountain[edit]

incorrect formatting Tibutoo (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since you are the article creator, and the only author of any substantial comment, if you want the article deleted, you can just put ((db-author)) on the page, rather than using the AfD process. I've already tagged the article as such. nneonneo ^talk 17:50, 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 with Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux[edit]

Not notable Megapen (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated it as a speedy delete as a highly POV essay. User also removed the deletion notice unbeknownst to me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not a speedy. The criteria for speedy are limited to those at WP:CSD . DGG (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious essay, and OR. If an article should be written on this topic, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be one, this would not be usable even as a starting point. DGG (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy Essay. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay / original work. Frank | talk 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral, per rewrite of the article, with a slight bent toward merging to Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. I am concerned that one is a condition and one is a disease related to the condition. For example, a seizure is a thing by itself, but a series of them over time may be epilepsy - and maybe not. Frank | talk 14:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for sharing personal experience stories. Eauhomme (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the Rewrite, Change to Merge. Eauhomme (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Just an imperfect start to a notable topic. I have taken the article forward by improving it. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious next step is to merge with Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. I prefer the simpler title. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the article was nominated for deletion within one minute of its creation. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Colonel Warden has cut out the POV essay. Now its just a stub that should be redirected to Laryangopharngeal reflux disease RogueNinja_talk 11:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is not enough since there is content to be merged - I added material and retained material from the first draft. In any case, deletion is neither required or appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Notable topic, though it doesn't need two articles. Klausness (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Kudos for rewriting this. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Eleassar. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checking in to change my vote to speedy keep. I'm no doctor and there was no way I'd have attempted a rewrite on a subject such as this. Marvelous save. Back to the break. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Klausness and Colonel Warden. (If you merge the articles, then please don't forget to merge the histories.) But see comments of Frank | talk , above, for an argument not to merge the two articles. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:09, 17 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 per CSD:G1, G2, G3, A1, A7 and so on. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Webbers[edit]

Non-notable character from a program which has no proof of existing. Article was deleted under WP:PROD but user recreated. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 23:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the recent contributions of Dylan93 (talk · contribs) need to be looked at as they are all related to this nonexistent drama. JuJube (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax, so tagged. I have tagged every character in Category:My Normal characters for WP:CSD#G3, as well as the My Normal page itself, as the whole shebang is a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through replace those with PRODs, since they're not really blatant enough for G3. It may be necessary to batch them into a single AfD if the author removes them all. Just a heads up. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax page? per NN CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:54, 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 withdrawn by nominator - non-admin closure. nneonneo ^talk 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California v. Byers[edit]

~~Also nominating:~~

~~Adderley v. Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - textdump from [1] or similar~~

Withdrawn, concerns addressed. nneonneo ^talk 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Textdump from [2] or similar site. While this isn't a copyvio (since such cases are in the public domain), this is "just another legal case" since it doesn't assert the notability of the case. nneonneo ^talk 23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment both articles need work but since they are U.S. Supreme Court cases they will most likely have significant independent coverage. Adderley v. Florida is appears to be an important decision regarding free speech zones. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, you are correct; Adderley v. Florida looks like it does have importance. That article can probably be saved from the axe; however, I'm still trying to find what makes California v. Byers notable (aside from it being a US supreme court case). nneonneo ^talk 15:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to Strike They might not be copyvios. But they are not articles, either. Text dumps from Findlaw should not go here. Eauhomme (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all US supreme court cases are notable, and are good bases for articles. Both of these are in any case significant either as precedent or historically. Needs a good deal of work, of course, but thats not reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki both to Wikisource. We should have articles on these cases, but they should be articles and not the original documents. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete source material. It's not formatted and WikiSource can easily obtain the text elsewhere. WillOakland (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not Bailii. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to future creation as a real article. SCOTUS cases are inherently notable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Both to Wikisource.-- danntm ^T _C 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adderley v. Florida but delete California v. Byers per above. Adderley v. Florida is no longer just a text dump and is properly formatted with references. ~ Eóin (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination of Adderley v. Florida: article has been properly sourced and the textdump removed, so the original concerns no longer hold true. nneonneo ^talk 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the headnotes but keep and re-write the article: I would argue that Supreme Court cases are presumptively notable. This particular case, if I understand correctly, holds that hit and run statutes are constitutional (and, among other things, cites to a case holding that a state law requiring the filing of income tax returns does not violate the right against self-incrimination, and to other cases holding that various police investigative procedures do not violate the right against self-incrimination). However, I'm not sure whether the headnote falls under the same copyright exception as the opinion? Basically the text of the decision of the court itself is in the public domain, but anything, and I mean anything, added by a commercial publisher is copyrighted. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to dismiss without prejudice The issue is now moot. I think the best thing to do in the future would be to turn a copied opinion into a stub as a placeholder rather than delete the article all together as long as it is apparent that the article would be otherwise notable if written. Legis Nuntius (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination. Thank you very much for summarizing and clarifying the material. nneonneo ^talk 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 20:40, 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. Notability has not been established.Fabrictramp (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Jayne[edit]

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. American arrogance can't be the reason for removing British actresses that you have not heard of. IMDB, IAFD both have pages with her bio (that's over 20 titles alone), and if you even bothered to search for her movies you will find quite a few. This is a top actress of Viv Thomas Productions, who you probably also consider non-notable, since he's also English. You can as well log in to his page and delete every single actress from the list of his collaborators. Why not? And then don't forget to order pizza for a day well-spent. Pathetic. People like you make Wikipedia a big joke of a source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody home today (talk • contribs) 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You should read WP:OWN and WP:NPA before expressing your opinions on these matters. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to verify notability. IMDB and IAFD only provides evidence that she's been in so and so movies and does not establish notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:05, 19 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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WayForward Technologies[edit]

Contested PROD. Article does not reference any secondary reliable sources to assert notability. Article describes a corporation without referring to secondary sources (external links are copies of information from corp's website). Article was tagged for notability concerns in September 2007, tag was recently removed along with prod without any major change in content.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the 3rd party sources produced upon doing a google search need to be brought into the article but, there appears to be a lot of them (game related sites so I can't access from work though, hence the weak). Weirdly, I'd say the article on the founder is a better candidate for deletion as I can't find anything significant about him. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point. The only thing I'd ask is if the sources only mention the company in passing, or if they're an in-depth article on it. WP:CORP states that sources cannot cover the subject in passing, which is what most game reviews etc tend to do. It's why a google search in this case cannot be relied upon to assert notability - is it the games that are notable or the company who made them?Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only sources available are directory listings after an exhaustive search. User:Krator (t c) 12:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has real world significance and claim by Jasynnash2 that sources can be found on Google searches. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to believe sources are among that Google search? I went through twenty pages of filtered results, and found none. What evidence do you have for real world significance, and what backup (in terms of sources) do you have for it? Do you base this opinion upon close examination of the article and its sources, or just a general keep-happy tendency? User:Krator (t c) 16:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't know if you have a general delete-happy tendency, I know that I for one offer a variety of arguments in these discussion as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:37, 14 May 2008 ::(UTC)

Just to clarify I said there were alot of ghits for "WayForward Technologies" but, that most of the ones I saw were at game sites which are blocked to me from work and I couldn't verify the contents of the ghits. I don't know if that is what User:Krator meant by filtered results or not. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only because there are no reliable sources cited. If the claims in the article can be backed up (and it is the duty of those seeking the article to be kept to cite them, not mine to show they don't exist), then it'd be an easy keep. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: there are sources out there, such as this one [3]. Between the one line mentions of WayForward Technologies on lists of developers, there are a few reviews of their games that mention them and mention a detail or two. I hope someone actually follows through on this and does the hard work of citing sources. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its games may have been reviewed, but I do not see how this corporation is in any way notable, which is not inherited. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although not the most famous of developers, it has longevity and has been reviewed itself (even if most hits are for its games). For example, here's one hit. There are others but a subscription is required for most I found at this point. There are other hits too, but they mainly mention the company in the context of it being a game's publisher. Even if that's not a direct review of the company, after you see it enough times - even in that context - it takes on some notability of its own. Having said all that, I'd sure like to see the redlinks removed...I wouldn't want this article being kept to be used a reason for creating another article about a game that is NOT notable... Frank | talk 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Company is barely notable, but I think it meets the standard, looking at the sources referenced above. Article needs to be improved, not deleted. Plvekamp (talk) 23:21, 21 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 The Irish Times. the wub "?!" 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rite and Reason[edit]

Non-notable newspaper column (it may be a highly informative column, but that's a difft matter to notability). The only references are a collection of links to the column's archive. --WP:NOT a linkfarm BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - notability not established. --Damiens.rf 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Irish Times. This could have been done without the AfD. --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major column in second-largest Irish daily newspaper. Merge as second choice. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder I quit this site. So an internationally famous and internationally quoted religious column in Ireland's newspaper of record is not notable. Yet this 'encyclopaedia' regards minor American cartoon characters as notable!!! Thank you for reminding me why I, and almost all the contributors who were here when I worked here, have left in frustration. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question The Irish Times is indeed the country's newspaper of record, but that doesn't mean that everything in it requires a standalone article. Are newspaper columns exempt from the usual requirements of WP:NOTE? If not, how about some references to how support this claim of notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try looking at who writes for it and where it is quoted. Everything in The Irish Times does not require an article. But a famous religious column that draws contributions from international religious and secular figures, does. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have looked at who writes for it, and still don't see what requires a separate article. What's there to say about it other than it attracts some high-profile contributors (cue brief list) and is widely quoted? That would require one or two paragraphs in the The Irish Times article, and possibly a redirect, but that's all. It's six years since you created the Rite and Reason], and in all that time no-one has found anything more to add to it than a few links, so I don;t see much point in hoping that more time will lead to expansion. Merger will do fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Irish Times. It is only a linkfarm at the moment. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:58, 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. Fram (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khalida Neferher[edit]

Non-notable game character with no reliable, independent sources as references. Graevemoore (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as gamecruft. Of limited to no interest to those who do not play the game. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary coverage whatsoever; fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and verifiable fictional character. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a reason for anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this notable? Show me the independent sources. Simply saying "Well they might exist" is pointless; by that criterion, nothing should ever be deleted (which, I suppose, is something that you want). Graevemoore (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What have you turned up on your searches? Something that you can hold in your hands has real world notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My searches have turned up nothing. But, apparently, you want me to prove a negative. And a franchised action figure is not independent of the source. By your qualification, I guess the 3/8" carriage bolt sold by BoltDepot.com also should have its own article? Where is the "has an action figure" section of WP:N. Show me the line of WP:N that it meets. You keep making this assertion of notability, but you've provided no evidence to support it. Note that evidence should be provided in some form that actually has relevance to WP:N. Graevemoore (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Something that appears in games and in statues is notable. It thus passes our notability polcies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which part of WP:N is that? As I asked, please make specific reference to the part of WP:N that you believe this meets. Graevemoore (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I see nothing on that link that suggests this article does not meet the guideline. The article is consistent with our policy on specialize encyclopedias. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because there is no substantial coverage in reliable, independent media. Let's stop going around in circles. That is the single notability criterion. Please show me how this meets it. Tell me how a source that is reliable and independent has substantially covered this character. Additionally, just because something is consistent with one rule doesn't mean that it's consistent with the rest. Graevemoore (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Is there anyway we can see if The Independent Magazine for Warhammer or similar publications had any articles? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sheer gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean to say "An essay considers WP:ITSCRUFT not to be a valid argument". Since you regularly point out that some pages (like WP:FICT) lack consensus, it's only reasonable to apply the same standards to other content. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And other users feel the same as do other essays. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content to List of major Warhammer Fantasy characters. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character which has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and whose article is entirely plot summary with no real-world context or significance. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a WP article this fails according to: notability, verifiability, its orphan status, and its in-universe style. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not everyone has faith that all articles have independent, reliable sources with substantial coverage. There is no point to making that kind of reply. Graevemoore (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no reason not to help in the search. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I certainly understand that you would like the burden of proof for deletion to be raised so high that it would almost never be achieved. But, yes, lack of belief that such sources exist is absolutely a reason to not expend more than a modest amount of effort on searching for sources. References should be the foremost requirement for the creation of new articles, and there is no reason that an old article should be exempted from that scrutiny. Graevemoore (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doctorfluffy. Jakew (talk) 20:13, 19 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. Fram (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.O.W.s (Resident Evil)[edit]

I belive this article should be deleted, as it does not meet Wikipedia's Nobility standards (WP:N). The article contains neither much real-world information (WP:WAF), nor actual references to verify its claims (WP:Cite WP:OR. WP:A). ShadowJester07 ►Talk 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of it does seem to be fairly redundant as there is also a list of Resident Evil creatures article. Geoff B (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not Resident Evil Wikia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of Resident Evil creatures. We only need one location for this information. -- saberwyn 00:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WAF. Nothing to merge. The only relevent parts of this article for an encyclopedia are the empty "Production and design" sections. Marasmusine (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge as the prose would do better if rewritten. User:Krator (t c) 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Maramusine. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or merge and rediect with deletion. Notable aspect of video games, films, novels, and toys. Nothing to delete. Wikipedia is a compendium of material covered in other wikis. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia articles aren't game guides or purely fictional. This article seems like both. Graevemoore (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as List of Resident Evil creatures already covers the same topic. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per redundancy with List of Resident Evil creatures. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Conisdering the article is not a "how to", it does not fail any anti-game guide policies. Moreover, if there is a similar article that it can be redirected to, then we redirect without deletion in order to keep contribution histories public. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping contribution history public is only an issue if content is merged. Taemyr (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also helpful when determining potential admins, i.e. being able to see as much of their edit history as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of reviewers at WP:RFA are administrators and quite capable of seeing deleted edits. This is a bit silly, but I'll leave it at that. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot aren't as well and I for one would like to know what editors worked on. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "keep" rationale. And practically all candidates at WP:RFA can be evaluated on the edits you can see. If you can't find anything in their regular contributions that suggest that they wouldn't make a good administrator, then they are probably a pretty good candidate. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. Not in the "how to" sense, but in the sense that it would be the kind of detail on the Resident Evil series that would only be found in a gameguide. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic overviews, not a complete catalog of the entire game plot. Randomran (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is a copendium of human knowledge. The subject of this article appear in not just games, but also films, toys, and novels. Thus, it cannot fail gameguide as the subject transcends video games. This article is an encyclopedic overview in the Wikipedic sense and there is nothing to be gained by deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "There's nothing to be gained by deleting it" should be avoided in deletion discussions. See WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM. If an article is non-notable (even if it is related to an otherwise notable topic), it doesn't belong on wikipedia even if there is "nothing gained" by deleting it. Good luck, Randomran (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article in question, however, is indeed notable and belongs on Wikipedia as it is consistent per the First pillar with specialized encyclopedias on toys, video games, fictional characters, etc. Verifiable information concerning subjects that appear in a notable franchise and in multiple media are notable and merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Keeping this material adds to the value in Wikipedia. Deleting it only insults those who worked on it and sends a contradictory message to editors, readers, and donors. AfD may not be a vote, but the reality is that in addition to those arguing to keep here, hundreds if not thousands of good faith editors and readers who have been working on and reading this article for nearly two years believe this article is suitable for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally&&&-ho! 18:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Explain how the article "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". You are claiming it is notable; I am saying: show me the proof. Graevemoore (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do a google search and see how many sources turn up, but don't just limit your search to the internet. Published articles like Jeremy Parish, “WTFiction!? Deciphering silly stories: No. 2: Resident Evil,” Electronic Gaming Monthly 224 (January 2008) is all about how these weapons are strange. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, there's a lot. But none that provide substantial, reliable coverage about these B.O.W.s. And this isn't an AfD for Resident Evil; clearly the franchise is notable. It's about a certain kind of enemy in the game, and I simply don't believe that there exists substantial, reliable coverage about them in particular. Why don't you show me a link or an article that has both (significant coverage and reliability), and I'll change my vote. Graevemoore (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Look at reviews on the toys for example. Also, this is a discussion, not a vote. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And user reviews count as reliable sources? Again, please point me to a link that is reliable, independent, and contains substantial coverage, and I'll change my ~~vote~~opinion. Graevemoore (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The magazine referenced above is independent and reliable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But not substantial. That's a general plot piece. Graevemoore (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I recognize the tiny minority opinion of "those arguing to keep". But we shouldn't care how much work has been put into a non-notable article. See WP:EFFORT. It sounds to me like you have a problem with deletion in general. That's a discussion that should take place at a policy level, not in individual AFD discussions. Have fun, Randomran (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The actual majority of editors believe the article should be kept. A handful of deletes that are really "I don't like it" in nature here does not reflect the real consensus. We should care how much work has gone into this notable article. I believe plenty articles should be deleted as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, but this article should not be. In the larger sense, I think a good argument is made at User:Pwnage8#Deletionism vs. Inclusionism. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a vote. If the "actual majority of editors" believe the article is notable, then at least one of them should be able to step forward and prove it. Otherwise, let this one go. If it's not notable then it's cruft. Enjoy, Randomran (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It would be irresponsible of me to not defend an article concerning a topic that I know to be notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How would you measure the responsibility of someone who defends an article with repetition rather than reliable and independent research? Rhetorically, Randomran (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        While using repetition to attempt to get an article deleted rather than partaking in reliable and independent research is unconstructive, defending the article is considerate to those good faith editors working to improve the article, but who do not have my patience for dealing with AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, unnecessary gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should read the essays you cite. From WP:ITSCRUFT, Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft. Until you provide us with independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage of B.O.W's, my view, and the view of every other editor that have commented here, except you, is that this is article clearly falls under WP:NOT#IINFO. Taemyr (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I and others find the word itself unconstructive. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced. --EEMIV (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No editor who wants to comment on an AfD is obliged to fix the article in any fashion. For all you know, the editor doesn't know anything about the topic or isn't interested in the topic, but knows our policies and guidelines enough to realize that there are violations of them. Harassing people in this matter is a gross violation of WP:AGF. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The AfD guidelines encourage editors to also make an effort to improve the articles under discussion FIRST. If editors do not know about the articles under question, then it may be somewhat difficult for them to adequately assess the article. In discussions, editors interact and engage with each other. Please stop assuming bad faith. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's nothing in any guideline as far as I can see that says that nominators have to improve articles, and per overwhelming precedent, people who nominate AfDs don't work on the articles in question. Anyhow, AfD is a community discussion. You're basically inviting the entire community to come comment on the article itself, which includes people who have never seen the article, are unfamiliar with the topic, have no interest in the subject material, and so on and such forth. This does not mean that they are not fit to review the article, as all is required is a well-intentioned argument. Asking these people to go fix the article because they have identified a problem that warrants deletion is nothing more than plain rude. It's the same as criticizing someone at WP:FAC for identifying problems in the article. The burden is not on them, it's on the article and whoever wants to maintain standards. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Telling people that they have five days to produce sources or else a non-hoax, non-libelous article will be deleted is rude when not every likely source is available online. Anyway, our policies and guidelines list Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and say "Before nominating...please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." I do not think this article is obviously hopeless. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "Consider" is the key word and it is not required nor obligated of those who bring forth AfDs that this be done. No one here besides you is saying "OMG, he didn't want to discuss or fix this first, procedural keep and chuck this nomination out the window." Standard practice dictates that this is definitely not the case. Anyhow, the sourcing is here or it isn't. If you find it later, feel free to recreate the article. The burden of proof is on the article, and WP:N is not substantiated by nebulous claims that sources exist somewhere. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As this talk page discussion indicates a good deal of editors do in fact believe that editors participating in AfDs should make actual efforts to improve the articles under question. Heck, I even typically make some proactive edits to those articles that I argue to delete in the off chance that they are kept. This particular article is undeniably notable. The BOWs of Resident Evil appear on calendars, toys, in films, in a major game series, in novels, etc. I don't know how much more notable they can be. They are covered in reliable, indepenent game magazines, many of which do not have online archives and which therefore take more than five days to go through. For articles concerning topics that are obviously not made up or are not one time appearances or something, we should give our editors a lot more leeway and respect than to order them to improve the article rapidly or they have to start over and possibly have the article speedy deleted as recreated material when instead we can continue building and working on this notable and verifiable article at our leisure. This is a volunteer project, not something that has to be up to snuff for some published version by the end of the week. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That discussion supports your stance solely in the case of a fundamental change in the process, and no one there supports the notion that every single AfD !voter has to do some sort of improvements onto an article they don't want to edit or are unfamiliar with. Take an album I've never seen before and of a type of music I don't like but blatantly fails WP:MUSIC. I can still go onto that AfD and !vote "Delete - per WP:MUSIC" and if someone comes along and says, "Go edit that article and improve it. If you want to make any delete !votes, you have to do this." Not only would I think that pretty damn rude, I don't want to edit that article, and I'm a volunteer that can spend my time as I see fit. Anyhow, you claim they have non-trivial coverage in magazines and whatnot, yet I see zero sources to suggest it. If you can't find it, then the article is deleted, it can be userfied, and you are free to recreate it with the aforementioned third party coverage. You can criticize the process all you want, but you're not going to change it in a simple AfD. And yes, we're all volunteers, but this is an encyclopedia that has standards to uphold, not a repository for everything known to man. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have already mentioned sources above. Articles only need to be deleted if they are hoaxes, copy vios, nonsense, or libel. There is nothing to suggest that this article does not have potential to be improved or that such efforts are in process. It is rude to expect editors to speed up their efforts on something that has no deadline. The time spent "voting" to delete could actually be spent improving the article. Instead of telling editors, "Well, you better find some sources in five days," why not use the time to make such a statement to help find sources? Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia per its Five pillars, it is a combination of general encyclopedias AND specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. This article may not appear in Britannica, but it is consistent with specialized enyclopedias on monsters, weapons, video games, fictional characters, etc. And it is consistent with the larger encyclopedic tradition: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - (re-indent) No, articles are deleted when consensus decides that it should be deleted, which practically every editor here save you has !voted towards. And no, it is not rude to expect editors to find sources. The burden was on them when they created the article to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Whatever you define as this encyclopedia's scope is totally irrelevant in this context. We care if articles meet WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, not what subject material they are. No one goes to an AfD, looks at an article, and immediately decides that it warrants deletion because of its subject matter. We care that it follows all our guidelines and policies, and call for changes, deletion or otherwise, when it does not. Both Wales and Diderot are engaging in very broad explanations of what their encyclopedias are that have absolutely no bearing in a specific discussion such as this. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we assume good faith, then every editor who worked on this article also believes it should be kept, because its was worthy enough for them to work on and must therefore meet their understanding of policy. It is rude to needlessly rush editors to find sources when such sources reasonably exist. There is no deadline that the article must meet a half dozen odd editors' deadline here when it is actively being improved by various other editors. This article meets not my definition of Wikipedia's scope, but the policy's definition of its scope. The article can be verified in reliable sources, thus it meets WP:V. The article conderns subjects that appear in a variety of notable media, thus it is is WP:N. The article is consistent with a bunch of different kinds of specialized encyclopedia, thus it's consistent with WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAIS. It follows all of our guidelines and policies. There is no pressing reason for it to be outright deleted as any concerns with it can in fact be reasonably addressed through improvement. In other words, the concerns expressed here are not insurmountable. Wales and Diderot very much so have a bearing on encyclopedic tradition and their words carry weight in such discussions as this one. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. (I'd add more but Sephiroth has pretty much covered it.) --EEMIV (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We would appreciate the help. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ merge to List of Resident Evil creatures. Arguments about inclusion vs. deletion notwithstanding, after going over the article I find that it is essentially a list article that serves the same purpose as the "List of RE creatures" article. In fact, the 2 articles seem to repeat much of one anothers' info. There seems to be no well-reasoned argument for having 2 list articles essentially devoted to the same subject matter that don't have a substantive difference in content. This article is mainly in-universe character/plot summary and IMHO in its present state probably matches several criteria of WP:NOT, as it lacks real-world commentary and cites zero sources. I am not opposed to the article's subjecty matter per se, but I believe the best way to cover it is in a single article about the series' creatures with encyclopedic, real-world discussion citing reliable published sources. Exactly what scope, discussion and coverage would be best in such an article is a separate discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article title is a legitimate search term, even in a worse case scenario we would redirect, but not outright delete this encyclopedic article with real-world notability verifiable in reliable published sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amended my !vote to merge, as I do think the subject matter is significant, but still don't believe we need 2 articles covering essentially the same stuff (enemies in the video game series). However, I may disagree on it being a legit search term, as the statistics you cite seem to indicate the number of times the page has been viewed, not the number of times the phrase "B.O.W.s (Resident Evil)" has been entered as a search term. The encyclopedic value is a matter of opinion, though as someone who has played the games I do think there is something to discuss here with real-world perspective and 3rd-party sources as the biological weapons thing is the major plot element that drives the series. Most of the info is certainly verifiable, though it is not currently verified as the article is completely unsourced, but this is something that can be fixed. It desperately needs some reliable published source material, particularly of the 3rd-party, real-world context variety, unfortunately I do not have any to add to it at the moment. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Gamecruft, no assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid argument for deletion and the article has assertion of notability through reliable source as has already been indicated both above and on the actual article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. What few sources are cited fail to provide evidence of notability. Jakew (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these published books contain verfiable and reliable information that can be used to improve and better reference this article. Not to mention articles in various game and toy magazines. Plus, we don't delete if we have valid merge and or redirect locations. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid that I don't share your confidence, LGRdC. While there are books about or based upon Resident Evil itself, I performed a Google Books search, and found few references to the subject of this article. Consequently, I am not convinced that this article is sourceable. Additionally, I do not regard a merge as realistic, partly per Marasmusine's arguments, and partly because the lack of sources would mean that whoever performs the merge would bear the burden of sourcing the material. Finally, I see little point in a redirect, as the title strikes me as a highly unlikely search term. Jakew (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually have a number of books and magazines that can indeed be used as references for practically all of the b.o.w.s listed in the article as I own a number of game guides and have subscriptions to GamePro, Playstation The Official Magazine, Game Informer, and Electronic Gaming Monthly. My focus now, however, must be on my dissertation. Nevertheless, given time and as we do not have deadlines I should be given time, I have NO doubt that I could reference this article in a suitable fashion that would even in an extreme worst case scenario allow for a merge if not outright being kept. Editors do not need to be rushed on a volunteer project when there is a reasonable chance the article in question could be improved to a reasonable number of editors' standards. Plus, those familiar with the series know the article title to be a legitimate search term. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:17, 20 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. John254 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fish (fashion)[edit]

Not Notable. Megapen (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a page for the tie he is credited with designing, which I realize may smack of WP:OSE, but not quite. If the thing he designed is notable, perhaps a case can be made for notability of the designer himself. Apparently an independent source lists this info (printed book so can't be immediately verified online). Frank | talk 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is notable for creating the kipper tie, among others; article makes mention of the notability, and I've added a few sources for him to demonstrate notability. nneonneo ^talk 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major influence on the "mod" era, associated with creating the "look" for several rock bands incl. The Rolling Stones & The Who. Needs expansion & sourcing, but clearly a notable figure. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is ths article about Michael Fish, more famous as a weatherman? Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it is not. The kipper tie is not a "fish tie" although there may have been a pun intended in the original name. His meteorological activities would seem to preclude a hand in shaping fashion during the Swinging London era. --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is not just notable, he is famous. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable. Stifle (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is so like wikipedia to have someone nominate for deletion an article about one of the major fashion designers of the 1960s and 70s while ignoring the large articles about fictional characters in video games. Last time I checked, it wasn't the obligation of any one contributor of content to add a full-blown article about a subject in order to avoid being immediately lopped off of wikipedia -- editors continually contribute. Larry Dunn (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:56, 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 Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Davis (musician)[edit]

Played with a few notable musicians but that doesn't make him notable himself. I've found no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn User:Hit bull, win steak and User:MyGrassIsBlue have found sufficient sources that I feel criterion of WP:MUSIC is now met. His very common name did make searching for sources very difficult, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources: All Music Guide and their review of one of his albums. There's also a good interview here, a Sing Out! review of an album here, and a bunch of other stuff on Google News if you feel like looking. Easily meets C1 as a musician, and also meets WP:MUSIC as a composer/lyricist, since his songs have been covered by Tim McGraw, Jo-El Sonnier, and Billy Bob Thornton. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find more non-review/non-interview sources, I might be persuaded. The AMG source is a good find. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources: Flatpicking Guitar Magazine article on Brad Davis, [http://infoweb.newsbank.com.remote.scccld.lib.mo.us:8080/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=1102BA2E5F104158&p_docnum=11&p_queryname=3

Noted guitarist to appear at Shoppe] article from the Kansas City Star, Davis picks brewery for workshop, performance in Daily News Leader of Staunton, Virginia; [http://infoweb.newsbank.com.remote.scccld.lib.mo.us:8080/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=1124A63E79157EB0&p_docnum=25&p_queryname=3 Flatpicking guitarist to host workshop at Route 60 Music] in The Herald Dispatch of Huntington, WV - June 15, 2006

MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those sources lead to a login screen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then get a library card with a library that has access to Newsbank. These are newspapers across the country. Obviously, full text cannot be posted on other websites without the permission of the article writer/publication (copyright violation).--MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable session musician with an extensive/impressive resume. Wikipedia has many articles similar to this. No different then Brent Mason or Arlen Roth or Dan Huff or Redd Volkaert. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. "used in a perfectly valid manner" to support opinion. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:14, 17 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 CSD G3, blatant vandalism and hoax. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puterlactiphobia[edit]

Hoax. See here. asenine ^{say what?} 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 as hoax, already tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, and, if applicable under CSD G3 (blatant misinformation), speedily delete. The four "references" provided are not references at all (web translation service, two people, and a picture). nneonneo ^talk 22:03, 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 I have withdrawn this nomination, as the sources presented show that this duo clearly meets criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC (substantial third-party coverage). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gordons (duo)[edit]

~~Non-notable musical duo. No sources seem to exist. No major label albums, chart singles, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. All Music Guide review of their album "Time Will Tell Our Story" here, Riverfront Times profile here, St. Louis Post-Dispatch profile here -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The middle source is the only one that isn't a mere review. If you can find more non-review sources (just reviews aren't usually enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC criterion #1), I'd probably be persuaded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Flatpicking Guitar Magazine interview and feature article on The Gordons [4] here, Belleville News-Democrat mention [5]here

, Southern Illinoisan article: "The Gordons to play at Liberty Theater" [6] , St. Louis Post Dispatch article from 1997: "HOMEFRONT THIS WEEK: COUNTRY AND BLUEGRASS THE SOUND OF MOUNTAIN SOUL" [7] , Southern Illinoisan article mentioning The Gordons opening for Charlie Daniels, [8] --MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews aren't usually considered substantial; note that criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC states "except for the following... other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the most part they are not simply interviews but feature 'articles' about the artist. They were notable enough to warrant more than one article in the press, at different dates. --MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the Myspace test. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As changed on the page, note that the duo in question does own their own domain. --MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:57, 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cannon (sculptor)[edit]

Possible hoax -- zero references, no hits on anything. Original author has not come forward with any references, nor can I find any (despite this person's apparent notability). nneonneo ^talk 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Seems to be a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy declined (in caution) to "let this AfD run its course". nneonneo ^talk 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. In fact, likely hoax. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I too was unable to find anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 00:49, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Spece[edit]

Classical clarinetist of dubious notability. Involved in some recordings, but most if not all references are trivial. Article was created by subject's wife. --Finngall ^talk 21:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impossible to verify based on vagueness of citations given. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's clearly a conflict of interest here and a fair amount of 'hype' + very vague references. All that can be remedied (in theory) and shouldn't necessarily be a factor in deciding notability. However, from my research, his notability (if any) is extremely marginal. His wife, Ava Spence, is probably more notable than he is, at least in Google News. [9]. She's the Director of the DC Youth Orchestra Program. Not surprisingly, that article was also created by User:Ecepsava. Nothing for either him or Saeculum Aureum Players in Google Scholar or Books. A few mentions of him in Google News (all dates) - basically very brief concert notices. [10], apart from these relating to "Saeculum Aureum Players. [11] Below is all the relevant stuff I could find on the web.

Re his PhD. from ISU, true, here's his doctoral recital. [12]
His most prominent recording is probably Vintage Woodwinds. For more details, see [13]. It was reviewed a fair amount in the specialist press. See this section of the Saeculum Aureum Players web site. (I checked out the ones that are online and the ones at the SAP site are accurate quotes.) The rest are either 'forthcoming' and/or on very small labels. He appears to have been a 'band member' rather than a soloist in Saxophone Vocalise (Delos 1994) and Mozart Piano Concertos - Northwest Sinfonietta (Sonic 1999).
Re this claim in the article: "In 2005, critically acclaimed and Pulitzer-nominated American composer Scott McAllister, wrote a piece for Spece entitled BlingBling. Spece premiered the piece at the Strathmore Music in the Mansion Series in January 2006..." Spece did indeed premiere the piece, see [14]. I haven't found any evidence that suggests McAllister has been "critically acclaimed", although he seems well enough known on the contemporary music circuit. As for the Pulitzer Prize nomination... um... anyone can nominate someone, even themselves. What counts is the jury's final selection. Having searched the Pulitzer Prize data base, [15], there's no mention whatsoever of McAllister as a "nominated finalist".

I'll wait to see how the discussion develops, but I'm highly inclined to vote delete as of now. Voceditenore (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Voceditenore's research (thanks for your work) and failure to meet notability and musician notability guidelines. I was hesitant to nominate this for deletion as I didn't feel like doing the sort of research that Voceditenore did and felt like that was the good faith thing to do, although the burden of providing additional refs should really be on the article's creator. Although conflict of interest isn't necessarily a criterion for deletion, that should also be taken into account. Per the autobiography guidelines, if you're notable, let someone completely unaffiliated with you write an article about you! And if the anon editor from D.C. is reading this, it has nothing to do with academic snobbery and everything to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not here to help promote anyone's career. If Spece's work gets substantively written about in multiple non-trivial sources (think The Washington Post for example), then certainly this article could be recreated. This is the avenue you might consider exploring. Katr67 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you about research. I don't really feel that I can nominate an article for deletion (or even vote delete) until I've done everything possible to see if notability could be established. I've managed to save at least three from oblivion, when at first sight the situation looked pretty dire. But in this case, I'm afraid not. There really isn't enough evidence that Mr. Spece is a notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. No evidence of notability from reliable sources has been forthcoming. I suggest the article's creator copy the article to a sandbox, e.g.User:Ecepsava/Sandbox, if she wants to save the Wiki mark-up. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 17 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:V and WP:N. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wadhawan[edit]

Delete unsourced one liner about a surname; nothing to indicate that this surname, among the gajillions of them, is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Diana: The Evidence[edit]

6 months on from release, article fails to establish any mainstream WP:notability, or even comment, bar obviously book merchant websites and the fortean times review, which is less than flattering and implies the same lack of notability. Considering the recent inquest I would have thought there would been more interest in such a titled book, but it appears not. Hence, not worthy of an article, whose stub sized presence here judging by Google does more for the authors than for the wikipedia reader reaching it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is reportedly a planned film adaptation, but the sources I can find on Google News Search and NewsUK don't allow us to say anything worthwhile about the book or the film – a few newspapers have reported the book's content, but without critical commentary. EALacey (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The film was planned for Spring 2006. I think it's safe to say it's either 'on hold' or dead. Like I said, given the recent inquest here in the UK, I would have thought if this was still in the pipeline, it would be all over the place. MickMacNee (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article is a stub and should be tagged as such. Just because a book is poor or badly written doesn't mean that it's not notable. So I'm not so sure about the above nomination reasoning. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of some actual reviews from better sources or other evidence for notability. DGG (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources establishing the notability of this book.-- danntm ^T _C 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication of pre-publication interest on the part of anyone but the author and publisher.Elan26 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Delete - there's no WP:N here. The ISBN "references" don't count as per WP:V. The review arguably does, but that single review isn't enough. Merenta (talk) 01:37, 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 speedy delete primary editor's request. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maitreya Ishwara[edit]

The article fails WP:BIO, in that there is no indication that this person has been the subject of multiple independant biographical articles. Delete with the possibility of reinstatement if independant verification can be provided. TheRingess (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No relevant hits for "Maitreya Ishwara" or "Wayne Anthony Unsworth" on Google News Archive or NewsUK. Google Books turns up an apparently independent management guide that quotes him without comment, but I can't find adequate sources for an article, and the current article doesn't cite any. EALacey (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Very few hits and reliable sources on Google. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am responsible for creating the article in question and adding most of the material. In response to the comments here, I must say that I find it surprising, disturbing even, that anyone would put up an article for deletion before it has even been completed. I am loathe to criticise an uncompleted work. That said, it is indeed a problem that there seem to be few references to draw upon for Maitreya Ishwara. I have been hard pressed to find relevant material but I appreciate the importance of it and am still looking. --Schnooksie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnooksie (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must say more. I take exception to comments such as "the article fails" and "the article does not comply". The thing being referred to is not an article. It is a semi-article, an article under construction, a draft. Please do not post any more comments of this nature. Please do post comments that may prove helpful in creating a useful, compliant, worthy article. -- Schnooksie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnooksie (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All articles in the main article namespace are not considered complete, but are required to meet the basic content standards, like WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you would like more time to work on the article, consider moving it to a user subpage (or ask here if you don't know how to do that). Also, you have taken the quotations out of context. They do not say "the article fails" and "the article does not comply", rather "the article fails [the criteria at] WP:BIO", and "the article does not comply with the verifiability policy". Stifle (talk) 09:56, 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 redirect to Tirunelveli --John (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiruvalluvar Flyover[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability Nk.sheridan Talk 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources to show notability per WP:N or even existence per WP:V. Google returns only 5 hits [16], none of which pass WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Google results. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it isn't an article, it's a sentence which already exists verbatim in Tirunelveli. Ghits appea to only confirm its existence _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to see the sentence in Tirunelveli. If is is there redirect to that article; if not merge it into the section on its roads. This article is a brief stub probably with little room for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Location it's in this section, last sentence, just above the geography header. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tirunelveli, as the content already exists there, and there is no evidence of a need for a break-out article. If a redirect is done, remember to remove the wikilink back to the Flyover article/redirect. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:36, 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 delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick L. Anderson[edit]

This article doesn't meet notability and verifiability as described in WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:VER. I have made an attempt to verify notability and have determined the following. 1) Aside from a few short quotations, the subject of the article has not been covered by the media or other sources. 2) The subject is the CEO of a company that has also recieved limited press coverage (I found a few tangential references in newspapers but no pieces directly covering the company) and I can find no evidence that Anderson Economic Group is one of the largest business economics consulting groups as is claimed. 3)I find no evidence that the books and academic papers listed are of major import in the field. In addition, the prize awarded for best paper and a series of positions with the state government don't seem to rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. A prod tag based on notability was earlier removed. Wik-e-wik (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The papers are very lightly cited, so he isn't a notable research economist. His public service (chief of staff of a department being the peak) isn't notable by itself, either. Nor could I find reliably sourced reviews of either of his books. He is trivially quoted in the press on occasion (e.g. business climate). I could find references to his company, Anderson Economic Group, that suggest it would pass WP:CORP, in which information about the subject would be appropriately included. --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 7 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, Davewild (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per my comment above. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:04, 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 Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 09:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Duplissea[edit]

Delete not a major league player, but essentially a trainer - fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Keep now that it is properly sourced. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now added two reliable, independent sources.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did get as high as AAA, which many (but not all) people at WP:MLB consider to be a fully professional league. Add to that the Palo Alto Daily News article, and I think WP:N is satisfied. (Question: does anyone know the relationship between this Bill Duplissea and the San Mateo County lobbyist of the same name?)--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lobbyist is his father. They both are from San Mateo, their photos show a definite family resemblance and I just read a bio of the Royals coach that says his father is also named Bill. Spanneraol (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I was fairly certain they weren't the same person, but it's not a common name. :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bullpen catcher is considered to be part of the team coaching staff and he is listed among the Royals coaches on their website. Major League Baseball coaches are certainly notable under the current guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major league coaches are notable. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:39, 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 redirect to Art Comics Daily. While notability is not clear for Bebe Williams, it's a valid search term. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bebe Williams[edit]

Delete. Non-notable. Article is made by the subject, so obvious WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues. It was tagged last month for "dubious notability". CyberGhostface (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/merge to Art Comics Daily which is actually notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:40, 13 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, Avi (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per CyberGhostface. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anapnea[edit]

Doesn't appear to be a notable software/shell account. Ghits limited to downloads, forums and other non RS. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:A7. So tagged. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:18, 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. --John (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afterimage (Los Angeles band)[edit]

Non-notable band with no references, only likn is to website. I would guess this is some form of self-promotion. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't think it was controversial, could have been speedied. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked around for media mentions, but the only one of substance that I found was this brief AMG review of one of their albums. The Filipino band of the same name seems to be notable, but I'm not sure that this band is. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:18, 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 Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 09:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Rose[edit]

A few claims here and there, but he seems to fall a bit short of WP:MUSIC. Only sources are no good. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment I created this article due to Rose's presence on WP:MWA. Rose's credits (see AMG listings) are numerous and involve at least 20 notable bands, not all of which are current listed on the Wiki page. Chubbles (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that the article is worth keeping. I removed the production credits in order to re-structure them now, since they were really cluttering up the article. However, I believe the article is notable not only for his work with several notable bands, but also for his hand in forming Black Lodge Studios. Rwiggum (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the production credits since they are the most important reason why he's notable. You can go ahead and re-structure them as you like, but I don't want them to not be there while this AfD progresses. Chubbles (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 9 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, Avi (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has produced several VERY notable bands including The Get Up Kids, Motion City Soundtrack and The New Amsterdams, just to name a few. He has also produced albums by up-and coming bands like Houston Calls, Vedera, Blackpool Lights, White Whale, and countless others. He was one of the co-founders of Black Lodge Studios, which has become a nationally known studio. I think this article is important, and there is a lot of crap on here that is far less notable than him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwiggum (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westlake, County Londonderry[edit]

Non-notable place: it's just a road/housing estate (see map) Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All villages are notable, even if they aren't very interesting. --Eastmain (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom has provided link to satisfy WP:V thats all that must be satisfied. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Eastmain says. --Helenalex (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm confused. The point is that this place isn't a village. It's a road with a development of new houses on the outskirts of Derry. If you look at the map you'll see that there are other villages labelled nearby, but that Westlake is just the name of a road. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a tract of houses built 1999-2001. Like a subdivision in the US. Does not appear to be a census unit, village or hamlet, so no inherent notability which we accord to those geographic entities. Thus it would need substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. There are dozens of such subdivisions or builders tracts in most medium sized towns in the U.S, and they also have no inherent notability. Likewise it is just the name of the street running through the housing development. Redirect to Derry. Edison (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the place clearly exists. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I'm not claiming that it doesn't exist; rather that it's not notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that all villages are notable. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point though - it's not a village. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You're right, it's actually a street. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be simply a local name for a street and a group of houses, with no other evidence of notability provided. I tried to think of a graceful way to merge the information into Derry or Strathfoyle, but was unsuccessful. There just isn't much significant information to merge. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete housing developments are not notable.-- danntm ^T _C 17:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence that this place is a village. It actually appears to be just a street. Anyways, there are no references, or anything to show "Westlake, County Londonderry" exists as village or is notable.--Celtus (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like an advertisement for the new houses the develp=oper plans to build in 2008-2009.Elan26 (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Delete - just a housing estate and smaller than the one I live on which is also decidedly nn (except for me living there of course :-)). Not a settlement. TerriersFan (talk) 17:57, 19 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:BAND. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Disco X[edit]

Delete. WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:BAND... you choose. Endless Dan 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:22, 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Fischer[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Known only -- to the extext that he is -- for the screenplay of an obscure indie movie last year. Very few Google hits, no reliable sources about the subject. RGTraynor 20:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable screenwriter, fails WP:BIO ukexpat (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto the conentless nanostub about the movie he made; I just nominated it as an A3 speedy. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Produced two movies, that's it. No resources to prove notability beyond IMDB. Nothing else on these films. His first film is on A3 as I type this, the second one is elsewhere here in AFD. Is he a film student? All I know is that he directed two films. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and per above. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:22, 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 speedy delete, nonsense. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Yakulo[edit]

might constitute a hoax Megapen (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. I'd already tagged it for vandalism before I saw your AfD, feel free to remove my speedy delete tag if you'd like, but there are claims in this article that are easily disproved as blatant misinformation, so I think a speedy delete as vandalism is the way to go. Rnb (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Clearly a hoax per above. I endorse the tag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:09, 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 CSD A7, "uploads to YouTube" is not an assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Ryan[edit]

Low notability Megapen (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Rnb (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per A7. RGTraynor 20:06, 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 Speedy deleted by User:Inter. Ty 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Grill[edit]

don't see how he is notable – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Rnb (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article with "he excelled in photography" can't be claimed to have failed to assert notability, taking this out of speedy. However, there are no sources, and the subject completely fails WP:BIO. Ravenswing 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's difficult to excel in anything when it's in the context of experiences in classes in high school, so I stand by the speedy delete, but either way, the outcome of this discussion will probably be the same. Rnb (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Just saying someone excelled at something isn't enough for A7 not to apply. Completely non-notable, no sources, no assertion of notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Entry on the talk page leads me to believe the creator is the person himself, thus is against WP:NPOV. HalfShadow 20:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I see that User:ThatWikiGuy removed TenPoundHammer's speedy A7 tag, so I'm not going to tag it again or speedy it myself, but I feel it deserves it — I'm not seeing any assertion of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Absolutely no assertion of notability, and very few ghits. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:11, 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.

Mobile Internet access worldwide[edit]

Seems to be an arbitrary list of mobile Internet service providers, prices, and other non-encyclopedic content. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A collection of nothing really encyclopedic. SunCreator (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencylopedic original research. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:22, 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasios Gelinos[edit]

Clear example of a spoof article on a non-existent entity Damac (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid delete: When this article was first created, the subject's date of birth was given as "1 october, 1964". Now its "1 October 1988". The article's creator has never contributed anything else[17] nor has another one of the page's supporters (User talk:Jispir) been up to much. A Google search produces very little in terms of independent, reliable sources[18]. We've even had claims that this guy appeared on Southpark.[19]--Damac (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 With all the absurd claims being made about this guy, and given the total lack of sources, I would say it's ~~very likely a WP:HOAX~~ blatant misinformation even if the person really does exist (they do have a Freewebs website at least). So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Near Speedy delete Barely any assertion of real notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the lack of third-party sources and the WP:BLP policy, the unique claims about the "19-year-old Greek art prodigy who is now pursuing a music career in the Netherlands" should be immediately removed if not substantiated. This is either promotional, a hoax, or suffers from notability problems... either way, it should go. --Marcinjeske (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 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 no consensus. the wub "?!" 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tropes Wiki[edit]

Fails to pass the threshold of notability - references are primarily to the website itself. External sources include:

The curiculum for a college course (independent, but not a discussion in a reliable source in my mind, and somewhat trivial)
A referral in a notable webcomic. This is not a discussion of TTW, it's a referral to a single page. The author apparently thinks it's a good source, but doesn't say anything about TTW, s/he just links to it.
A reference in the DVD commentary of Lost. Actually a shout-out, not even a referral and certainly not a discussion.

Per WP:WEB, there is a lack of non-trivial discussion in reliable sources to indicate the site has received extensive attention. No awards, no redistribution in newspapers. Page has received trivial attention, not discussion, in some borderline sources. WLU (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by trlkly Moved out of AFD nomination and adjusted to refer to points above, WLU (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Regards point 1) I'm not commenting on the AfD as a whole until I can gather my thoughts. But I think it's hardly fair to call use of a website in a college class that is explicitly about the same subject trivial. In my mind, determining notability is as simple as determining the notability of the school, and the prominence of that class in the school. -- trlkly

(Regards point 2) Maybe I'm thinking about the wrong one, but I believe he gives a glowing review of the site. He also mentions one of the article, which is technically discussing the subject of the wiki. -- trlkly

- Regards your reply to 1, I wouldn't consider a curiculum, which will probably change or disappear depending on the class' schedule, a notable mention or reliable source. I could be the minority and other contributors could be convinced. Regards your reply to 2, the comic's author is discussing lampshade hanging; he refers to the TV Tropes wiki for context. The point of the discussion is lampshade hanging, not how TTW is a great resource. WLU (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Fun and useful place -- I edit there myself -- but aside from glowing mentions in two textbook bibliographies all I'm seeing is umpteen-gajillion blog mentions. Doesn't seem to make the WP:WEB-cut. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my delete and abstaining -- between the bibliographic citations and coverage in newpaper "blogs" (which as DocumentN notes seem to count as reliable sources) this is no longer clearly outside the wikidefinition of notable. I'm not sure that it's inside it, either, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm going to fight as hard as I can to keep this article unless someone else can do it for me. The only reason the keep is weak is that I really don't care if the article gets deleted, but I want to be absolutely certain it fails WP:N before deleting it. I think any less is unfair, no matter what the subject. On a side note, does Wikipedia have a way of proposing an article before wasting the time needed to create one? If not, I think it would be a nice feature. I frankly don't like wasting my time if something is most likely to be deleted to begin with. -- trlkly 06:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm doing this wrong, but this is my first AfD. Anyways, I also want to point out that, if there are five external references, and three are ELs, then the article is not "primarily sourced" by the wiki. At least, in my opinion. -- trlkly 06:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Trope (TV) and develop along similar lines to Trope (music) and Trope (literature). Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does make some sense. TVTropes may not be notable enough, but the concept they espouse probably is. Of course, we have to find sources. Question: Could TVTropes be listed as an EL? Or would that be against policy? -- trlkly 10:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO singles out wikis (#12) as something that is normally not linked. Like most wikis, this one would be of dubious reliability, and probably considered mostly WP:OR were it here. WLU (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the site would be appropriate in an External Links section. I expect that we will have little difficulty finding more relaible sources now that Media Studies is well-established in academia. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate using this type of argument, but I'd say it's a bit hypocritical to single out wikis like that. I mean, we have templates specifically for putting wikis on pages. Quite a few pages link to sister wikis or other MediaWikis. So if Wikimedia designed it, (or it's sister Wikia gets payed enough for it), then it's okay. I don't think it's fair to assume that, just because it's a wiki, it is most likely dubious. Examine sites on an individual basis, not using the same wiki-stereotype that alarms WP editors. Evaluate the information therein, not the style in which it is presented. That's my $0.02. -- trlkly 13:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis would not ordinarily be linked to in External Links, but this one has been cited in the bibliography in more than one textbook. If it's good enough for those, it should be good enough for us. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like it might be a fun site, but I cannot find any non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources to confirm notability. I have no problems with someone creating a Trope (TV) article and do not care if TV Tropes Wiki has an external link.--FreeKresge (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The New York Times cited them in this article: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/new-way-into-prison-and-an-old-way-out/index.html?hp That carries a bit of cache, IMHO. In full disclosure, I am a contributor there, and lately have contributed far more there than here. --HBK|Talk 03:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a blog, not the New York Times. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also not an extensive discussion, it's a weblink to a specific article. The site hasn't received attention, it's been referenced. WLU (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I read that as saying "Of course I don't need to introduce TV Tropes, because most of you have probably already heard of it." --DocumentN (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Emphasis added. --DocumentN (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstaining (Courteously). I'm not a registered user of Wikipedia, nor am I familiar with the dark arcana of WP policy; I'm just a random browser, and I suspect I don't really have a vote that counts here. I just wanted to note that there are dozens if not hundreds of links out of Wikipedia to the TV Tropes Wiki, as footnotes and cross-references, and I wanted to ask: If TVT is "authoritative" enough for Wikipedia to use it as a source/citation, why isn't it notable enough for its own page? --152.138.227.55 (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines for notability are based on attention and discussion in sources, not authority. The best way to save the page from deletion is to find a reliable source that explicitly discusses TV Tropes Wiki as a whole, not referring to it in a reference. This AFD does not determine if TV Tropes can be used as a source to verify (though as a wiki that's a large-ish can of worms in itself), only if it has its own article. Having its own article would make the site more likely to be used as a source, but so would the site having received attention and discussion within a source that says it's good or bad. WLU (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a user of both wikis I have to say that the whole Notability can of worms has made Wikipedia far less contributor-friendly thanit used to be. When you can't tell if a new article will be deleted for lack of Notability there's far less incentive to create one in the first place, which is precisely why I prefer the lack of it over at TV Tropes Wiki. I'll continue to use Wikipedia as a serious (?) reference tool but thanks to Notability I will be contributing less frequently than I used to. Lee M (talk)12:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a policy. It is a comparatively recent innovation and it is open to us to change or deprecate it if it seems that it is not helping us. I would support such a change. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and it would be deeply ironic if a site which prides itself on not requiring notablity got it's page deleted for not having enough notability). Cassius335 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the wiki has adequate citation to establish that other have persons, be it a professor or producer of Lost, have recognized TV Tropes as worthy of citation.-- danntm ^T _C 17:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I copied this from the talk page, as I think it might be more relevant here. I also made a comment at the end. -- trlkly

The WeirdestInboundLinkOfTheDay may possibly have some things that could be mentioned. There's John C. Wright, at least.

WP:V#SELF currently says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Does Wright being a published trope-using author make him an expert in the field of tropes? --DocumentN (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably have to verify the fact that he is a trope user from a source that claims it directly, in order to avoid WP:SYN. -- trlkly 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even logically possible to write a tropeless novel? Trying to dodge and subvert tropes is after all a trope in itself; authors have been doing it for a long time, and you still need to use knowledge of tropes to do it. --DocumentN (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion. But Wikipedia likes sources, maybe even a little too much. I've seen statements that are logically straightforward removed because of lack of sources. There's got to be someone who has said what you've said, though, so it shouldn't be that big a problem I think that the author's "trope expert" status would useful, if not vital, to source, though. -- trlkly 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no outside sources, see Wikipedia:Notability.--Otterathome (talk) 21:19, 20 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 A7 by Cobaltbluetony. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Moore (musician)[edit]

Non-notable musician article. Grasping at notability through association with other artists. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Libs (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Simply playing with other notable artists doesn't make you notable yourself. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:20, 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 --JForget 01:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisl and the Lorlok[edit]

Non-notable movie (?), filming not yet started - fails WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No info exists on the film yet, at least nothing outside of YouTube. Also, the director is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Films not yet in production don't meet WP:NFF. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider deleting all the related articles this user is contributing as NN and as nanostubs. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL and failure of WP:V ... and I've also put Ignatius Fischer, the soi-disant director of this masterwork, up for AfD as well. RGTraynor 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, going on WP:CRYSTAL here. Nice web page, though. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; very few Google hits. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:23, 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 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon quartz[edit]

Non-notable Pokemon hack. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hacks of games aren't inherently notable; no sources seem to exist for this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a game guide. RGTraynor 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - into the bin where it can join its friend, Pokemon Chaos Black. Marasmusine (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, doesn't go beyond random fan-created content. User:Krator (t c) 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hacks are not inherently notable unless reliable sources were to demonstrate so. WilliamH (talk) 21:26, 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. Fram (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fa Pao[edit]

Non-notable tower; the festival it's used in is red linked so I doubt its notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References added. Please read the Tin Hau Festival and Fa Pau is shown in this page should one not know about the heritage over hundreds of years. — HenryLi (Talk) 23:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One sentence does not a wikipedia article make. B.Wind (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you see one-sentence articles as a problem then the solution is to add more sentences. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the short page. Please note that WP:1S is not a policy but some contributors' opinion only. On the contrary, the article does not fall into any deletion category in WP:DEL after the improvement. It takes time to improve and need help from experts in the religion, culture or anthropology of South China. — HenryLi (Talk) 04:32, 12 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references might be better suited for an article on the festival. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I agree with TPH that if this tower is a part of the festival, an article on the festival is more appropriate ... provided it is a proper article with suitable verification and establishment of notability. Given that this article is two years old, it's already had plenty of time to establish that. WP:HEY applies, but I'd need some convincing to change my vote. RGTraynor 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - use the small amount of content here to build a decent article about the festival itself (I'd love to see such a page). HenryLi - the WP:DEL category that this falls into is "fails to meet the relevant notability guideline". Merenta (talk) 19:17, 17 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. Fram (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nadha Sahib Gurudwara[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate the notability of this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article appears to be a duplicate of Nada Sahib, without adding any significant information. --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:24, 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 no consensus. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Catherine Cook School[edit]

Delete no indication that this is a secondary school or is otherwise notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the website, it's a K-8 school and ghits don't establish notability. Independent private school and one sentence so nothing to merge anywhere. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A one-sentence stub of a private elementary/middle school without any assertion of notability or sources to indicate the same seems to be a slam dunk. RGTraynor 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree wholeheartedly. Delete as above per WP:N issues there raised. Eusebeus (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I added two references. This is a private school, so there is no school district to merge the article into, although merging it into the education section of Chicago is a possibility. --Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- neither of which establish notability per WP:ORG. No one is doubting the school's existence and there's nothing to merge into the Chicago article _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has a couple of WP:RS references and looks a valid stub.--Sting au Buzz Me... 04:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Sting Au, or a compromise would be to merge to Chicago#Private_schools, which is a pretty stubby section at the moment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to its school district or similar parent article. Not notable in and of itself. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a further, although not particularly significant Chicago Sun-Times source. I think the sources that have been added to the article are "significant" enough to meet the notability standard - they certainly meet "reliable" and "independent". There is a possibility of merging to Chicago#Private schools, but that is an editing decision, and does not need to be dwelled upon in a deletion debate. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has now been established. The use of tablet computers with handwriting-recognition capability rather than conventional school supplies is highly unusual and possibly unique. I have studied many schools and their articles and this is the first instance of this that I have come across. TerriersFan (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and EJF's sources. And as TF stated, this school is unique and notable for its use of tablet PC's. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:35, 18 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, ...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 00:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article would certainley benifit from more content, but the sources given seem to allow the article pass WP:N to me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:56, 19 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 as non notable, main article is too short to merge content without giving undue weight to this minor element. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Ferrari[edit]

Delete nn sometime guest on a former tv show, so nn we don't know where or when she was born - red flags of non-notability in a modern bio - or any other salient biographical facts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. Frank | talk 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Sally Jessy Raphael show. Integral part of the show, zero notability beyond it. RGTraynor 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RGTraynor. This is not a vote to keep. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per RGTraynor, lacks outside notability. WilliamH (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by WP:CSD#G3 by User:Orangemike. WilliamH (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wheezer Bros.[edit]

WP:HOAX violation. This alleged cartoon series by a non-notable animator (who is himself up for AfD) has only 56 unique Google hits, desperately scanty for a cartoon series supposedly on NBC for six seasons from 1995-2001. All those hits are of this and related timeline Wikipedia articles and their mirrors; none are from reliable sources. IMDB has no entry on this alleged series, and neither does the NBC website. Another film from this fellow is also up on AfD. It's somewhat sad that this article's been up for over two years without previous verification. RGTraynor 16:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found this about Jon Rexel and Wheezer Brothers. Cannot determine notability from it though. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Still looks like a hoax to me. The link mentioned by StephenBuxton seems to be based on compilation of the WP page and similar wiki-based sources. Nsk92 (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a hoax, pure and simple. --MHGW (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Despite StephenBuxton's link, this seems misinformative enough to be a WP:HOAX. (NBC hasn't shown cartoons in ages.) So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:13, 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 Speedy delete by WBOSITG. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert O'Connor[edit]

Recreation of a previously prodded article. Album and single articles fell to AfDs (see article's talk page). No sources provided (save artist's blog (removed)), no coverage in reliable sources found. Fails WP:MUSIC based on info in the article. Might fit speedy criteria, but recreation seems likely (see previous COI issues discussed in article's talk page). Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability whatsoever. So tagged. (And if I see one more ((infobox musical artist)) without a background...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:43, 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 ~~ N (t/c) 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLieroX[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this re-make of a game for a different platform (a "port" I think in computer lingo) is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a google search is turning up mentions at some of the better linux-related websites, unfortunately far too brief to satisfy WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 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 No Consensus. Both Keep and Delete voters seemed to have worthy arguments. Surely better sources could be found; one senses that more has been written about this guy. Merging is an editorial decision, and is still possible. The article that the voters have decided to keep is not very impressive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mneseus[edit]

Mneseus is one of 10 twins in Plato's Critias - all we can say about him is his name and position in the 'family', basically just a definition Doug Weller (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI probably should have added this this is a contest PROD, contested on the grounds 'it's fracking Plato'. I don't think that's a good enough reason for such a non-notable fictional character.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Critias. "It's fracking Plato" is not, as far as I recognize, explicitly part of Wikipedia policy or guideline. RGTraynor 20:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Critias (dialogue) would require a new section for minor characters. These authors speculate that Mneseus was the third king of Atlantis. If it's the same Mneseus. I would suggest asking Classical Greece and Rome to comment.Trachys (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Professor Schoppe teaches economics and write about Atlantis which they locate in the Black Sea. In this instance, he isn't a reliable source and we couldn't use him in the article. That is just speculation, there is only the one mention of the name in classical writings.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

next to the Black Sea, not in the sea, iirc. Does anyone have access to Schoppe's sources? Trachys (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And there's no there there. If merging this to Critias means making a minor character section, well, then, why exactly not? The Critias article isn't precisely overlarge. RGTraynor 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all figures from classical mythology are notable. These are the sort of subject people come to an encyclopedia to find out about. Whatever there is to say, we should say. (there's an article also in GS from Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 1943. [20] ) DGG (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mneseus is not a figure in classical mythology, the only mention of his name is the very brief mention by Plato which is not part of classical mythology. He is included in the article by Pease only in his long list of 'offspring of Posidon', referenced to Critias.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

classical mythology is the mythological figures referred to by classical authors.DGG (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I repeat this is an invention of Plato's, Poseidon is a mythical figure, but Plato made this character up so far as we know.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did/would Plato invent Mneseus? Even if he did, don't the inventions of one of the greatest minds in history deserve an entry? Trachys (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more so than any other ephemeral character from any other author's works. We don't have a separate article for every walk-on character in every play of Shakespeare's, come to that. RGTraynor 13:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources. Keep only if verified. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can tell, Mneseus is mentioned only once in Critias. I doubt that he is even notable enough to mention in a minor character section of the Critias article, much less have an article of his own.--FreeKresge (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Trachys (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's reasoning. I think there has long been a consensus here at WP that all mythical kings from "The Classics" are per se notable. Plato is a dead white guy, and so was Mneseus; therefore, there will be few Internet sources. Lack of Ghits does not mean the subject is non-notable. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd be pleased if you could link to those consensus discussions; I'd be interested in seeing it for myself. RGTraynor 14:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:So would I, but how is it relevant? Critias is an essay by Plato, it is not a myth. Mneseus is a character he created, therefore not mythical. And 'few Internet sources' is a red herring here, we have Google Scholar and Google books, which should be good sources for anything classical.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Critias (dialogue), if desired. I note that Mneseus isn't even mentioned in the Critias article; how can he be notable enough to have a separate article then ? Autochthon and Cleito aren't mentioned in the Critias article either, and they don't have separate articles. All three are very minor characters in Plato, not notable at all, but perhaps should be mentioned in Critias just for the sake of completeness. Plvekamp (talk) 00:07, 22 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, and a trout for the nom (just kidding). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Kavanagh[edit]

Contested prod, an actor who does not appear to meet the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Meets criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER - significant roles on TV and stage. Quite a few internet sources: 1, 2 and 3. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep google comes up with sources as StephenBuxton stated above (add those to external links) plus [21]. --neonwhite user page talk 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems clear that he is notable in Britain. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:ENTERTAINER, I believe there is notability. WilliamH (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retraction from nom. Okay, okay, I messed up. It was a one-sentence article about a teenage actor, and I mistook it for another of those selfpromotional non-notable articles. I'm a bad, bad person. Spank me. Or send Salma Hayek to do it, if you're too busy. I withdraw the nomination, and thank those who found the sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:15, 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 --JForget 01:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vinala language[edit]

Contested prod. Pure and utter bollocks. The original author obviously made this up, as there are absolutely no relevant Google hits about this subject, aside from this article. Should've been speedied as nonsense, in retrospect, but it looked too convincing at first. (Note: Companion article Vinala is up for speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, possibly non-existent language. Google kept sending me to sites with "vanilla" in them. (Also, I've redirected Vinala to Vinala language because it was essentially the same thing.) ... discospinster _talk 16:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as nonsense. Someone did spend some time thinking about it though, and I did find the "reta(red)" amusing though. I need to get a life. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Definitily made up - look at the opening line of this version of Vinala. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This isn't a speedy candidate - it isn't patent nonsense - but it is a WP:HOAX violation, pure and simple. Toss in WP:BULLSHIT and you're all set. RGTraynor 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not as hoax, but as a non-notable conlang. Not eligible for speedy, as not nonsense. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It lacks notability (i.e., no references) which is not a good sign. But to call an aritcle a hoax when it clearly says itself to be an artificilially constructed language with 2 speakers suggests that all those saying something like WP:HOAX are on a witch hunt, making the AfD process look really BAD. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Oh, please. You can have an artificially-constructed language that is legitimate. This is not one, but the article represents that it is. It's a hoax. This isn't a witch hunt; we're just trying to clean the poop off the stable floor. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Calling this article a hoax based upon 0 Ghits is a google witchhunt, which is very much something wikipolicy frowns upon. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether it's a hoax or not is irrelevant, since, in either case, it's a non-notable constructed language. The low number of Google hits (in fact, exactly 0) lends credence to the idea that it's a hoax, however. nneonneo ^talk 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, and it's probably ripe for WP:SNOW, too, just eight hours after being opened. nneonneo ^talk 23:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable/hoax, as Google reveals information about the city, not the language. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NFT more than WP:HOAX, at least if we're talking the version with the more honest explanation of the way this started. The one that made this look slightly more notable would be more of a hoax issue. Erechtheus (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article for I am still in the process of a goal. Berbania (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me to make my goal for I have no website to place this on. Berbania (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of free webhosts out there, and plenty more which are very inexpensive. Wikipedia is not the place for articles that you have made up, but which have not achieved notability. See also Wikipedia is not a free webhost. nneonneo ^talk 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you may delete my article in 3 days now. Berbania (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please let me to save my work for my own needs though please! Berbania (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing you can consider is putting your work on a wiki host such as BluWiki or ScribbleWiki, where users can add pages with anything they like (so long as it isn't illegal). That way, you can continue to use a wiki format. If you decide to do this, add ((db-author)) to the top of Vinala and Vinala language, so we can close this debate after you've saved your work. nneonneo ^talk 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn conlang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 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 speedily deleted (CSD A7) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. nneonneo ^talk 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon H. Rexel[edit]

Article appears to be unverifiable. There are no sources available via Google that are independent of the Wikipedia bio of this individual. MHGW (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references anywhere, except clones of the WP entry and its descendants. Strong possibility of a hoax. The same for the The Wheezer Bros. and Humanitasia, the animated series he supposedly created. I see that the latter is already nominated for deletion, but someone please nominate The Wheezer Bros. too. Nsk92 (talk)
Strong Delete: There sure aren't, and we have a walled garden going as well; there are now AfDs for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanitasia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wheezer Bros., alleged works of his for which extravagant and unverifiable claims have been made. Probable WP:HOAX, certain WP:BULLSHIT. RGTraynor 16:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found this about Jon Rexel and Wheezer Brothers. Cannot determine notability from it though. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a website that lists Wikipedia articles. So, yes, you cannot determine notability from it. --MHGW (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7. Created two apparently non-existent or hoaxalicious creations, no real notability at all. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:14, 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.

Delete as per RGTraynorElan26 (talk) 21

51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kasi calvin[edit]

Non-notable musician. tomasz. 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC; musician whose sole album was self-released on an online store a month and a half ago. No reliable sources. RGTraynor 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and on a side note, single purpose account. WilliamH (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the others, I couldn't find any RS. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google reveals nothing convincing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:27, 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 Merge or keep. Ok, I realize that this is ambiguous, so before anyone runs off to DRV, let me explicitly say that there is absolutely no consensus here to delete anything at all. There is also no consensus here (and AfD isn't the right place for it anyway) as to whether these should be merged to different targets, left as stand alone articles, or what have you. Merge discussions are already underway for the majority of these, if not all. Let them play out. LGRdC also mentioned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien) below, that perhaps should/could be resurrected to be included in the merge discussions. Let me know on my talk if the history is needed for a future merge. Final note: As closing admin, I'm not merging anything, or redirecting anything. I've no interest or knowledge of this particular subject. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M41A pulse rifle[edit]

Continuing my listings of Alien-related stubs, here we have a group of articles that are all spin-offs of Aliens (film), each devoted to a different prop, character, organization, or concept from the film. The whole lot seem to fail WP:N, as well as V/OR/RS as they rely entirely on only a couple of primary sources (the film itself and the Colonial Marines Techincal Manual for the most part) and almost entirely lack any secondary source material. High likelihood that there are no significant third-party sources that could be used to support individual articles about these things. The relevant information about characters, casting, props, design, etc. are all already discussed in Alien (film), and everything else present in these articles amounts to fan synthesis, trivial detail, in-universe explanations, and dubious claims to notability, none of which seem possible to expand within the guidelines of WP:FICT. Almost none of these subjects have appeared in any media other than the film itself and tie-in video games, and certainly don't seem to have been the subjects of any significant discussion in third-party sources (at least nothing that's not already well-explained in the film article and List of characters in the Alien series). Again, deletion would be better than redirection as these are spin-off articles that shouldn't have been created in the first place and pretty much only link to other articles via Template:Alien, so dead links will be an easy fix. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is currently a merge discussion about most of these entries and it might be best to let those play out. Assuming this carries on, then I'm afraid there are a variety of articles listed and a number of solutions are required. I'd suggest the props can go to Aliens (film) and the people to List of characters in the Alien series. United States Colonial Marines is an interesting one as they appear across a range of media and someone has written a book on them Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual, so I'd suggest those two are merged into their own entry. (Emperor (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: As I stated in the nomination, all the pertinent information from these articles is already in either Aliens (film) or List of characters in the Alien series. I was the one who originally placed the merger tags, but I believe they are no longer valid because the necessary info has either already been merged or was already in the target articles before these articles were spun off. In fact I will probably go back through and remove the merget tags, as they are no longer applicable. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The characters can be merged into a "List of characters" article, and the names of all those other articles can be redirected to relevant film articles. Given their use so far, it would be best to redirect them than to delete them (easier to recreate if they're simply deleted in my opinion because the person looking for them will assume that the information is completely gone, instead of seeing the section that contains the info). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - we actually do want them to redirect. For example the other people in the character list tend to have their name redirect to the specific area in the page (and those that don't should). Having a redirect in place is a powerful tool, they can also be categorised (an idea I'd favour for some in this case, as it works well for redirects on characters to "lists of characters" articles and is used elsewhere for his purpose). (Emperor (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Merge and redirect. Just had looked up a quote and was pleased to find it covered on Wiki. Single articles are not quite needed, though. "List of characters of Alien" and "List of props" will do, though. -- Matthead Discuß 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; they do not seem to have any individual notability out of the movie/videogames. Tizio 15:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update on links: I did some work to see where these articles linked, and what kind of work we'd have to to if we decided to redirect them. After removing them from Template:Alien to filter those uses out, I found that almost every place they were linked there was a link to Aliens (film) or List of Characters in the Alien series already elsewhere in the article; often in the same section or even in the same sentence. Therefore I removed the links to these articles, since the potential redirect targets were already linked right nearby. What we're left with is that the only articles that these still link to are each other. They have no other links in the article namespace. Therefore I think the choice to delete is made much easier. The character articles could still potentially be redirected to their entries in the "list of" article, but that would only really be useful for future links that might be created to those character names. At the moment no articles would link to the redirects. IMO redirection also leaves the window open for someone to just revert the articles back into their current states, which we don't want. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think what you did was wrong -- to remove the links to specific articles while they are at AfD is prejudicial. I had not noticed this comment until Ingolfson drew my attention to it--the time to remove the links or the unneeded redirects is after the article has been deleted. while the article is there, the links and redirects should go to it, not the main article. You say they have "no links in the WP mainspace & therefore should be deleted" but they have no links in the WP mainspace because you removed them yourself just now. DGG (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am also genuinely concerned about this whole thing. AfDs were posted when a merge discussion was ongoing, a whole mixed bag of articles were nominated (which require different solutions) and then this jumping the gun and removing links while the AfD was still ongoing (which could, in theory skew people's perceptions of the articles under discussion). (Emperor (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, fictional articles that have no substantial independent coverage. Graevemoore (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all as notable and verifiable items and characters that appear in films, comics, toys, novels, video games, etc. in what is one of the all-time most significant cultural franchises. Consistent per First pillar with spcialized encyclopedias on Aliens, fictional ships, weapons, characters, etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, my inclusionist friend. Dare I challenge you to find a reliable third-party reference attesting to the notability of the UD4L Cheyenne? You continue to toss up First Pillar, implying that because Wikipedia incorporates elements of specialized encyclopedias, we cannot exclude anything, even articles about individual props from a movie. So, we should have a separate article for every fictional gun from every science fiction work ever created? And probably a separate article for every single Beanie Baby, because an encyclopedia on toys obviously would, right? Oh, and we should probably have individual articles for each lightsaber used by each individual Jedi in all of Starwarsdom, since they're all different and a Star Wars encyclopedia obviously would. None of this, obviously, would be better served by being merged into larger articles on the fictional work as a whole, with real-world context and third-party sources. Of course this all flies in the face of N, NOT, V, and OR. I apologize for the sarcasm, I just really think that a "strong keep" opinion for these articles is pushing the limits of inclusion and notability to the extreme, especially considering that all the actual encyclopedic content in each is already covered (and better) in the "parent" article Aliens (film) and also in List of characters in the Alien series. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, we can exclude plenty, but we're not merely talking about props from movies, we're talking about fictional items and characters that also appear in video games, as toys, in comic books, in novels, etc. And yes, there's no really good reason why a paperless encyclopedia with thousands of editors willing to work on such articles should not cover them. We do not gain anything by not covering this material; we do by contrast lose information and turn off our readers, contributors, and donors. If Wikipedia were merely a clone of only general encyclopedias, then what would be the point? If however it is in fact THE ultimate encyclopedia, then it does serve a real purpose. The fact is the notability for the items in this mass nom varies from article to article. Some such as the character Newt has even been the TITLE CHARACTER of a published work in addition to appearing in the movie. Unless if reviews of these books and other science fiction publications have been exhausted, I highly doubt that especially the character articles could not indeed be expanded with additional real-world context and third-party sources, but all of that falls under Wikipedia:SOFIXIT and given the interest in the articles and the realistic likelihood that such information does in fact exist, editors should be given a chance to find and expand the articles accordingly over time on a volunteer project that does not have a deadline. Original research means advancing a thesis. Just presenting facts, even when based on primary sources, but without an argument, is consistent with encyclopedic tradition. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stay succinct this time. I'm not saying there is no room on WP to discuss these items/characters. I am merely saying that they are already discussed in full in the article about the film. The separate articles add nothing but in-universe detail, all drawn from the same source (the technical manual) and are wholly unnecessary. We would lose no information by removing them, as the identical information already exists in the film article. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be even more succinct. It does not seem to be the truth that the identical information exists, as anyone can see for themselves who looks at Aliens (film). It does not even mention the individual weapons or the spaceship, let alone discuss them.DGG (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly does. Did you read the "Origins and inspiration", "Concept and design", "Weapons and props", and "Casting" sections? You can see my explanation near the bottom of this discussion for a rundown of exactly what information from each article is already explained in those sections. In brief, it explains what the designs for each weapon & vehicle were based on & how they were made, as well as the original design of the Sulaco vs. the final version and the reasons for the change. So your above statement is absolutely false, which anyone who reads Aliens (film) can see. I'm quite confused how you didn't notice the information in that article and can claim that it doesn't even mention the weapons or ship, when it is plain fact that it does (seeing as they are section headings listed in the table of contents...how more obvious can it be?). I assume you're either confused or that you didn't read the article thoroughly. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as the compromise for minor elements. It is possible that some of them may be notable individually, and if so those articles can be expanded from the redirects with suitable sourcing. DGG (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I say merge and redirect, I meant merge to an article about the weapons for the weapons, and so forth not to the main Aliens article--its reasonable to have a separate article for the various elements of this type, which would clutter up the main article. I also mean to retain a good deal of the content. I believe by "smerge" some people here may mean to leave just the bare direct and list only the name somewhere, and that also is not really a compromise. A merge like that is effectually just a reversible deletion. A true merge preserves content. How much content is preserved would be an editorial decision, to be decided by consensus. DGG (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very brief details of each topic back into the article on the movies. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge per above. Minor elements of the franchise shouldn't have their own pages. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - While I sadly cannot at the moment provide any comments that would save at least the more important articles in here (Sulaco, Colonial Marines) I feel that it is bad form to dump them all in one Yeah/Nay decision. I am also seriously disturbed that the nominator simply removed ALL links to these articles from Wikipedia / redirected them BEFORE this was decided. I feel this is a serious breach of going into an AfD with a fair stance. Ingolfson (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the Sulaco (spaceship) article. For the following reasons:

I have provided further references, including a social sciences paper which discusses the significance of why the Sulaco is named after the specific town in Conrad's book.
There is a video game coming out in 2008 which will feature the Sulaco as a main setting, thus providing more material about its in-universe history. As a major setting of a video game in a huge franchise, this will cause third-party notability to increase substantially.
I have provided further references, including about the film set design reasons for the shape of the ship, and some ways the ship has been referenced in popular culture.

I will also keep adding more refs where I can find them. In sum, I feel that there is enough material in that article that it should remain standing on its own. The nominator noted that all relevant information can easily be merged into the main Aliens article. This may be true for articles like about the pulse rifle, but much less so for elements like the Sulaco. We should not try to cram everything into the main article. That is what spin-off articles are FOR and that is why Wikipedia recommends splitting articles off. Ingolfson (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still for merging all. Providing source that back up the in-universe information does not mean that the subject shows notability in the real world. The point of notability is significant coverage. The real world information in this article consists of a paragraph on the design and two lines of popular culture information, as everything else is in-universe information. Nothing on this page screams, "We can't fit in the Aliens article]]!". Given the size of Aliens, with readable prose not even reaching 30kb, I don't see why this article needs to be split. It will work just fine in the parent article, as the excessive in-universe information will be removed. The entire "Description" section contains information that, without any real world context, is only relevant to fans of the franchise. Why is it important that we know how much it weighs and how much it can carry? It isn't a real ship. All in-universe information is here to provide context for the real world information in an article, and what's there doesn't. It can easily go without actually damaging the understanding of the Suloca information, and that information can be merged into the Aliens article without making that article too long (heck, it will help beef up the article if it ever wants to get to FA). What I want to see is an Aliens and Alien article that contains all this information in an organized fashion. When everything is in those articles we should be able to see quite easily if something isn't going to fit (i.e. there's too much real world info that it's making the article overly long). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly is an improvement, while Bignole makes a good argument, what it does show is that there is potential for a better article and I have looked around and found other sources. I'm changing my suggestion to keep, we can always return to this later but I think we have a good article shaping up here and I'd not want to lose it. (Emperor (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think you've done some really good work there in adding to the article, but like Bignole I'm still of the opinion that the information you've added could and should be merged into Aliens (film), while the stub articles like the APC should simply be deleted. I may look at it later and see how much of the real-world info with third-party sources I can add into the Aliens article; I'm inclined to think it will fit quite nicely and help beef up that article while not really being enough to justify a stand-alone article. I'd also like to address a couple of your specific points: for #2, in-universe information should not be the focus of the article according to most of the pertinent guidelines such as WP:WAF, and per WP:CRYSTAL we shouldn't assume that because the ship features as a setting in an upcoming video game that this is going to result in lots of third-party references to be created that directly discuss the notability and impact of the ship itself. That is, in effect, attempting to predict some kind of increased future notability and is a rather weak argument. For #3 - the design reasons for the shape of the ship are already presented in Aliens (film), and though I do appreciate your presentation of the popular culture info as prose (rather than the typical trivia lists that plague these types of article), it's still rather trivial information that would fit rather well in the Aliens article (for example, in a section discussing the tie-in licensed products related to the film). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You note that Aliens as an article is 35k of prose. If we moved the referenced sections from Sulaco over this would approach 40k (of course you and I would likely disagree on how much should be moved!). With 40k it is in the area range where Wikipedia suggest splitting up the article might be an option!

BTW, Bignole, can I ask you not to start moving material over to Aliens before there is a decision on the Sulaco article. As per my previous comments, the outcome of this AfD should not be pre-judged.

Also, I simply do not see the reason to merge - the split/merge dichtomy is simply about organisation of data (technically we could copy-paste ALL of the subarticle info into the larger article after all). However, a subarticle is a tidier, cleaner, more succinct focus on the material covered. I consider that forcing a merge is wrong (if in the end this is indeed the result of this discussion) - why the focus on merging those articles (of this list) where a significant number of people disagree on whether they should be merged? I agree with you that minor elements like M41A pulse rifle and M56 smart gun and Private William Hudson need not have their own articles. BUT.

The Sulaco however is a setting, backdrop to maybe 1/3rd or more of the film, a major plot device (being the 'sanctuary' that the ground troops try to return to from the hell of the Aliens-infested surface) and also a large setting in an upcoming game (whether that will produce third-party references or not).

Also, I disagree with Bignole's comment about notablity. Notability is defined as "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." In his "there's not much here" comment, Bignole remarks that a few lines of film set design and popular culture references do not make it significant. Why? Because of the ratio compared to other (primary source) information? I note that primary sources are, on Wikipedia, acceptable to describe in-universe elements (and we have TWO primary sources in which it features heavily, to be 3 later in 2008). I also note that I have no serious issues with paring down these primary source sections if requested. Much of it is in the infobox in any case. The mention of the Sulaco in a number of interviews as referenced is also clearly more than trivial (it covers multiple questions and paragraphs in the interviews). As a significant aside, Bignole also ignores the social sciences section discussing the etymology and symbology of the ship's name.

Finally, I am still searching for references, and another user has pointed me to a few that look promising, as well as to some academic articles which may contain material (but which we cannot directly access - trying to, atm - as they are subscription only). In sum, I am still improving this, and would like the discussion on this article Sulaco (spaceship) to be split off from the AfD about the other articles, where I mostly agree with the nomination or at least don't feel so strongly about keeping them. Regards, Ingolfson (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me issue an apology for jumping the gun a bit on removing the links from the other articles. This was something I'd been working on for some time, ever since I marked the articles for merger back in March. Discussion on those merger proposals didn't start taking place until May (see here). There were only a few contributors and the general conculsion seemed to be that most of these articles already had all their encyclopedic content presented in Aliens (film), hence there was nothing left to merge. That's why I brought them to AfD in the first place and removed the merge tags shortly after. Since the opinions here seemed heavily weighted in favor of deletion or merger, I started going through the "what links here" pages to see what their status was. As I stated above, I found that in 90% of the cases the articles we'd likely be merging or redirecting to were already linked in the same sentence or section (ie. "The M41A pulse rifle used in Aliens...") So common sense told me it would be redundant to have a redirect to an article that's already linked by it's proper title in the same sentence. That's why I started trimming the links, though I admit I probably went overboard in away that could affect people's opinions in this AfD. For that I apologize. Secondly, though I'm still of the opinion that none of these topics have enough secondary source material available to warrant stand-alone articles, I agree with Ingolfson that we could remove the Sulaco article from the list since he has put a lot of effort into saving it. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and that article can always be dealt with on its own sometime in the future if need be. As for the rest, I'm still of the opinion that they can and probably should be deleted, as they don't contain any verifiable, sourced information that's not already presented either in Aliens (film) or List of characters in the Alien series. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added more material on the Sulaco. This time on the color and lighting symbology of the Sulaco as a film setting. Academic research, fits the "more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." descriptor perfectly. Ingolfson (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to be specific about the relevant info from each article already being present in the film & list articles. Here's a breakdown:

M41A pulse rifle: The only relevant info appears to be the "prop design" section, which is already presented pretty much verbatim in Aliens (film)#Weapons and props. There's a little bit about models based on the prop, but these appear to be of questionable relevance to the article (as they appear to be one-off models made by specialty manufacturers and not actual licensed products used to promote the film). The article contains no secondary sources at all.
M56 smart gun: Again, the only real-world referenced info is "The prop" section, which is presented nearly verbatim in Aliens (film)#Weapons and props.
M577 A.P.C.: "Concept and design" is the relevant real-world info here, and is already in Aliens (film)#Concept and design (again, nearly verbatim) along with discussion of the other vehicles.
UD4L Cheyenne: Same as above; "Concept and design" is the salveagable section and the identical info is at Aliens (film)#Concept and design. There may be a few additional details we could merge over to the film article, but only the first paragraph is referenced so it's unclear how much of the other info is verifiable.
United States Colonial Marines: No secondary sources or discussion of real-world context in this one at all. Aliens (film)#Casting has referenced info about the training that the actors playing the marines went through to prep for the roles. Everything in the Colonial Marines articles is either plot summary of stuff from the film, a repetition of part of the "cast" section from the film article, and a lot of in-universe stuff from the Colonial Marines Technical Manual but only 1 actual citation to it. In addition, the article contains numerous unreferenced speculative claims that appear to constitute original research.
Corporal Dwayne Hicks: No references at all. Mostly plot summary and unattributed claims. The info relevant to the character & actor is already in Aliens (film)#Cast and Aliens (film)#Casting, and the in-universe plot summary stuff is already in Aliens (film)#Plot and List of characters in the Alien series#Aliens.
Private William Hudson: Again, the only referenced real-world info is in the "Production" section, and is merely a repeat of Aliens (film)#Casting. The plot summary bits are also in List of characters in the Alien series#Aliens.
Newt (Aliens) Only a single reference, relating the character to the plot of Alien Resurrection, which should probably go in Alien Resurrection#Origins. The "Character motivation" stuff might be mergeable into Aliens (film)#Origins and inspiration or Aliens (film)#Casting if it were referenced, but it isn't. The rest of the article is simply repetition of plot summary from the individual film articles. The character also has a section in List of characters in the Alien series#Aliens.

So there we go. From those 8 articles I could only find a few sentences' worth of stuff that might be merged into Aliens (film). The rest is all unreferenced claims, plot summary, in-universe info, and filler. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note the point (and thanks for being willing to reconsider, IllaZilla) I have added a number of further reference to the Sulaco as a movie setting and its use of symbology (interestingly, one comparing the Sulaco of Alien 3 to a holy shrine - sounds a bit weird, but makes a lot of sense when you analyse the opening scene of Alien 3 as one researcher has done. Have a look at what I added). Regards Ingolfson (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Apparently in the middle of merge discussions, and also because "Aliens-related" is kind of a broad umbrella to nominate all of these. I'd be fine outright deleting some of these, merging others. I feel sorry for the admin. who tries to sort through all this. (But if this continues through: delete the character and vehicle articles, merge real-world prop design info from weapons articles into Aliens (film). --EEMIV (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Any information not in other articles should be merged, and the current articles deleted. Particularly, I think it would be wise to keep as many of the significant external links as possible, as just from skimming through there are some that I think it would be a shame to lose. Anything new in the upcoming Aliens video game involving the Sulaco can be put there when it's finally released. Too bad this discussion hadn't happened at that time, because I think it would be a little less messy. I have my doubts, but it seems like some of this information could be pertinent upon the release of the game's release, but that's depending on a lot of factors. --Trakon (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Merge (instead of "keep") - pardon me for musing aloud, but I wonder if - had Wikipedia been around back in the 60's - if we would have considered Star Trek communicators and computers along these same lines. As they were the forerunners of modern devices (and indeed the computers we are using to post and read threads here and yes, I am aware of the futurism concerns in my comments), I think that information specifically imparted by either the films or the literature (and therefore notable) deserves mentioning, not removal. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we are merging the above, then we should also resurrect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a separate AfD that doesn't need to be drug into this one. The ship doesn't even appear in Aliens, except for a deleted scene that I believe used footage from Alien. As that AfD states, there was nothing left to merge into either Alien (film) or Aliens (film); all the pertinent info was already covered and the entire rest of the Derelict article was blatant original research. If you want to initiate a DRV of that article, go ahead, but don't try to piggyback it onto this separate AfD. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is of a similar nature to the articles listed here and there was no actual consensus there anyway. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is of a similar nature, but the reason I listed it separately from these is that it had a different parent article and therefore had to be evaluated separately, while these could much more likely be examined as a group. The Derelict article was a spinoff of Aliens (film), while these are spinoffs of Aliens (film), therefore it would have been a bit of a red herring in this AfD. I disagree that there was no "actual" consensus in that AfD. Simply because you do not agree with the deletion decision does not mean there wasn't consensus (consensus not being defined as 100% agreement). I count 5 editors (including myself) in that AfD as being in favor of deletion, while only yourself and DGG were strongly in favor of "keep", with decent rationalizations for opinions both sides. Not that I'm judging on numbers alone, but I'd say that qualifies as consensus (I also agreed much more strongly with the arguments for deletion than for keeping). But I digress...If you feel that there was insufficient consensus to delete, then you have the prerogative to initiate a DRV. But it shouldn't be piggybacked onto this discussion as that AfD is closed and concerned a spinoff of a different parent article. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Derelict is part of the larger franchise with appearances in the extended version of Aliens, the novelization of Alien, and even as a micromachine toy, just as all of the above are not merely limited to Aliens, but to the expanded universe as well as they do NOT only appear in that one film, but also in games and comics. AfD is not a vote. Even if there was a majority to delete, the arguments were not strong enough to overwhelm the keep arguments. As deletion is something of an extreme measure intended only if an article is absolutely hopeless (which obviously means multiple good faith editors would argue to keep in such a case). Thus, there was no consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as there are no reliable sources that provide evidence of notability outside the film.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just not true; many of the above have appeared in comics, as toyrs, in games, etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, he did not say that they hadn't appeared outside the film; he said there are no reliable sources provided to evidence their notability outside the film. This is in fact true, as there are few to no third-party sources in any of these articles. This is a valid argument and echoes one of the chief concerns expressed by myself and several others thus far in this discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The various aspects of Aliens are covered in a host of reliable published sources; there are many reliable third-party sources that can be added to these articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the weapons, but Merge the characters. That is all. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:53, 21 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 wub "?!" 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Rundkvist[edit]

Puff piece about the blogger/archaeologist nominate for deletion - skeptic17

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: May I ask what grounds the nom is proffering for deletion? RGTraynor 20:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm guessing the reason to be doesn't meet notability requirements. It does seem to be a bio that doesn't show the subjects notability. I'll wait until the nom responds though before contributing a "vote". Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to politely object to the characterisation of the entry as a 'puff-piece'. I also added translations of the SwedishWiki's Hans Hildebrand, Lars Larsson and Jan Peder Lamm entries on the same day because of their connections with Fornvännen, a major European archaeological journal. Alun Salt (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are basing your claims for notability upon a publication called Fornvännen, an extremely obscure journal with the English title of Journal of Swedish Antiquarian Research, that has an impact factor of 0 for the English speaking world. That is why this entry is puffery. skeptic17 (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.127.252 (talk) [reply]

Delete: Not notable per the general inclusion guidelines of WP:BIO. Closest specific criteria for the subject's assertion to notability would be from WP:PROF, but the subject is young and has insufficient publications, except for obscure Swedish publications, to provide a suitably large body of work for notability. This is pretty much an obvious case of puffery, he is but a blogger with a Ph.D., the only references I came across were self-referential links to his blog. I think it's too early in his career for him to qualify for notability. skeptic17 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Skeptic17 is mistaken on some issues. The recent ERIH assessment marked Fornvännen as a category B journal, which from this British Academy report is given to international publications with a good reputation among researchers of the field in different countries. Impact Factor isn't used in the Humanities in Europe, but I'd be surprised if it was zero, as I've seen papers from Fornvännen cited in journals like Antiquity and the Cambridge Archaeological journal. A source for that would be helpful for my own work if (s)he can point me in the right direction. Nonetheless I think the description of Fornvännen as extremely obscure makes no sense from an archaeological perpective. This doesn't necessarily make the editors notable, but additionally Rundkvist is the Scandinavian correspondent for Antiquity. Further, Skeptic17 is in error in claiming Rundkvist has only published in Swedish journals. That's not grounds for notability as many archaeologists don't publish in Swedish journals, but it does suggest that Skeptic17 may wish to search a little harder for references when proposing a delete.
  
  Similarly I'm surprised that Skeptic17 only found self-referential links to his weblog. A quick look at Technorati gives an authority of 284. A quick search on Google would also show that the links are not only self-referential. I'm very wary of saying that makes him notable. A better claim for notability for the weblog would be the academics who comment there, but even that would be weak. There are so few blogging archaeologists that it's a small community.
  
  Again I would like to politely object to the term 'puffery' which, where I live, carries negative connotations. Repeating the claim could lead to enthusiasm being mistaken for incivilty. I could have been in error in adding the editors of Fornvännen to Wikipedia, but I did it because I thought these entries would improve Wikipedia, not to pander to the egos of the archaeologists named. I accept it may be insufficiently notable to be an editor of one international publication and a correspondent for another. That's not sarcasm, there are thousands of academic journals. Personally I think if they're on the ERIH list they're notable, but that's just my opinion. However, I don't think that taking a personal tone is helpful.
  
  On the plus side I've just found out as I'm an 'award-winning' academic as I'm notable. I'm not saying which award though and if anybody puts up a Wikipedia entry on me I'll be putting it up for a speedy delete :) Alun Salt (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still puffery in my books. According to Wikipedia guidelines notability is not something that is supposed to change, invoking technorati is pretty much irrational since it's in a continual state of flux. What is it exactly I'm mistaken about? Lets be clear: being an editor of a Journal does not make one notable, especially if barely no one has heard of does not make for notability. Nor having a blog makes for notability, I appreciate Alunsalt that you want to improve Wikipedia but the issue here is pretty clear. Please address what makes him notable directly if there isn't anything to add it's a pretty straightforward delete. Skeptic17 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to make it clear your errors are:

Stating Fornvännen is a journal "barely no one has heard of". I've given you citations showing that not only have people heard of it, but that it's a major journal.
Stating he is 'but a blogger' when he is also correspondent for Antiquity, which from a European perspective is the top archaeological journal in the world.
Stating the only links to his site are 'self-referential', when I given evidence that other people are linking to his site.

Basically it looks like you've put up an article for deletion based on zero research and incorrect assertions.

Additionally

Stating that technorati invokes notability is a misrepresentation of my views.
When I said "I'm very wary of saying that makes him notable." What I meant was I thought that would be a bad idea. If you read further you might have also seen that the size of the archaeoblogging community being what it is, it would be hard for anyone to claim notability. What it does do is show you are wrong about the links being self-referential, unless you're stating Rundkvist has hundreds of blogging aliases.

I'll give reasons for keeping the article in my vote. I'm not sure why you find this article so offensive you have to be uncivil. Alun Salt (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Martin Rundkvist has edited books on Scandinavian archaeology and numerous academic articles. It would now be difficult to write on 1st Millennium BC burials in Scandinavia without referring to his work. Additionally his roles with Fornvännen and Antiquity make him a prominent member of the Scandinavian archaeological community. This is relevant in the English language version of Wikipedia as while Scandinavian archaeology may not be of interest to the average American, English is an international language used across Europe. The entries on Rundkvist as well as Lars Larsson and Jan Peder Lamm could be useful for students in nations where the Scandinavian past is more relevant. I don't see how deletion will improve matters,

..but alas my biggest reason for voting keep now is that when someone demonstrably ignorant of Scandinavian archaeology signs up and with his first edit tries pushing through a speedy delete of a 'blogger', doesn't notify the original author of the entry and then is deliberately offensive, I can't help wondering if there's some other reason why the entry should be deleted. I'll change this to delete if Skeptic17 can provide sources for his assertions like the zero impact factor. Alun Salt (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete taking into account DGG's opinion. Alun Salt (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ WP:BIAS is certainly in play here. A co-editor of a journal that Wikipedia describes as one of the "leading scholarly journals" in its field does make a claim of notability, if a weak one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is unbelievable but I just noticed that user Mrund (talk) inserted "leading" into the following sentence on the wiki page for Fornvännen, ("Fornvännen is a leading Swedish scholarly journal in the fields of archaeology and Medieval art.") Who is user Mrund (talk) none other than Martin Rundkvist himself. As I stated initially puffery, and clearly an unethical person to boot!Skeptic17 (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither appropriate to attack other editors or accuse the subject of the biography of being unethical.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from the issue of whether anyone might want to read about me in Wikipedia, let me point something out about the journal in question. It's been issued regularly several times a year for over a century and is taken by hundreds of research libraries worldwide. Some might argue that it is not the leading journal in its field. But I would be very surprised to hear anyone in Scandy archaeology deny that it is a leading journal. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete; sorry Martin, no matter what Skeptic17 says, if DGG doesn't think you're notable as a scholar, you're just not notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all works essentially uncited, according to Google Scholar. The titles make plain the extremely specialized nature of the books. The coeditorship of the journal (one of a small editorial board, not editor in chief) is not enough by itself, even if it were a major journal, not merely the journal of Sweden's Archeological society. . I removed the puffery mentioned in the previous comment from the article on the journal, there being no evidence for such a ranking on an international basis. DGG (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Fornvännen should be edited to reflect the real value of the journal then, if it's not a major journal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this. A bit of a Walled Garden. DGG (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This Martin Rundkvist hasn't been around to be notable yet. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF by a wide margin (per DGG), and WP:BIO by even more. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't have an opinion about this article, but am I the only one that finds it odd that Skeptic17 sails in and the first thing he/she does is to nominate this article for deletion? All edits from that account are in connection to this article and the deletion discussion. Is that really how these things are meant to work? --RE (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it sometimes does happen that someone who has been browsing as a user sees an article they think is uncalled for , and gets a username in order to nominate it for deletion. DGG (talk) 03:41, 19 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 Non-Admin Closure - evidence shows that nomination was made in error. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rich dickerson[edit]

The capitalization is wrong, and the references are not formatted correctly. The content is, however, legit, so once deleted I will submit a request to have it built by someone who actually knows what they're doing. Rjgarment (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The capitalisation problem can be fixed with a page move; contact me if you need someone else to take care of this. I'll see if i can't tidy up the references. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Content disputes are inappropriate for AfD. Does the nom have any valid deletion grounds to offer? RGTraynor 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been redirected to appropriate article and the references work. This AfD would seem to be a nomination without valid reasoning and/or a content dispute. Suggest closure as soon as possible. If Rich Dickerson doesn't meet criteria for inclusion it should be nominated and discussed on its own merits/flaws. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally Please note that the nom originally created the article and appears to have nominated it for deletion per the advise he received on the talk page. I'm gonna have a look at the process and try a non-admin close unless I hear otherwise. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:14, 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. Fram (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E3value[edit]

This article has been speedily deleted twice to my knowledge. The phraseology seems to be selling the article. I'd personally think that a radical rewrite if the modelling language itself is notable rather than a delete, but as this has been deleted as advertising before I though a discussion rather than another speedy delete would be preferable. Drivenapart (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article reads, to a substantial degree, like an ad, so there is a serious WP:ADVERT issue here. Also, the article has no independent references to demonstrate notability per WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give me time :-)

Hello, I'm the author of this article and I agree that I'm a beginner in Wikipedia rules: the first version of my article was not neutral, as if I have nothing to do with e3value, it is just a subject of study for one of my courses. I've rewrited this article and now I really think it is neutral and clear, in the Wikipedia syntax. E3value is becoming more and more important in business modeling, it is not part of any companies, and the tool to develop it is free to use. I really think it has a place in Wikipedia. Please explain why you consider not before deleting it. I understand the miss of references and I'll add external references right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipo489 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, through process to establish a precendent. Entirely no notability shown for this non-consumer "ebusiness" product, and the article is rife with advertising style word salad. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes

Hey people: I've tried to change a bit the synthax so that it suits the wikipedia way of thinking. Probably it is not enough but tell me what I should change next. I'll also want to add a graphical example, but I'm still not allowed to upload a picture. For the word salad, I've no schizophrenia, I'm just french :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipo489 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes. Hey everybody, I've added a graphical example (important for a graphical mod language :-) ) and independant sources. I am still waiting for further improvements depending of your comments. Of course, the english is probably not perfect (french use to have a bad english): I hope the community can correct the remaining syntax mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipo489 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 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. Fram (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Araxi Hubbard Dutton Palmer[edit]

I recognize that I am getting ready to feed myself to the lions with this one, but here is another by a group of admitted meatpuppets that fails WP:BIO. The gist of the article is that her parents were killed in the Armenian Genocide when she was a baby, she was rescued by Americans when she was a baby, lived virtually her entire life in the US, and wrote a book that she self-published about her family's suffering. Oh, and apparently she knows Gary Hayes and Bryan Pisano. While this woman is probably a fascinating person to talk to and did have a pretty tragic beginning, that in and of itself doesn't equal notability. There simply aren't any reliable secondary sources in the article, I couldn't find any either...she isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Smashville^BONK! 15:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this AfD discussion, I don't believe that you have to write that the article was written by "a group of admitted meatpuppets." That statement has no relevance to the article's relevance or notability. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And about knowing Gary Hayes, it's important because she opposed him in a County Clerk race. As for Bryan Pisano, well I undid the revision that added that "She also knows Bryan Pisano," that Sgt. Bender added. Actually, I've done it twice; he just undid my undo the first time. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how the other discussions you, Sgt. Bender and the others have been involved in were, it most certainly is relevant. --Smashville^BONK! 15:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nomination: the subject clearly fails WP:BIO. No independent sources covering the subject listed in the article and nothing else that I could find on the web. GoogleBooks returns a single hit, to her book[22]. Nothing in GoogleNews[23] or GoogleScholar[24]. Even a plain Google search return only 74 hits [25]. It is borderline possible that the book itself is notable per WP:BK and maybe a separate article about the book might stand on its own. But even that appears unlikely as I did not see any independent reviews of the book by WP:RS. As for the present article, clearly fails WP:BIO and should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Nsk92's thorough analysis. Beyond that, the mentions of Gary Hayes and Bryan Pisano in the article are telling, being recent AfDed articles involving meatpuppetry from User:Dr.orfannkyl and User:Sgt. bender among others (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sgt. bender), and who are the two editors pushing this article. Ravenswing 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot vote on this because I think that would be the dreaded meatpuppetry, but tell us what to do to make this article acceptable. Sgt. bender (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment clearly meets the perspective of being one of the last of something. Examples on Wikipedia include Zablon Simintov and Surviving veterans of World War I. This page chronicles one of the last survivors of the Armenian genocide who is also one of the most prominent ones still alive. And also, she hates Gary Hayes, just like you, Smashville. Give the lady a break, she's an orphan. Sgt. bender (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are welcome to vote here (just once, of course), just like everybody else is welcome. Second, there is no category of being "the last of something" in WP:BIO. The examples you cite all have coverage by independent reliable sources. This is why they are included in WP. In terms of what you can do to improve the article, well, if you can find independent reliable sources covering the subject of the article, that'd be great. If not, there is nothing else to be done, and the article will have to be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Nsk92: thank you for your comment. You're polite (no sarcasm.) I'll see what I can do about improving the article. When would it be deleted by so I can plan accordingly? I'll refrain from voting on this issue. My brother Dr.Orfannkyl created the page, so he can vote in my stead. I'll just comment .Sgt. bender (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the timing, I don't know. The AfD debates usually run for at least 5 days, but sometimes they are closed early if there is a particularly clear case of consensus. The closure is done by an admin (of which I am not one). I should also stress that when I say "will have to be deleted", I am expressing my personal opinion, no more. It is possible (although in my view rather unlikely) that the AfD will turn in favor of keep. One other thing. As I said above, it may be easier to get enough reliable sources to justify the notability of the book, per WP:BK. If you find such sources, it may be appropriate to create a WP entry about the book. Nsk92 (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sgt. bender (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ... she's scarcely the last one of anything. There were countless survivors of the Armenian genocide ... after all, well, Armenia exists, and according to the numbers there are around nine million Armenians worldwide. Ravenswing 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's clearly not the last Armenian but she is one of the last survivors of the Armenian genocide just as Zablon Simintov is the last surviving Jew in Afghanistan. Sgt. bender (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She may be amongst the last survivors of the Armenian genocide, but that's simply a matter of time passing. In any case, anyone born in Armenia who's 90 or older would count as a survivor, and I suspect there are many, despite the genocide. She's not unique. Besides, note the international media coverage from major sources for Zablon Simintov. There is absolutely no comparison with the case of Araxi Hubbard Dutton Palmer. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's estimated that there are currently 200 - 300 survivors living in the United States, let alone the rest of the world. See The Queens Courier, April 9, 2008. [26] Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating the article for deletion. I'm not nominating the woman for deletion. There is no reason for such a defensive, uncivil response. --Smashville^BONK! 13:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like Nsk92, I did the four Googles + I searched the Highbeam Archives to which I have a subscription. (It sometimes throws up stuff that doesn't make it into Google.) Nothing, apart from adverts from a few book dealers, an item in the local school newsletter about her talking to the 10th graders and a Yahoo Group announcement about her speaking at a local discussion forum. I even did a search on the book's co-author, Arpenia Karagosian - again nothing. This article does not even begin to pass the notability criteria for a person nor does it pass them for a book. It is self-published, with no significant independent coverage or even reviews. Incidentally, coverage which simply announces an appearance somwhere does not count as 'significant' per WP:BIO guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Her notability is not derived only from the fact that she is one of the last Armenian genocide survivors living in the United States; it comes from the fact that she has published her book called Triumph From Tragedy and travels around New York State retelling her story. When these three things, though maybe not significant enough individually to pass WP: Bio, combine, they do indeed pass it, in my opinion. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? --Smashville^BONK! 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do those things combined pass WP:BIO? Are there any reliable secondary sources? --Smashville^BONK! 15:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for Araxi Hubbard Dutton Palmer, there aren't many reliable second party sources. She has one reference from search.com and her book is on amazon.com, but otherwise... As for going throughout N.Y., she has imbued in students the knowledge of a genocide long forgotten by modern standards, and is able to do it with her book, and her status as one of the last Armenian Genocide survivors in the U.S. She's well-known in New York State, but not really anywhere else in the country. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's all she wrote. Notability is determined by WP:BIO, and verified by reliable sources. Someone who lacks the latter just doesn't qualify for an article, period. Ravenswing 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the way you constructed your response seems uncivil, I can't really argue your base statement. Unfortunately, although she is notable, there aren't many sources to back it up. Consider my vote changed. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ravenswing's response may have been succinct, but it's not at all uncivil. She has zero references at search.com apart from Wikipedia and its mirrors and a few used book shops. The listing on Amazon means nothing. Anyone can list their book there. If she is "well known in New York State", why have no NY newspapers or magazines written anything about her? Why is there no mention whatsoever of her on these main US based websites? armeniadiaspora.com, The Armenian National Committee of America, theforgotten.org (with video interviews with survivors of the genocide in the US and an ABC news special), and The Armenian National Institute. This doesn't mean that she isn't an interesting or moving speaker, and hasn't had an effect on the high school students who have heard her. It simply means that's there's not enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already agree; I changed my vote an hour ago. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being civil and understanding about it. Honestly. Incidentally, I didn't know much at all about the Armenian Genocide and have been reading about it for the past day...so it did serve that purpose. --Smashville^BONK! 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. What's this thing still doing here? It fails WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:15, 20 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. No reliable sources to prove he passes WP:MUSIC. I've looked too, but can find little. Black Kite 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf mail[edit]

Highly promotional and non-neutral article on a non-notable musician. I could find no reliable third party sources pertaining to him, and this article has been uncategorized and tagged for refs since 2007 at least. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article appears to be copied from here. He may be notable, he headlined the 2006 Narooma Blues Festival, attendance 16000 and was covered in Central Coast Express. I suspect he has a niche notability in blues music, judging from various fan sites I found he seems to have toured the world repeatedly with some success. But the current article is probably a copyright violation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no proof that he charted (as I see has been added to the article). The notability, if present, is very thin here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I suspect he's notable, but sources are thin (and mostly not independant) and I don't know where to look for proof of charting. This article is a wp:copyvio so would have to be stubbed if it was kept. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:38, 9 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, — Scientizzle 15:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 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. Fram (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Datta Devasthan Maha Sansthnam,Ahmednagar[edit]

Delete one liner about a holy site with no references or context sufficient to know what is going on at the site or why it's holy and to whom other than the guy who created it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)</small*Comment. It is possible that there is a spelling error in the title. shree sadguru darshan. *shree sadguru darshan. Friday, January 25, 2008. shree ramkrishna saraswati swami uses the spelling Sansthanam. I added the name of the state where the site is located, but I can't find evidence of notability. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Hinduism may be able to expand the article. --Eastmain (talk) 03:06, 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, — Scientizzle 15:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Stifle, I think your contribution to discussions would be more helpful if you didn't always make this same formulaic comment. The standard is that the content of articles should be verifiable, not that it should be verified. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there ain't any sources, I'm gonna point it out. Per WP:BURDEN, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" to verify it. If you can present some sources, I'll gladly amend my comment. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, if you could explain what you understand to be the difference between verified and verifiable, I'd be obliged. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Verifiable means that sources exist. Verified means that they are currently cited in the article. This article probably fails to pass either test, unless someone else can come up with some sources, but they are distinct concepts, and when you make these copy and paste one-line comments it is very difficult to understand which you mean because you first talk about the contents of the article not being verified ("no reliable sources cited") but then go on to say that this means that the article "does not comply with the verifiability policy". The second is not necessarily a logical consequence of the first. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of citations.-- danntm ^T _C 22:33, 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 delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Good Things (film)[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner about an upcoming film, WP:FILM, WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, allow for a more content-based entry when more information is known and notability is more established. PabSungenis (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1, little or no content. Also may be a hoax. Macy (Review me!) 21:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- By the way, A1 is context, and A3 is content. Please read WP:CSD thoroughly; there are differences. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, though I'm not comfortable about speedy delete; it's not a hoax by any means. The film is notable in as much as it's an expected film, but at the moment it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films, as no video/trailer has yet been released, and no evidence that the production is notable. No prejudice against recreating when there's more information on actors, budgets and controversies, see WP:Notability (films). PeterSymonds | talk 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and expand, source. A number of available sources for citing actors signed onto the film and some of the plot... Per WP:FUTFILM#Notability, references can be added to establish notability - and IMDb status also indicates "Filming" (which hasn't been updated by 14 April, btw). —97198 talk 11:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Hoax. It is being shot across the street from my residence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezaster (talk • contribs) 00:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:39, 9 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, — Scientizzle 15:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: If the movie is filming, it no longer violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ravenswing 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, film may exist, but article has nothing of value. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, assertion of notability, or anything of the sort. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually feel sorry for this article.-- danntm ^T _C 22:45, 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 09:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAMATA[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable org. No reliable sources found, and the orgs they're associated with are all red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of ghits for an Tanzanian organisation, many of them non-trivial. Appears to be notable organisation [27][28][29]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius Sahara (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 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, — Scientizzle 15:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should article survive AFD perhaps a hat note directing those looking for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) - should be added. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The article is in serious need of cleanup, but WAMATA does seem to meet WP:CORP in light of references found by Julius Sahara. B.Wind (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep those are credible sources. Trachys (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - completely verifiable and coverage in sources appears to demonstrate notability. I will do some work on the article, but in the meantime, AFD is not cleanup. --Beloved Freak 09:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and notable per the sources identified above. Davewild (talk) 21:45, 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 Keep. Fram (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Street Run[edit]

Delete no third party references for this race, which apparently doesn't attract the a-list of long distance runners. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom; however, WP:USEFUL applies. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More then 57000 Google [30] hits. Seems notable --DimaG (talk) 20:51, 12 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, — Scientizzle 15:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Over 600 unique Google hits, which is a lot, with a number of reliable sources in the mix. Now the trump card: over five hundred Google News hits. [31] Ravenswing 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a user misunderstands WP:VERIFY. A topic does not fail WP:V if article content is currently unverified, but only if the topic is completely unverifiable. Sources not yet placed in the article of a notable topic doesn't magically make the topic non-notable.--Oakshade (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major running event. The International Herald Tribune [32], USA Today [33] and the Philadelphia Inquirer [34] have given in-depth secondary coverage to this event (the latter multiple times), the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 06:01, 20 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mindwipe[edit]

Not notable outside of the Transformers article. asenine ^{say what?} 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --Non-dropframe (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character which has not received substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources. Article is entirely plot summary with no real-world information. Article reads like an OR character analysis from a fan of the franchise. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:45, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bootleg Is Resistance[edit]

I don't know why the template didn't substitute correctly for me, but here's my reasoning: - This topic does not appear to be notable; while it has four external links, two are the album and artists' own pages, none are to coverage of the album. - As the artist himself (or at least, someone sharing the artist's name, who has never no unrelated edits) is editing the page, it appears to be a vanity page and therefore unencyclopedic. - Possibly original research. Stationary (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mash-up albums aren't notable on their own. The masher-up is a red link and definitely non-notable; therefore, this album isn't either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you want Well, I saw the page existed and that someone made it, believe it or not, I'm not the one who made this page in a first place. However, it was not complete, which is why I just completed the missing informations. It's been posted in a few different blogs (maybe some I don't know), I know Culture Bully and Mashuptown did each a post about it, I also posted this album on NIN forums where it got a pretty good reception. But in fact, I should have done a page about With Boots as many NIN fans on the Internet have heard about it and often heard it, partially or completely. One of the tracks from it, We're in this Blurred Line Closer Now, is ranked #2 on the official "Remix NIN" website, after an official remix, on the number of listens and the number of comments. I think my mashup work is pretty much recognized within the "NINternet" community, and the bootleggers community, maybe it's not enough to have a Wikipedia page of its own, it's OK, I've never been after that kind of thing. For a last information, I've been scrobbled more than 50,000 times on LastFM, which I'm sure is more than many artists who have a page on Wikipedia. Totom (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put the original ((prod)) on the article because it was a lousy piece of work. I don't know if the artist is notable (I wonder how TPH established that he isn't), but I do know that our notability criteria don't work well for mash up art. And I don't believe it's a vanity page, either. Rl (talk) 07:34, 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. --jonny-m t 06:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google TechTalks[edit]

How can this possibly be encyclopedic? Google invites speakers to talk at Google headquarters, places videos of talks on their websites and suddenly we have an encyclopedia article on the subject. Almost every company invites people to give talks; I think we would be hard-pressed to say simply because a company has invited talks that makes these invited talks noteworthy or notable.

I believe that this particular article is not worthy of separation from the main Google article and therefore I suggest either a merge back to that article or an outright deletion on the grounds that the only sources that mention these talks are obviously taken from either people attempting to promote themselves for having given the talk or are a blatant advertisement for Google's TechTalks. The two "independent" sources on this do not establish notability for these talks outside of the Google-empire. We should not be making spin-offs for every marginal project that Google creates. If these talks become famous like the Ford Lectures then we should have an article. Until then, this should not be an article on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have followed the discussion of the article, and several proponents of the article are interested in the notability of a particular talk given. This talk is often cited and commented on by the marketing director of the company that provided the talk, and the company's web site and the talk itself are concerned with the loss of funding from the government, raising funding from the public, and marketing the placement of the company's products in neighborhoods without also citing any studies about city-licensing and neighbourhood acceptance of this type of product in residential neigbourhoods, the point being that it presents a sophistic argument for the marketing of the product and the search for investment capital. Similarly, in the case of GPL products like "git", the page is attaching a commercial entity's name (Google -- as great as they are) to a GPL entity. It should likely be the other way around (on a "git" page, for example). Jok2000 (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topics are not required to be famous - merely verifiable, unoriginal and neutral. The article seems fine on all three counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.47.200.194 (talk • contribs)

Keep The quality and the notability of the speakers in the technology community can't get much better. To discount them on the grounds that they are self-promotion or advertisement seems more WP:IDONTLIKEIT because google is "big and scary" as a for-profit company. Alas, it's an emotional argument that i have often seen used against Microsoft and now i'm starting to see it applied to google. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge elsewhere into the Google empire. probably Googleplex. Not independently notable, but deletion is not at all appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the above 2 keeps did not comment on the possibility of the page currently being used as an marketing and advertising vehicle, perhaps a merge to a higher profile page will keep it from being hijacked for these non-wikipedia purposes, and then I can take it off my watch-list, but deletion also works in that regard, but I'd be selfish to make that suggestion myself, however, I am open to the argument that most tech talks are marketing vehicles. Jok2000 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These comments about being hijacked seem like scare tactics, to me. Whatever contributions might be inappropriate can and will be removed by editors. Wikipedia is a very open system that doesn't need the heavy-handed approach perhaps necessary in more closed systems like a traditional management heiarchy (business, school, etc.). And what are these complaints about boogy-man Marketing vehicles? Seems like a blunt instrutment of an idea being brandished about without the appropriate amount of thought. Any and all contributions (books, papers, even classes) by any professor (math, physics, science) at any university (MIT, Stanford, Georgia Tech) are "Marketing vehicles" for those universities and if they aren't successful in attracting funding, students, and prestige then that professor isn't going to last too long at the university. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poetry. Jok2000 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The one independent source (no longer in the article), the New Scientist article, only has one paragraph about the subject. The Infoworld source is a press release. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I certainly agree that more independent sources are desirable, I think you're overstating the problem. I don't know about Infoworld coverage, there's never been such a link in the article, but there has long been one to an InformationWeek article [35] which is completely different in style and content to the Google press release [36]. While the New Scientist article only has one mention of the topic as you say (one sentence, in fact), it's relevant and should not have been removed from the article IMO. There are two other independent sources mentioned on the talk page; I haven't copied them to the article because I'm unsure of their citeability, but one of them does have a Wikipedia page of its own. Andrewa (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most anything associated with Google tends to be notable. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and see whether the stub will grow. It's a surprisingly difficult subject to research online, the problem is in devising a meaningful search... suggestions welcome on the talk page. This makes the article, if it ever grows into a proper one, all the more valuable. This nomination appears to be just another blow in the war to remove Eric Lerner from Wikipedia. The problem is that Lerner gave one of these talks, and having failed in various attempts to remove this information from the article, his critics are now trying various tactics of which this is just one to discredit and/or remove the entire article. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"war"? And people accuse me of skating figuratively on thin metaphors. I read his book. It was okay. Adding references to a page full of talks is rather difficult, as there are no transcripts to text search. Trying to argue about the notability of the "talks" page here would require us all to have our eyelids pried open, while chained to a chair, watching youtube videos with Beethoven's ninth playing in the background. The onus is on those who want to keep in this case, because the references are in the wrong source format, and are marketing, until proven otherwise. Bon chance. Jok2000 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's a stub. Give Wikiman a chance to fix it. I'm often astounded at what results. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... call it what you will, but it's difficult when the proposer of this AfD continues to remove content from the article while the AfD is in progress, don't you think? Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, this wasn't the finest moment in the history of Wikipedia edits nor is this AfD for that matter. My usual experience with ScienceApologist is that this fellow is a reasonable person who has admirably strong morals. So this AfD is confusing to me, but it's not scary or frightening the way many are. For with many (perhaps most) AfD's good faith is wasted, but I don't feel this to be the case with ScienceApologist. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No argument with reasonableness and morals; Those are not the issues here. But perhaps, if you find this behaviour surprising, you should do some rethinking. I'm afraid it's 100% consistent to the unfortunate pattern I've observed. Andrewa (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist's reasonableness and possesion of morals points towards the ideal of WP:GOODFAITH are far more important than whatever mistakes are being made (or from my perspective, the SINS committed). And as a devout Christian, I so far feel comfortable around ScienceApologist since this editor has only acted towards me in ways that ultimately demonstrate good faith. And this is not so easy, considering the apparently vast differences in our world-views, values, and beliefs. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you feel comfortable around ScienceApologist and wish your ministry to him well. And of course all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But we're not (re)trying him here, we're simply trying to deal with an AfD which he has raised and then attempted to disrupt. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason this is not closed? I don't want to do it myself, but the chance of even rough consensus to delete appears minimal, the arguments for deletion equally minimal, and the normal time has expired. Can we move on?

In fact ISTM that we have rough consensus to keep. It would be most helpful to close it as consensus to keep, to minimise the risk that it will be quickly renominated. But even a close as no consensus would be progress IMO. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is not to keep. It looks like the best we can say is that there is no consensus. In particular, Arthur, myself, and Jok2000 have given arguments as to why this article may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. You, Stifle, and Firefly have expressed the opposite opinion. Then there is the fly-by-night anon, but I hope we can agree to discount that. In any case, a consensus to keep is hardly appropriate. I don't see any harm in relisting the nom to get further input. That's normally what is done when things are as split as this. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the "no consensus" evaluation. It wouldn't hurt to relist it to get more opinions, and possibly some editors to contribute to the article to improve it. I'm abstaining from the vote, but I do think the additional references that were added have helped with the original notability issues. ABlake (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is not to keep... Um, there's certainly no consensus to delete. I guess you're saying there's no consensus as yet? Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Up until now, I had just commented. We can't discuss this forever. I object a bit to Google's over-selling of some of the talks. I am a software engineer and this idea of "debugging backwards in time" is obviously marketing speak aimed at geeky sci-fi fans, such as myself. They are simply referring to an instruction back-trace, which is a hardware trace-log idea that has been in use in in-circuit-emulators (that in fact I have used) since all the way back to the early 1980's and before. Half the talks come off as marketing hype. Like take that Bussard, his $1meg machine blew up. "oooh coool" -- so what, all it means is that his machine does not work. Too much hype in all of the talks. They are after all "talks" in the sense of "talking". I might actually like the ones about software, but I do recognize that I am being sold-to. Wikipedia is not a marketing forum, I can't give investor advice here, and I don't want to. e.g. Am I to go to the talks page and say "By the way, the instruction back-trace has been around forever"? Jok2000 (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether individual talks have contained marketing speak is not the issue. The question is simply, is this topic encyclopedic? Anyway, this vote probably pushes the discussion over the borderline from rough consensus to no consensus. Is consensus likely to be achieved? If not, we should close the discussion and move on, as I think Jok2000 is suggesting as well. Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the talks are all simply marketing talks (and I maintain that they are), how can it possibly be encyclopedic? Do we cover the marketing expos put on by any other company? Should the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) Information Systems & Logistics Distribution Conference have an article? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talks are all simply marketing talks? What a ridiculous assertion, but it explains a lot.

Have a look at the list of speakers. Do you really think that these people all agreed, under the banner of TechTalks, to give instead a marketing talk? Have you listened to any of them? Which ones?

Have a look at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1742374580386548257, one of the talks listed in the article (you removed the list, but it was restored). The abstract reads Andrew will present a broad look at the trends in recent changes in the Linux kernel: what areas of kernel functionality are people working on, and what changes can we expect to see over the next year ? This feature-by-feature walk-through will be tied to an examination of the motivations of the kernel contributors: why do particular individuals and organizations choose particular things to work upon ? He will also examine areas of the kernel which are arguably suffering from some neglect, the reasons for this and some possible corrective actions which might be taken. Andrew will finish with a discussion of the importance of individual testers to the kernel development effort, as well as a look at the steps which a kernel tester should take to maximize the effectiveness of his or her contribution to the kernel.

Come now. Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come now indeed. Andrew Morton is a Linux developer. As much as I love Linux, he's still basically giving a product demonstration. That's marketing plain and simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm? So any presentation by a Linux developer on the subject of Linux is marketing plain and simple, is that your claim?

I guess then you would then also include the preso by Linus Torvalds (who unlike Morton doesn't work for Google) as marketing? I'm getting quite curious.

I'm guessing that there's a world of difference between these talks and the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) Information Systems & Logistics Distribution Conference to which you refer above. But I could be wrong. Tell me more about these. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Linus Torvalds did a marketing demonstration. He was promoting the version-control software that he developed. I don't think that there is a world of difference in terms of the purpose or function of the talks. The GMA talks are usually given by various CEOs of successful product distribution companies like ConAgra, Gillette, and CVS who explain how to handle product flow. Those marketing talks are done to "introduce" vendors, purchasers, and suppliers to particular distribution models in hopes of selling franchises, products, wholesale agreements etc. In the business world, it's called "synergistic networking" and even though attendees are enthusiastic about the "exchange of ideas" they are essentially giant sales expos. I see the GoogleTechTalks as exactly the same, just for the Tech sector. Certainly not encyclopedic, in my opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 21 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. Fram (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byrdie Green[edit]

Does not seem to pass WP:Music, at least not by the info given in the article. The very model of a minor general (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like at least two of those albums listed at the bottom are with Prestige Records; if someone can confirm that, that makes her pass WP:MUSIC. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make that all four, including the three she's solo. Be good to get more direct citation from a reliable source (possibly the one listed in the article?), but the partially reliable sources I'm finding online convince me she's legit. Changing comment to keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you just cut and paste that opposite-of-reality line in every AfD? --Oakshade (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the albums I found on Billboard charted, so fails WP:MUSIC in my view. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 14:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quasirandom Albums don't necessarily need to be charted and there seem to be some sources in print or behind paywall as e.g NYT [37] and [38]--Tikiwont (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I think you should keep this page, I can attest to the fact that Byrdie did indeed record for the Prestige Label, as well as Polydor and Polygram. I am her youngest daughter and have the albums in question in my possession. I opt that you keep this article. --Dharbee (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Dharbee

Keep per Dharbee, the artist and article are legit. I should know. She was my mother.--Dharbee (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Dharbee[reply]

Keep Notable. A google search for 'Byrdie Green Prestige Records' brings up sites which confirm that the lady did indeed record multiple albums for Prestige Records. The article needs work on the wording but this is no reason to delete it. CBHA (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recorded multiple albums with notable labels. The New York Times did at least a couple of pieces on her [39][40]--Oakshade (talk) 06:15, 20 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 (and stub to remove unnecessary fluff). Marking for cleanup... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barsana Dham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable institute. Media coverage is focussed on the guru of the institue and this media coverage is for child molestation. These sources may be reliable, but the focus is on Swami Prakashanand Saraswati's alleged child abuse. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Swami Prakashanand Saraswati is a non notable religious leader. His institute has recieved coverage for his child molestation allegations. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, being the largest Hindu temple in North America seems to convey legitimate notability, if it can be verified. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Kinu. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article establishes notability fairly well, as Kinu points out. A few minutes search seems to confirm this—there are many, many sources of information. Also, the article is about the temple, not Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, so when his notoriety wans, the article can still be relevant. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article looks quite good but sources are mostly from local newspapers or Temple literature. It also reads so like a press release as to need complete re-writing. Regarding being the largest in North America, this is untrue or outdated as Swaminarayan Mandir in Chicago (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-120413398.html) is actually the largest and there are many more that are larger than it. 140.203.12.240 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Barsana Dham is NOT the largest Hindu temple in North America. This has not been proven by reliable sources. The subject is still a non notable, until proven otherwise by verifiable reliable sources - and these have not been produced to date. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. Get rid of the material that is both controversial and unsourced. Otherwise, it looks good. A few self-sources are O.K. as long as good ones are also included. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question is that once the controversial and unsourced material is removed, what remains is a non notable religious institute. Unfortunately, it is the controversial and unsourced material that attributes notability to the subject in the article. Aside from these sources, the subject remains a non notable religious institute. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was reading a WP discussion about creating a sub-project on Radha Krishna Sampradayas, and thought that Barsana Dham must be added to the list of Sampradayas in that sub-project. But when I checked to see WP entry for Barsana Dham, I was surprised to see that its listed for deletion. It may not be the largest Hindu temple in USA, but it certainly is 'one of the largest' and has a very large following, not only in Texas but all across USA. So it must not be deleted. The article does read like a self advertisement/brochure because I assume the text is taken from their brochure or website. However, the tone can be corrected with minor edits. Regarding its founder Prakashananda Saraswati, the article should not be focused on the person, but on the institution. The WP information about charges against him is purely sensational. WP should not be a place for sensational news. Who is going to keep the news about the case current/updated? If WP is not the place to provide updated news on an ongoing case, then the sensational story does not belong on WP. The section on Prakashananda Saraswati within the Barsana Dham article should be deleted, but the article on Barsana Dham should be kept and edited so it does not read like an advertisement. If the article survives, I can try to help with that, although I am not connected to Barsana Dham in any way.Viprak (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question In today's Voice of America news is an article titled, Hindu Guru Charged With Child Molestation Allowed to Leave US. The last sentence states that, "Only a few dozen people live at the Texas Hill Country site of the Barsana Dham temple, but thousands of people have attended services and festivals held at the site." This source states that "thousands of people have attended services..." Is this number of visitors enough to establish notability? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:57, 21 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. Unsourced, does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Recreation might be possible with a tighly sourced article that demonstrates notability, if desired. Wily D 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcie Garcia[edit]

Fails WP:V, WP:BIO, possible WP:AUTO. Subject's claim to fame is writing a startup weekly lifestyle column for the NHL.com website, but there are only 56 unique Google hits for her, and no reliable sources about her, as WP:V requires. The article itself is unsourced and was written by a SPA with no edits beyond this article. RGTraynor 14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 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 ~~ N (t/c) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Heil[edit]

Doug Heil isn't a notable business person. Webprofessor (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. Text of article already states he was "one of many" which leans toward non-notability. Claim of "controversy" would only be in a very small arena and does not by itself confer notability. Frank | talk 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Frank and nom--Doug Weller (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Milk Float 10:12, 19 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMS gateway[edit]

This article consists of some dubious facts, bad references and outright rubbish, couple with a how-to guide and hundreds of external links, mostly spam, with a title that could refer to any one of a dozen different things. I don't think there is anything worth salvaging. akaDruid (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a valid topic and valuable information. I agree it probably needs more cites, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Numerous hits, and even plenty of hits on Google News. Frank | talk 14:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't doubt that the term is used a lot; The problem is that there is no consensus on what it actually means. And as far as the valuable information goes; A lot of the technical stuff seems to be inaccurate, and inconsistent with the SMS article. The history section is apparently just wrong - as far as I can tell the "famous crashing of Orange on Christmas Day 2000" never actually happened. akaDruid (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: I think the author of that article wanted to convert that page into a spam link farm! Also, not enough context to identify subject. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge SMS gateway should be merged to SMS. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frank, but trim excess links. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was no dubious information when I created the article a couple of years ago. It's true that it's unfortunately somewhat of a magnet for spam by commercial services that provide some sort of SMS gateway, and I eventually got too busy to continue actively maintaining the article and removing spam links (although others have periodically done that since the time that I mostly stopped). I know of no other actively maintained list of SMS gateways on the Internet, and this is often very useful information to have (yes, I know that Wikipedia is not meant to be a link repository, but in older revisions, the list of links took up little space compared to the textual content part of the article). Perhaps if we removed some of the inappropriate content (this old revision might be a good base), and removed all links except for those to first-party cellular carriers' (which is all I originally intended to be listed in the article), you could consider keeping it...? --Dan Harkless (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently this page is not up to desired standards, but I found some very useful info that was hard to find elsewhere. Once I found it here, though, I was able to verify it (e.g. gateway codes for SMS-email etc) on various other sites, so the info is either accurate or a widely propagated misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.103.51 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wouldn't rank it among the best articles, but its quite useful and certainly doesn't violate any policy. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has useful info on sms / email providers.

24.69.160.235 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008(UTC)Joel

Keep - An SMS gateway, for those that don't know, is something that relays messages to the text messaging system from something else, usually email but the article also covers systems that read the message into regular voice lines. The consumer generally does not have wholesale access to the SMS network from their PC, hence the need for a gateway. I'd also like to point out that most of the external links are not "spam" but are email addresses belonging to various cellular providers. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:01, 17 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... WP:SNOW, since this is not an article. Would likely be a CSD G11 as self-promotion or CSD G12 as a copyright violation anyway. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Only A Woman[edit]

This is not an encyclopaedia article but a short work of fiction. It is non-notable and presumed unpublished elsewhere. The author's other contribs all constituted vandalism; creation of this article seems to have been a reaction to a final warning on their Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, possibly speedy delete If the author didn't write this story himself (WP:MADEUP), it is a copyright violation (WP:COPYVIO). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay / original work. Frank | talk 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure OR work of fiction. Nsk92 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Get the mop, as per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not notable at all QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Most bizarre thing I have ever seen. CSD should really be amended to cover this kind of "article". -- EhsanQ ^(talk) 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You missed WP:NOT - Wiki isn't a collection of novels! I wonder how many other WP violations we can list before this gets deleted...? StephenBuxton (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sgeureka. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:01, 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. Pastordavid (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March Information Systems[edit]

Queried speedy delete ((db-inc)). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A software and consultancy company without any showing of notability. Their main product was apparently bought out and rebranded some time ago. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has secondary source(s) meeting WP:CORP. I guess Smerdis looked before I had chance to add these, as I promised when querying the SpeedyDelete of this article. Please note that this article dates back to 2004 and predates WP:CORP by nearly a year, so it isn't surprising it wasn't originally written to that standard. And the fact the company was bought out some time ago is neither here nor there; historical information is often more valuable than current. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sold for a measly $7.65 and then asset stripped (product transferred to another company) doesn't look notable to me. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I presume you meant to say a measly $7.65 million. But 'dollar valuation' is not a consideration in WP:CORP anyway, and nor should it be. Think of the difficulty in trying to set a threshold. And your comment on asset stripping is just plain POV. -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, yes I meant a measly $6.75. I also meant to say have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/reading.ac.uk. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question: Please explain your last cryptic comment. I don't see anything relevant on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/reading.ac.uk. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Why do you categorise CNET Networks as a non-reliable source?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to IBM Internet Security Systems, it's all there. - Nabla (talk) 14:35, 21 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom O'Leary Golf Course[edit]

Delete per WP:ADV, WP:NN & WP:ORG. Appears to be just a mom & pop putt-putt course. --Endless Dan 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for businesses, google news turns up nothing to show notability. Atyndall93 | talk 12:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. JJL (talk) 02:34, 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 Redirect to The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (soundtrack) Black Kite 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goofy Goober Rock[edit]

Nothing special in a song sung by Bob SquarePants. Should be mergeed to The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (soundtrack) Damiens.rf 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (soundtrack) does not have its own notability, cannot find mention in reliable publications. fails musical inclusion guidelines but still merits a mention in the soundtrack article. Atyndall93 | talk 12:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Sweats[edit]

Delete. I've heard the term before, but origin or symptoms cannot be sourced by a credible source. Fails WP:NEO. Endless Dan 12:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, google news search/book search/scholar search turns up no information to prove what this says is true. As such is a neologism and fails notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 12:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best this is a sentence mention in competitive eating. It's given barely a paragraph in ISBN 0312339682, a book about the sport. --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dhartung. Merenta (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dhartung sums up my view, it appears to be a newly coined neologism which might merit a mention in competetive eating but not its own article. BigHairRef | Talk 11:09, 17 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 and redirect to Instant-runoff voting. There is some useful and relevant information to that article here, but this is essentially a POV fork which could be condensed and included in that article. I have redirected; others may merge as they see fit. Black Kite 10:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instant-runoff voting controversies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting

I have refactored longer comments to the talk page to aid readability of the day's AFDs. Please add long comments to that page while retaining "delete"/"keep"/etc. comments here. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created for POV purposes. There are very few references (10), and all are weak. Of the few references given one is "electowiki", a wiki (which are not considered credible sources per Wikipedia policy). Another reference is written by the "Center for Range Voting" a POV group. And another source is "Behind the ballot box: A citizen's guide to voting systems" by Amy, Douglas J. This book has only been cited 3 times, and has no positive reviews, is not an important work, and not considered influential in the field of political science or international relations. This is also a fork article that draws attention by claiming it's about "controversies". Even the title is misleading, as is the content and purpose of the article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified all editors about this AfD, who either voted in the previous AfD, or edited the subject article or its Talk page, who had not been previously notified or commented, and who are not blocked or vanished. That's a total of 12 editors, some of whom may have long been inactive.--Abd (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for reasons stated above. I should also mention that the creator of this article User:Captain Zyrain has had an administrator express that they believe this editor is a sockpuppet (see editors page). Another strong supporter to keep this article User:Abd has mentioned in the previous nomination for deletion that they are involved with the Center for Range Voting as an advisor. The Center for Range Voting is highly critical of instant-runoff voting. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork, no demonstrated need for a separate article on the controversies, any notable and verifiable controversies can more than adequately be covered at instant-runoff voting. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A POV fork and an obvious OR magnet; a flawed concept for the article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all of the reasons listed above. --Endless Dan 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator introduces no new arguments not considered in prior AfD. Article was created with editor consensus (including pro- and con-IRV editors) to allow deeper exploration of controversy on the topic than would otherwise be appropriate and necessary in the main article. However, I'd be personally happy with Merge and Redirect, though it could lead to edit warring in the main article. Defects in sourcing -- there are fewer sources than I remember but I have not reviewed the history -- should be addressed through ordinary editorial process, by removal or proper sourcing of unsourced material, and are irrelevant to notability unless no reliable sources exist. Controversies over voting methods can be quite complex and the necessary depth to report on them inappropriate for the main article; this is a classic reason for a Controversies article, allowing summary style to take back what is most notable to the main article. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Yes, there was an old deletion debate that failed. I'm not prepared to defend content quality (since I think this article is largely poorly written, 1/3 trash thought, even as I made my small attempts to improve), but needs improvements is not a reason for deletion to me. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - There are plenty of references to establish notability, and the main article is already too big to merge everything useful from this one. Still needs a great deal of cleanup, though, starting with the currently segregated layout. --Explodicle (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Instant-runoff voting - After discussing the matter, it's clear that the pro and con lists aren't getting fixed any time soon, and the article was created just to prevent edit warring. Disputes can be resolved on Talk:Instant-runoff voting without edit wars. Once the section at Instant-runoff voting is ready, it can be expanded to its own article. If the IRV article is too long, a more mature section should be spun off instead. --Explodicle (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated - POV article now being defended by someone a) with a conflict of interest and b) trying to muddy the waters by accusing people of being sockpuppets. --87.114.34.110 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC) I struck this comment, because this IP is the blocked User:Fredrick day. The only sock accusation here was from the nominator. Sock puppetry is irrelevant to this AfD, which would proceed even if, for example, it were proven that the nominator were Yellowbeard, and I don't think that likely.--Abd (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC) IP addressess are commonly used by many individuals, which is why unlike user names they cannot be blocked permanently. You do not know that this is the user you claim it to be. Try something like that again and I'll report you. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)_{Note to closer: the I.P. in question has made no other edits outside of this topic, and, based on I.P. range, is almost certainly indef-blocked user Fredrick Day. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Weak delete: the article is a POV fork. It's admittedly done better than most POV forks, and I did edit it some time back to nudge it closer to NPOV, but at its heart it is still an essential violation of WP forking rules, and it still shows a good amount of POV bias. The choice of sources perhaps shows this best. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion if it should be deleted or not, but if it is, any npov, referenced, sections left should be merged as appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Instant-runoff voting. Do not delete. A decent article could be written, but it hasn’t been done. The target article doesn’t even have a good summary. Improve the controversy section of Instant-runoff voting before trying to expand into a whole article.

While there are occurrences of discussion about controversy associated with IRV, there don’t seem to be reliable independent secondary sources discussing “Instant-runoff voting controversies” per se. Possibly, this article can stand on the basis that it is a spin-off article. Instant-runoff voting is already big. If not, it is still clearly a real topic, with sources, and so merging is appropriate. Whether kept or merged, a fair bit of editorial work is required. The list of pros, then list of cons style is not good, and overall it reads too much like OR. For a controversial topic, in line citations are especially important. NB these criticisms are not reasons for deletions.

POV allegations are easy to make, can be fixed. POV as a criterion for deletion is a POV battling tactic and is inappropriate. There is no reason to suppress this information. To the extent that there is a fork of content, POV or otherwise, the duplicated content should be merged, not deleted.

Sockpuppetry is irrelevant to this debate. This is a controversial subject, and POV exists. This means that care is needed, not deletion. We do not censor controversial subjects.

If kept, a serious cleanup is required. I can’t see it being fixed in a week. Perhaps a user is interested in userfying? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd's responses moved to talk page by User:Stifle [41]

Keep The CRV is an advocacy group, not whatever a "POV group" as nominator wants to portray. Quirky has been several allegations about the title of the article, a book used as a reference without supplying anything substantive, any proof of the allegations. This was a very ill-conceived nomination.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and~~ Merge any relevant content into the main article on IRV, and turn this page into a redirect. Controversy forks are POV/troll magnets and are generally not advised. I haven't seen nor can I think of any reasons why this specific fork should be an exception. Yilloslime (t) 04:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This would violate the GFDL. See WP:MAD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have changed my !vote to Merge and redirect. Yilloslime (t) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP --
"This article was created for POV purposes." Which POV purposes, pray tell?
"Even the title is misleading, as is the content and purpose of the article." Please explain to this simpleton exactly how this is all so misleading. --NBahn (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Instant Runoff Voting. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with disputes over what should and should not be included. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Instant-runoff voting (and split the Brown v. Smallwood court case into separate article). The main article lacks sufficient explanation of the pros and cons. The controversies article currently under discussion, though not well-sourced, supplies some of the missing information. (See also my comments on the talk page.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a notable topic and we can't expect to cover everything in a single article. Everyking (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources don't nearly cover the claims made in the article, and this is inherent to the scope of the article because it's being used as a vehicle for opinions, not facts. It's plausible that there could be some encyclopedic content with this title -- such as about controversies that have occurred in the real world due to implementation of IRV. If this article were given an accurate title, it would be "Arguments about implementing IRV, especially in the United States". And then it would be deleted. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The IRV article provides the relevant context. The content of this article needs to be condensed to form the "controversy" section of that article. JFW | T@lk 09:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe The article is quite defective (sorry I haven't had time to continue working on it), but if it can be brought up to snuff, on balance I think it should exist. It definitely cannot be merged into the main article, as it is ten-times too long to be merged into that article and it would be nearly impossible to settle on what pieces should survive, resuming an edit war. My biggest complaint is that this article gives way too much space to arguments that are outside the discussion actually being conducted on the ground, which is contrasting IRV with current voting methods (plurality and two-round runoffs). Some comaprison with other theoretical voting methods (such as Condorcet, Borda and Approval) should be in the article, but these are minor sidelines compared to the real-world controversy over IRV, and should be a minor portion of this article. Some editors want to use this article to show why their favorite theoretical voting method is better than IRV. That sort of "debate" is more suited to an article comparing all voting methods, rather than an article about IRV.Tbouricius (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep needs work, however it is a worthy topic for content Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I would like to remind those thinking about merging that the parent article instant-runoff voting already contains the major praise and criticism about instant-runoff voting, which is why I feel a merge would not be needed. Please consider reading both articles before deciding whether to keep, delete, or merge. Thank you. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this puzzling. The main article contains hardly any reference to opinion contrary to IRV, there are few exceptions. The plan was to explore the controversy in detail, in the Controversies article, finding consensus there, then take back a brief summary to the main article. So what argument was there was moved, and replaced with a link to the Controversies article. What is left is specific to a discussion of the method, not, as far as I can recall, to arguments as such. --Abd (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read both articles and disagree. Instant-runoff voting controversies contains material that goes way beyond the coverage found in any independent secondary sources. It contains too much OR, ie. wikipedian-synthesised material based only on primary sources. This stuff must be trimmed. Much of the rest is in instant-runoff voting, and thus this is a content fork. Merging of the remaining acceptable material (perhaps there is little) and converting of the article to a redirect is definately appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, this puzzles me as well. The controversies article contains detailed material covering notable arguments that is probably too much detail for the main article. There is a problem with summary presentations: it is difficult to accomplish the summarization without resulting in a POV slant. Consensus is generally easier to find -- at least it has been on this topic -- when freed from the argument that "this is too much detail for this article." And this is why actual editorial decisions, and whether to merge and how to merge and all that, are not made ordinarily by AfDs. It's complicated, and WP:FORK specifically suggests content forks when they are a result of editorial consensus. Consensus can change, but I'm a bit puzzled as to who, exactly, is going to accomplish the merger. We started with it all in one article, and our experience with that is why the controversies article were started. This is absolutely not a "POV Fork," explicitly and clearly, even though it might appear to some not familiar with the topic. There are two editors who have voted here who are explicitly IRV advocates. The voted "Keep maybe" and "Undecided" and the latter vote was, in its explanation, clearly a "Keep" while not approving of some of the actual content. And I'm a critic. The three of us have been major editors of the main article, recently, and we frequently disagree there, strongly. We came to agreement about the subject article. The suggestion I've seen above that the main article doesn't have a decent summary and that the summary should be done first is actually bizarre. How can what we have not agreed upon be summarized? It is true that there is a lot of material in the controversies article that pushes the boundaries of OR and reliance on primary sources. But, again, the solution to that is pretty simple. Take out, or, preferably, tag questionable material. I haven't done that myself because I don't, as a matter of personal policy, remove material that I believe to be true, and verifiably so, based on technicalities of Wikipedia guidelines. Call it WP:IAR, if you like, but I do not apply this selectively. I don't take out material that can be seen as pro-IRV based on imperfection, or even lack, of sourcing. And, frankly, I don't think anyone else should either; and the old wiki way was to ask for sources when the material was doubtful. Not to delete for lack of sourcing; that's why tagging is more civil than simply deleting. The alleged problems of this article are editorial problems. The controversy exists, there is secondary source, and, with time, it will be so referenced or removed. --Abd (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion, both articles, instant-runoff voting and instant-runoff voting controversies, are problematic and need a major cleanup. However, deleting only the instant-runoff voting controversies article would be a signal in the wrong direction. Markus Schulze 10:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY provides major guidance on this; the level of notable detail requires a separate article, so what must be done is to (1) tighten the controversies article per sourcing standards, POV balance, etc., and (2) restore a summary of the arguments to the main article. These are ordinary editorial decisions. Merger, while far better than deletion, would be much more difficult, because the main article is already long. If we find consensus, or at least stability, in the subarticle, we then have a source from which to derive what goes back in the main article. Finding consensus on summaries is far more difficult than finding consensus on a detailed description. And where the articles deviate, Keeping articles synchronized suggests the ((sync)) tag. --Abd (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Instant runoff voting. This article is quite poorly sourced at the present time. The article has long stretches that read like a personal essay, and are sourced only to proponents or objectors to IRV. We need outside commentary by third parties who are not partisans of any of the voting methods and can be thought of as experts in political science. Given how unlikely it is that any such sources will be found in the near future, I suggest a Redirect until whatever time such sources are found. Since there is so little good sourcing in the present article, it is hard to argue that there is too much material to fit into Instant runoff voting. There is too much personal-essay-like material, that's all. The sourcing in Instant runoff voting is much better. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prune, Merge and Redirect the concept is notable and has been discussed in reliable sources and that can be discussed in the parent article. It's also probably a good search term, although I'm not so sure about the hyphen. There are significant OR issues here and I think that once those are addressed, there isn't going to be enough to warrant a separate article but rather enhance the main article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you understand: this article was created because the necessary detail was, in fact, burdensome in the main article. Personally, whatever POV "agenda" I have would be better served by having the critical material back in the main article, but *consensus* is better served by focusing on the debate in detail *first* and then summarizing in the main article. I'm aware of *many* sources that are available, and the decision of what sources are appropriate, once notability and the existence of some RS is established, is not for an AfD at all. It's an editorial decision. If the "fact" is that an argument is being presented, yes, primary source is an attributed statement from an official web site of a notable advocacy organization. But for this I've seen primary source used many times. It is clearly verifiable. Yes, again, reliable secondary source is generally better. The problem, though, is a balance between the requirements of RS and NPOV, and there is a very good reason we set up guidelines and leave the actual decisions to a consensus of the editors. Just today, I inserted some material into the controversies article without sourcing it. I know that what I inserted, to those who know the subject, is not controversial. If I'm wrong, the other editors will take it out, they are not shy. I did add cn tags, though. I'll come back and provide sources, and what is not properly sourced will ultimately be removed, but I consider article writing a process, they do not arrive lotus-born. Old style Wikipedia, I guess. It's what built this place. --Abd (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per QuirkyAndSuch. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the sourced controversies, and start over. It should be noted that most of the "CON" arguments apply to any voting method, so, even if they were sourced, they shouldn't apply to this article or the parent article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Delete. The sourced statements were already included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found an Australian site, apparently a reliable secondary source, with a whole list of pro and con arguments about preferential voting, so some of the argument sources will be moving to that site; some are already sourced elsewhere. It confirms, by the way, some arguments that some have, on the face, considered contradictory and preposterous. Which goes to show.... And there is a lot to be sourced from Gaming the Vote, by William Poundstone, newly published and widely reviewed (and thus there is more from the reviews, including one just published in the The Nation). The statement that most of the con arguments apply to any voting method simply is not true, though. I'll discuss this in Talk for the article. In any case, the specific arguments are, in fact, being raised specifically regarding IRV, and that they apply to "any voting method" is a synthetic conclusion that is itself one of the arguments (a "defense") raised for IRV, don't recall if that is in the article, but we see it all the time ("They say that IRV has problems, but Arrow proved that all voting systems have problems." But Arrow did not prove that, it's an incorrect popularization of Arrow's Theorem, which only applies to certain kinds of voting systems.) --Abd (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Instant-runoff voting - unnecessary POV fork. It may be that little if any of the material on this page is worth keeping, in which case this is effectively a Delete. Terraxos (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or stubify. *Maybe* we may have an article on the controversy but this is not it (except maybe a bit of the intro, and the court cases - thus the stubify option). This is merely a reiteration of each voting system, already covered in their articles, and as such a needless duplication of content. - Nabla (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting more and more puzzled by the latest comments. The Controversies article isn't about the voting system, as such, it's about the debate over it. That debate is mostly not in the main article on the voting system, and we are only considering one system, for the most part (there is a section in the IRV article about similar systems). Some of what is in the Controversies article could go back into the main article, but much of it, though notable (I claim, sources are in the process of being provided, a little day by day -- this article grew gradually, with a number of different editors working on it), would be peripheral to the main article. Instant-runoff voting is what it is regardless of court cases over its constitutionality, or arguments being made about its expense, for example. What is specifically about the method is timeless. Note that there are also articles about the History of the method, and about the recent Implementations in the United States. All of these go into detail that is not appropriate for the main article. This was why a consensus of editors -- not just pro or con editors -- agreed on setting up subarticles. They weren't intended to be POV Forks, and that alone disqualifies them as such (even though any article can take on a POV color.) --Abd (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is (mostly) *not* about the debate. The article is the debate. Those are quite different things. If it were about the debate I would get to know who, when, where, why, with what consequences, etc.. We have nearly nothing of that. What we have is the debate, the alleged pros and cons of one (or several) voting systems, which is merely a restatement of their characteritcs and thus a duplication of the main article(s). - Nabla (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is not based on a clear reading of the article. Not every argument has been sourced, but if an argument can't be sourced as Nabla thinks it should, then it should be taken out. Because the article was written by editors with knowledge of the debate, much was put in as skeleton text, unsourced. There were also some sources taken out by editors not understanding that sourcing requirements for arguments differ subtly from sourcing for other kinds of fact. We can't source a fact to a biased source, but we may, in some cases, source an argument in that way. FairVote, for example, is a notable proponent of IRV, and thus can be a source for arguments. But not for facts about the voting system, nor for facts about other systems. Yes, there is material in the article that duplicates what is in other articles. That's necessary, in fact, and would happen wherever the arguments are examined. Here, such material is presented in relation to arguments that are being made. So the fact that IRV is not monotonic is a fact, NPOV. It is not an argument, it's just a fact. However, then, it is asserted as an argument, as a reason not to use IRV. This is what brings it into the article. Then, in the plan, we source the argument. Is it actually being made, notably? Then we have what can be found in reliable source regarding the argument. Is the argument a fact? I.e., is IRV actually monotonic, or is this some deceptive claim? RS shows that it is true (and the fact of it can be verified by anyone who looks at sample elections). What, then, does this mean? Is it important for a voting system to be monotonic. There are various views on this, and they should be noted in the article. That's it. The article does not come to conclusions, generally. There might be a section in the article about conclusions. I.e., RS that draws conclusions about IRV, overall. Some of the sources currently in the article do that, but this hasn't been a part of the organization of the article, so far. It should be. The pro and con sections are *not* mere restatements of voting system characteristics, and there is no detailed analysis of arguments in the main article. Whenever that was attempted, it was taken out, with the argument that it was too much detail. And, ultimately, I came to agree with that, and *all* the editors actively working on the article agreed, and, so far, none of them have come down on the side of merge and redirect. Only editors relatively unfamiliar with the topic, coming to an easy conclusion that this is a POV fork, which it most certainly is not (I'd be at a loss to decide what POV this article favors), have voted for merge or delete. And who is going to do the work of merge? If arguments from this article should be in the main article, have any editors started to put them in? I haven't noticed. What is preventing them? Note the different opinions in this Afd. (1) there is nothing worth saving in the article. (2) there is plenty worth saving. (3) what is here should be merged. (4) what is here is separately notable and deserves an article. I'm not terribly disturbed by a merge decision, it is far better than delete, precisely because it is easy to undo if, when we actually try to merge, we find it isn't working. Note that my political POV would suggest Merge. That makes the arguments more visible! But I'd suggest that such a decision would be using an AfD to make content decisions. Not good policy. Editorial consensus should make content decisions, once it is established that an article is on a notable topic and that there is sufficient reliable source for that. Consensus makes decisions through detailed discussion, and detailed discussion here has partly been moved to Talk, because it is, allegedly, out of place. I'd agree, in part. We shouldn't be making content decisions here, beyond notability and possible verfiability. Merge/Redirect, properly, is a recommendation to editors that they do not have to follow, it is not binding. The deletion guideline notes that, if a merge recommendation is not followed, the article may come up again for AfD. So Merge is really quite like Keep or "no consensus." --Abd (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I should add that, IMHO, most of the arguments should be moved to a general article on controversies in (single-winner) voting systems, as they compare and contrast multiple voting systems, rather than ephasizing IRV. The list of arguments might be mreged into IRV, with the detailed arguments moved to a new (well, at least, I can't find it) article. Perhaps then that article could be broken up by argument, rather than by voting system. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be an article contrasting voting systems in general. But most voting system debate in the U.S. involves instant-runoff voting, at the present. That is why there is an article on it, there is plenty of reliable source, with detail that probably doesn't belong in the main article. As to merging the "list of arguments" into the IRV article, the present article is not merely a list of arguments, and the arguments (the brief summaries presented in the section headings) can be quite misleading by themselves. They make claims that may not be true. We did have a list of arguments in the main article, and it was constantly being shifted when editors would see an argument they thought false and they would change it or take it out. But an *argument*, if attributed, is a fact even if the content of the argument is false. Now, if we do what Mr. Rubin suggests, with detailed arguments moved to a new article, how would that article be different from the one being considered here? That is exactly what happened. We moved the list of arguments that used to be in the main article into this article, so they could be clearly presented and each argument explored in the light of what is known about the arguments. Obviously, ultimately, everything should be properly sourced. That isn't always done at the beginning, people write what they know because there often is not time to add sources at first. Should material be added without sources? Well, actual practice, it was done from the beginning and it is how the project grew. It's efficient. Somebody thinks the material, unsourced, should not be there? They can take it out and, perhaps, the one who put it there, then, being familiar with the topic, finds and adds a source. Or someone else adds a source. Or no source can be found and it stays out. (But, rereading what Mr. Rubin wrote, it seems he thinks we should do exactly what was planned, and Talked about, take the list of arguments and put it back into the main article. The problem was that doing this without having consensus on the topic of the controversy was extraordinarily difficult. The controversies article was the place to find that consensus, and then there is something coherent to summarize. It still won't be easy.--Abd (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the major voting systems used in the US are plurality and runoff voting, with most cities using plurality-at-large for multi-member districts. (Although, I'm forced to admit I don't understand why approval voting is not considered a simplified alternative to plurality-at-large. But I digress.) I don't see IRV as significant enough to have an article on controversies, which, for the most part, apply to other alternative voting systems.

This article should either be folded back into IRV or expanded into a general voting system controversies article. The present, and probably proposed, status is that of an inappropriate WP:FORK of IRV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your digression of Approval as alternative to plurality-at-large, overvoting is reasonably restricted for the case of primaries to reduce the field. Often plurality-at-large elections have a primary with N votes where 2N candidates progress for N seat elections. Overvoting would allow some voters to get their favorites in AND allow extra votes try to knock out their strongest competitors via insincere voting for candidates expected to lose in the general election. Also, allowing overvoting would further risk harm voters forced to bullet vote (or limit their votes) in the primary for fear of losing their favorite(s). SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the idea of context of controversies not exclusive to IRV. Most of my attempts to edit this article tried to categorize what problems existed in other system, i.e. properties that exist in IRV that also exist under any runoff system, or plurality. The most confusing part of the article to me (as someone who has explored EVERY issue perhaps) is criticisms come from opposite sides - (1) those who fear moving away from plurality (most of the public criticism of IRV), and (2) those who think IRV is too small of a reform (EM hacks who want Approval or Range voting or whatever magic trick that is even more drastically different from what we have.) Grouping arguments both critics together is rather confusing to say the least! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 22:33, 21 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. John254 00:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of subcultures[edit]

More or less a duplicate of list of lifestyles, which was deleted last month. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an expert tag asking editors involved with sociology to edit this article. I believe that some informed editors on this subject could improve it into a very good article. Please consider giving it a chance. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other similar stuff was deleted isnt really a good argument. The article is notable but suffers from lack of sourcing which is a content issue and not a criteria for deletion. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Cleanup is also being discussed on the talk page which the nominator should have read before nominating in accordance with afd instructions. List of youth subcultures also suffers the same issues. --neonwhite user page talk 14:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep AfD not properly followed through (surprise, surprise). Nom has a fitting username. Knee-jerk deletionism really does stifle Wikipedia. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain which of the speedy keep criteria this page meets and please consider being more civil. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is the list counterpart of Category:Subcultures and is a necessary component of our human-readable navigation system. Current state of article isn't a good argument, since it can be fixed by regular editing processes. No reason to delete provided. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It should be improved, not deleted.Spylab (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing violating WP:CLS to have a list of subcultures for which we already have articles. I would like to see better organization rather than just an alpha list, but that would probably be something for editors to work out over time. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this ought to be merged into Subculture, so the editors watching that article can make a better organization and take out all items that are nto really subcultures. But this has to be via normal editing, talk page, merge proposal, etc. Btw, the article that was deleted was way worse than this one. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge the subculure article is not of a major length that would not allow it. --neonwhite user page talk 13:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge into the subculture article because the it would clutter the page up too much. The article and list are long enough that they should be kept separate.Spylab (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the sourced content would be merged which will likely be only a fraction of the list allowing it to be included in the main article. --neonwhite user page talk 13:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provided a clear and verifiable inclusion criteria is provided. Taemyr (talk) 10:20, 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 delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tua-Uo-Loa[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maelare for more on this. Apparently a whole bunch of Polynesian articles were created at once from a dubious website. Most were deleted, but a few are still around. I can't find any sources for this one that aren't mirrors, and it (like Maelare) may not actually exist. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After 5.5 years on WP, still no references. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any references. Aleta ^Sing 18:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another part of the mess made with spurious articles from that dubious website (as you well describe it). Grutness...wha? 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:39, 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. No evidence that this one passes WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SubtractiveLAD[edit]

I declined to speedy this page because there was an assertion of notability (i.e. that the band has released 4 albums). However I don't think they are on major labels and as such it probably doesn't meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. asenine ^{say what?} 09:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think that all editors that are thinking about deleting this article should search for information about this artist. It seems there are quite a few music websites that review this person. They seem to be more underground media, and credibility should be researched. But I think this artist is worth checking out to see if they are notable enough. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is for those seeking content to be included to provide sources to back it up. It is not the responsibility for those seeking deletion to go out and search for sources that may or may not exist. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it enough to find reviews and evaluations about his albums, for notability? Because I'm kind of confused as to what constitutes the argument against Speedy. Is just reliable third-party information enough? It seems a little unfair that an artist should be denied a Wiki because they don't have recognition from the more prominent reviewers and journalists...? Kalatix (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:40, 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. Wizardman 02:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Best of No Angels[edit]

An unregistered user attempted to nominate the article for deletion with the reason of: "This album did not release. Compare [42]". Procedural nomination. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album was released internatinally and thus not listed on the band's official webpage in German language. It's however listed on their official MySpace and Fansite. - Noboyo 08:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the band's MySpace the album is to be released on 27 May. (From what I can understand [I don't speak German], the website linked in the article says the same.) The article doesn't cite any source for the track listing. I am afraid my vote is to ~~delete~~ the article without prejudice. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or perhaps userfy or something; reliable sources for the article are probably bound to appear sooner or later. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources on the Official MySpace, Target.com and band member Diakovska's official webpage LucyDiakovska.tv - Noboyo

There's no question that the album exists and is to be relesed. The question is: what are the sources for the track listing, or for any other statements made in the article? (Without them, we're left with an article saying "Very Best of No Angels is an album by No Angels. It is to be released on 27 May.") - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which statements?? Every information has been listed on the band's official fansite NoAngels-Inside.de, which is in direct contact with the band. The tracklist can be found here. - Noboyo

I have managed to find a link to the site's news archive here; I hope somebody is able to make something out of it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the way of non-trivial references from reliable third party publications. Yet another myspace vanity page. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another [source http://www.thueringer-allgemeine.de/ta/ta.kultur.volltext.php?zulieferer=dpa&redaktion=bdt&dateiname=iptc-bdt-20080519-221-dpa_17836340.nitf&kategorie=KUL&catchline=&other=&dbserver=1], published by a German newspaper - Noboyo

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

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

The result was : Speedily deleted as first-person promotional and preaching. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smvs[edit]

First person advert for non-notable organisation. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:27, 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 : Speedily deleted as copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Properties bulgaria[edit]

Just facts and figures already included (if relevant) in the Bulgaria article, he also claims ownership of the article, which is against guidelines. asenine ^{say what?} 08:24, 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 --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Service Act of 2006[edit]

Simply a copy of information available elsewhere, fails WP:NOTE. --TheTall One 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, although I'd be happier if there was a reasonable place to merge it to, something about the reinstating draft debate. It is fairly clear that this bill was introduced not to pass but to generate more debate regarding the Iraq war. There was some news coverage of it (although not a lot) and quite a bit of reaction in the blogosphere. The mainstream media coverage includes NYT[43] Boston Globe[44], CBSNews[45], Sacramento Bee [46], HalifaxLive[47] and a few others. Nsk92 (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added a section on public debate in relation to the bill, with a number of news media references. The page still needs a lot of work, though. Nsk92 (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, its a useful content fork for the draft article. MrPrada (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Wikisource, inappropriate content for an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided in National_Service_Act_of_2006#References indicate sufficient coverage of this topic in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline, and as the article includes an extensive discussion of the act attributed to third-party reliable sources, in addition to the text of the act itself. Concerns regarding the inclusion of the public domain text of the act should be addressed by discussion on the talk page, rather than by the deletion of the entire article. John254 00:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs clean up but AfD is not a request for clean up. As per John 254 there are adeqaute references to establish notability.--Matilda ^talk 17:52, 20 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. Pigman☿ 05:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lees[edit]

Lack of third person sources to prove notability WP:BIO,WP:RS, Dwanyewest (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:13, 11 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, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - does appearing on a National TV series and competing in the World Freestyle competion make him notable? If so, then Keep Bettia ^(talk) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly reluctant Delete. Can't find reliable 3rd party sources on google, fails WP:N. Many MANY people have appeared on National TV series, and won game shows/competitions. The competition is not notable enough to justify his inclusion, I feel, as the World Nike Freestyle Competition does not merit its own article, let alone articles for its competitors. Paulbrock (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough - delete Bettia ^(talk) 08:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - why is this showing as a 2nd nomination? Paulbrock (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no third person sources to prove this individual's notablity we can't have information on blind faith or give the benefit of the doubt without evidence surely? Dwanyewest (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to few or no third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys cannot be serious. Palle is worldwide known as worlds best football freestyler. Its like taking Pele of wikipedia. shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomsjakie (talk • contribs) 15:29, 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. John254 00:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British words not widely used in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously AfDed for four times. But this article is complete original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Massive OR. asenine ^{say what?} 07:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Original Research is just the beginning. It is also non-verifiable and "factually" incorrect as a number of the words are used widely by Americans both inside and exterior to the United States. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: could you expand on that "non-verifiable" comment? Most dictionaries do indicate when a word is primarily regional usage, such as "Brit." or "Amer." How would that not be acceptable as verification? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The non-verifiability is the "not widely used in the US" (in the title header). Basically, although dictionaries will normally declare British or American they don't generally go so far as to say Maine but, not Arizona (as an example). Quite a few of the words listed at present are words that are used in the US (although how widely (or lack thereof), can't be verified. If the article was simply about the difference between British English and American English it would be different but, the list is based on usage which generally isn't going to be verifiable. Either way the discussion is pretty moot at this space as it looks like a clear cut case of snowballing to me. I'm willing to help cleanup the article but, fear that it is one of those lists that is easily open for abuse/error. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it is open to abuse, and in fact it gets a lot of abuse! I think you are unduly pessimistic, however. I think the solution is to keep it pretty broad, follow the standard dictionary usage notes, and not worry about the differences between Florida and Alaska but stick to a dictionary-defined (dictionary-led) notion of "US-wide" and "GB-wide". By the same token, words that are strongly local and/or dialect in GB should not be listed here, just those that are in common currency in B but not in A - and at that level the standard dictionaries are a good guide. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some dictionaries, such as American Heritage, specifically note regional usage even unto state-specific, as in these two entries. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info but, unfortunately I'm not able to open those pages from work. Don't ask me why I'm not an IT guy. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. (Why would bartleby.com get blocked?) They're entries showing New-Mexico–specific usages of farolito and luminaria (and actually getting it right). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs tidying up, and is prey to the addition of lots of WP:OR, but the core of it is good dictionary-based material. I see nothing here to change the consensus to keep in previous AfD discussions. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The last AfD was in January of this year. The sentiment at that time was literally unanimous for keeping (excepting the nom of course). Given that I think it's a tad early for a new AfD. Like keep voters in the previous AfD's, the only thing I can say of this list is that it seems quite encyclopedic to me. I'd never heard of it before but it also seems quite useful on the face. Neither of these are standard AfD arguments but I do think they are somewhat valid as this is neither a typical article nor list (it does pass WP:N, for whatever that's worth). I don't believe the list is inherently OR or inherently unsourceable (indeed the whole thing could probably be sourced to a dictionary of some sort). It would be nice if most or all of these entries were sourced, but that's not a reason to delete. It seems that the article is fairly well maintained and relatively accurate (based on a cursory review). After four previous AfD's and a unanimous "keep" vote early this year it seems too soon to be discussing this again. Obviously if consensus has changed I'll be proven wrong.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic coverage of British and American English includes comparing them, like this article does (as well as other articles in Category:American and British English differences. Excessive original research in the article warrants cleanup, not deletion. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 08:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ksero. Good material - if there is original research, then trim it out, but there are several references so it is doubtful that the entire article is that bad. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I think a case can be made for OR as has previously been attempted, as well as for WP:NOT. But the overriding question to me is: What has changed from all the previous noms? Not much. What is new in this request? Nothing. It smacks to me of being, "ask the other parent." Nom it enough and eventually the tide will turn, IMHO. So even though this has issues I'd say keep on those grounds, if I cared enough. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. At the risk of sounding unconventional, simply repeating the noms as documented in previous AFDs is not likely to garner a consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A fourth nomination. Nothing new here. Time to give it a rest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nonsensical nomination since the article contains sources which substantiate its content. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dictionary-sourceable, so not inherently OR. If you have problems with individual entries being original research, that's a content displute to be handled on the page, not by deleting it. This is exactly the sort of stuff an encyclopedia SHOULD cover. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that last comment: People write whole books on regional variations of English usage, including especially British versus American usage. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't understand the vehement opposition to this article. (Personally, I could go for some Marmite on scones.) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no more buttered scones for me, mater. I'm off to play the grand piano.--WaltCip (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, lad! I'll have Cook put on a kettle when you're back. LOL Ecoleetage (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly viable topic, and I see nothing to suggest the circumstances that existed the last few times it was kept have changed enough to justify eliminating this topic now. 23skidoo (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not ready to make an argument either way at the moment. I just wanted to point out that most of the keep arguments from the previous AfDs were of the "interesting/useful/I like it" variety as well as people using the previous AfD keeps as justification for there current keep. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has references. Common sense WP:COMMONSENSE is also a helpful guide here. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a fine line between original research and common sense, and this seems to be very much on the common sense part of that spectrum to me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As most dictionaries include usage notes such as Brit. or Chiefly U.S., there's no reason this can't be sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This seems a no brainer to me - a basic, useful, and interesting reference list for many of us. The fluid nature of some word usage means this list will always have debatable entries, entries that are significant yet difficult to properly source and verify. I guess citation purists will always be uncomfortable with it, and want to harass it. Yet the list wouldn't be doing its job well if it didn't play close to this edge.--Geronimo20 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is not some hastily done WP:OR list. This is a bloody well done and useful examination of linguistic differences, and I think it would be bollocks to remove it.Eauhomme (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example! Without a list like this, how would an American like myself even know of the existence of a marvelous word like "bollocks?" Okay, fine, I guess I would have heard of it anyway.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep consensus seems pretty clear on this one. Speedy keep recommended. DGG (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. As Dhartung points out, content of this list is easily verifiable. Klausness (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone else notice that we seem to be debating the "3rd nomination" when the "4th nomination" appears to have been in January?

I think that may be because some of the nominations have been concerned with the whole clutch of articles on British English / American English differences, while others have focused on just one article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some are obvious British-isms (especially from Cockney rhyming slang). But many of these are well known to Canadians (like me) and we, who are sensitive to the language sent to us from the east and from the south, notice that some of these are used by Americans in their everyday life. I doubt if anyone could arbitrate this list and say in any difinitive fashion that these words are not in American usage. I would tend to delete.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If there are things on the list that are not verifiably chiefly British (or at least verifiably not used in the US, since that's the list inclusion criterion), then those should be removed. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. Klausness (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is all OR, some of it might be but looking at the External links I see no reason to get rid of the whole thing. Buc (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Still a whole heap of OR and BS in there but, I'm willing to have a go at fixing them if others are willing to help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Each previous nomination has been a Consensus keep. Not a "No Consensus", but a "Keep". Is there any point at which we can speedy this thing along, or do we have to do this every time someone decides to AfD it? Really, I see more of an issue with WP:IDONTLIKEIT then WP:OR. Eauhomme (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good point I think, and some direction from the closing admin with respect to this question (one way or another) might be useful going forward.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anything such as deletion would be a mistake , a tag is enough to improve it , if not now sure after this nomination ...deletion is no alternate for editing , verifiability may be questioned but being a dictionary supported one citations or such is possible in due course . AFD any time or any amount of time would not succeed , the overall opinion shows the same .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep— Why this legitimate list keeps being nominated is beyond me, but it belongs. As seen on the talk page, we have proposed to use a good dictionary for sources, and are currently getting to that. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. Give this article a chance to grow. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:13, 17 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. Fram (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 Colors[edit]

No reliable sources independent of the developers are given in the article or by a Google search, thereby meaning it fails WP:N. Una Laguna^Talk 06:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only reference was to a blog. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Una Laguna^Talk 09:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For those who voted for delete - try the game and change your mind. Pyvanet (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having played the game and whether or not you enjoyed it has no effect on the notability of the game. Una Laguna^Talk 06:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Abstain Vezaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.148.60 (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and seems to be impossible to correct as this article fails a basic notability test as well. Randomran (talk) 16:58, 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 Delete - but will userfy. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go!Zilla[edit]

Non-notable unsourced - PROD was removed by incivil IP —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Advertising. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per nom. asenine ^{say what?} 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's blatant advertising, I want a speedy delete. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A very brief article about a commercial software product that doesn't even give any information other than defining the general class it falls within. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RS coverage including being named the #1 utility by ZDNet, mentions in the Boston Globe and The Guardian. It needs clean-up, not deletion _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Travellingcari and over 300,000 results on Google. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of context and details. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this could be a good, encyclopedic article, but it isn't, and meanwhile WP has been hosting an advertisement since 2004. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - as mentioned above, it looks like there could be reliable sources used to build a good article (or even a reasonable stub), however as it is right now I don't see either notability claims nor any reliable sources to back up the article. If this was a new article, I would suggest giving it a little time for someone to build it up, but it has been around since 2004. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin if deleted, please userfy to me. I don't have time to work on it right now but am happy to do so and then restore through DRV. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:44, 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football Manager 2009[edit]

game not yet officially announced -Majestic- (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nomination reason is the same reason I offered in my original prod, which was removed an hour before it expired, without offering an edit summary (obviously, I didn't reinsert the prod). The game has not been announced, no features have been announced, no release date is known, nothing at all. A while back there were rumours about features of the new game. These were spready quite widely, which prompted Miles Jacobson, the Managing Director of Sports Interactive, the developer of the Football Manager series, to refute the claims on the official forum, reiterating that no details had yet been announced about the game whatsoever. Therefore, as the game has not yet officially been announced, any content the article might have would be unverifiable and original research. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's crystalballing. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 16:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle. Buc (talk) 20:13, 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 keep. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian religious houses in Belgium[edit]

A list of churches in Belgium. fails WP:Notdirectory and WP:nottravel as either a directory of churches in Belgium, or a travel guide to churches in Belgium. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not churches, but rather monasteries and convents, which tend to have more history and be more notable than the average church. --Eastmain (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. asenine ^{say what?} 08:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many red links to qualify these listed sites as notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete churches, monasteries and convents are generally not notable, with sourcing required. This is a redlink farm, delete as per the above _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The churches, as well as the monasteries and convents, and add the beguinages to make this a more useful article. The beguine movement was a unique movement that started in the Low Countries in the 1180s and lasted until the 1960s, or so. Therefore, including the beguinages would make this article more encyclopedic in scope. Yes, there are a lot of red links, but I see that as an indication of the number of articles--the amount of information--that could be accessed from this article. Rapunzelina (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such information one would in fact expect to find in a specialized historical building encyclopedia. Wikipedia's charter states that it also a keeper of speciazlied encyclopedia information. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One would expect to see such information on a specialized encyclopedia on non-parish religious buildings. Red-links indicate potential for expansion, not "Too many things that aren't notable"; Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate encyclopedic content--the red links are probably notable here and just need the articles written. DGG (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the beginning of a useful reference. This is specifically a list of religious houses, ie, monasteries / nunnneries / convents etc (including béguinages) and NOT churches, wh are different and would require a separate list. As most people are aware (surely??), monasteries were/are extremely important in European history / architecture / economics / culture / religion, and most have significance way beyond their immediate locality. Redlinks indicate articles waiting to be written, not lack of notability - that there are a lot, is just a sign that there is still a great deal of work to be done on Wikipedia on this sort of subject outside the Anglophone world. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (creator of the article)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a list of monastic instituions of various kinds, but provides more than just names. Some of these will ne notable; others not. I know we regularly delete articles on churches as NN, but that does not mean that all churches are NN, and some certainly are notable. That should also apply to monasteries. Lists such as this are useful for identifying articles that may be needed, since you cannot have redlinks in a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: entirely in line with the style guideline and editing guideline on lists (guidelines more people citing WP:Notdirectory should be familiar with), plus all the other reasons given by other editors for the usefulness and appropriateness of this particular list. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But rmv the red-links. Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree!} 15:26, 17 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 02:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POJO Application Server[edit]

original research, not notable, unreliable sources, advertorial according to 41.240.146.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who didn't complete the AfD process. I'm neutral at this point. Eastmain (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion:

Not notable and advertorial: Author is the same as the person in the referenced material (see contacts page via Harbor link from main article). Can't even link to the contact page directly here, because the 100free.com URL is blacklisted. (previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)

But it doesnt link to 100free, it links to KewlStuff, so I cant understand the problem of using 100free as a mirror site. It provides better trans atlantic communications? Will the problem go away if I give the product to Apache, will a domain name make everyone happy? (previous unsigned comment added by User:Johnny Kewl)

The domain isn't the problem, the problem is you're trying to use wikipedia to punt your own product. It would only be notable if
your platform gained general industry acceptance. And then, usually someone else will write about it, not yourself. (previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)

Original research: On the discussion page, author confirms this (the Edison analogy).(previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)
Unreliable references: "POJO NUT" is hardly a reliable source. Note post number 9 on referenced page, where it appears that the author posts under multiple identities. "POJO NUT" and John are probably even the same person judging by the referenced article's content and the writing style.(previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)

As I said, its a new technology, thats what makes it notable. Does this mean that only large companies can invent things, would you put the next Sun standard that is just released through a notibility test, if not why not? (previous unsigned comment added by User:Johnny Kewl)

New technology, hence does not belong in an encyclopaedia (see User:Uncle_G/On_notability). Forgetting for the moment that the
technical merits of the article are arguably questionable too - that's another issue. (previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)

Merge with POJO I don't think there is sufficient material here to warrant a whole article. Merging with POJO may be a better option. (previous unsigned comment added by User:StephenBuxton)

It is clearly an Application Server, how does that fit under the definition of POJO? And it seems POJO is been set up for a deleteion process as well, so why there? (previous unsigned comment added by User:Johnny Kewl)

Trying to fake notability?

Save POJO Application Server Definition by trying to incite mailing list members to link to his site as references... Dubious. (previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)

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

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

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

Comment The above entries had got rather confused with regards to who said what, so I have assigned signatures to each of the comments. Please do not add any comments above this point, but below here, and please also remember to add four tilde signs (~~~~) after your comments. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No reliable sources cited, and none to be found as far as I can tell. Klausness (talk) 17:52, 22 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 all, including those added late, per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabsay Favourite Kaun Awards[edit]

Was originally tagged for speedy deletion under A7, but declined on technical grounds (didn't fit neatly enough). I believe that this article and the one that follows are ripe for deletion, as they don't even try to establish notability, and they border on plain old advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason as stated above:

Delete. I had originally tagged the same for speedy under A7. No assertion of notability. I am also nominating the following related pages, apart from the ones nominated by SchuminWeb:

- Electronz (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Nominated pages tagged, leading to this AFD discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all due to lack of sources, for a start. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep article asserts notability. It does need sources, but I suspect those would be in languages other than English, which makes finding them more difficult. Edward321 (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle. "Asserting notability" is only good enough to avoid a speedy deletion, but the lack of sources makes those claims suspect, fails WP:V, and will ultimately result in deletion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:44, 22 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. John254 00:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry Leonard Poe[edit]

The brother of a famous person is not famous. Speedy tag improperly removed, but here we are. Corvus cornix_talk 04:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Per Wikipedia guideline "relationship does not confer notability". asenine ^{say what?} 04:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the article asserts no notability beyond a filial relationship. An entire book was apparently written about the guy (Hervey Allen and Thomas Ollive Mabbot. Poe's Brother. New York: George H. Doran Company, 1926), so there has to be at least something of relevance there to Poe or otherwise, but anything of particular relevance could probably easily be added to Edgar Allan Poe without the need of another article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep.~~It is true that "relationship does not confer notability" but WP:BIO is more specific than that: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)". It does seem to be the case that there is significant coverage of W.H.L. Poe actually available. GoogleBooks gives 117 hits for him[48]. One of the books, from 1880, contains several pages of biographical material specifically about him[49]. Another book, from 1878, also gives fairly detailed info[50]. There are many more references on this GoogleBooks list that provide nontrivial coverage. His own book of poetry was published in 1926[51] and it is mentioned in many of these sources as well. After re-reading WP:BIO, it seems to me that he does pass its requirements, even if the case is not particularly strong. Nsk92 (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. The current version of the article is greatly improved, well-sourced and deserves a full keep. Thanks to Midnightdreary for improving the article! Nsk92 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that anyone who has been the subject of a published biography should be considered notable (even if we may not agree with the reasons of the biographer for actually writing such a biography). So the book Poe's Brother mentioned by Good Ol’factory should also count towards his notability. The key part of WP:BIO reads: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". That seems to be the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Poe's Brother is a biography. It looks like a collection of poems. Still, biographical details do exist, anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 05:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this site says that Poe's Brother does contain some biographical details. Zagalejo^^^ 05:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Wikipedia guidelines are not holy scripture. People certainly do want information on the close relatives of major historical figures like Poe. There's plenty of information out there, as others have said. Zagalejo^^^ 05:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I've spent a bit of time looking into this and I don't think it's even close as to whether we keep it or not, though I can see why it would have been nominated. The fact that his brother was Edgar Allen Poe does not mean we should have an article on him, but the fact that he was covered in secondary sources does. While this is not a reliable source (it was apparently written by a college student, though it's sourced and intelligent) it gives some quick indication of the subject's notability. The book mentioned above, published in 1926, is actually titled Poe's brother : the poems of William Henry Leonard Poe, elder brother of Edgar Allan Poe ; together with a short account of his tragic life. An early romance of Edgar Allan Poe and some hitherto unknown incidents in the lives of the two brothers (it seems to be readily available in libraries). According to the page written by the student, the books 12 American Poets Before 1900, The Poets of America, and The Poe Log (only the last was published in the last couple of decades) all discuss WHL Poe. I think it's safe to assume that any credible biography of Edgar discusses his brother, since it seems they were close enough that William Henry may have published some of Edgar's poetry, and since Edgar apparently nursed his brother as he was dying and took on his debt which resulted in Edgar's imprisonment. In short, this is the brother of a towering literary figure who apparently had some impact on his life (while also publishing his own work) and about whom we can easily construct an article using reliable sources. Our Edgar Allan Poe article is a Featured Article but only briefly mentions his brother. This article could serve as a nice annex to that one, and perhaps some of the folks who lent a hand over there would be willing to help here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not thrilled with this; without his brother's fame, he would simply be a forgotten minor poet. But he has been the subject of more study than just being a brother would bring and there are more than sufficient sources for a biography. There also seems to be some confusion or dispute regarding authorship between the brothers which has interested scholars. Thus he is indirectly a figure of interest sufficient for WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book Poe's Brother is not a biography. It's a short biographical sketch with a collection of his poems. It's also very, very slim. Most of what can be found on Henry Poe is a debate as to which early poem was written by which brother. Certainly, we can find plenty of sources on Poe's brother, just as you can plenty of sources on anyone's brother if that person is famous and has a biography or two. Does that make them notable enough in their own right? I'm torn on this discussion but I'm leaning towards a weak delete. (Note: I'm the guy that brought Edgar Allan Poe to FA) --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, Poe's Brother is not a biography but a book of his poetry (as I understand, not the only one). I still think that it adds to his notability. Apparently, someone considered him an interesting enough poet (even if primarily because of his association with E. A Poe) to publish a collection of his poems. Most siblings/parents/children of famous figures do not do anything of note themselves and do not have similar items published in relation to them. Take, for example, such a famous figure as Babe Ruth. His mother, Kate Schamberger-Ruth, gets only 3 hits in GoogleBooks[52], compared to 117 for W.H.L. Poe.

Second, I think there are situations where some figure is considered to be so important that their family history becomes important and their relatives, otherwise unremarkable, become notable because of the substantially detailed and significant coverage they receive. For instance, Vladimir Lenin's grandfather Alexandr Blank or Hitler's grandmother Maria Schicklgruber are examples of these. We may have some of the similar effect here, given how important a figure E.A. Poe is in the history of American literature. Nsk92 (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take Poe's Brother with a grain of salt. It took about 100 years for these poems to be collected, and then by not one but two biographers of Edgar Poe. I'd chalk it up to completionism in the Poe scholar circle rather than a real interest in Henry Poe himself. Even so, you'll note that the article up for discussion is now fairly substantial (and well-sourced). I change my "comment" to Weak keep. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work Midnightdreary! This was exactly what I was hoping would happen with this article, which is now in a much different condition than when it was nominated. It's now a completely serviceable Wikipedia article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, awesome work. Zagalejo^^^ 18:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject of multiple scholarly sources -- yes, because of his connection to the more famous Poe, but subject of them nontheless and so wiki-notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are substantial references that establish notability. Just because he's less famous than his brother and one of the books used as reference is titled "Poe's Brother" does not mean his brother isn't as notable by wikipedia standards. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. While merely being related to his vastly more notable brother doesn't in and of itself confer any notability whatsoever, that relationship has led to coverage in print sources, biographies, and finding his own works, which have received scholarly discourse on their own. While much of that discourse is comparative to the work of his brother, that's irrelevant for our work here. The fact that such coverage exists is enough to warrant inclusion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly sufficient sourcing for notability. Not everyone related o a famous person is necessarily non-notable. DGG (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Unfortunate and anti-encyclopedic nomination. If you're ignorant of the subject matter please give an editor more than 2 minutes to flesh an article out. In fact, a great deal of scholarship is very often devoted to the family members of important literary, political and cultural figures. Certainly the case with WHL Poe. Surprising though it may seem, we are trying to build a great encyclopedia here based at least somewhat on scholarship. --JayHenry (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be harsh. I think people need to keep in mind what the article looked like at the time of its nomination at AfD. It was nothing like its current form. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominating an article for deletion is one of the harshest things that can be done on wikipedia, which is backed up by its fundamental tenet of good faith. Since this AfD was used as a means of clean-up, I think there should be some punishment taken against the nominator. I think that should be a general rule for all such abuses of good faith and misuses of processes. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, but I have to disagree. Assume good faith that the nominator really believed that the deletion of this article was in the best interest of this project. As the resident Poe expert on Wiki (having personally brought four Poe-related articles to FA or FL status), even I questioned if Henry was deserving of an article (see my comment from early on in this process). The original article did not assert significant notability. The current version, which took a lot of work and scouring through several sources is not what the original nominator foresaw... and why should he? As far as he knew, this person was just Poe's brother who died young... is that inherently deserving of an article? That was the article that was brought to this AfD. I think the good news is that this nom really pushed for some work to be done to it. In the end, I think this has been a positive experience for Henry Poe. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I see no reason to assume bad faith of the nominator. They originally put it up for speedy deletion (which wasn't really appropriate for an article like this, but no big deal) and I declined the speedy with a specific note that this could be taken to AfD. The nom could have searched a bit for secondary sources, but failure to do so does not warrant any kind of "punishment" (and we don't really do that here anyway). Finally, as often happens during AfD's, the very fact that this was threatened by AfD led to significant improvements thanks to Midnightdreary. Nothing out of the ordinary here and a good result for the encyclopedia in the end. This article will probably be on the main page at DYK and that would not have happened had this not gone through AfD--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the article isn't really my point. This was the 9th edit of a completely new user. We mustn't fetishize the "notability" guideline to the point of kicking new users in the teeth for having the temerity to attempt editing. The two-second google search shows a page at a university about WHL Poe and a collection of his poetry on the first page. I don't think the nominator should be punished, but it's hardly harsh to request that an experienced user exercise a little restraint and common sense when it comes to biting the newcomers. It wasn't as if this was a garage band. Someone could have kindly explained the notability concern, and just redirected the article to Poe after a day or two. Corpus was a good sport about this, kudos to him, and I'm happy the article is improved. That doesn't mean it was okay to kick him in the first place. --JayHenry (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Speedy deletes on many subjects have a strong knack of being insulting, which this was. Solid enough to keep around.--Bedford 16:30, 17 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 (G1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchuminWeb (talk • contribs)

Biddytok[edit]

Likely hoax, says Google. Fails on WP:NPOV and WP:V too. asenine ^{say what?} 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 BBQ sauce and venom. Yeah, that's a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:54, 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. John254 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Bible d'Alexandrie[edit]

Not sure about this one. There are no references and I'm not sure if anyone cares about yet another Bible translation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "I'm not sure if anyone cares about yet another Bible translation" is not a reason to delete. asenine ^{say what?} 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This would appear to be a multivolume academic translation. Google Scholar reports 305 hits, not insignificant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some wikilinks and external links to the page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smerdis. Appears to be a major scholarly project. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be notable. The French Wikipedia does not seem to have an article on this, but the publishing house, which is apparently managed by the Dominican order, is notable enough to have an article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and translated the article about the publisher as well: Editions du Cerf. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on its mention of Philo of Alexandria, it looks as if it would be quite notable among scholar more familiar with biblical exegesis. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep famous project. A little googling would have found sources. DGG (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Septuagint is the anceint Greek version of the Old Testament. This differs in some respects from the Hebrew text, whose most ancient surviving manuscripts are mostly much later. If this were a project to translate it into English, I would have no problem with an article in the English WP, but WP is intended to be universal in scope, so that its French aspect ought not to be an issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a well established project.-- danntm ^T _C 03:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the page should be moved to the Bible of Alexander (or a similar more appropriate first name) as per WP:Naming Conventions and I don't think the mention of another scholarly work automatically establishes notability as what is stated is clearly an opinion and hence OR. I'm not for deleting but if no sources emerge and considering it is essentially an orphan, some time not in the far future it might not pass another AfD IMO. BigHairRef | Talk 11:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the English translation would be the Bible of Alexandria, not the Bible of Alexander. Not sure that is an established English name, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the name, hence why I included the bits in the brackets (I was never that great at French translation), although from the naming ocnvention it should be named in English even if not an established name and then the most often used name (i.e. the French version) included in the lead. BigHairRef | Talk 22:49, 17 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. Fram (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Community Parent Education Program[edit]

Non-notable training program by non-notable creator; no reliable sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. B.Wind (talk) 06:26, 11 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, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No context (is this a local program? published in a book? sponsored by a government?), no sources, no reason this is any different from the many parenting programs for children with disabilities. I am moving the personal appeal to the Talk page; it has no apparent relevance to the article's deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. asenine ^{say what?} 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is very unclear from the text of the article what the subject of it actually is. No references to clarify the situation either. Nsk92 (talk) 04:34, 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 both. Fram (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Sasscer[edit]

(delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BK, fails WP:RS, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:COI, fails WP:N, fails WP:V, fails WP:SPAM, fails WP:single-purpose account, and so on and so forth. Google throws up a palty 21 hits, [53]none of which can be considered WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very close to G11 advertising. Not one library has the one book he's published. A list of books with one published book on it is a new low. DGG (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks;

I created the page about Glenn after doing an interview for a magazine, yet to be published. I felt I wrote it in a neutral voice without a slant. I thought this was following the Wiki-policy.

If we need to eliminate the external links to remove any hint of COI, let's consider this course before we delete the entire article. While Glenn may not be widely notable now, I believe he will be in time. I can ask him to provide add'l sources for confirmation.

He has been previously published in various magazines and his book will be out for wider distribution within a month - libraries by the end of the summer. There will be people wondering who he is - I thought that was what Wiki was all about...

How do we edit this article to remove any hints of COI and keep it part of the Wiki-community?

Everett

UPDATE: I removed any reference to Geez Press or current contracts to eliminate or seriously reduce) the COI. Please reconsider. Thanks.

EG —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettGee (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 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, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no indication of passing WP:BK or WP:BIO, nothing found in a search of Google News Archive. EverettGee, promoting a new author is not what Wikipedia is all about, sorry to say. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to fail WP:BK and WP:BIO. asenine ^{say what?} 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for all vanity pages. Also, see WP:CRYSTAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs) 12:07, 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. No real viable content to merge. Wizardman 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay Me[edit]

Its a fictional webcast on a television show. The sketches from the show were pulled out and made into a website. Still fails WP:N and WP:FICT LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Per nom's concerns, but it may be notable due to how it relates to the program. asenine ^{say what?} 03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, from which this website is derived. The series as available on the web so far consists of only three episodes each of which is less than 1 minute long. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Metropolitan90. —johndburger 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Suite Life of Zack and Cody. By itself it't not notable. Merenta (talk) 20:35, 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 Keep. I'm unconvinced that this is non-notable. A quick Google also found an article on africanfilm.com which included a clip from an LA Times Review ([54]), and another which also contains a clip from City Limits ([55]). I'm pretty sure a viable stub can be cobbled together from these sources. Black Kite 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playing Away[edit]

Non Notable television movie. No awards won, not even listed at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. Appears to have been released on video at some point, but never on DVD. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- Mark Chovain 03:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very famous actors star in this one. Article could do with some cleanup and copyediting, but that is not a reason for me to delete, or anyone else either, for that matter. asenine ^{say what?} 03:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and a WP:TROUT for the ridiculous "I've not heard of it" nom. This was Ross Kemp's first lead role, for christ's sake. — iridescent 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about some AGF here, I found the article, followed the single IMDB link (last I looked IMDB is not a reliable source) found that the IMDB page isn't all that built up so I went looking and found NOTHING about the movie. I add sources when I find them, I couldn't find any. Also, if its so notable to Ross Kemp, why is it not mentioned on his page at all? So how about a trout back atcha? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous - no-one's talking about taking IMDB as a reliable source. 30 seconds on Google would have told you this was a significant film. (Here's the third of those Ghits, a New York Times feature on the movie, since apparently "not mentioned on American websites" is now a deletion criterion.) — iridescent 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A movie review by Vince Canby...NYT Film Critic, is hardly a "feature"...I'll add it to the article since you can't seem to be bothered to do so...apparently Trouting someone is now a criteria for posting to AfD. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there is just one reliable source cited and it is a minor mention, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muzza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muzza

At best: non-notable original research. I can't find any media references to the term,[56] nor anything in the first few pages of a google search.[57] Perhaps the first line could be moved to Wiktionary, but the rest is a bunch of OR-cruft. -- Mark Chovain 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like a recreation of a db, too[58] -- Mark Chovain 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Mark Chovain 03:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also added CSD G4. asenine ^{say what?} 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just declined the speedy. It is different enough from the original that the G4 does not apply. Also the Muzzamil Mirza has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It was about some person related to "Ancient Egyptian Royalty". CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've hand-mangled the "other-afd" list to include only the previous AfD. -- Mark Chovain 05:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikitionary: it seems to be a dictionary definition. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either WP:NEO or WP:OR, take your pick. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prajnana Kesava[edit]

Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable from non notable institution. Questionable sources at best. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to me to be at least borderline notable. References will need work, but I get a lot of third-party information off an initial google search. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Per Good Ol’factory. asenine ^{say what?} 04:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please feel free to add any sources you find. I was unable to find any reliable sources. If these sources are provided then I can see how the above votes for a borderline notable and a weak keep could be altered. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ism schism. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem very notable,and portions of the article such as 'appearance' are written very,very badly. - Amog |^Talk 05:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is Srila Prabupada's Sanyassa Guru non-notable? Also The founder of the Sampradaya that Prabupada helped found? Is this a politically motivated delete?Syama (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work in creating this article. My concern is that this individual is a non notable. If his claim to notablity is simply his relationship with another person (A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami), then a Merge or a Redirect to that person's page might be more appropriate. Also, the article still lacks reliable sources and is about a non notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:49, 22 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 03:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lau Gek Poh[edit]

Seems not as notable as has been mentioned in the article, it is not a reason for deletion but he only gets 570 google hits, just to let you know. Fails on WP:V and WP:BIO, mainly. asenine ^{say what?} 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable person in Malaysia, done lots of work to help others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tat Meng (talk • contribs) 03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and improve sources - His death was covered by some local outlets,[59] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chovain (talk • contribs)
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle, there are no sources cited, still, and the AFD is due for closure. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:45, 22 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 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco Free Madison County[edit]

Non-notable public health campaign, aimed at a relatively small region. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of these campaigns, no reason this local instance is in any way notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Dhartung and nom. asenine ^{say what?} 04:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local group, no broader notability, promo. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DigitalC (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LOCAL anti-tobacco group with no particular notability of their own. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only ~200 results on Google, with little reliable sources. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merenta (talk) 23:39, 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 keep. Opinion shifted during the AFD as sources were identified. The key to the article being encyclopedic is whether sufficient reliable sources were available so that it can be expanded to be substantially more than a dictionary definition and by the end of the process the consensus was that it could. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate opportunity[edit]

Another example of someone posting dictionary definitions in Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ I don't think it is a dictionary definition. Rather "Illegitimate opportunity theory" appears to be a technical concept in the study of criminal justice. However, as such, the concept appears to be not notable. GoogleBooks gives 8 hits [60] and GoogleScholar 5 hits [61]. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per Dhartung's GoogleBooks search results. Also, a filtered GoogleScholar search for "Illegitimate opportunity" criminology gives 194 items[62], including the book of Cloward and Ohlin (who, as I understood, introduced the term) with 650 citations of its own. Nsk92 (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the theory appears to be known in the field of criminology. -Icewedge (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, can we see some evidence for this, please? To be notable, there would have to be substantially widespread usage and acceptance of the term in the field of criminology. The few hits that GoogleScholar/GoogleBooks produce are certainly not sufficient to conclude that. If there are more sources, I'd like to see them. Nsk92 (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability does not require that something be "widespread", and eight Google Books hits is about what I would expect for a social science theory that has not entered the popular culture. As it happens, though, I get 619 hits, so I'm not sure what search terms you're using. There is more than enough for an article covering this position. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see now you used "illegitimate opportunity theory". It speaks for itself that this would eliminate all sorts of ... legitimate ... uses such as "what Cloward and Ohlin called 'illegitimate opportunity'", etc. Try not to exclude things unnecessarily next time. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to exclude colloquial uses of "illegitimate opportunity". But certainly some other filter such as "illegitimate opportunity" criminology was much better. That was my bad. Nsk92 (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching under "illegitemate opportinity theory". But by looking at the results of your search I see that they are talking about the same thing. 619 GoogleBooks hits is widespread enough for me, so I'll change my vote to keep. Nsk92 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Dhartung. asenine ^{say what?} 04:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete due to lack of mainstream media coverage. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 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 keep. John254 00:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance (information retrieval)[edit]

This article is subsumed by other entries--primarily by the Information_retrieval entry. Moreover, it is poorly written and has POV issues. If there is anything worth salvaging, I suggest it be merged into the Information_retrieval entry.

Dtunkelang (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep immense amount of material available. I've added some of it. One of the basic concepts in a major subject. Books have been written about it specifically, and a few hundred articles. A bit of checking in GS would have found them. DGG (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, as shown by DGG's references. Klausness (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Klausness. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 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 keep. John254 00:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam healey[edit]

(contested prod) Doing a google search, I can't find anything that is notable. He appears to be the CEO of an online company, but it has no reliable third party sources to show how he is notable. Soxred93 (u t) 02:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, hit publish too soon, pls give me a few minutes to show how he is notable :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superhealix (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article looks much better at the half hour mark than it did at the seven minute mark when the AfD was filed. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and next time i'll add a hangon tag when i'm in the editing process, *blush* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superhealix (talk • contribs) 03:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hangon tags are only for when a page is listed for speedy deletion. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the tag you want to use when working on an article not yet finished is "underconstruction" DGG (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing wrong, now. asenine ^{say what?} 04:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough material now. An inappropriately rapid nomination. Even when people dont tag for underconstruction, they should be given an opportunity to write the articles.DGG (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they had said why they were contesting hte prod, then I would not have AfD'd. Soxred93 (u t) 15:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the creator, User:Superhealix (note: Superhealix), may have a conflict of interest here, having also edited VibeAgent.com, Healey's company. This may be a case of a company with shaky notability claims attempting to increase its visibility through Wikipedia. Biruitorul (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realized that too as well, might be a possible COI. Soxred93 (u t) 15:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:47, 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 Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 02:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Goulding[edit]

Non-notable, no cites, no hits for this coach. Frank | talk 02:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "varsity high school baseball coach" is not a notable achievement. -Icewedge (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability. Rnb (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, possibly CSD A7 (unless "high school coach" is an assertion of notability these days...) or CSD A3 (as a sub-stub). --Kinu ^t/_c 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7 because there isn't even an assertion of notability. Erechtheus (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Just being a high school coach is not an assertation of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, not enough context. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:51, 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 Redirect to J-Kwon (to keep the history), WP:CRYSTAL and no sources, can be un-redirected if the album appears or deleted if it doesn't. Black Kite 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hood Hop 2[edit]

Does not seem to be a real album and without any kind of track listing; sourcing used in article is from MySpace posting with album art, and G-hits lead mostly to unrelated videos and ringtone sites involving J-Kwon. Album title also unlikely to be this. Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering it is on his myspace... could do with some work though. As for the title, the parental advisory sticker suggests that that is the final title for review. asenine ^{say what?} 04:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per asenine. ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 04:38, 17 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 redirect to Sex and the City: The Movie. Duplicate articles, redirects are cheap. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and the City (film)[edit]

Duplicate of this article. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the correct title, per the tags on both articles (Where is the AfD tag on this article?). Content is not 100% duplicated between the articles, there appears to be sourced content unique to each article, plausible search term. -- saberwyn 02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC) updated -- saberwyn 02:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sex and the City: The Movie. As Saberwyn points out, "Sex and the City (film)" is a plausible search term, so having a redirect is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 02:06, 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 --JForget 01:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girly Cow[edit]

This is a fictional television show that appears on a television show. Points for recursion, but fails WP:Fict WP:Note and WP:RS LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable piece of fiction; no out-of-universe info exists for it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given what's in the article and what Google turns up, I don't think it'd be notable even if it weren't fictional. Heck, I'm not certain it'd be notable if this were a wiki about the shows it appears on. AnturiaethwrTalk 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Nsk92 (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Artene50 (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Per everybody so far. asenine ^{say what?} 04:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and barely a stub on a topic for which no out-of-universe information can be found to write an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC) P.S.: This article did not have the AfD template... I have added it.[reply]
I suggest redirection to iCarly with a brief mention there that such a meta-show exists. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't exist. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:47, 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 Withdrawn. Not being a speaker of Turkish, I wasn't aware that Ana Sayfa was Turkish for "main page". I should note also that a.) "Main Page" is a redirect to the Ana Sayfa on the Turkish Wikipedia, and b.) there are other non-English redirects (such as Página principal) to the English main page, so I see no harm in keeping this. Furthermore, it's been restored as a redirect, and redirects don't belong in AfD anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Sayfa[edit]

Originally a redirect to the main page, until an IP over wrote it. Either way, it's not a necessary page -- no reason to leave as a redirect or as a duplicate. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Estel ^(talk) 01:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. A completely redundant duplicate. Nsk92 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main page seems fine to me, per Bigtimepeace's comments and changes. Nsk92 (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one confuses me. Someone creating an article under their own name maybe? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The best course is simply to undo the anon's edit and make this a redirect to the main page again. As near as I can tell using a free translation web cite, "Ana Sayfa" is Turkish for "Main Page" or "Mother Page." Is Ana Sayfa a likely search term for a Turkish speaker looking for the main page on the English Wikipedia? Probably not, but maybe someone would try it, and I see no harm in redirecting this phrase to Wiki's main page, i.e. just rolling back to the page as it was first created (redirects are cheap, as we like to say). If someone else comes along and agrees with this, I would say they should be bold and just turn it into a redirect again and close this AfD down (non-admin closure would be fine). There's no reason to delete it and no reason to have a full-blown AfD discussion. But I'll make sure someone else agrees with that assessment and not do anything myself.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - As duplicate of a main page. asenine ^{say what?} 04:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what it was originally, see my comment. I actually just went ahead and reverted this back to a redirect as it was originally. There's no sense in keeping it as a copy of the Main Page while the AfD runs, regardless of the outcome. If folks want to delete it that's fine.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect per Bigtimepeace. As one can see by visiting the Turkish Wikipedia, "Ana Sayfa" is the Turkish term for the main page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:21, 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 Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Lama[edit]

Completing unfinished nom for User:Fallenfromthesky, apparently Twinkle messed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax / Nonsense, and unsourced. Google gives 4 hits, and not for this subject matter Fallenfromthesky (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The text of the article makes it pretty clear that some-one was making a joke. If a formal reason to delete is needed: no sources, fails WP:N and WP:V. "Karma Lama is a religion based on that every person deserves a new chance if they can pay up for it". Yeah, right. Sounds like many of our politicians are adherents of this one. But seriously, delete and move on. Nsk92 (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as obvious hoax per everyone above. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:33, 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. Although the discussion below indicates that the topic is notable, there also appears to be a consensus that the article as it stands cannot be used to write about this topic due to fundamental issues with a neutral point of view and original research (both of which supersede any questions of notability) that prevent it from growing beyond its current state.

I'm going to take the liberty of starting a new stub on which others should feel free to expand. If anyone would like the deleted text to use as a reference, please leave a message on my talk page. --jonny-m t 05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Language[edit]

"A novel approach to the nature and function of language". Does that mean original research? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hmm-m, don't quite know what to say here. Upon superficial and admittedly uninformed examination (I am a mathematician and know nothing about linguistics), the concept does appear to be notable in linguistics, see GoogleScholar[63] and GoogleBooks[64]. However, at present the article is written as an OR essay, and a polemic one at that, with a substantial dose of POV, and fairly incomprehesible (to the extent that a clear definition of the main concept seems unrecoverable from the current text). "Language is viewed as a heterogeneous meshwork of events, processes and material artifacts, when language dynamics influence what individuals do, think and, thus, how the meshwork evolves". Come again? If someone can completely rewrite the article from scratch, give an understandable definition of the concept and list a few references, the article could be kept as a stub. As things stand now, however, it is hard to see anything salvageable in the article. So unless some-one comes forward and takes on a major clean-up and rewrite task, it is better to delete the article. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would definitely like to see it stubbed if it appears to be a real concept; this looks to me like another school assignment. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that this one is a school project. The article appears to be something of a plug for the work and the views of something called the "Distributed Language Group" [65]. Nsk92 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Nsk92. asenine ^{say what?} 04:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RHaworth - I don't think that calling distributed language "a novel approach" makes the article OR. It seems likely that many of the references are OR, but if that's not acceptable then I need to be pointed to some Wiki policies that I've failed to grok. That said, I'm not much of a linguist, either, and I find Nsk92's arguments about POV and incomprehensibility compelling. I agree with the "delete if no major fix is forthcoming" position. Stationary (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nsk92. Notability is not an issue, but POV and the fact that it looks like something written for the conference this year and as it is isn't suitable (or salvageable, it would need almost a whole new article) means in my opinion it should be deleted. Doug Weller (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article may need to be re-written in simpler English, i think the concept is an important one, as per JeremyMcCracken i think it should be stubbed at the very least. The concept is based on how language should be viewed in context, not just by the use of symbols (this is especially important to robotics). I think that it's important that this is highlighted as an alternative to the mainstream view of language. The references also seem credible. Ozkills (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'd be willing to change my vote if someone produced a reasonable stub. I do not know anything about the subject and do not feel qualified to do it myself. If you feel that you can do this yourself, please go ahead. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who posted Distributed Language, and I did that because I believe it a very important concept. Of course, I'm an iexperienced wiki-user, and from the discussion I see that the article ought to be rewritten. I'd like to leave a stub, but don't know how to do it. Could someone advise on that, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashakr (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — Sashakr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi! As a linguist, I find the distributed approach to be a very important development in linguistics. Surely, there are as always the usual pros and cons, but the number of papers, articles, conferences (and even a special issue of Language Sciences, Sep. 2007) clearly indicate that this is an important topic in linguistics, and therefore there is no doubt that this article should not be deleted. Whether it is written in a Wiki format or not, well, perhaps it isn't. On the other hand, there are some valuable information in the present version that might make it easier for another contributor to re-write the article. So perhaps it could be left as it is now for a while, giving other contributors some time to re-write it thouroughly?I've used Wikipedia for a couple of years now, but I haven't engaged in writing or discussing articles before, so I'm not sure about the usual procedures etc. in this situation. SunWork (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)— SunWork (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep As noted by others above, the concept seems to be notable enough to warrant an article. The only issue seems to be one of style and content, which (IMO) can both be tackled without deleting. I'll leave my thoughts on how to improve the article on Sashakr's talk page to keep the discussion here from going off topic. Cosmo0 (talk) 20:53, 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. Fram (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variations on the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon Game[edit]

Unwanted fork of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Made up. As far as Wikipedia versions are concerned: self-referential and already covered by Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia and four similar articles. See also numerous previous AfDs listed here. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created the article is because the Wikipedians on the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon discussion page said that there should be a separate page for Six Degree variations. As for the "made up" claim, variations on games appear to be a fairly standard Wikipedia practice. For example, the card game, Spades has many variations listed including; game variations, bidding variations, gameplay variations, scoring variations, trump variations, and total number of players variations. Somebody must have made up all of those variations - but that doesn't make them any less valid in the context of the game. Unfortunately, I did not find any of the other variation pages until it was mentioned here. When I searched for Six Degrees of Wikipedia it redirected me to the Kevin Bacon page. I'm all for consolidating the pages as they make sense. What is the best way to do that? --Bnbalestri (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As per the nominator's cogent commentary. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Per all that has been said so far. asenine ^{say what?} 04:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. Wikipedia variations - drop, not notable outside Wikipedia. "Non-actor variation" - the goal is basically for one to compute one's Bacon number, and the example violates the rules anyway (the step is "played in a movie with", not "knows"); drop as redundant. "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon's Bed" - might deserve a brief mention in the main article. "Non-film, non-actor variations" - again, drop as a redundant repetition of the previous variant. Verdict: the article is unsalvageable in this form; get rid of it one way or other. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 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 No consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. The album article at this point could easily be merged into the parent band article, but that's not for AfD to decide. Marking both as keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Someday LP[edit]

Non-notable album, no RS ukexpat (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The band has no page, so their album clearly isn't notable. Could this be speedied as an extension of A7? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My bad, the band does have a page. Should I bundle them too, as they don't seem notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would be in favour of bundling – ukexpat (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both then. There are no sources for the LP, and the band is marginal at best. The sources aren't really that hot for the band, and they've not released anything substantial that would make them meet WP:MUSIC (iTunes and XM charts don't count). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for both. The band might be notable, despite no chart singles or major label albums -- the All Music Guide source is fairly in depth, and if I could find more substantial coverage I might be tempted just to say merge the album to the band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable band and album. asenine ^{say what?} 04:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blondfire because they meet WP:MUSIC -- professional review at allmusic.com, plus signed to a major label (EMI). Can't find notability for My Someday LP, so merge into band article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:52, 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Pinnock[edit]

No reliable sources cited to verify notability. This concern has not been addressed for more than a year, as indicated on the article's talk page. PROD removed by article's creator. JGHowes ^talk - 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems like a notable journalist, her book is covered in sources [66][67] plus her relationship with Mike Tyson. --neonwhite user page talk 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author is well known. Article has been place back to old version. Author has helped thousands of battered women through her lectures and given out free books to abused women. There's no reason to delete this article but perhaps help fix it. Hopefully so that other abused women will be able to find and read her progress. This author has spoken at several batter women shelters including mine in Atlanta and helped so many women. It would be a shame to delete it. For source[68][69][70] plus relationship with Mike Tyson[71] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.49.67 (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to see how this woman is notable according to WP guidelines. The sources offered by the previous commentator fail WP:RS. The book in question is out from a micro-press that features only one other title on its home page. And "once dated Mike Tyson" has to be one of the lowest notability bars ever proposed, as it probably includes thousands of women. The anonymous dial-up who voted Keep has done extensive work on the article without managing to buttress notability. Qworty (talk) 14:17, 7 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, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Qworty. The article has been around for a year and still has no sources. GoogleNews gives just 1 hit[72]. Being acquainted with a celebrity is not a sign of notability in and of itself. Fails WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a case of an attempted transference of notability, but nothing to meet WP:BIO on the subject's own merits. Most of the article is afterthought pseudobiographical information which has no encyclopedic value ("After graduating from college she decided she wanted to travel, and see the world"... wow). --Kinu ^t/_c 04:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Qworty. asenine ^{say what?} 07:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaffer's Row[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gaffer's Row

Contested PROD. Unremarkable. A search on "Gaffer's Row" with the author's name gets three hits, two of which are Wikipedia. Roleplayer (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this author or this book even exist, clearly not notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It clearly exists. The problem is the article is mistitled. The book is Gaffers' Row with the apostrophe after the "s" as it should be. However I don't see any coverage in reliable sources, and this clearly seems to fail our criteria for book notability.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. asenine ^{say what?} 07:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would've immediately agreed with TenPoundHammer had Bigtimepeace not pointed out the erroneous title. Even knowing the correct title, it still returns only ~40 ghits and I couldn't find any reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't appear to be notable and I can't find many reliable sources. There are, however, over 300 results on Google. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Dyolf (talk · contribs) is on final warning for removing the afd template from this article: please keep an eye out. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:28, 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 No consensus --JForget 23:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anabond Limited[edit]

Adhesives company in India has a few hits in business publications. Adhesives companies aren't rare; in this Thomas Register listing, there are 5,194 adhesives suppliers in the US and Canada. There must be many more in the rest of the world. Anyway, the sourcing for this article doesn't show notability in my opinion, so I would like to know the Wikipedia community's opinion. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no showing of notability for this particular business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What makes this company notable, I think, is that it is the first company in India to manufacture anaerobic adhesives, which become active and cure or polymerize in the absence of oxygen, according to a competitor's website. I added two of the references that the nominator found. I'm surprised there aren't more, though. --Eastmain (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...In India... Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:35, 2 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:02, 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, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Eastmain and his adding of references. Also, I can't understand your comment "...In India...", User:Fabrictramp. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should be moved afterwards to Anabond Ltd. per Wikipedia:NC#Companies. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!!_{Sarcasm is beauty} 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 'In India' comment I think is meant to say that it's the first company using the manufacturing technique in India - not the first company to use the manufacturing process. Thus any notability is diminished from, say, a company that is recognized in multiple sources as innovating a new technique world-wide. Substitute any other country for "India," (United States, say, or Burma,) and then ask yourself if it still reads as being notable. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Per Eastmain. asenine ^{say what?} 08:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The second reference in the article, as currently listed, has been deleted at its' source. Per WP:CORP, "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." Are there enough references in depth in the article to justify notability? I don't see it, myself. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to a request on my talk page, I am returning to confirm this opinion. As the IP above me mentions, one of the sources cannot be checked, and I am not at all convinced that either are, or were, reliable. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are insufficient sources. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I have added a further source, moved it to a better page {no need to disambiguate with Ltd}, and cleaned it up. Notability is still wafer thin, however. I have had a look at the website of Chemical Week, BTW, and see no reason why it should not be considered a reliable source. TerriersFan (talk) 17:50, 22 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 keep weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 09:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Hazelwood[edit]

This person may be notable, but I'm not entirely convinced. In addition to that concern, this orphaned WP:BLP article has been lacking reliable third party sources since its inception, requesting them at least as far back as September 2007. Contested prod. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple Google search affirms his notability. The article may be taking a long time to be brought up to Wikipedia standards, but deleting it would gain nothing. --MQDuck 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable. GoogleBooks gives 213 hits [73] and GoogleNews gives 93 hits[74] including a NYT article regarding him [75] and lots of other sources. The article does need substantial clean-up though. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per google searches provided. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Quite obviously notable. asenine ^{say what?} 08:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - many news articles and Google hits for this person; clearly notable. nneonneo ^talk 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep and people would be well advised to at least do a gsearch before nom to AfD to avoid wasting everyone's time. DGG (talk) 07:41, 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 speedy deletion per CSD A7. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Usmani[edit]

Speedy removed, maintenance tags removed, a look at the history is baffling! only 2 Ghits Wikimedia and this page, so totally non-notable. Richhoncho (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going for Speedy The first two hits are from WP itself! Looks like his notability is coming from this article, if at all. Delete per non-notable. Prashanthns (talk) 22:38, 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.