< May 22	May 24 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, lists of this type may require regular updating and by definition are likely to never be complete but that isn't a valid reason for deletion. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of memoirs of political prisoners[edit]

An incomplete and unreferenced list. Would be better off as a category. Tavix (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this could never be a complete list, but it would be a perfect category, as Tavix suggests. Frank | talk 23:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I am sure that references could be found, however this page will never be fully finished. Dreamafter (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the nth time, categories and lists are not contradictory. If you think a category would be helpful, make one. I think thisis better, actually, because it permits giving some context. a category does not. Sources should be added, but, frankly, most or all are pretty self-explanatory and any challenged ones can be discussed. What would help is to have some kind of order, preferably chronological. DGG (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is arguable that this list is not maintainable, however, the subset of notable memoirs/memoirs of notable political prisoners is limited, and as stated above, the list allows the inclusion of context where a category would not. Referencing can be done either with a link to the memoir page or to the relevant subsection of the author page. As DGG suggests, a re-ordering would be useful. Hal peridol (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am really not clear on what the "will never be fully finished" argument means. By the same measure, Wikipedia will never be fully finished, as it will always contain articles on existing countries, living people, and so forth. This is a list that complies with WP:CLS. That said, some of the formatting is more reminiscent of a bibliography, and those have been problematic before as there is no real standard for standalone bibliographies at the moment. This should be formatted more with an eye to encyclopedic, sourced commentary, rather than just worldcat-style publication data. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incomplete and none-too-helpful mini-list. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I wouldn't be opposed to creation of a category instead. It's described as a "list of writers who have described their experiences of being political prisoners", which is slightly ambiguous, and needs clarification. However, if it is understood to mean "list of memoirs in which the authors described...", then the inclusion criteria are quite clear and straightforward, meeting WP:SAL. Moreover, the topic of "memoirs of political prisoners" is notable, as evidenced by, for example, this and this. Jakew (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The number of notable political prisoners is limited. Hence it will be easy to maintain a list of memoirs of notable political prisoners throughout the history and probably this may be promoted to featured list status. References can be easily found because they are available in plenty. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:23, 27 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 consensus about this wholly un-notable little sprite. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathemanic[edit]

Non-notable comic book character, various attempts to redirect him have been reverted. No reliable sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I do not agree with the revert war going on and I don't know what 'no reliable sources' is supposed to mean, I think this character is distinctive enough to warrant an article. He's done his thing well-apart from the rest of Psionex; for example he tried to take on Terrax because of heroic impulses (no pun intended) and got put in the hospital. Plus, he has pretty unique powers. Anyone can punch through a wall, this guy freaks people out by making them percieve cosmic distances. Lots42 (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable sources. Would the Psionex article be contaminated by holding this information? Blast Ulna (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comics are the reliable sources. If page 3 shows the character making Firestar a catatonic mess, then that is what he did. Lots42 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the comics are reliable sources, but they cannot establish the article's notability. Notability requires significant coverage from secondary sources; ergo, sources that are indepdendent of the source material. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lots42's comments; at worst merge and redirect back into Psionex. BOZ (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is sourced enough to stand on its own. --Xero (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:N. The only sources cited are i) another WP article (!!), and ii) marvel.com, which is not independent of the subject. There's nothing relevant in Google Books or News, and as far as I can tell, nothing remotely reliable on plain Google (just forums, etc). Jakew (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no non-trivial coverage by reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic that demonstrate notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting or verifiability and notability guidelines and policies and being consistent per the First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on characters or which there are many published volumes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble with searching for "Marvel encyclopedia" is that there's no way of knowing whether any of the books actually contain information on this specific topic. I just used Amazon's "search inside" facility to try to find information about Mathemanic in some of those. I wasn't able to find anything, and searching for "Mathemanic" unsuccesful. Since you say that the topic is notable and verifiable, I assume that you were able to find some material. Could you cite the books that contain information about the topic of the article? Jakew (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See here, but also consider checking relevant comic magazines that might not yet have online archives. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for that Google link, but I couldn't see anything that looked like an independent reliable source with significant out-of-universe coverage. Excluding WP itself, most of the results seem to be a) affiliated with Marvel or b) forums. Jakew (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Marvel is a reliable source. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But not independent of the topic, which is what he is noting. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It takes more than five days to go through the published sources not available online and that's where we need to be looking. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you find sources after an article has been deleted, an admin will always be willing to restore it for you. Blast Ulna (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you are therefore suggesting that additional sources can potentially be found, then that's a reason for keeping the article rather than deleting it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to Psionex, non-notable fictional character with no notability outside of their fictional universe. No independent secondary sources, etc. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynchburg, Ohio Covered Bridge[edit]

Unsourced stub article about a simple bridge: bridges can be notable as major highway bridges or as NHRP sites, but there's nothing even suggested that this bridge is one of them. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apperently it is on the List of Registered Historic Places in Ohio. (I have to run now, but will get to work on it later.)--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sorry to disagree. It does establish Notability as it states in the article, “… historical covered bridge”. In addition, it has received coverage by third party – creditable – verifiable and reliable sources as shown here. [1]. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I'd do it myself, but I've never learned. Asserting notability, please remember, is different from establishing it; virtually all covered bridges, I'd assume, are historical :-) At any rate, NRHP is true (I forgot about these lists), so bridge wins. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - No harm - No Foul. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know to most of the outside world our bridge isn't as noteworthy as something like Golden Gate, but to us it's incredibly special and we are very proud of it and it's history, which i'll get to posting when i have a free moment. -- The Mystic Pilgrim —Preceding comment was added at 00:31, 24 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 weakly, because he's notable for having not become so. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Smallwood[edit]

Writer whose books are all out from notorious vanity press BookSurge. Each of the books fails WP:BK. I can't find major reviews on any of them to satisfy WP:RS. Neither can I find evidence of the "19-city book tour and interviews" that the article asserts. What we appear to have here is promotion from a WP:single-purpose account. Qworty (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-delete as the nominator says it is not very reliable, but I can find references. See this: http://www.lulu.com/content/1678680. Dreamafter (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, LuLu doesn't count, since it's just another vanity press, failing WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No references. Doesn't appear a very notable person. However, the nominator should let User:Rexbacchus know his article is being considered for deletion. Fixed that! —Artene50 (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment added by Artene50 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've attempted to find third-party sources (book reviews, etc.), but have found nothing of apparent relevance in Google News. Jakew (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ - I've had a look around, and found a few sources (which I added) that might help to establish notability (part of the problem is that most of the hits were found under "Robert Smallwood" rather than "Robert F. Smallwood"), but I'm inclined to say that they aren't enough on their own. Smallwood has mostly been in the media for two reasons. The first is that his book was the first personal account of Katrina to be published. This gave him mentions in a number of international papers, including the Washington Post and a full article in The Sun Herald. The second was the Black and White Ball that he organized, which was picked up by The Associated Press, and reported fairly widely as a result. Other claims, such as "published 100's of tech articles" I can only find support for in press releases, which may be accurate but, even if acceptable, don't speak to notability (assuming good faith, though, I expect the claim to be true, but I need more information to evaluate the claim's worth). Given that he has had some mention in significant newspapers, and that the Sun Herald piece is quite long, I would normally regard him as borderline. However, in this case I'm placing him on the wrong side of the border, as most of his coverage seemed to be because he wrote a book, rather than because of the quality of the book. I haven't found any significant reviews of his work (a few one or two line comments, but nothing better), and I would have expected to if he was to be a good fit for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I doubt that I exhausted all the sources, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise, if more reviews or other materials can be found. - Bilby (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The articles on KMWorld are enough to move me to the other side of the border. :) No single thing that he's done seems sufficiently notable in itself, but I'm happy to accept that the combination of things (some success with the Katrina book, previous tech writing, and so on) are just enough in combination. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet an expert on how to insert references but did find evidence of Smallwood's national book tour on these sites: http://www.pressreleasespider.com/feed22935.aspx

San Francisco and San Jose book signings

http://ww.sfbg.com/entry.php?catid=110&entry_id=1390 San Francisco book signing

http://audio.tpr.org/texasmatters.xml August 18, 2006 San Antonio book signing

http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2006-05-23/events-lists.php http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2006-04-18/events-lists.php

New Orleans book signings

Also, I located Smallwood quotes in the Russian Pravda and Times of India sites, as well as an image of him on BBC.co.uk

An article in OneIndia which includes different Smallwood quotes:

http://living.oneindia.in/insync/morocco-traditions-181206.html

And AlterNet, which is still another interview:

http://www.alternet.org/story/48130/

And more quotes on a Huffington Post blog:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-templeton/mardi-gras-in-the-murder-_b_41423.html

Can someone please verify and post these references?

In addition, Smallwood's book was mentioned in last year's "The Simpson's Movie" during the book club meeting when the residents were trapped in a giant dome--probably the work of Harry Shearer, a part-time New Orleans resident who does several voices on the show.

Regarding Smallwood's claim of publishing "over 100 articles" in tech magazines, one can do some verification by going to http://www.kmworld.com, http://www.imergeconsult.com and also to the sites of magazines like e-Content, Document Magazine and Reseller Management, although some of Smallwood's articles were published in now defunct magazines like Imaging Business, Imaging World, IMC Journal, Document Management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexbacchus (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Booksurge, it is the publishing arm of Amazon.com; Smallwood's Katrina book was also published through Ingram, the largest US book distributor, and made available to major bookstores like Barnes & Noble and Borders, and Waterstone's in the UK.--Rexbacchus (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have any problem with the vanity press issue. I generally feel better about authors who go through "traditional" publishers, but PoD doesn't deny notability. It simply doesn't indicate it. That aside, your links above are good, and thanks heaps for providing them, but they aren't quite what I need - I can see that he is mentioned as an author, and is very occasionally quoted in the press in regard to Katrina, but what I'm hoping for is a review or two about his books. But I can see it going either way with others, so hopefully consensus will be for keep. - Bilby (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are inadequate, and this is a vanity-press writer. Please read WP:RS and WP:BK. Blogs do not constitute reliable sourcing for WP purposes. It really doesn't matter how many times this guy gets himself mentioned on the Internet. And BookSurge is a vanity press; it accepts payment from authors for "publication." Amazon does not have a "publishing arm"--they have a vanity-press service, and in fact they raised a huge stink lately because they are trying to replace all of the other vanity presses on Amazon with their own vanity press, BookSurge. You are also wrong in stating that Ingram is a publisher. They are nothing more than a distributor, albeit the largest one in the country, but they do not publish books, and any vanity-press book can be ordered through Ingram, just as any vanity-press book can be listed on Amazon or "made available to major bookstores like Barnes & Noble and Borders." None of this means anything. There is no notability here at all. Smallwood opened his checkbook and paid for publication, then he got his book listed on Amazon and BN and Ingram, then he got himself mentioned on a bunch of blogs. These are things that any person in the world can do. Also, a writer does not become notable per WP guidelines just for going around to a few bookstores and signing a few books. There is nothing at all significant about any of these things. They are not at all the same thing as being published by a legitimate press, being paid an advance, and being reviewed in the large and legitimate venues. This entire article is a put-on, on the borderline of WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments are biased and uninformed since yes, Ingram is a distributor and it owns a print-on-demand (POD) publisher, Lightning Source, Inc. That Smallwood's publisher used POD is smart inventory management and POD is a perfectly legitimate (and efficient) way of filling book orders without the cost of warehousing and double-shipping, as validated by the investments of Amazon, Ingram, Random House (Xlibris) and other leading publishers and distributors. The way a book is printed does not determine its legitimacy. Booksurge and lulu.com both pay royalties; a "vanity press" simply prints books for a price. Further, Smallwood interviews have not only appeared in publications on at least four continents, but he also was notable enough to nationally appear on C-SPAN2's BookTV along with notable writers like Douglas Brinkley, (in addition to local TV appearances in San Francisco, San Jose, San Antonio, New Orleans, Biloxi). Also, one should look at what Smallwood has done and consider that he is probably the only author ever to publish four books in four distinct forms and genres (nonfiction novel, play, nonfiction technical text, novel) in less than three years. One other thing of note: His Katrina book is being used as a text in a college course (in Oregon). --Rexbacchus (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no notability here. Anybody can pay to have a book printed through Lightning Source. If Smallwood has books out from Lightning Source, it's because he paid Lightning Source to print them. If he has books out from BookSurge, it's because he paid BookSurge. If he has books out from LuLu, it's because he paid LuLu. This is the definition of a vanity-press writer. In addition, if he bought copies from any of these entities and then showed up at a bookstore with those copies to sign them, then he is a vanity-press writer twice over, because it means he paid for the copies twice: once when he made the arrangement for publication through the vanity press, and then the second time when he purchased books from them for his own use. His "royalties" therefore come out of his own funds, the money he paid to buy copies of his own books! Please read WP:SPS to see what Wikipedia thinks about vanity and self-published sources. As for the other assertions, that he's been on television etc., there is no WP:RS at this point to back any of that up. And it doesn't matter that he published a "nonfiction novel, play, nonfiction technical text, novel" all at the same time, since vanity presses like Lightning Source and BookSurge and Lulu are happy to print up tons of different stuff, so long as the writer is willing to pay. They take all comers. And that's what Smallwood is, just another guy with an open checkbook who's going around paying for all of this, pretending to be a legitimate author. And now this article pops up on Wikipedia, produced and defended solely by the same WP:single-purpose account, with all of this scanty and non-legitimate sourcing, without any WP:V. Any human being on the planet could do all of the things Smallwood has done, including having a party in New Orleans--I bet there are plenty of parties going on there right now! Since any person in the world can do all this stuff, none of it justifies notability for an article. Qworty (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At [2], in a comment dated July 9, 2007, Smallwood identifies himself as RexBacchus. So now we must add WP:AUTO and WP:COI to the many problems with this article. The post also admits that The Five People You Meet in Hell: Surviving Katrina, Prisoners of Katrin and Brando, Tennessee & Me were all initially published by "Bacchus Books of New Orleans." So this proves that he self-published these books before vanity publishing them. Qworty (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Uninformed AssertionsThe above comments are made by someone who does not understand how publishing TODAY works, and they obviously have an ax to grind, so they are probably an unpublished wannabe, or an agent who stands to lose from the changes technology is bringing to the publishing world. To wit: 1) Both Lightning Source and lulu print and distribute books and pay royalties on books sold--the same as Simon & Shuster, Random House, etc. One does not pay for books to be printed and then somehow sell them to stores one at a time; book stores and libraries ONLY buy books from Ingram and Baker & Taylor unless an author is local--so Smallwood could not buy books and then bring them to book signings; 2) Smallwood's appearance on C-SPAN sponsored by the Press Club of New Orleans is duly documented when searching Google--as are interviews on local TV stations in CA, TX, LA, MS, as well as Texas Public Radio, Louisiana Public Radio and other stations; 3) His work with Habitat for Humanity to create the Capote Black & White Ball benefit was notable enough for both AP and Reuters to carry the story worldwide; 4) If any human being on the planet could publish four books in four forms/genres in three years--after suffering the tragedy, chaos and displacement of Hurricane Katrina--and receive international press coverage, and book reviews from notables like Andrei Codrescu and Rex Reed, then why hasn't anyone else done it?--Rexbacchus (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the uncivil conflict between the author and the jihadist, the national press coverage Smallwood received for his work in promoting reconstructon of New Orleans proves notability. The sideshow over alleged vanity publishing isn't relevant to notability. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the topic being the subject of multiple secondary and very reliable sources, the core criterion of both WP:N and WP:BIO. As the previous editor said, allegedly being published by a "vanity" press is a red herring and irrelevant to the person passing our notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not notable. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis of the articles in the press discussing his unsuccessful attempt to be an author. Even the Katrina book seems to have been actually purchased by only 47 libraries--given the subject, that's a ridiculously low figure. DGG (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't know if User Rexbachus who created this article is just a fan of Smallwood's work or a close friend of Smallwood in which case this would be a conflict of interest. However, when Qworthy nominated this article for deletion, he should have told Rexbacchus about his actions. It does not sound right that I (as a third party) had to tell Rexbacchus about the nomination instead. On the topic of Robert F. Smallwood, I found 43 references to him here He has published some books but seems relatively minor. But...he may be notable as a person who experienced and wrote about the Katrina disaster. Also, roughly the first 10 of the books on this Amazon list appear to be written by him: [3] Therefore, I have decided to change my vote from Delete to Weak keep. I am slightly more convinced of his WP:N now. Artene50 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi - Just to correct one point in the above post, the "Robert Smallwood" who wrote the Shakespeare books is a different chap. (I ran into the same problem - when you do a search, most of the hits are for the Shakespearean scholar, which I needed to weed out). As a result, only two of the books in that list are by him. - Bilby (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your clarification Bilby. With this new information, Robert F. Smalwood becomes a rather more borderline case. His WP:N is less certain. The issue the Wikipedia moderator must deal with is whether his book on Surviving Katrina here and the other on Brando merits notability. As for me, I have nothing more to say. If I had a vote, it would be No opinion. Artene50 (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per WP:BIO --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, secondary coverage in reliable news sources, so meets WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll redirect to 3rd century in Ireland - however, I'm inexperienced at this sort of closure, so I'm not entirely sure what to do. I'll delete the article and recreate as a redirect - if this is incorrect, please tell me and/or correct it yourself. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

254 in Ireland[edit]

Cormac mac Airt is a legendary/mythical/fictional personage. He can no more be born or die or abdicate in particular year than the return of Odysseus to Ithaca, the shooting of Bobby Ewing or the birth of Lisa Simpson can have a real-world date attached to them.

There's an article could be written on these pseudo-historical chronologies, but the chronology itself is studied only for what it says about the real people who created it and their world. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for context, see List of years in Ireland. - Ev (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Confused – OK, I am a little confused here. What article are you proposing for deletion exactly, 254 in Ireland or Cormac mac Airt? On the first, I say merge to Cormac mac Airt. On the second, I say Keep. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing out that there is no here here. There are no events in Ireland in 260 listed here. I could have just removed the non-event to produce a non-article and then deleted it myself under CSD A1, but that strikes me as being rather evil. If the view is that non-events involving non-people make non-articles, I'll empty and then tag such articles for speedy deletion under A1. I have no evil designs towards the Cormac mac Airt article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's quite a valid topic for an article, but I understand and agree that we shouldn't list this event as having happened in this year. Therefore, since we don't know of anything that really belongs on this page, it should be deleted until and unless someone finds something that we know happened in Ireland in 254: keeping it until such a thing is found would be crystalballish. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per above. Tavix (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, just being dumb tonight, I see your point. Agree – delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, it's me that was as clear as mud. Apologies to all, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thisw is neologism.--Freewayguy ^{T C} 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear WP:NEO Artene50 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What neologism? I don't understand. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 3rd century in Ireland. Tim! (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no way of verifying the date or even the existence of the king. Myths and legends should not be presented as factual material in an encyclopædia. EJF (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 3rd century in Ireland. It is impossible to know how reliable how reliable the traditions about 3rd century Ireland are, and precise chronology is almost certainly a matter of opinion. It is legitimate for the 3rd century article to exist since the events recorded probably happened (if the events did in fact happen at all) in about that period. The presetn article merely duplicates its content, while suggesting a spurious provision as to its date. These comments probably aslo apply to 260 in Ireland (also nominated as AFD) and any other articles on specific years (or even decades). In response to EJF, I say that legendary kings are potentially a proper subject for articles. I have no doubt that there is good source material on which the personal article is based, the question is however how much academic credence should be given to it. This is a matter for academics, and not something appropriate to decide in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a matter for academics like T. F. O'Rahilly (Cormac mac Airt is legendary), Thomas Charles-Edwards (legendary), James MacKillop (legendary), Frank Byrne (Cormac's dates are not in Byrne's RIA Chronology, but although Cormac's historicity is not the modern view Byrne doesn't want to abandon all hope), Ó Cróinín (mythological), ... I look forward to Robin Hood appearing in century-in-England articles. He's legendary too, but he has a floruit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to your point Peter, I have no problem with legendary kings having a Wikipedia article. I do think it is inappropriate to present his supposed abdication-date as a factual event, in a chronological series of articles. EJF (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The general feature here is that the year article has only one incident, this does not merit a separate article. The incident can be merged into the decade/century articles. But the event described in this article is mythical, obviously should not be depicted as historical fact in a year article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort Information should be made into decades or centuries, like the system for the current decades (ex. 1960s, 1970s)--LAA Fan 13:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to 3rd century in Ireland. Since the information is already there (and we're just talking about single sentences anyway), there's nothing to merge. I think it's rather par for the course for the line between 3rd century reality and legend to be blurred, so I'm neutral leaning towards keep regarding the information in general. -- Kéiryn (talk) 00:17, 28 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. Notable or not, the article fails WP:V for its complete lack of sources. Sandstein 20:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Oman[edit]

Non-notable Irish soccer player from the 1940s Ecoleetage (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He played in the Football League of Ireland, at that time the Republic of Ireland's top level of football (soccer). --Eastmain (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sorry to say at this time. Could find no information other that Wikipedia or mirror sites. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If he were notable, wouldn't he have been a footballer rather than a soccer player? No ghits for this individual, although the name does come up (for others). If he's notable, let's have some cites. (I can be convinced.) Frank | talk 23:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - back when Oman was playing the term 'soccer' was widely used for football - it is short for association football and distinguished the game from rugby football. Such terminology has no bearing on a player's notability one way or the other. GiantSnowman 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Fair enough; the "footballer" comment should have been just that - a comment. But the rest applies - a search on his name brings up others. Notability has not been established. Frank | talk 01:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Level played at confers notability. Sources for this are going to be offline - i.e. Newspapers published in Irelsnd at the time he was active. The internet is not the only source. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Top Irish league, that's not much of a notability claim. Punkmorten (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How can playing at the country's top leve not confer notability, irrespective of whether it was as a professional or not? Olympics athletes were all amateurs until fairly recently. Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the Irish league in the 1940s is not the highest level of an amateur sport. Punkmorten (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - As far as we can see he - unfortunately - has nothing written about him (printed or internet) and could therefore easily be a hoax or minor player. Evidence is needed. Giant Snowman 01:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe the top Irish league was fully professional at the time, and therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, he does meet WP:ATHLETE - Competitors and coaches who have competed 'at the highest level' in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No he doesn't. Football was not an amateur sport at the time - there were professional clubs. However, the ROI league was not fully professional. Using your argument would mean that players of top division clubs in the Faroes and San Marino are notable, when they clearly aren't. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well said. Punkmorten (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:VER - no sources, supporting citations or other references offered or available. For reasons of VER alone, should be removed. Also fails WP:NN - the "highest level in amateur sports" in this context is a place with the national team. Transport F.C. are hardly top-flight. Even Bohs at the time were also a struggling team. If Oman helped Bohs to any major silverware I could see a case, but Bohs didn't win a single piece of silverware in those 2 years (or in fact for about 10 years either side of Oman's tenure). Guliolopez (talk) 23:54, 24 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 nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Forest Hotel[edit]

~~Non-notable hotel, knocked down 34 years ago, that left no particular mark on its community or the hotel industry Ecoleetage (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw Nomination - In view of a generous offer from one of the editors to expand the article properly (see below), I am withdrawing this AfD nomination.Ecoleetage (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added three references from Google News. --Eastmain (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that "knocked down 34 years ago" is never a valid argument for deletion. Notability does not expire. As a journalist for a South Carolina newspaper wrote, this hotel "set [the] stage for recent upscale development in Myrtle Beach, S.C." --Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the notion that a hotel that vanished 34 years ago is setting the stage for "recent" development makes no sense whatsoever. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In fact, if someone wants to take the time to expand this article, there is a wealth of information out there as shown here [4]. I be more than happy to help. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell ya what, Shoessss -- you expand the article, I'll withdraw the nomination.Ecoleetage (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL- Man-oh-man, everyone is calling my bluff tonight :-). I’ll start tomorrow. Thanks! ShoesssS ^Talk 00:09, 24 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. There is a need to review the article title and possibly the best location for the content, but those are things that can be decided through normal editorial processes. Ty 04:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old-Time Photography[edit]

The notability of the subject and the manner in which it is presented doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia standards. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably a notable subject. keep and expand. there are almost certainly sources. The time to nominate for deletion is after you have first looked--making allowance for possible other ways of wording the subject--and failed to find them. DGG (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please Assume Good Faith before making borderline-patronizing statements about the thought process that some people use to nominate articles. I make an effort to locate proper sources on all of the articles that I put up for AfD -- please don't assume they are thrown here willy-nilly. This article, as written, makes very broad and unsubstantiated claims that are not backed by data, let alone reliable independent sources. Before nominating this article, I could not locate hard data to confirm this is a "popular" activity, let alone a notable one. Plus, you are suggesting to keep the article because it is "probably" notable and there are "almost certainly" sources. Please, if you cannot confirm notability, then state as much. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not intended personally, but I certainly would advocate a rule that one may not nominate for deletion on a question of notability unless one has at least done a preliminary search for material on the subject ad presented the results as at least a link to google or a statement that some relevant source had been searched. See the template Template:Prod-nn for one way people are doing this. As it is, many people do say something in the nomination about what & where they have searched. DGG (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. This is a lousy article on a notable genre of popular modern photography. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung, I see you've added one good book with this exact title as a reference. Is it the standard term? should the article be moved to the alternate term you added to the article when you improved it? DGG (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment is that "old-time photography" is the public-facing term and "antique and amusement photography" is the professional-context term. At least judging from the ads. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only other term that seems in use is simply "antique photography", but that has search term overlap with both collectors of actual antique equipment used in photography as well as of the photos themselves. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to merge, possibly to portrait photography. We have no article on photography genres, or generally on studio photography, that I can find. Basically there are numerous trivial references and it's clearly a popular genre, even spawning a professional organization, but there are not many secondary sources treating it in any depth. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather keep it out of there, though it could be merged to an article on other jokey portrait styles, posing with cut-outs, head-through-the-hole & so on. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers above. The title was new to me, but I wouldn't know what else to call it. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obelysk Funds[edit]

The notability of the subject is not confirmed with independent research. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company controls a number of large Canadian companies, so its claim to manage more than $1 billion in assets in plausible. The company's controlling shareholder and its operating companies probably better known than the Obelysk itself. See this Google search. --Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that Google search is not helpful -- the vast majority of entries do not meet WP notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. I went through all ghits, and couldn't find a single reliable, independent secondary source. Sorry, but this just isn't a notable company. On a general note, private holding companies for private individuals are rarely notable, even if the owner and some of the owned companies are. Arsenikk ^(talk) 01:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP,significant coverage by independent secondary reliable sources is found to demonstrate --CHINAwoMAN (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Not sourced in the article (the company web site and a press release to not county, per WP:CORP). Please provide links. Thanks, Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There is an open sockpuppetry case involving CHINAwoMAN at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oingoboing69. Nsk92 (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless significant coverage by independent secondary reliable sources is found to demonstrate notability under WP:CORP. Nsk92 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've had no luck in finding any third-party reliable sources. Nothing in Google News, Nothing in Google Books, and Nothing in Google Scholar. Fails WP:N, little potential to satisfy WP:V. Jakew (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to finding no real third party sources I checked several databases (CapitalIQ, Private Equity Intelligence, VentureXpert) I personally can access to see if there is really an argument based on the firm's assets under management that should be made. The firm is not listed as having any institutional private equity funds and I have found nothing to substantiate the $1 billion assets under management claim. Having some experience with the field I have never heard of the firm and would not be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Urbanrenewal (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the claims of notability are not substantiated. While faintly plausible, I would like to see some third party confirmation first. As it is, fails WP:ORG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spidercage[edit]

More information on the event sourced and page structured to how other Gladiators events pages have been structured--Aquaplex 13:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is on a single event in a television show. Non-notable and unreferenced. --Rory096 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Most details of the event are currently unknown" usually does it for me. No relevant ghits, either. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anturiaethwr. JuJube (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Anturiaethwr. No sign of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Notability is clearly lacking. Artene50 (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:40, 24 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. — Scientizzle 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnage of the Devils[edit]

Contested prod. No assertion of notability, and I can't find anything to indicate it's notable. Article is purely a plot summary, and would seem to violate WP:PLOT CultureDrone (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party coverage whatsoever, as far as I can see. Kinda funny, though. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Axl (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom - WP:N and WP:PLOT problems. I had a look in Google News to see if there might be any reviews, etc, but found nothing. Jakew (talk) 22:59, 24 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 3rd century in Ireland provided that article is kept, otherwise delete. Sandstein 22:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

260 in Ireland[edit]

Cormac mac Airt, being as he was not a historical figure, did not die in 260 AD, so this article has no actual content because no events in Ireland can be dated to 260, or to the 260s, or even to the 3rd century AD with much confidence. Cormac as mythical figure without historical basis: Byrne, Irish Kings and High Kings, 52-3; Ó Cróinín, Early Medieval Ireland, 76; Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, 580-3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for context, see List of years in Ireland. - Ev (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously bundled articles removed. See history for details.

Comment I'm not sure it makes sense to bundle all these together. As someone who knows essentially nothing about Irish history, I have no ability to evaluate which of these events have an actual historical basis. Perhaps they should be evaluated individually (or at least an explanation for each should be given here). Mangostar (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, unbundled. Let's swamp AfD. Angus McLellan (Talk)

Comment - would a merge to something like Myths and legends of early Ireland (or "Timeline" of such) be workable? Seems like the content might be encyclopedic, just not in a literal-real-world-historic sense, and certainly not at the present, misleading title(s). --Badger Drink (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the other RfD I'm not confident that the community has as yet grasped the full extent of the problem of these articles. We have almost no secure date for anything in Ireland before the 7th century, when the first sources were being written, and very few before the 9th century when more of sources got written (in fact dates before the Norman period are not necessarily reliable either). 3rd century ... it's a total laugh! Each date, if even acknowledged (like Patrick's two dates, most of the rest being ignored as pseudo-history) they are surrounded by so much complex literature and require such a detailed knowledge of source criticism and historiography, it is unreasonable to have these articles at all let alone expect wikipedia editors to sustain so many articles to any semi-decent historical standard. Neither of the two editors who want these articles have this knowledge, so I'm not sure where all this management is supposed to come from. You keep these you ARE GUARANTEEING nonsense being given a wiki rubber stamp. They will only mislead those readers with little knowledge and fill the hearts of those who do have knowledge with contempt for our project. If you want that, vote keep, cause that's all such a vote could achieve. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
normal people would say strong deelte because it provides no content, no valdi sources.--Freewayguy ^{T C} 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Milk Float 07:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 3rd century in Ireland. Tim! (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly is a different case to 619 in Ireland. I'm afraid delete is the only option. Allowing myths and legends to masquerade as fact is just not on for an encyclopædia. EJF (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 3rd century in Ireland. It is impossible to know how reliable how reliable the traditions about 3rd century Ireland are, and precise chronology is almost certainly a matter of opinion. It is legitimate for the 3rd century article to exist since the events recorded probably happened (if the events did in fact happen at all) in about that period. The presetn article merely duplicates its content, while suggesting a spurious provision as to its date. These comments probably aslo apply to 254 in Ireland (also nominated as AFD) and any other articles on specific years (or even decades). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unwise to suppose that because these articles have what appear to be references that (a) the "events" are actually mentioned in them - nothing in 3rd century in Ireland was included in the RIA Chronology volume - or that the reference means what it seems to - the CELT references actually mean "according to the Annals of the Four Masters". There are no 3rd century events in Ireland in the RIA Chronology. Not a single one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a question of how much credence can be placed on Annals of the Four Masters. These are certainly regarded as a useable source for later centuries, even though they (apparently) only exist in a 17th century compilation. Accounts of this period must be regarded as legendary or semi-legendary, but if they are in the annals, I see no reason why they should not be in WP, but in a general article on a period (such as a century), not one on a specific year. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but if they are in the annals, I see no reason why they should not be in WP, but in a general article on a period (such as a century), not one on a specific year.

Being fictional is a reason not to put them on wiki. Wouldn't expect in England in 467 "Death of Uter Pendragon, king of England, to whom succeeded his son, King Arthur, who instituted the Round Table" just because it was in the Annals. ;) Taking stuff directly from annals is a violation of WP:OR and is too complicated for the non-specialist to handle properly without a great deal of investment of time and resources. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently see articles that are citing original published sources. I assume your quotation is from Geoffrey of Monmouth, who is not regarded as a reliable source (or from some later romance). I see no reason why material from annals should not appear, but it should be accompanied by appropriate commentary as to its reliability, for which I have no doubt that an appropriate academic source can be found, such as an editor's introduction to an edition of the annals. The present article lack that, and so cannot remain in its presetn form, but I stand by my view that the proper course is to merge it into a rather broader article on a longer period, where such commentary can be provided once. If annual articles are kept, it will be necessary to have such qualifications in each of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The general feature here is that the year article has only one incident, this does not merit a separate article. The incident can be merged into the decade/century articles. But the event described in this article is mythical, obviously should not be depicted as historical fact in a year article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to preserve history and make clear on the century that it's a mythological "fact" --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.

That's a difficult one, and I've been unsure about how to close it up until I finished writing this.

The headcount, our usual first approximation of consensus, yields something on the order of 18 delete, 5 delete and/or merge, 3 merge and 10 keep opinions (that's after deducting a few clearly discountable opinions from either side). So far, this points to a "no consensus" closure, especially as one must not delete and merge an article because of licencing problems. Because I see no core policy violations (of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR) that can be remedied only by deletion, I have to weigh the arguments on either side to see whether a consensus emerges.

Leaving aside the ideological subtext of this discussion, the core issue is whether the article is a POV fork (bad) or a summary style spinout (good) of Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and/or Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Please allow me to quote the relevant part of the WP:POVFORK guideline:

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.
Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.
Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.
However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout [[Criticism of XYZ]]. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.

In view of this, these are the reasons why the "delete" opinions are not, in my view, persuasive enough to constitute a consensus for deletion despite not having the supermajority that we usually accept as numerical consensus:

It is neither apparent nor clearly explained what this is supposed to be a POV fork of, and how. It is linked to from both parent articles through WP:SS-style, brief summary paragraphs that are (if at all) at least not overtly or irremediably non-neutral. Furthermore, it is prima facie unclear what POV the article would be pushing. It seems to be at least superficially neutral in that it cites several scholars with a variety of viewpoints.

Even assuming arguendo that the article is a POV fork, most or all "delete" opinions do not explain (and it is also not obvious) why this means we must delete it, instead of editing it to make it into a neutral WP:SS spinout, or merging it back.

It is also generally not asserted or explained what, if any, content policy problems (such as WP:BLP, WP:NOR...) the content itself suffers from that would necessitate its deletion. To the extent that this is a WP:UNDUE discussion (where and to what extent should we cover the whole issue?), it is not clear why excessive coverage (if any) cannot be reduced through merging and/or redirection instead of deletion.

Finally, there is an active debate on the scope and extent of coverage ongoing here. It seems likely that this approach is more conducive to solving the scope/weight issue underlying this discussion than a delete-or-not AfD.

For these reasons, I find that there is currently no consensus to delete this article. This does not rule out consensus-based editorial solutions, such as merging or redirection, that may be arrived at on the article talk page(s). Sandstein 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism[edit]

The subject of this article has been debated for weeks on State terrorism talk page about whether it passes NPOV (both for POV and undue weight) - splitting into a seperate article is really a clear-cut case of WP:POVFORK of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎ - especially as the creator of the page admitted he was forking the content from the state terrorism page despite (presumably) knowing about the section's problems. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there was already potential for a POV fork because the material was in two articles already.[5] [6] Putting in in a centralized location is meant to prevent forking. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a (still sketchy) article about the debate over the bombings - why create something you know is a potential POV fork when you can use ((seealso)) to cross-ref the articles? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You keep using the phrase "POV fork". I do no think it means what you think it means. Read the WP:POVFORK guideline again, perhaps paying special attention to Wikipedia:POVFORK#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please. The article is barely longer than any other of the sections in the Debate article, and to be a true summary article, you'd need to split out both sections or all eight subsections, not just one subsection. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as POV fork William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not -- you are clearly unfamiliar with the meaning of the term, see Wikipedia:POVFORK#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. Otherwise -- what article is this a POV fork of? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're right, I'm such a newbie and have so little experience of disputes... oh, wait... William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge content into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.--PhilKnight (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this subject is already covered in an NPOV manner in the "Debate over..." article. This is a POV-fork that highlights a tiny minority view. - Merzbow (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer the case as that material was moved to the new article. In any case, feel free to add material reflecting other points of view. NPOV is not a valid argument for deletion, but for repair. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding material reflecting other points of view simply turns it into the "Debate over..." article, which we already have. In other words, the opposing POVs are precisely what is already covered in "Debate over...". - Merzbow (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I broke off the entire section, so I should of caught any POVs that this wasn't state terrorism if that article is organized well. I'll double check though. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't see any other mentions of the terrorism debate beyond the stubbed section I left. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a POV is so extreme a minority, there are likely to be few published opposing POVs since it mostly isn't even worth responding to. In such a case the "opposing POVs" are simply the majority opinions of what the thing is, and NPOV is violated by forking the extreme minority POV to its own article and excluding the majority opinions because they aren't direct responses. That is what is going on here. - Merzbow (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you are getting at. Either it is an example of state terrorism or is isn't. None of those other sections regarding other debates over the bombing have much of anything to do with this particular issue, i.e. the bombings could still have theoretically saved lives or not and it could still be terrorism. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia". Putting this material in its own article (and summarizing in the others) is one way to avoid forks. Another could be as PhilKnight suggests, but as BernardL has argued lately that this should just be summarized in the Debate article, I'm not convinced merging it there is the right choice. There should be one main article for this material; one of its own may well be the least bad alternative. — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Merge any salvageable content into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Jtrainor (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. I'll ask the same question to you that WMC ignored: what article is this a POV fork of? We'll end up just having to maintain all this in two spots again, and that's not going to be helpful. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Debate over....article Hooper (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Unnecessary fork. John Smith's (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A highly subjective essay with a considerable political axe to grind, to put it mildly. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge in the "debate over" — articles where there is a legitimate debate about whether or not a moniker applies should be covered more generally, and not have specific POVs in their own articles. --Haemo (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I (hopefully) split out the entire section; the section may have already been POV. There's nothing else about state terrorism in the rest of the Debate article. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting this will simply result in forking the material back out to two separate articles, each of which are long enough in their own right. Especially in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States arguments over this material is creating an endless edit war which is tying up the rest of the article for weeks at a time.[7] [8] [9] Otherwise, though a new article, it's sourced and is a notable part of the debate over the bombings in their own right, as well as a notable allegation of state terrorism by the U.S. I know others don't want to just say WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but oh well. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No merge is necessary as this content is imported from old version of other articles. I understand and appreciate Kendrick's motive here, but I don't think this is the solution. We absolutely do not need an article on this topic as it is not notable enough to warrant separate coverage in a stand-alone article. The place to cover it in full is Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. It can be summarized at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but this material should not have a home there. The "state terrorism" view is a tiny part of that debate and does not deserve heavy treatment in the debate article. There is already some significant agreement about that here where this issue has been thoroughly discussed (folks who have not might want to take a look at that). The topic can easily be covered as a section in an article, and no more warrants its own article than would National Lawyers Guild as Appeasers of Communists and Terrorists (instead this section does the trick nicely for that). Note that I strongly support the inclusion of some amount of this content in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, I just find it wholly unworthy of its own article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since no one can agree on which article to put it in, the best solution is to give the material its own article. The references in the article attest to its notability. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the link to the talk page in my comment (it's where the word "here" is linked). You might not have seen that, but there seemed to be a developing consensus that the home for the material is the "Allegations" article, not the "Debate" one. The recent edit warring has been a distraction from that, but it's basically come from users (some or all of whom might be socks or SPA's) who did not participate in the discussion. I'm convinced we can come to an agreement on this issue, the conversation just stopped for a bit as it was near consensus. I'll set up an informal poll of this over on the article talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the comments here suggest the discussion is going the other way. I don't see why it isn't easier to just have one article and link to it from both other articles. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - By the way, that debate was never even mentioned at Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's pretty easy to think you have consensus when you just leave one side out of the discussion, imo. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear POV fork for Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any relevant factual content should be merged there. Nsk92 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a POV fork. Please read the guideline. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even when that guideline was a mess of words, it didn't support it. Either spinout all eight subsections, or spin none out at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Wikipedia:POVFORK#Article spinouts - "Summary_style" articles requires all the sections to be spun out. It could be reasonable to spin out all the sections of the Allegations article, though. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything well sourced about this topic belongs in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have been widely discussed in this context, and thesources are good. NPOV as usual is to be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the relevant content could be included as a significant section in a larger article (which has been the plan up until now), would you be supportive of that? I agree with your keep argument in a sense, it's just that I think it's possible for us to cover the topic fully in a broader article. The creation of this article is basically a by-product of an edit war and a failure to determine in which of two articles the content belonged. If those questions could be resolved, and I think they can, then this article would not be necessary. I do think the analogy I draw with respect to a possible article on the National Lawyers Guild is apt and shows why this as a stand alone article could be a bit problematic.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as a POV fork. --neonwhite user page talk 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep the sections in the two articles from where this material came each seemed like they were 'daugher articles' of a 'parent article' that was missing. Here now is the parent article - a sourced article that considering the number of sources is much more notable than many other articles in Wikipedia that have survived AfD. I am not seeing anything from the group siding for POV fork deletion that this is actually a POV fork of anything. (except perhaps for Merzbow's "When a POV is so extreme a minority, there are likely to be few published opposing POVs since it mostly isn't even worth responding to. In such a case the "opposing POVs" are simply the majority opinions of what the thing is, and NPOV is violated by forking the extreme minority POV to its own article " but I am not sure that is even accurate or standard application in WP).TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear POV content fork. WP:UNDUE says this whole article can be replaced with half a sentence in the atomic bombings article. --DHeyward (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Editing policy#Preserve information? WP:UNDUE doesn't apply to entire articles, voting to delete this just so you can argue it's undue somewhere else certainly misses the point of the fork. Are you sure you don't just mean WP:IDONTLIKEIT? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Familiar, no. But if I calimed I helped write it, you'd probably probably ask me to step aside due to COI. But to help clarify, the content POV forks are in place exactly so that eodtors don't try to get around WP:UNDUE by creating articles on narrow, POV viewpoints. It all makes sense when you look at the Big Picture. --DHeyward (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense; this is exactly what WP:UNDUE says to do. "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." If you know of a policy page that supports your view, I'd love to hear it. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reading that page and stop here. --DHeyward (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a POV fork if we already had an article on the debate over whether the atomic bombing was state terrorism. We do not, as far as I can tell, and yet you are insisting there is no article in which this debate can be otherwise fully explored. While the sections in the two articles this came from may have already been biased towards one view or the other, this content fork took the entire debate to the new article and was not an attempt to leave one side behind. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't covering the "Debate", it's covering the "Atomic Bombings..." This is why the Article starts with "Atomic Bombings" and not "Debate". As such it is a POV content fork relating to a speicific POV (that it's a "form of state terrorism"). That POV given it's current acceptance by reliable sources can be covered in about half a sentence in one of maybe a half-dozen articles. --DHeyward (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough collegiate sources that the topic can be expanded. POV concerns can be addressed in article. - Steve3849 ^talk 01:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork - merge a brief summary into the article on the bombings as an entire on this article is excessive. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable, per WP:PRESERVE. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable, per WP:UNDUE. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material was in two articles before I split it. There's no way that my spinning out the sections into a new article means it can't be merged back if the new article is deleted. If someone thinks it would be WP:UNDUE weight back where it was, then the only sensible thing is to support the split, per the WP:EP policy. As WP:UNDUE even says: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them." -- Kendrick7^talk 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~Keep The content is perfectly fine, reliable, notable, and encyclopedic. For disclosure, of course I would think this because I was the one who originally suggested this topic and wrote most of it as its own section for the Allegations of US State Terrorism article. It was initially opposed but eventually consensus was obtained. Since then, however, a clique of editors have constantly blanked the section and edit-warred to get it removed. The subject matter still strikes a tender spot for people, even today. At the moment this material has been removed from section, truncated to a direct to this main article, after some edit-warring by those who want the whole article deleted, but in particular this material about Japan. It is these actions/reactions that have prompted it to spread to its own article, I guess to try and find a peaceful home. That makes sense. Now having said that that, I agree with BigTimePeace's explanation above that this should not be the solution. It should be allowed to stay in the article about US State Terrorism, and only grow out into its own article naturally if there is a lot more material that needs expanding into one (there is in fact more material that can be added, but not a lot more than is already said while staying on its narrow very minority topic). I also agree with him that there is consensus to keep the fuller version in the article. Sadly, there is still, and recently massive edit-warring about this issue taking place on that article. Again, I think this will pass and the deletionists will be defeated. But, in the meanwhile, I support this material sitting it its own article, even if it has two homes: one, it's rightful home where it has been forcefully and illegally kicked out of (and torn in half), and a secondary refugee home that can later grow into a larger article in time.

Of course, no need merge this as the content is exactly the fuller version in the US Terrorism article that will be restored per consensus. And, I do think we should cover it in full in that article, the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, where it easily fit's in as one of of the smaller/medium size sections of that article. I also agree that it should only summarized at main, "Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki," article, and to do more so in that article is a violation of Undue Weight. We would not be here with its own article so soon if it were not for the forceful eviction by POV warriors kicking it out of its rightful home over at the Allegation of US State Terrorism article. If the material can be significantly expanded here I'll change my support from a weak keep to a keep as it would then merit its own article. Until then this should really be a section of the article I wrote it for, and those disrupting the article (they know who they are) need to be stopped.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Weak delete. I do not see any problems with content forking, notability and sourcing. However this article seems to violate WP:NPOV. One should present here all "pro" and "contra" per NPOV. However this can be done only in the more wide article Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎ which we already have.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that the question of whether or not the bombings were morally justifiable (the "debate" article) is inseparable from the question of whether or not the bombings were state terrorism? I guess I don't see terrorism as a moral issue; in my philosophy murder is bad, mmmkay??. I see what is labeled as terrorism (the "allegations" article) to be the more interesting question. So that's the debate underlying the poll results current on "where to put this" at WP:CENTER#Ending the war over the war over Japan. (So like most things, it's politics versus religion) -- Kendrick7^talk 04:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No, I am not talking about any moral issues at all. I am talking about a question if the bombings were indeed "state terrorism" or not. This question can be properly described and understood only in a more wider context of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎ in my opinion.Biophys (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "debate" in that article is a debate on the morality of the bombings. Whether or not they were immoral enough to be called "terrorism" is a separate issue which stands alone, in my opinion. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(edit conflict). Responding to Biosphy: I find this is a common fallacy. Terrorism is a mean to an end, it's a tactic. Yes, it has some goals of its own own, but these goals are actually means to larger ends. Facts concerning what those other ends are for are irrelevant to the classification and discussion of it actually being terrorism in practice or not. Yes, there can be terrorism that saves the whole world, but still be regarded as terroristic. The other elements of the debate to drop or not drop the bomb, and the many arguments that continue regarding it have no relevance at all into the question of whether or not the act was one that qualifies under the concept of being state terrorism. To want to include other off-topic issues conflate and confuse it by the introduction of irrelevant facts that are part of a wholly different line of reasoning and debate. Of course any line of reasoning dealing with the arguments of State terrorism are valid, but the Debate Article is much too wide and most of the debate does not touch upon or discussion (correctly) this conceptual take on the bombings.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am leaning towards weak keep, which suprises me, because as I read the article I was thinking, "delete, delete". But the arguments presented here in favor of keeping are somewhat persuasive. I think that if the material is merged back into the "State terrorism" article, it implies that the atomic bombing of Japan was in fact state terrorism. The current article at least makes reference to the fact that its generally not an accepted view. The POV fork certainly needs work, and the "Opposing views" should probably be up A LOT higher expressing that "Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism" = WP:FRINGE, yet I don't see that any of the delete arguments here have presented a strong enough case to move it back into the main state terrorism article. MrPrada (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[...] Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the
main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and
identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether. [10]

I would however support a merge and redirect if the content were merged to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎. MrPrada (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not going to cast a vote here, but I do feel that if kept the article needs to be given a new title, as the current title smacks of POV. Suggest adding "Interpretations of the ..." to the title. 23skidoo (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt has good information that made me interested in joining Wikipedia. I know many editors do not want this good information to be in one place where everyone can read about this act of terrorism by the US. Please keep.Olawe (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a POV pushing reason to me. Nsk92 (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep: ~~Bad faith nom by pro-America POV pushers.~~ The atomic bombing over Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been described as state terrorism various times. The article is not POV fork, it is a notable, valid and much debated topic. ~~Wikipedia is not the place for pro-America misinformation mongering.~~ The article can be moved to a more neutral title like Debate over atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Delete. Classic case of POV pushing, starting with the article's name. Also a classic case of POV forking (repeated denials do not change that, any more than they made the Earth flat), and a classic demonstration of why POV forks are a Bad Thing.
PS: I'm laughing out loud at WMC's "22:16, 23 May 2008" comment. Cheers, CWC 06:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. I just hope we'll get a closing admin who, unlike the rest of you, has actually read WP:CFORK, and doesn't share the fairy tale interpretation being put forth here. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick, your posts are getting increasingly uncivil. Do not assume that editors who vote to delete this article, many of whom are very experianced, are doing so out of ignorance of the guidelines. It is possible to have a discussion of ambiguities in the guidelines without resorting to abuse, and this would be more helpful for your cause. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry if various fellow editors are pound voting in ignorance of our guidelines. I will call it like I see it until they pry my cold dead hands off the keyboard. -- Kendrick7^talk

Delete of Merge into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.--MONGO 16:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per USER:Bigtimepeace Doug Weller (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ostap 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per the arguments made above. There is a very valid discussion over the concept of terrorism in the atomic bombings of Japan.Bless sins (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A summary of this article should be added in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but this is just the development of the arguments defending the thesis this was a form of state terrorism. This is not a pov-fork. If this article would be merged in the main article, there would be an issue of wp:undue and the main article would not be NPoV any more. Ceedjee (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the rationale presented for creating this article- it's basically crossing the subjects of two other articles, state terrorism by U.S. and the debate over the bombings. We could try to merge it into one and hatnote from the other, but both have some length already, so it seems better for organization to keep it split. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork. Clearly at the time this was not an act of terrorism, it was an option that was exercised in an attempt to save lives. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not know what is the reference for your statement "Clearly at the time this was not an act of terrorism, it was an option that was exercised in an attempt to save lives". Only one bomb could have been dropped over Hiroshima which was enough to stop the war, but a second bomb was dropped over Nagasaki. This twice bombing, as far as I know, has been described in many circles in the academia as an unnecessary and immoral demonstration of power. The bombing over these two cities have been describe as state terrorism in several times and is a much debated topic. Anyway, your statement "it was an option that was exercised in an attempt to save lives" is either nonsense or untrue. It was the rationale given by the US military. On what basis you are assuming what the US military said is the truth? And also as per your own logic, the 9/11 attack is also not terrorism since the rationale given for the attack is to save Palestinian lives. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite the convincing argument of Ceedjee, I feel that the pro- and con- arguments about terrorism can only be relevantly discussed within the larger context of the morality debate in general. I believe it is a misinterpretation of wp:undue to claim that merging the content in would make the remaining article POV, while not realizing that the article standing alone lends credence to the terrorism debate being as important as the larger debate. Also, this article, standing away from the Allegations of US state terror article makes it seem that these allegations are more important than others on that list, which they are not. Random 89 08:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only for now, as I can't yet be bothered to read the other articles with which this one might or should be merged. Yes, material should be expunged from a WP article when it's merely the opinion of a small minority. However, the opinion that the bombings of the two cities were acts of state terrorism is not that of a small minority; it is one that is widely held. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, particularly, I might suggest, it's a view widely held in Japan. But it's nice to hear that from an editor who works on Japan-related articles. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should certainly discuss this view, but we should not do it in an article dedicated to that view, but in a wider context where all the viewpoints can be represented, such as Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This is acceptable if it is not a POV fork, but a sub-article split from two others as a result of summary style - and it seems to me it is more the latter than the former. I accept that this could be a sufficiently notable topic for an article, and this one discusses it fairly neutrally; the main problem is the title, which seems to state a POV. I'm not sure how it could best be retitled to avoid that problem. It might be best if this were merged back into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; but I also think that with a bit of work, it could acceptably stand as its own article. Terraxos (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To which article, I am unsure. Lethesl 14:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Separating out viewpoints into different articles (Atomic bombing as a form of terrorism, Atomic bombing as a legitimate weapon of war, Atomic bombing as an essential part of foreign policy etc.) is a tried and true method of sneaking POV statements into Wikipedia. Let's stop it now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, nothing wrong with having POV statements in Wikipedia, per WP:YESPOV. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, Kendrick. There is however something wrong with having non-neutral statements in Wikipedia, which is what is usually meant by "POV". What is also wrong is having an article whose title implies a non-neutral POV, and which covers the same ground as another article but from a different viewpoint. That's what this is, and that's why it should be deleted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think that the debate over whether nuking these two cities was ethical and the debate over whether or not the nuking was terrorism are two separate, if related, matters. Whether or not something is terorism seems to me to be as much a question of tactics as it is one of ethics. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a pov fork, and per DJ Clayworth above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pov fork. Material covered in other articles.Ultramarine (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into "Debate over..."- it is covered and we don't require a whole article to elaborate on this. Trippz (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it would be helpful if editors weighted in at the merge discussion where consensus seems to be forming to merge the article into the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States article instead. Ultimately, I think at least the Atomic_bombings_of_Japan_as_a_form_of_state_terrorism#Forward_effects section will end up there if the AfD goes thru. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into "Debate over..." or "Allegations of state terrorism". The subject is better handled as part of a larger article where its rabid POV can be more effectively monitored. Nice touch nominating this around Memorial Day, by the way. Nice touch. Can't wait for 11/11, or 9/11.Noroton (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think some of the content is useful but the title tries to present it as something it isn't... I'm trying to thik of a better title so that some of this material could be reused... but Howard Zinn's views on the atomic bomb attacks or, the problem is I have no idea. In all probability the best option will be to merge all of this content into the pages by their individual authors... this article is far too weasel-y gren グレン 09:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. Merge any relevant information into Debate over the atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps leave a redirect in place, although I think that it is unlikely that anyone will use that phrase as a search term. Horologium (talk) 10:24, 29 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 "keep" opinions do not provide a reason why we should not observe the relevant guideline, WP:DAB#Partial title matches, in this case. WP:USEFUL is not enough: the guideline explicitly states that disambiguation pages are not search indices. Sandstein 10:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miserabilis[edit]

None of these topics exist, all point to genus and higher, and species epithats do not get their own pages anyway-- they always include the genus as well. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion proposal. A binomial name is the minimum that should be used to identify a species of animal or plant. Species epithets are not unique. For example, over 1000 species have the epithet "speciosa" or "speciosus" in their names.--Wloveral (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC) All text copied from article talk page. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree - serves no purpose. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The taxonomic literature is vast, and the number of specific names that have been used is also very large. Neelix is to be commended for his idea and effort, but I don't think this sort of article is practicable or, more to the point, encyclopedic. Tim Ross (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While none of these have separate articles, it doesn't seem unlikely that someone may search for this term. This article would point them to the discussion of each species, even if they're not species-specific articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems fairly reasonable that a readers may type in Miserabilis when looking for any of the entries on this page, if they had half remembered the name. Indeed they may even think that the bee or spider or butterfly they are seeking is actually called "miserabilis". IMHO this is an acceptable, if slightly marginal, use of a disambiguation page. Abtract (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Abstract. Disambiguous page are very useful when you don't have the exact page title, and you can't always create all the redirects needed. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete disambig pages are never used for every word in an article title. Ditto for scientific names. Shyamal (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems a clear violation of WP:DAB#Partial title matches. Deor (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAB#Partial title matches is particularly applicable when the topic is never or rarely referred to solely by the partial title. It is not that unusual to refer to the species name alone where the context is clear (and the original context can easily get lost these days).older ≠ wiser 12:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At worst this does no harm. At best, it is not that unusual to refer to the species name only when the context is clear--and considering how communications are so rapidly transmuted, it is quite easy for the original context to not be so clear. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a case of a partial title match. Species epithets can be used by themselves, as has been pointed out. As such, species epithet disambiguation pages are valid disambiguation pages. Neelix (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please cite a reliable scientific journal article that says that species epithet can be used by themselves. I believe that we can't use a user's opinion as this will be OR.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Miserabilis is merely a Latin adjective meaning "wretched"; it has no scientific significance in itself. We don't have articles with adjectival titles, and we shouldn't have such dab pages either. I've never seen species names "used by themselves", except perhaps in a journal article discussing multiple species of only one genus, and even then the almost invariable practice is to abbreviate, rather than omit, the genus name (as, for example, "A. miserabilis" for Andrena miserabilis). Organisms' binomial names are, in effect, inseparable compounds. Deor (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New data. Page Migratorius has just appeared. It also distinguishes species by only the species epithet. This is a disambiguation page where partial title match is once again in evidence.--Wloveral (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violation of WP:DAB#Partial title matches. Binomial nomeclature says that the species name is a two-part name. As Deor says, species names are meaningless on their own--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not uncommon for species in specialized literature to be referred to as "X. species", where X. is the first letter of the genus name and species is the species name (cf. "T. rex", "D. melanogaster"), but this would suggest that it would be useful to have a DAB page for, e.g., C. miserabilis, but not for "miserabilis" alone. Doing it this way seems to violate WP:DAB#Partial title matches. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviated scientific name should never be used except after a first complete name mention and there is little use for disambiguation pages with abbreviated names either. Shyamal (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's entirely possible someone has access to an excerpt or a portion of a document which does not include the "first use" in the text in question. In such a case, a DAB page for these could be very useful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that for some well-known species, it is likely that most people have heard of the abbreviated name and won't remember or be able to spell the full name (for example, E. coli, T. Rex). A redirect or disambiguation page would be very useful in such cases. --Itub (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what is under discussion here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is if we are discussing it. It's directly related to the discussion about this particular article and other similar ones, of which many are springing up, so it seems entirely on point. If you don't want to discuss it, I suggest you not discuss it; no one's forcing you to join the stream of discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "G. species" style of disambig is different from this specific-epithet-only style of disambig. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canus. --Itub (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we cannot encourage users in this style of searching, since it goes against 255 years of established worldwide scientific practice. It will only get worse, heaven forfend if people start wikilinking to it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete As with canus I don't believe any of these species are actually referred to as "Miserabilis" (feel free to prove me wrong), and thus this is merely a page on a latin word. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a latin dictionary, for that matter. Danski14^(talk) 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid disambig page. Can't see what harm it is doing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bduke (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Russell[edit]

This lady's sole claim to notability is that she placed sixth in a British reality show. While I'm sure it was the highlight of her life, this "achievement" does not warrant an entire article. See WP:BIO1E. Badger Drink (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah, WP:BIO1E applies here. I don't think this person is notable enough by herself. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination CultureDrone (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO1E; only notable for a reality show she didn't even place in. —97198 talk 02:59, 31 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 23:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acquitted (album)[edit]

Not notable. No release date. Little to no information/sources. -XxKibaxX Talk 13:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Future album release, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Check back when the album comes out. TN‑X-Man 14:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its cited. Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree!} 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cite is trivial in nature; it doesn't mention very much about the album. There are no other sources present to cite this (apparently delayed) album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC: needs substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Albums don't automatically fail WP:CRYSTAL just because they haven't been released. Right now the citation is trivial but there are dozens of other references that can be added. Unfortunately the album has been put off[11] for an unknown period of time so I would suggest a redirect to Akon so the article history can be easily preserved. A new article can be created as soon as a definite release date can be established. ~ Eóin (talk) 04:31, 20 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, AcroX 21:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No official release date and has been delayed for an unknown period of time. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. It can be recreated when an official day of release is stated by record company etc. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 14:39, 31 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Olson[edit]

Candidate for Congress with no other claims to notability. Way, way too soon for an article on this guy--if he wins the election (though he might be favored), maybe we can create an article on him. Blueboy 96 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO#Politicians - being a candidate does not confer notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. Only 4 gnews hits and only one is actually about him. Frank | talk 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In a 10-person primary, he finished second, qualifying for a runoff. The runoff was against the winner of the 2006 special election, who had therefore held the seat for a while, yet he beat her. This is enough of an achievement to merit a bio article. Furthermore, although the current state of the article doesn't reflect it, there was certainly coverage of him, as both the primary and the runoff drew press attention. JamesMLane t c 20:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - apparently, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs only won the special election to serve for < 2 months, and at the same time lost the general election for the following term. (An odd situation, I'd say.) Frank | talk 21:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Maybe he's going to be famous one day, maybe not. Until then, he doesn't need an article, for he, at this point, appears to fail WP:BIO. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political candidates are not notable unless/until they win. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note in response to this comment: He DID win the runoff and he is the nominee. And he is the odds on favorite to win the Congressional seat.--InaMaka (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It is ludicrous not to have an article about Pete Olson who is going to be the next Congressman from Sugar Land/Missouri City/Pearland/Clear Lake, Texas. He is going beat Nick Lampson, the Democrat, by a resounding margin. It is a majority Republican district and it has been held by Republicans for years and year, namely Tom Delay and Ron Paul. The district only voted in Lampson because the Republican, Gibbs, had to run a write in campaign--even then she almost beat Lampson in a write in campaign. Olson was endorsed by most of the Texas Republican Congressmen in the primary and in the run-off. Even Stuart Rothenberg states that this district is the best shot for a Republican takeover of a Democrat seat in Congress. There is plenty of press coverage of this race. It is already being followed by the national media because the Delay and Paul connections to the seat and the fact that Democrat will lose.--InaMaka (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. InaMaka and I have added citations showing coverage of Olson and assessment of this race as one of national importance. It's understandable that the local papers have covered it, but it's also been noted by national analysts Stuart Rothenberg and Electoral-vote.com (the latter of which links to our article about Olson). JamesMLane t c 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: elected official != notability. seicer | talk | contribs 01:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's true there are more sources now. But the sources are about the primaries and about the upcoming election. There are literally hundreds of these things around the country, and probably over a thousand candidates. They are not notable just because they are candidates. Some of these sources would be great if he is elected, so the information should be set aside until such time as he actually is. Otherwise, notability hasn't been established. Frank | talk 02:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting that we should keep articles about every political candidate, for every office, on every party's line. If you limit it to major-party candidates for the national legislature, though (and even add in candidates for Governor, in the U.S.), there are fewer than one thousand. Among them, Olson is more notable than most nonincumbents, having won a prominent multi-way primary. JamesMLane t c 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the math on this one. 435 house reps + 100 senators, 2 major parties...that's 1070 candidates right there. (Probably about half of them already have pages as incumbents, although not all seats have an incumbent in the race.) There are credible third-party candidates in some of those elections, and governors, and primaries, and "exploratory committees..." Even so, let's say it's "only" 500. That's still 500 pages we're talking about adding/keeping because someone may become notable later on if they win. I don't think that's how notability works. Wikipedia is not a news source. That's what Wikinews is for. Frank | talk 16:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The exact numbers aren't important, but, since you ask -- all 100 Senate seats are never contested. It's usually only 33 or 34, but 35 this year because of Craig Thomas's death. Even with 470 Congressional seats at stake, there won't be 940 candidates, because some incumbents will be unopposed. (For example, the Republicans may not be able to get anyone onto the ballot against Kerry. [12]) Also, quite a few of the nonincumbents have held other offices and have articles anyway. More broadly, I'm not arguing for keeping such articles because the person may become notable later on, but rather that the candidate is notable now, even if not eleccted. Presumably everyone agrees that merely contesting a significant election can be enough to establish notability, as in the case of Wendell Willkie, whose notability comes almost entirely from his failed campaign for the presidency. I believe that there's enough public attention to second-tier races that the same principle applies. I assess notability primarily from the standpoint of service to our readers. If a significant number of people will come to Wikipedia looking for information about someone, then we should provide that information if there are enough reliable sources to support an article. JamesMLane t c 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the math aside (and of course you're 100% correct about the Senate), I still think you've hit the nail on the head for me, actually. Since notability is not temporary, it seems right not to create an article about someone for whom notability hasn't been established. An analogy is a dictionary - words are not put into dictionaries immediately upon entering use in the language; there is some time needed to establish that a word is "notable" in the context of a dictionary before inclusion. I submit that the thought that people come to Wikipedia looking for a particular piece of information is not sufficient reason to place that information in Wikipedia for them to find. The subject must still be notable. (I recognize that the community is moving toward more lenient definitions lately, such as lists of programs on given cable TV stations, for example...) There is a very good project available for this - wikinews.org. Once the election cycle is over, it will be very clear which candidates are worthy of encyclopedic entries. Picking randomly, is the losing candidate in the, say, 1978 Ohio first Congressional district notable simply for running in that election? I don't think so. And 30 years from now, this candidate won't be - at least not for running in this election. If he becomes otherwise notable (such as by winning), by all means, this info would be worthy of inclusion. Frank | talk 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is sourced, and said race is a notable one. No one knows whether he can win or nor, but considering the race as one pitting a well-regarded Democrat in a staunchly Republican district against the guy, the race is notable. If he loses though, maybe then he's no longer notable.Ngchen (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well presented and well referenced article on human with real world relevance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable candidate in an important race for this cycle, as per Ngchen. -User:Umdunno —Preceding comment was added at 13:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per WP:BIO --> Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." as Pete Olson does. -User:Umdunno 13:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, normally political candidates are not in and of themselves notable, but since Olson is pretty much guaranteed to take this seat, it seems silly to delete it now only to recreate it after the election. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bduke (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead escape[edit]

The game is completely non-notable. For example, a Google search for "Dead Escape" (including quotation marks) does not return any information about the game in the first few hundred hits, never mind information that would establish notability. Adding "Danac" to the search criteria returns only links to the article and the creator's talk page. Furthermore, the article's creator and only substantial contributor is the creator of the game that is the subject of the article, in violation of WP:COI. —Latiligence (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note: I visited the game's official webpage, and not only does the game fail notability guidelines, as a finished work it doesn't even exist! I appreciate Dannac's desire to promote the project, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Strong delete. —Latiligence (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with the nominator there is nothing to be found out there on the game. Possible tag as Spam? ShoesssS ^Talk 20:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guideline. It doesn't qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SPAM because it's not an advert, but it's non-notable and contains no salvageable information. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for promoting your new product. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. Creator appears to be simultaneously writing the game itself and creating a Wikipedia page. When the game is released and reviewed independently, we can have a page for it. Frank | talk 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable game spam, per nom. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 05:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If I'd had the time to do a bit more digging before tagging this with a prod, I probably would have tried speedy tagging. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The game doesn't even exist yet per it's own website, and there's nothing that suggests it will be in any way notable once/if it does. --Onorem♠Dil 03:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's non-notable, badly written, an advert, shall I go on? It doesn't even exist?! Oh, not to mention it violates several Wikipedia policies, such as WP:CRYSTAL and WP:Notability, so yes, I think the page should be deleted.--EclipseSSD (talk) 15:29, 29 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, maybe later. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mythos Media[edit]

Article appears to be about a non-notable publishing company that does not meet WP:CORP. TN‑X-Man 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. The first sentence is also spammy. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with both Tnxman and PeterSymonds, it's just not notable enough to pass WP:CORP. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This 1 day old article looks and feels like WP:SPAM. The company is just not notable as of May 2008. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Artene50 (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mythos Media is the publisher of James Curcio's book Fallen Nation, which is the sequel to Join My Cult. Join My Cult is currently listed in Wikipedia, and Fallen Nation is mentioned. Why shouldn't the publisher of Fallen Nation be listed as well? Mythos Media also published subQtaneous, which featured Collide guitarist Scott Landis. subQtaneous has been reviewed in Regen Magazine - which is cited in the Wikipedia article - and Jive Magazine. It has also been featured on AlterTube. Mythos Media itself has been mentioned on Alterati, Greylodge and Key 64, all web sites with significant traffic. Mythos Media also published Veil of Thorns: Cognitive Dissonance, which was review by noted writer and critic Mick Mercer. And the first sentence that "seems spammy" was taken straight for the publisher's web site. I've made some changes to properly quote the first line and add in information about Mick Mercer's review. If there is anything else that you guys think is needed for this to pass the WP:CORP feel free to let me know. There are ton of links out there about items published by Mythos Media, including sources of noteable repute. I just figured I would be able to build this page slowly in my spare time.Szul2012 (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, I see a lot of people throwing in the delete word, but nobody giving a good explanation why, or offering ways to help make it (in their eyes) conform better to the WP:CORP. The WP:CORP says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Products by Mythos Media have been covered in Jive Magazine and reviewed by Mick Mercer, both notable, independent secondary sources. Is the company famous? No. But the WP:CORP guidelines differentiate between "notability" and "fame." Szul2012 (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.29.66 (talk) [reply]
Keep, albeit weakly, and some of the promotional style language could be profitably edited. While notability may not be inherited, this does appear to be a publisher of some fairly widely distributed works of popular culture. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. User:Szul2012 above is correct in that products of this company have been covered, but the company itself does not appear to have received much attention, which I believe is the important bit in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - The delete side has shown there are reasonably big issues with WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOR. -Djsasso (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barone Francesco Gauci[edit]

Turgid mess about a non-notable Maltese granted an honorific title of nobility for life. Strangely enough, the article has zero biographical information about Gauci (and sources describing more seem near to nonexistent); it is entirely about the granting of the title, a large section dating a hundred years later describing the order of precedence such titles should be accorded, and a great deal of original research concerning where Gauci's descendants, if any, should rank. Fails WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:SYN. Ravenswing 19:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*NB: And, for those with more energy today than me, the creator has thrown up a bunch of these articles concerning obscure Maltese noble titles; see Category:Maltese_nobility Ravenswing 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Delete per nom. What is it about WP that attracts self-appointed geneologists with their incoherent ideas about "nobility"?

andy (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Self-appointed????" Have you bothered to check my web site called www.maltagenealogy.com?? I guess you haven't. I have been around for 20 years, ten of those on the net. I am well known to much of the world renown researchers in Europe. Further Comment: The sources which the administrator is saying are "unreliable" include the record of each grant found at the National Library of Malta, the findings of a Royal Commission and published by the House of Lords, other official correspondences presented to the House of Lords, as well as the official records found in a number of previously reigning houses and the records of one still reigning house (Spain). There is no reason to delete. - If however the real objection is only that some of the text is in Italian, Latin, French, Spanish or Maltese, then the relative translations (or synopsis) will be introduced over the next period. User talk:Tancarville 1708;, 25 May 2008 (EST)

Save Have you actually checked those references???????? Don't make any judgement till you have seen the works. This has been references in the highest sense. Tancarville
Comment - most of this editor's articles, including this one, are clones of each other with only the title changed. If you've read one of them you've read all of them. At the very least they should all be merged back into Maltese nobility. andy (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The verifiable references are available in the texts, so either (1) they probably don't understand the concept of "untitled nobility" or (2) maybe they're simply annoyed with too much latin and italian text.

Why don't you just ask them if it's ok if the article links to the italian and dutch equivalents so that they get a better idea of "patrician" etc? All the titles are "notable", because they testify the historic culture of the Maltese people. If ok, the articles will be improved. Further more, I am sadden that the above people have not bothered to see the importance of a small country and it history. I do agree that maybe in this case, the name should change to Barone Gauci rather Barone Francesco Gauci due to the limitation of a biograpghy. Tancarville, 18.04; 24 May 2008. 1. It was Wikipedia who asked Tancarvile to improve the articles. Tancarville has started to do this. The emphasis is to highlight the historical relevance and issues concerning each title.

2. All recent updates contain a precise reference to the grants. Checking each and every reference for this arcane subject, in no less than five languages, is no easy task. Postitive criticism from a Wikipedia administrator is appreciated but vindictive undermining is not. There is always room for improvement.

3. Each title has its own history. In regard to those which were created by the Grand Masters who ruled Malta, the "remainders" vary in their meaning and effect. For this reason it was thought best to quote verbatim the respective remainders, and this in Latin i.e. the original text.

4. The fact that titles are no longer recognized at law in Malta, does NOT mean that they have been abolished.

5. In regard to the foreign titles of nobility which were recognized by the Grand Masters, these are by far even more complex, not only because of the 1739 ad 1795 legislation, but also because the most of the original fons honorum have long gone (with the exception of the King of Spain).

6. It is a useless exercise to merge all titles into one group. At best, one can identify different classifications. (For example, the 1878 Royal Commission classified Rohan's creations into 3 groups). - But in fairness's sake, this is an exercise which could only be done once all the relative information is up and runnning.

7. If anybody has issues with the fact that by 1800 Malta had an advanced form of Nobility, that is his/her problem. - Facts are facts.

8. Tancarville has also made available the FULL texts in *.pdf format of the 1878 Royal Commission and official correspondence.

9. Whilst the 1878 Commission's findings are regarded as authoritative, some aspects required revisiting not only because of some apparent errors and contradictions found in the Report itself, but also because of subsequent developments.

10. Moreover, at the end of each title's description, there is a list of direct and indirect proofs of each title's legitimacy and authoritative documentation, emphasising the Primary source and moving downards in terms of (relative) importance.

11. It is definitely not true that the only difference between one title and the other is "a change in the date an heading". Some may be very similar, but others are radically different.

12. Old general legislation (i.e. pre-1800) is quoted in full for the convenience of the reader. If anybody ventures a argument or claim in respect of any one of the titles, he/she might as well be reminded of the general pitfalls. This "problem", which is common to all updated entries, can be solved by the simple expedient of setting up a separate page.

13. If Wikipedia's administrators want to get some sort of warped pleasure out of creating unnecessary polemics, simply because they are jealous of the Maltese nation's historic identity, let them please delete the whole lot.User talk:Tancarville 1:08;, 26 May 2008 (EST)

Save. The Barone Francesco Gauci is a historical figure in Malta as he served as the "Capitano della Verga of Malta" towards the period of the French and the English. It is important that this profile stays intact with further improvements. I believe the person who put this profile into deletion didnt give any chance for it to be evolved. These sorts of works take time to be produced and to have it "Wikified" standard. Highly recommand that instead of putting pages into deletion in such a hurry, think before you act. I firmly believe that User talk:Tancarville has put alot of time and effort with "Primary", "Secondary" and "Teritary" base references. Please see sense and make comments rather then delete. User talk:Tancarville is a recogisable genealogist and historian in Malta. User talk:Count Gauci 22:09;, 26 May 2008 (EST) — Count Gauci (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Alright ... here we go. First off, almost all the non-self-published sources Tancarville cites are unavailable for review to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, which debars them from qualifying as reliable sources. For the non-English language texts, WP:V holds the following: "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher ... Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."

Secondly, while Tancarville holds himself out as a renowned geneaologist on his own and a number of websites, no reliable sources say so. A G-search for "Charles Said-Vassallo" turns up only 83 unique hits, all of them various webpages. There are zero hits on Google Scholar for him, something of an ominous sign. WP:V further holds:

"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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (emphasis in the original)

So far, and in violation of WP:V, we are taking Tancarville's unsupported word for the existence of the sources he claims and for the accuracy of the information he gives on his website ... and startlingly, we have been doing so for years now. It's also an ominous sign how readily he accuses anyone questioning his sources or seeking to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines to his articles of being "vindictive" or having some animus towards Malta, and I'd appreciate some answers that don't boil down to "How dare you?" Ravenswing 14:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said on the other current AfD, the article fails WP:V through the failure to identify the sources provided. The article fails WP:N because no one has found sufficient coverage of the subect, either from the sources or on the internet. The lack of verifiability gives way to original research concerns, but the most significant concerns here are WP:V and WP:N. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have concerns about claims made before and all "references" here are housed on the user's website. Also, the user's attitude, as seen above, disturbs me and doesn't convince me that these articles should exist. Charles 18:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of vaguely-notable nobles. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not convinced the "barone" even makes one notable. Is it something like a baronet? Bearian (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:N issues are insurmountable. Quale (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that in the unsourced condition, and fuzzy inclusion criteria, the list suffers from original research problems. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of physics-based computer and video games[edit]

Patent original research. Games are added or removed from the list based on some gut feeling of what uses more physics. ~~See the article's discussion page and recognize that this list based entirely on the personal opinion of a few editors.~~ Zero references to establish the notability, verifiability, or neutrality of any of the information in this list. This article fails on all fundamental planks of wikipedia policy and is absolutely without redemption. Strong delete. Randomran (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the nom, I see the talk page as a reasonable discussion of what the content should be, in order to achieve a consensus on that. That's where the discussion belongs. Not here. DGG (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's nothing wrong with discussion. My point is that the discussion shows that this list is based on original research:

Editor #1: Arent virtually all 3D video/computer games "physics-based"? The list seems very redundant, and not very helpful since it is so short.

Editor #2: No. Many games utilize some physics (eg gravity on the player), but very few games make a point of actually basing the gameplay heavily on physics-calculated objects.

At any rate, the discussion is not the basis of this deletion. I've struck out that part of my reasoning since it's distracting from the main point. My basis is WP:OR.Randomran (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The phrase "important aspect of gameplay" is highly subjective and therefore it fails to have clear criteria. I suggest that most if not all modern games fit into this criteria and therefore the list fails on being too general and indiscriminate. However if the games can be sourced it can probably be merged ewith Physics engine. --neonwhite user page talk 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very subjective inclusion and a giant load of games nowadays utilize physics in some fashion (first person shooters anyone?). Fails WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOR. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I appreciate the idea behind this list, but it is WP:OR, and increasingly redundant as physics-based gameplay becomes commonplace. An article on the subject may be feasible, but this list isn't it. Marasmusine (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate (due to subjective inclusion criteria), unverifiable and original research. Jakew (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discrminate and verifiable that like a category or table of contents provides a navigation benefit for editors that does not fall under "original research" criteria. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely unreferenced. --neonwhite user page talk 22:32, 26 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 to keep the article.

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Malta)[edit]

~~Violation of WP:CRYSTAL~~; Malta has yet to release any commemorative coins, ~~nor has it announced that any are planned.~~ Would not be prejudiced to recreation if/when Malta actually does release said coins. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Striking; a source has been provided that demonstrates Malta has commemorative coins in the works. Suggest a speedy keep. Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:CRYSTAL; even some countries that do have such coins don't have entire separate articles for them. Could be re-created if such coins ever are released. — λ (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that a source for a specific, planned release date has been added. — λ (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – Please check the template ((Euro coins (collectors edition))) It will be extremely odd that Malta is the only country there in red (with no article) or removed from the list of countries of the eurozone. There is a group of Wikipedians working hard on these articles, and eventually they will be all created. So why deleting Malta? WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here, since the article is saying the truth: Malta does not have yet commemorative coins since they just joined the eurozone. I will put dates with references to when those coins will be released if that helps. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see plenty of other countries on that list that are red links, like Germany and Netherlands. Is there any reason that Malta should have an article before the other countries? — λ (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other articles are red because we have not got round to creating them, I don't have a reason why Malta was created before the others but it was.The reason this article was listed as an article for deletion is that Parsecboy believes it violates WP:CRYSTAL.

I think Miguel.mateo point is that if this article was to be deleted based on WP:CRYSTAL then when all the other articles are created we would still not be able to have one for Malta because it would still be violating WP:CRYSTAL and would remain red when the others are not.Kevin hipwell (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I nom-ed this article was because the version of the article at the time I created the nomination was essentially empty of any usable information. One could create a limitless number of articles about "____ doesn't have ____ yet, but it will someday". However, since Miguel has added a source showing that Malta is set to release 200k coins in September, CRYSTAL no longer applies, hence my striking of my nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it doesnt make sense to delete this article, Malta in the coming weeks will start to issue commemorative coins, its not like malta has to join the euro first - so come on, it just a template that will be used soon plus giving an actual picture that malta has no euro comm coins yet--Melitikus (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A link has been added that announces the release of such coins: since there's a source for it, it's rather similar to topics such as the 2008 Summer Olympics that also haven't happened yet but are planned. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I agree with Miguel.mateo, the fact that Malta has not released Euro gold and silver coins is informative, I think it is only reasonable to assume that any reader that has viewed the sister articles would expect to find information on Maltese Euro gold and silver commemorative coins in this article where they will learn that Malta has not issued any.

This article is not attempting to predict future history and WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to this article.

I will agree that the article is short but is that enough of a reason for it to be deleted?Kevin hipwell (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Announcement that coins will be issued neans it is going to be expanded, and thus is needed. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bduke (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habba Syndrome[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability and seems promotional. Only one reference in the entire medical literature: Habba SF (August 2000). "Chronic diarrhea: identifying a new syndrome". Am. J. Gastroenterol. 95 (8): 2140–1. PMID 10950089.

Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – I am going to error on the side of caution here. If it is indeed a legitimate Syndrome that in its own right makes it suitable for inclusion here at Wikipedia. However, the contention by some experts in the the medical community, as listed here, [13] is that this is not a “New Syndrome” at all. Until that is sorted out, I would like to see the article stay. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – Seems like there is only one reference by one author who named the (debatable) syndrome after himself. The article reads entirely like self-promotion, and is not up to Wikipedia's quality guidelines. Delete, unless further references or corroboration by other researchers or medical professionals can be provided. The brief debate linked to by ShoesssS occurred in 2001, and there are no signs of notability since then. — λ (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the only citations are people objecting to the syndrome, it is fair to say that the existence of it is not recognized in the medical community. It would take pretty strong evidence to persuade me of the notability of a symptom, or method, or equation, or anything else that the inventor or describer named after himself. We don't have to sort it out. If the GI specialists sort it out and adopt this as a standard name for something distinctive, then and only then it would be appropriate for an article. At this point, just a proposed and quite unlikely neologism. DGG (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, if DGG thinks it should be deleted, then what am I as a hardcore deletionist to say? :) One citation just doesn't do it for a standalone article. It may be worth mentioning in our article on diarrhea or malabsorption, but I don't see the notability for a standalone. And it will be a permastub, since there are no more reliable sources. If someone besides Habba publishes on Habba syndrome, then let's re-create it. BTW, eponyms (at least novel ones) are pretty strongly deprecated in medicine these days, so I'd not be surprised to see this syndrome renamed. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a proposal by one physician that is not widely accepted, therefore not currently encyclopedic per se (gosh, I can't believe I just used that adjective but I believe it applies here..) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have no access to Habba's original description, but seems to be of unestablished nosology, existence has been contradicted, and our present page bizarrely claims that cholecystectomy does not alter the disease process (despite claims that it is a dysfunctional gall bladder that causes the symptoms to begin with). Agree with MastCell that the article can always be recreated when it is more established. JFW | T@lk 06:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. [14] Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TekSavvy[edit]

The company isn't notable. It fails WP:CORP. Delete GreenJoe 18:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree – no reliable – verifiable – notable information on the company that I can find. Other than the company does exist. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, IMO could have been a speedy delete candidate. PKT (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried that, it was turned down. GreenJoe 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TekSavvy has been covered on (atleast) one of Canada's major TV newscasts, CBC's The National. I don't feel that coverage qualifies as "Trivial or incidental." You can see the coverage at: [15]. They have also been covered numerous times on Broadband Reports with much deeper coverage, another independent news source.Taylor (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. The CBC article you cite is about Bell using "throttling" on its network, and Teksavvy is one of many customers affected by the practice. It so happens that the newscast chose to use Teksavvy as the representative example. I believe the story itself described Teksavvy as "tiny". PKT (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still have to disagree. If the coverage happened to just mention their name in say a list, I think that would be "trivial or incidental", but to send camera's out to their office, interview the CEO, they were pretty prominent. The National isn't advertising, it's never going to be about the company, it's going to be about issues that involve a company. Also if you look at WP:CORP#Primary_criterion it outlines what is trivial coverage, it's talking about things like phone numbers or shopping hours, not CEO interviews. I also note that the notability policy says nothing about the size of the organization, only that it has received such coverage; I also personally don't think 50,000 customers is tiny. That's also only one particular piece of coverage, TekSavvy specifically was covered on the Broadband Reports news pages multiple times. It may not be a major news outlet, but it's still an independent news organization. A bit of Googling will also turn up more small news outlets that have talked about them. Taylor (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And, despite Taylor's argument, TekSavvy was not the subject of that piece. That is incidental coverage. Reso lute 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that Broadband Reports meets WP:RS, but I could be mistaken. They have been covered in the MSM, but only incidentally in regards to protests organized by the CEO again throttling.[16], [17], [18]. DigitalC (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; a small Canadian ISP, receiving at best incidental coverage in non-tech-related media. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unremarkable ISP, secondary coverage is incidental at best. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) --MPerel 23:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student Christian Movement of Canada[edit]

Non-notable student organization. Fails WP:ORG. Has little to no references. Delete GreenJoe 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This was an important group in Toronto in the 1960s, and was involved in a variety of "radical" (at least liberal or left-leaning) movements of the time. They also ran the best book store in Toronto for a dozen or so years, until they decided to get out of that business and allowed the manager, Bob Miller, to take it over under his own name. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Article has been around since 2005! It is well written – referenced and establishes Notability just based on its history. Likewise, they have generated enough media attention, as shown here [19] to meet our guidelines. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs to be rescued though. Don't have time right now but I'm sure that there are citations available where it has been asked for.--Pmedema (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A search of Google Scholar and Google Books indicates several references to this organization, including at least one book (Beatie, Margaret A Short History of the Student Christian Movement in Canada). I don't have access to all of the references right now, and know very little about the subject, so I can't add them myself, but with a little work and some more citations, I think that this will be a perfectly fine article. It is a relatively well written article about a reasonably notable organization, that just needs a little cleanup and a lot of work on references. — λ (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a long-established organization operating on a national scale. --Eastmain (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while not as important, or as well-known, now as they used to be they do have a long and notable history that can be sourced. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous editors said it best...and first. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent reliable sources about this group eg. book resources: [20][21][22] Slp1 (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why this article being considered for deletion when its a bonafide national Canadian organization? Its notable enough. Artene50 (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plentiful independent coverage asserts notability. WilliamH (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable org, sufficient sourcing. --Soman (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - National organization with significant student membership. Reliable sources can be found (I added a few myself).--Eclipse98 (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nominator accused me of COI (saying that it was improper for the creator of the article to remove a speedy--but I was not the creator ). Then when I pointed this fact out, he alleged that the ((db-spam)) tag prohibited anyone someone from removing it (which is false...just look at the directions on the tag itself). I have already informed User:GreenJoe of this.--Eclipse98 (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to this AfD discussion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator was rude, accused me of violating policy (when it was he who was violating policy), and tried to improperly manipulate wikipedia's rules to achieve his desired goal: deleting this article. I felt the nominator's actions pertaining to this AFD went beyond normal standards of conduct, and that information would be useful to editors considering this AFD.--Eclipse98 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be true, but in this case the alleged conduct does not appear to be relevant to the discussion, which involves the notability of the article subject. If you have issues with GreenJoe, this isn't the place to air them. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable organization. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The Student Christian Movement is (or at least has been) an extremely important movement. I cannot speak of the Canadian movement specifically, but have no reason to suppose that it is not like those of other countries. I happen to take a diametrically oppose view to SCM on many issues, but that is irrelevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:07, 25 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 rouge deletion (admitted hoax). ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange bellied pike[edit]

This animal or the book cited as a reference does not seem to exist outside of Wikipedia. Madlobster (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changed to speedy delete below) unless reliable third party sources can be located. I'm really horrified by how many longstanding hoaxes are being discovered on Wikipedia as of late. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism; so tagged. ... discospinster _talk 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems like a really elaborate hoax (so much so that I imagine the speedy will be declined). The giveaway for me is the orange belly: the reason behind it doesn't make sense, and the pike in the picture doesn't have an orange belly. The only ghits are copies of the same list of fish some aquarium-keeper wants. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be hoax. No ghits under any spelling I have tried. Rmhermen (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Endorsed. When this is "Poof... Obliterated", might as well get rid of File:Orangebelliedpikeage.jpg as well. --Pmedema (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - LOL, I have to admit the author did a great job. But difenitly a hoax. However, a lot of time and effort went into the piece. Someone please talk to the author and get him on our side. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~G3 Fishy hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Strong delete as fishy hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just declined the speedy on it - it seemed to me too complex (or elaborate as Anturiaethwr said) to be classed as "obvious" but I still believe it to be a hoax. nancy ^(talk) 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Definitely appears to be a hoax; no Google hits for either the supposed common name or scientific name. — λ (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not quite a G3 speedy. To me it appears to be a fairly clear hoax, however. A relatively thorough Google search does not show any results relating to this species. Also the book cited and some of the logic in the article seems gives evidence of falsity. It was funny, and I have to agree with Shoessss; this is a writer who's got some talent. :) --JamieS93 19:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh for crying out loud, give me a break. WP:IGNORE the "rules" and improve our encyclopedia. This is a hoax and no one here disputes it. SPEEDY DELETE. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as hoax. Also note that the poster of the fish photo, and the bogus graph (same User talk:Nogard) has also posted an image of what looks to me like a capybara, but named it "Mooserat" (no valid ghits either). -- Alexf⁴² 20:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear hoax. Need I say more? --63.64.30.2 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. This diff, with an edit summary of "heh", is all you need to read. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please - I made this page with the help of my AP biology class. Our teacher is not as good as he could be. We made this because he gave us an assignment to research an animal. We made this to spite him. We would greatly appreciate it if this could stay up until about a week after the assingment is due. We need to turn it in on Friday the 30. If this could stay up until June 6, we would all be greatful. The Mooserat was made so that we wouldn't all do the same animal. Please consider leaving it up just for another two weeks. Feel free to take it down afterward. We can add it to the category Ficticous animals. Thank you all very much for the complements on our efforts. Nogard —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 23 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. I note that the article is largely a copyvio of this link, and so Speedy Deletion Criteria G12 (Copyvio) may apply as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Peters, Leicester, Leicestershire[edit]

Seems to be non-notable. Previously speedy-delete tagged for A1, but then the article was expanded by author. I'm not opposed to keeping the article if it's revamped and references added (there appear to be a couple of refs out there after Google searching it). But I'm bringing this to the community because of possible non-notability concerns. JamieS93 17:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make a Stub – Sorry to say, the town and medieval church do deserve an article here at Wikipedia. Sorry to say, this is not the article. Typically, I would try and save it, but this needs to be totally scraped – research done – and rewritten from the first word to the last period. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the current state unsalvageable. No sources, filled with OR and terribly written. Moreover, the subject is very poorly indentified. Are they talking about a city neighborhood? If yes, why is it notable? Nsk92 (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is a settlement by this name, then it is legitimate, but the article as it currently stands is merely about a council estate, i.e., a block of flats and some houses which isn't at all notable, and the article is basically an essayist commentary WP:COATRACK on the estate's gang problems. WilliamH (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bduke (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ircd-ratbox[edit]

Completely unreferenced, non notable irc daemon, slightly modified version of ircd-hybrid. SQL ^{Query me!} 17:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hybrid IRC client ("client" LULZWHATANIDIOT) which has received no reputable third party coverage. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in third party reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bduke (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carlin (radio presenter)[edit]

insufficient notability; poor sourcing with no other sourcing found to establish notability - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also some very volatile information I can't make sense of; likely violates WP:BLP~~ I deleted it. Looks like it came from a tabloid. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it lacks reliable secondary sources, fails notability, and fails verifiability in all but the least useful ways. That he has some fans or a sense of humor does not in and of itself make him notable. - Dravecky (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Dravecky. --Rodhull andemu 06:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I emailed the subject and he replied with his upset regarding what he calls libellous information, suggests the supporting citations are made up, does not consider himself notable per Wikipedia's standards, and suspects old fellow classmates who "haven't grown up". I am putting a notice up on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing notability. (and if notability considered marginal, per wishes of the LP that the B refers to, per BLP policy) ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I believe this article barely should be kept. There are enough references to support this article.--LAA Fan 22:21, 28 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 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longest English sentence[edit]

Appears to be mostly original reasearch, and I really don't see any notability for a single entry in the Guiness Book of Records. Orphaned as well. Bringing to AfD simply becuase of how long the article has existed - created in 2003. Reso lute 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. Most of the claims are sourceable, but they are just claims. There is coverage of the concept as being undefinable in several books, and our article should be based on that, with a list being supplementary rather than definitive. --Dhartung | Talk 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have done some cleanup and added a reliable source. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any article this could be merged into? --neonwhite user page talk 17:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why merge, its a distinct topic. DGG (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nice little article. Good start on the references. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like it's been saved - needs even more cleanup, but it's not OR anymore, and cited pretty well. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic topic with a number of reliable sources. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced and notable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "there may be no absolute limit"? "at least one linguistics textbook"? No, I'm fairly sure it is the general consensus of linguists that there is definitely no such thing as "the longest English sentence", and the very suggestion that there could be one is ridiculous. The very sources the article cites say so. --Ptcamn (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In its current state, however, the article seems to be about the longest attested English sentence (which certainly does exist somewhere and can be theoretically be verified), not the longest possible English sentence (which thanks to recursion cannot exist). —Angr 13:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. The first section of the article is all about syntax. The last, unreferenced paragraph is about attested sentences, and it hints at the silliness of defining "sentence" as "anything between a pair of full stops". If it was rewritten to genuinely be about the longest attested "sentence", there wouldn't be much of an article left (not that there's much of one now). --Ptcamn (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Enough references have been given, valid topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:21, 27 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnxman307 (talk • contribs) 17:15, May 23, 2008

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/George Brumley, Jr.

George Brumley, Jr.[edit]

I am unable to verify anything within this article. The text is probably a copyright violation, it looks as if the verbiage was just lifted wholesale from somewhere else and then vandalized. By ten year olds. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright violation from three sources, so tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 16:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as G3-Vandalism: Hoax from Nigerian scam. -- Alexf⁴² 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-AFD comment in the event of future recreation. The scam you point to uses his name, but the man was very real, as are many of the people in Nigerian scam letters. There was nothing in the deleted article soliciting money or directly resembling a scam. --Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 23 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 (non-admin closure) by User:PeterSymonds per CSD G7 page blanking. WilliamH (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lavandeira[edit]

Three articles by the same author Taran Wanderer (talk · contribs) about supposed "independent areas" of Teixeiro, a small town in Galicia, northern Spain. They have been challenged as a hoax by Xabier Cid, an admin on the Galego Wikipedia, who says "The contents of these articles are completely untrue" - see discussion on the talk pages. There is a total lack of any supporting reference, nor can I find any on the internet (except in es:Teixeiro to which they were added by the same author and an anonymous IP) or the on-line mapping services, e.g. Yahoo. Only the A Viridiña article provides any link, and that is the website of a Teixeiro restaurant and does not mention A Viridiña.

These are the Galego names; the articles were originally created under the Castilian Spanish names Pueblo Lavanda, Ciudad Carmín and La Viridiana, but there is no record of those either (except that the first two names are places in the Spanish version of Pokemon!).

Yes, they coincide with the names of two Pokemon fictional places, WE KNOW! we were victimized because of that about a decade ago by neighboring towns, such as Curtis. That's why one was renamed shortly afterwards, the other stayed that way because it had been named that way for centuries. :) T.W. (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the hoax evidence is compelling, we do not actually need to decide that; the complete absence of references mean that these districts of a small town are not notable and the detailed information provided about them, even if true, is original research by the author. There is nothing verifiable to merge, so Delete all; if any verifiable information should later be found it can be added to Teixeiro. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Xabier Cid, these articles are false. There are no such places in Teixeira.--Arco de Rayne (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles do not concerne places in Teixeira; Teixeiro is a small town in northern Spain, and no, the articles are not false. T.W. (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no objection to the articles being deleted due to the fact that it is true some of their information is mistaken and I can't find any online references to back them up. There are very little sources from which to gather information, which makes accuracy difficult. On the other hand, it must be perfectly understood that the articles are not frauds or hoaxes of any kind. =) Since you have my approval and I am the original author, it is fine to nominate them for speedy deletion, if you prefer. T.W. (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, it is clear that I am not the only one who is aware about the social division of the town of Teixeiro. Someone else with an anonymous IP address apported the information to the Galician Wikipedia a very long time ago, and I had never previously edited there until only a few days ago. Oh, and the Galician name for Greenitry is not "A Viridiña", but "A Viridiana.", just like "La Castellana" is "A Castellana." T.W. (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bduke (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Leisure 2008[edit]

Was tagged with ((db-spam)) and later was contested by the author. I'd like to request for speedy deletion again, but can't find the appropriate one. So here it is. A non-notable future event which hasn't been occurred (the event is scheduled in June 2008). I'd say delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dekisugi (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lu na ke et 16:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a advertising a local event of dubious notability. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly (though I doubt it) reassess after the event. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google doesn't reveal anything convincing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The web urls for article suggests some copyright infringement. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and can't predict if this contest will have a lasting influence. Maybe, in 1 or 2 years time, we'd know the answer. Artene50 (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google does mention the location of the subject, China, but I wouldn't agree that's enough to establish notability for the whole article. --RyRy5 (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just prod-ed the article, went to warn the user and realised from the warnings there that the article was already here at AFD (the afd template having been removed from the article a few days ago). Wholeheartedly concur with the comments here, no notability. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 12:21, 27 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 After improvement it's clear that this album meets WP:MUSIC. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Hours (Little River Band album)[edit]

no charting, no other notability; only a track listing - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ as in WP:MUSIC. I'd requested it. No shown reliable sources for this subject. Dekisugi (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing in the article appears to assert notability for the album itself as a separate entity from the band. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator as a vacant article + track list. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC; insufficient notability for a standalone album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with keep, on account of WP:MUSIC's Albums section. In short, an album is likely notable if the band is notable, but if it's little more than a track listing, it may be merged to a discography or main article space permitting. Beyond that, the album is a valid LRB album, and, well, LRB are themselves notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources or assertion of notability; fails WP:MUSIC. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Attempted to assert notability of album, although unsure if my sources are reliable. Thanks. Wolfer68 (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new, improved version. Good work -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- what is now a decent stub article on an album from a notable band. - Longhair\^talk 09:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as album from notable band. Meets WP:MUSIC plus I can remember them.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for other keep items above - I can remember them well Satu Suro 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable album by a notable band. Meets WP:MUSIC easily. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep a notable album, by a notable band (Little River Band were inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame in 2004) - single released from the album charted - all of which clearly establishes its notablity. Dan arndt (talk) 04:39, 27 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 cuz truth be told, we don't even know if this is the same guy or not. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzy B[edit]

There are a few passing mentions of a Jazzy B on Google News, but not this Jazzy B. It doesn't appear that this Jazzy B meets either WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC as I can find zero in the way of reliable third party coverage here. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale I've provided as nominator. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article asserts notability (I think, with the hit album reference) but, it needs 3rd party reliable sources for verifiability. If the hit album doesn't assert notability please consider the keep above to be changed to a delete as I'm away from any sort of computer for the next several days. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Klausness (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Klausness (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject should not be confused with Jazzie B, the music producer and founder of Soul II Soul. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is asserted but not in a proven way (not sourced or verifiable) ultimately after this is deleted it should be redirected to the "Jazzie B" webpage. JBsupreme (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google news archives yield a fair number of hits, including articles from the New York Times and Times of India, both of which I've added as external links. There's more that could be added, but these seemed to be from the two most reliable sources, and significant coverage in two reliable sources is enough to keep the article. Klausness (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IP address 67.82.28.83 just left the following note on the talk page: "Dont delete this page. He is a legitimate artist with some big hits. However, the article needs to be expanted". Klausness (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, secondary coverage by the NYT and Times of India means that this person meets WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted - an assertion of notability only makes it non-speediable if it's an actual genuine assertion of actual genuine notability. None of the claims appear to be actual, or genuine. _GB^T/C 16:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article salted to prevent recreation. _GB^T/C 16:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Wanless[edit]

I've already speedied a different version of this article, but the current version - despite being a hoax - does have a genuine assertion of notability. Apparent hoax autobiography. — iridescent 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt to prevent this damn hoax from popping up again. Ban the article creator if necessary. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm convinced that none of the claims to notability in this article are true; the one relevant ghit confirms that he's a young model looking for work. That's all. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to protect against recreation. The person does seem to exist but, as Anturiaethwr said, none of the claims to notability mentioned in the article hold up when attempting verification. Nsk92 (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per User:Coccyx Bloccyx. If it stops being a hoax or the person actually gains notability than the article can be created anew.Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kunle Eluhanla[edit]

Article has been flagged for failing to assert notability since October 2007. Any notability of the subject is tied up in the deportation event - which was more than 2 years ago. Subject therefore fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Also suspect precedent for other "deportees". (Unsure why this subject is any more notable than innumerable other deportees from innumerable other jurisdictions.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BLP1E is correct and I cannot find any lasting coverage of the subject to suggest any encyclopedic notability. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E seems to apply here, as above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eluhanla's deportation was overturned, weeks after the fact, because of public pressure brought to bear on the Irish government by a campaign organised specifically to reverse his deportation. I can't think of a similar case in Ireland, and I'd say it's pretty unusual for anywhere. Is that not notable? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect This seems a somewhat notable incident, but this article seems doomed to be a permanent stub as there is unlikely to be any new information forthcoming. But where to merge to? perhaps here? Beeblbrox (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A clear case of WP:BLP1E. Snappy56 (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E applies here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Sandstein 10:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydnee Capri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This pornstar is back after AfD deletion. New notability claims still don't satisfy WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a multi AVN award nominee who has starred in nearly 100 films I would say that satisfies WP:BIO if not "PORNBIO". You can have one without the other. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pornbio says "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards", AVN Awards is on that list and in the article it lists "2006 AVN Award Nominee for Best Anal-Themed Feature and Best Anal-Themed Series", "2007 AVN Award Nominee for Best Interracial Release" and "Best Ethnic-Themed Series category at the 2008 AVN Awards Show". Is this not an assertion of notability? Darrenhusted (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those are about the films themselves, not about her. Capri herself has not been nominated for anything as far as I can see. Dismas|^(talk) 15:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The films she appeared in got the nominations. She was not nominated. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete. If I'm reading WP:PORNBIO correctly, an AVN award would satisfy the first bullet point, but only if she (not the films she was in) had won an award. That does not appear to be the case. AnturiaethwrTalk 15:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She does not appear to satisfy WP:PORNBIO since it was only the films she starred in, not she herself, that were nominated for AVN awards. I don't think there is enough independent coverage mentioned in the article to argue that she passes the general WP:BIO guideline either. Nsk92 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet the relevant notability guideline - as she has not been nominated for the awards herself. An analogy would be arguing that the person playing "Nehru's Friend" in Ghandi is notable because the film won an Oscar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge, cuz nobody else ever wanted to do it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanship[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:FICT; unnotable term used the Last Exile series. This unreferenced article reads like a personal essay with some WP:OR thrown in and a ton of plot recounting. No significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to warrant its existence. Failed PROD with no reason for deprodding given. Collectonian (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Collectonian (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Last Exile. Significant part of the setting. Edward321 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was probably Merge like the three identical afds carried out at the same time; no one bothered responding to them all. Doceirias (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Last Exile. Asserts no notability through non-trivial coverage by reliable verifiable secondary sources. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Last Exile, not notable in the wider world on its own, but seems to be an important part of that series. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A bit tempted by the redirect proposal by Dhartung, but this page on Yahoo answers (which admittedly is not the most reliable of sources) states that the origin of "USS" in front of Star Trek ships has never been canonically stated, hence the content is not really verifiable, only based on a consensus among Star Trek fans. I am therefore declining placing the redirect for now, unless someone has a better argument for placing it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United star ship[edit]

Wikipedia is not a glossary or acronym guide. Contested prod; author removed the prod template and copied a large section of tangential information from Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek, presumably an attempt to forestall deletion (I've since removed the copied material). I'm a fan of Star Trek myself, but I just don't see how this article is useful. Powers ^T 15:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obviously non-notable as it's a minor tidbit of in-universe information. Extremely doubtful reliable secondary sources have ever devoted any sort of coverage to the designation itself. There is nothing to merge, and this is not a likely search term so redirect is inappropriate. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek. Google currently finds Starship Enterprise rather easily, but the more general article is a better target. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced. --EEMIV (talk) 05:04, 25 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 (non-admin closure) by User:Parsecboy per CSD G3 as obvious vandalism. WilliamH (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle Of Landcross Road[edit]

The article seems to be a rambly and self-contradictory anecdote, no sources are provided. Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Fairly obvious hoax; the utter lack of ghits indicates that this isn't known by this name, at least. I'm tempted to tag it for a G3 speedy. (Pieces of it, especially toward the end, are almost definitely vandalism; they weren't in the original version, apparently. If they aren't vandalism, then the hoax is far more obvious.) Quite apart from that, I'd doubt the notability of cops busting up a party. AnturiaethwrTalk 15:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I'd have speedy-tagged it myself if it hadn't already been denied. Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious hoax. Razor flame 15:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Whats the criterion for a lame hoax article again? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted this page as a speedy G3; the page was completely nonsensical vandalism. Parsecboy (talk) 19:12, 23 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 (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azamat Balakov, Victor Stanislavsky[edit]

although the article asserts notability the subject does not appear to exist through a basic googlesearch on his name making me believe this may in fact be a hoax article. Several other similar articles have been created as can be verified by looking at the conversation on my talkpage between myself and User:Ironholds Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Strong keep Perhaps try google.com.ua or google.ru? Given our poor coverage of the Ukraine and Russia and the fact that we are trying to create the encyclopedia of everything not of everything English speaking this stretches my good faith assumptions to the limit, really it looks like a ckleary case of speedy keep. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Delete per Mikkalai below, whose input I had requested. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just done exactly as you ask. Unfortunately, I get pretty much the exact same hits as my previous search. 2 hits to this wiki, one to perscription drug thing, one to mind42.com. Please let me know if you want me to check something else. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google.ru search. Most are mirrors of Wikipedia's references to this particular article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and a WP:TROUT to the nom for nominating it after two of us explained at great length why the presumption of notability should apply here. — iridescent 14:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Presumption of notability is only valid when it is proven. I may write an article about my dog alleging it bite both George Bushes three times. Reliable sources is the only way to distinguish a fact from a hoax. The author of all these boxer article is new and not trusted yet. He is notified in his talk page. It may well be a promotion campaign of some nonnotable gym, not to say a test of wikipedia. `'Míkka >t 15:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what you said was the article asserts notability because it says "professional boxer". I've brought it here after trying to verify said assertion and failing. Please also look at Gwilym Sims-Williams ~~which is currently prodded by a different user~~ and Joe Clark (boxer) both of which have been recently deleted. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that was me that said that, but assertion of notability only protects an article from speedy deletion. Further investigation could reveal a ((G3)) hoax speedy criterion; in this case it may be just promotion of real but WP:NN people. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete both~~ as nonverifiable. The articles do not provide a single reference despite being tagged as unreferenced for five days. Google search gives zero hits both in English and Russian spellings. wikipedia:Verifiability trumps all other policies. The article may be recreated when reliable sources appear. `'Míkka >t 15:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both. The articles were created by a known hoaxer why tested wikipedia smarts with Banana United, Banana United Football Club hoaxes, not to say about Tomato Town and Fruit Bowl Stadium. From a deleted article: "Banana United is a football club that was founded in 2006. We play our home games in the Fruit Bowl Stadium and it holds up to 100,000 fruits and vegetables. " `'Míkka >t 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax. The article states that he defeated Paul Williams, but the boxrec.com entry for Williams only shows a single defeat to Carlos Quintana and makes no mention of any name similar to "Azamat Balakov". I also looked up the boxrec results for Matt Skelton and Serguei Lyakhovich, two other real-life boxers that the fictional Balakov is claimed to have defeated, with similar negative results. Please don't just rely on Google for notability tests! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Azamat Balakov~~ both: lacks any WP:V. ~~Need more time to reseach Victor Stanislavsky, as his Google.ru search is a bit more interesting... so far~~. adding "boxing" to the search comes up with only Wikipedia references, and one that includes the word "box". :P - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as likely hoaxes. Upon attempting verification, no reliable sources come up in google or google.ru. In fact, when I tried several likely spellings in Russian for Balakov on google.ru, nothing at all came up:[23][24][25]. Nsk92 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 both as hoaxes by known hoaxster. So tagged. And a trout to User:Iridescent for jumping in with a keep without realizing that these were hoaxes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:56, 23 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.

Beyonce third studio album[edit]

The result was Nomination withdrawn, discussion already exists. TN‑X-Man 14:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Speculative article about an upcoming album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 14:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep undergoing a revamp currently. Lets give it some time Carter | Talk to me 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonce third studio album[edit]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. asenine ^{say what?} 14:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep undergoing a revamp currently. Lets give it some time User:Carter | Talk to me 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (Note - This opinion has been transcluded from a duplicate debate.) TN‑X-Man 14:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer's Law: Any article whose title takes the form "(name of artist)'s nth Studio Album" is very unlikely to survive AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I nominated this article also, but it appears that Asenine just beat me to it. My opinion still holds, however, that this is a speculative article that fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only way a revamp could save this article is if it were so drastic that it changed the article's focus into something that wasn't a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. As it stands, this article could probably be speedied under A1 or A3. A revamp would just waste everyone's time. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer's Law. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This notion: "Any article whose title takes the form "(name of artist)'s nth Studio Album" is very unlikely to survive AfD." is very wrong as well. There are a lot of albums still in production that merits article here because of notability but the title remains unspecified, hence "(name of artist)'s nth Studio Album".
- Delete A Beyonce fan but informations are likely to change because previous interviews are not concrete to define the article's subject. --Efe (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - eo (talk) 20:35, 28 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. Bduke (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugaboo International B.V.[edit]

Article has had numerous speedy delete tags added, regarding a lack of asserted notability and WP:SPAM. Author has added hangon tags but has not addressed concerns, and also has potential WP:COI given her username -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I placed an original CSD, it was more of an advert, may have even been copied from a catalogue and author probably does have COI, but the company is notable enough with numerous news articles and entries in baby shopping catalogs. The editor is also cooperating and trying to keep within policy. I am keeping a close eye on it. --Triwbe (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, but for the love of God change "mobility products" to strollers, baby carriages or prams. That kind of evasive language makes my blood boil. Assuming that the conflict of interest problem noted above is real, and that the article is intended as promotion or to manipulate search engines, your target market isn't searching for "mobility products". Your Wikipedia spam works better if you aren't evasive about your actual product line. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may assume that the editor is not a native English speaker, so we should cut her some slack? --Triwbe (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the editor's english is better than my Dutch. Good enough that "mobility products" seems a deliberate choice - and in my strong opinion, a deliberately bad choice.

The underlying idea seems to be that businesses are somehow limiting themselves or shutting themselves out of markets if they describe in concrete fashion what they actually do. What they make is carriages / prams; but mobility products could be anything from shoes to ocean liners. It's not as if actually describing your current products to your target market prevents you from diversifying in the future. It's a habit that makes articles read badly, and makes no sense commercially either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, and I'm no expert, but my understanding is that this type of marketing language revolves around describing the benefit of the product rather than its function. Thus, these are more than just strollers; they are products which enhance the mobility of the parents (when transporting their inventory enhancements during the course of economic or recreational activity, of course). --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable company, needs sources & cleanup. A move to Bugaboo International would comply with naming conventions for companies (suffixes like B.V. or Inc. should only be added when needed for disambiguation). --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the product article Bugaboo (baby carrier) is substantially more about the company. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:55, 24 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hiroshi Agasa's inventions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Hiroshi Agasa's inventions

Fails WP:FICT. A list of the various inventions created during the series is not notable and the topic has not received significant coverage in third party sources. Additionally, this list is primarily plot summary, with the use/appearance of these inventions already covered better and more appropriately by the List of Case Closed chapters and various seasonal pages linked to from List of Case Closed episodes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This list is needed and can be fixed by adding existing 3rd party sources to it. It does not fail WP:FICT. The inventions are NOT covered anywhere else and all link to this well needed page. It is not covered anywhere else on wikipedia, and defently not covered in the chapters "better" either. This page holds a lot of useful date and deleting it would not help improve wikipedia.- Prede (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I originally made this page due to the heavy overlapping of such material in Jimmy Kudo and Hiroshi Agasa. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion why not try and improve this page rather then just delete it all together? It is defently possible to improve this page. I do not support it's deletion. - Prede (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or weak delete: as it is, the article has way too many images, and most of the invention descriptions could probably quite easily be pared down to just one or two sentences and then merged with the appropriate character, episode, or chapter descriptions. —Dino guy 1000 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merged with the appropriate character, episode, or chapter descriptions' Most of these things are used throughout the series, so I don't see any episode or chapter descriptions that can "monopolize" the description. As for character is concerned, of course it can be completely moved to Hiroshi Agasa, but the overlap with the user (especially Conan Edogawa is too much to ignore. As mentioned, I made this page simply because both pages had a laundry list of these things, and I couldn't come out where should those fall into.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exaclty why the page is "good as it is". There is no reason for deletion. If the pictures are a "problem" they could easily be removed, with little hassle, although I find they only add to the article. I see nothing negative about them being there. But if others feel differently, then we could deal with that, when it is time. - Prede (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. The material in this article would be better covered by the relevant character articles; otherwise, this article fails WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is notable because these inventions are used in a majority of the episodes. Without an explination, the other articles on the series will not make sense. Can not just be covered in character articles because it has to do with 2 main characters, not just one. - Prede (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not notable. Articles assert notability through non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. This doesn't. And yes, the articles will make sense if written correctly and the material is merged properly. Just merge the inventions to the relevant character and summarize well. It's not that difficult. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we should discuss for now where should the content to be merge into. Merging itself is not technically difficult; the problem is how to deal with overlapping information.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the reason the page was made in the first place, it overlaps artilces. The list of inventions, fits nicely where it is. This page is in no way a "Trivia Section" and there are plenty of third party sources to use to fix up the page. However I don't want to seach for them, fix up the page, and have you guys delete it afterwards :( - Prede (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hiroshi Agasa - most of these inventions are not notable outside of the series, but I think they would sit well in an article on the character themselves. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Merge to Hiroshi Agasa; these are his inventions, after all. Conan's article can just point readers to the section in Agasa's article.--Nohansen (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This was already non-administratively closed as no consensus, by NonvocalScream on May 30, soon afterwards unclosed by Pmanderson, and since forgotten. NVS's judgement that there was no consensus seems to have been accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Verčič[edit]

Biography of a non-notable associate professor. Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete although the note about co-founding the "Slovenian press agency" seems borderline notable. Vishnava (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like he could be notable, but article fails to assert. Napsterbater (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Further clean-up is required, but he appears to pass WP:PROF based on the awards listed and fairly significant GoogleScholar[26] and GoogleBooks[27] results. Nsk92 (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Nsk92. asenine ^{say what?} 16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more referenced sources, but notability is not in doubt. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SportsLink[edit]

I have doubts about the notability of this weekly programme on an Australian local community radio station, on which I would like the community to decide. Please take into consideration the original version of the article before I edited it, which was a pure advert. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree the original version was exclusively an advert, in terms of notability, there are other radio program's listed on here that don't contain references and/or are not notable either. I think greater review is needed and more opinions before deletion.121.44.196.226 (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't thought a valid argument here. And greater review and more opinions is what this page is for. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 08:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I then begin nominating other articles for deletion then? From what I gather about this radio show, they have done quite a few interviews with people of interest in Australia. The show may not be famous however it has some standing. If we can't agree on that, then would it be worth to redirect this article to 94.7 The Pulse and put pretty much the same information that is on here already there?121.44.196.226 (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "merge" is a perfectly acceptable thing to call for here - please feel free to do so. As for nominating other articles, yes, you can do that if you believe they have the same issues as this article, although I'd advise you don't do them all at once as that just annoys people. But you're perfectly entitled to nominate what you want when you want. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 09:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 94.7 The Pulse, local weekend show on community station lacks notability to be a standalone article, lacks secondary sources for verifiability, with a bit of sourcing would be a useful expansion for the station's current stubby article. - Dravecky (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dravecky--Rtphokie (talk) 20:40, 26 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 Tiptoety (talk · contribs). ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 07:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student Property Shop[edit]

I have questions about the notability of this internet portal amongst many internet portals, upon which I would like the community to decide. Please take into consideration how the article read before I removed advertising terms. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of independent coverage by reliable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This 1 day old article appears to be WP:SPAM masquerading as an article from the words "Access to the site is free for viewers." Subject doesn't appear notable. Artene50 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:02, 24 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. Singu larity 07:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Subritzky[edit]

Autobiography. Subject is possibly notable but it isn't clear from the article and I haven't found any reliable sources. All the top google hits are to sites in which the subject is involved. Note that mr Subritzky has removed Autobiography and COI templates placed on the page. dramatic (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —dramatic (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nearly all the books are published by 'Three Feathers', for which I have been able to find any reference - not even in the yellow pages - so I'd say these are actually self-published. Considering that writers who have been published by real publishers are not necessarily notable, Subritzky definitely isn't. --Helenalex (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I'm weary of people making vanity articles about themselves on Wikipedia. Thanks for telling us that he removed the COI/AUTO tags, I'll place them back and give him a a warning.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a vanity page. Vanity begone! coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vanity/COI deletions similar to this one are consistently overturned at DRV. Google books shows more then self-published work[28], regular google and googlenews supports. Plenty of book reviews here [29], and Three Feathers is not a self publishing service. I imagine more book reviews could be found via lexis-nexis and JSTOR, but I do not have access any more. MrPrada (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the publications are in very small runs. They may not be self-published, but I'm not convinced that they're commercially published either. Two of the references given are not convincing - one to blogspot, one to geocities. The third ref, to the "International War Veterans Poetry Archives" I'm not sure about. The "Pangolin Times", which is quoted in the article and in the third, has absolutely no web presence other than for copies of this quote.-gadfium 21:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if reliable and third-party sources can't be found. This editor has a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotion and a couple of years ago was adding huge blocks of unsuitable text to the Military history of New Zealand article with his works and personal records as the only source. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per vanity. Buckshot06(prof) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) ——Ryan | t • c 21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of country codes on British diplomatic vehicle registration plates[edit]

This article's last AfD (on the grounds of utter lack of sources, listed or elsewhere online, and lack of verifiability) was closed three months ago today. At the close, several users assured me that "codes on government issued diplomatic car registration plates are verifiable, most certainly by government documents" - but I have continued to research this and come up with nothing. An email to the DVLA drew a blank. The AfD was closed as keep with the comment "It's clear that the article creator is going to (successfully) work at the sourcing, putting himself out of pocket," which has sadly not been realised; no work at sourcing has happened save for the addition of a book which was suggested as a "likely source" - since no page numbers or details have been added, I must assume that the book doesn't provide citations for the entire article's content.

I was told that "being government issued plates means government verification exists"; I feel that I have put in sufficient time and effort to disprove the possibility of verifying the article. WP:CITE states that articles must cite their sources or the unsourced content will be removed; it's time for this to go. The many users who insisted that sources were out there three months ago have done nothing to provide any. I suggest that the article is, therefore, unverifiable. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the previous deletion discussion, a book called A History of Motor Vehicle Registration in the United Kingdom by L. H. Newall was mentioned as a possible source. Has any editor looked at this? EALacey (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I've not been able to pursue that as my local libraries don't stock such an obscure (yet fascinating, of course!), title :-) and I'm not willing to splash out the £16.95 ($33.60) on a copy; not only am I a poor student but a typical reader would also appreciate a cheaper source, I'm sure. Furthermore, looking at available online synopses, it doesn't seem that it contains lengthy lists of the sort the article contains (at least ~3 pages of a normal-sized book). —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V only requires that information be verifiable: it does not, thankfully, insist that everything be verifiable online - there are plenty of places where you will have to get information from good old-fashioned dead trees. -- Arwel (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been added. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only self-published or vague sources, though... —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article is encyclopedic. Has sufficient sources. Nomination and nominator comments are overly skeptical. If the nominator can't get a hold of a book through inter-library loan or some other means, that's certainly not grounds for an AfD. His or her rush towards a simple google-search certainty and an impatience with good faith of provided references suggests an editor with a character out of alignment with wikipedia 5 pillars. pie WP:Trout --Firefly322 (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google-Search + communication with numerous government departments, that is. I say I put in more effort than a reader would to verify it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which government departments other than the DVLA did you communicate with? Good for you for trying to verify the article, but I'd hardly say a Google search and an email to a government department (which didn't reply) is much more than a very casual effort. Perhaps a better idea would have been to ask the article creator User:Arwel Parry, who is an editor of good standing for over five years and still with the project, for some assistance in demonstrating the veracity of his original reference. It seems that your only communication with him has been to inform him of your deletion nomination of the article. --Canley (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DVLA is the government department responsible. There is no point in emailing others; there are acts of parliament making the DVLA responsible. Arwel contributed to the last discussion which I made an effort to link to above; furthermore, WP:CITE clearly states that uncited information may be DELETED. This is uncited information. —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the DVLA is the responsible department, it's just that you said you contacted "numerous government departments", and I was wondering which other ones you contacted. --Canley (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also emailed off to the Department for Transport and the Foreign Office; the FCO just directed me to the DVLA and Transport likewise didn't reply, but I didn't expect them to as it's not their responsibility, and you know what civil servants are like about who's responsible for what! —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, yes indeed! I was wondering if you had contacted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, at least they responded to you. OK, I see from the previous AFD that the creator of the article doesn't really remember his original source, and it was created in the days when Wikipedia was somewhat more "relaxed" about citations and references. --Canley (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appropriate sources for the subject. DGG (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Definitely encyclopedic. Has the DVLA cited as a source, among others, giving good verifiability. Passes WP:N as well. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The large list of organisations and countries is unsourced (if the book covers it, a page-number is required). Unless a source is added, it is liable to be removed per WP:CITE. I shall do so myself if one is not added within a month - that is, four months since the first AfD. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The evidence from those sources listed show photographs of several of these diplomatic plates, and they correspond with those in the article. Therefore, I see no reason to question the authenticity of the list, especially as it was added by an established user - the sequencing seems logical and alphabetical. After all, in theory there are cars running around London as we speak that have these on the front and the back...maybe the FCO would be able to be of assistance? Bob talk 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to question the authenticity, no, just the verifiability. The DVLA is the government body resoponsible for number-plates and they didn't respond to my inquiries, as I stated above. The other sources are all self-published. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone else flat out ignore the content of hopelessly middle-brow commentary, which appears to be motivated by everyone and everything that might disagree with someone's possibly not fully developed world view? (hate the sin not the sinner) WP:TROUT --Firefly322 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Comment This is exactly the sort of hard-to find information Wikipedia ought to have. Relax a little bit with the sourcing; interlibrary loan takes time and so far there's no reason to doubt the material here. While unsourced material can be removed, that doesn't mean it should be. It's possible such a list exists but is not normally shared with the public. The US has a similar list, which the Washington Post obtained and published in the 1980s. Someone might want to look at newspapers as well as documents published by license plate collector's clubs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:32, 26 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, and the battle goes ever onward. Will WP:FICTION ever be resolved? Or will it be eternal conflict? Think of the children everybody, for pity's sake let's end the fighting (cue chorus of Give Peace a Chance) (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Botany Bay[edit]

Contested prod by User:Ultraviolet scissor flame. No third-party sources to verify claims or establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - may meet notability under cult following and such but, the article contains no reliable 3rd party sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or Merge into Star Trek. Not notable on its own, but maybe worth a mention in the main article...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Khan Noonien Singh, which would make a whole lot more sense than to simply merge it into Star Trek. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the references in non-Star Trek media speak to notability beyond that fictional universe, article includes significant material that would not easily merge into the Khan article. (There might be a better merge target, perhaps about the ships of Star Trek.) The article needs better sourcing, for sure, but I think it can stand alone as written. - Dravecky (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry did I miss something, what non-"Star Trek" references to you speak of I don't see any in the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Ah, that should be singular (my bad) but I was referring to the brief mention on The West Wing, as described in the article. - Dravecky (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies. When you said references I thought you were refering to the references section of the article. I still think my Weak delete needs to stand until the reliable 3rd party sourcing thing is cleared up (there is a slight change that the West Wing thing is just a coincidence after all as it isn't sourced). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jasynnash2, needs reliable third party sourcing in order to stay. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx)
Redirect to Space Seed. Not independently notable, but real world sources do exist for Botany Bay as part of the episode's production. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Redirecting (and by that Merging) to Space Seed would also make sense Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and the article is almost entirely plot summary and in-universe design specifications. A mention on the West Wing is trivial. Aside from the Enterprise itself, I doubt there are really any ships in the Star Trek universe which meet notability criteria. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable amount of context, major role in the series, good to have the information in one place. DGG (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its concerns one of the more significant Star Trek TOS season 1 films (Space Seed) which ultimately led to '1982's 'The Wrath of Khan.' Every Trekkie knows about it. NBC spent a ton of money on this model ship. Its notable enough. Artene50 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quadrupled the number of external references and, as an aside, google books returns 19 volumes referencing "SS Botany Bay", 17 of which refer to this fictional tv vessel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.132.16 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All 3 references you added and the Google Books matches I found simply retell the plot in one form or another. They provide no real world-based commentary or analysis. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant (and nonduplicative) material into Space Seed. Deor (talk) 13:11, 26 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. Singu larity 07:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Sun[edit]

Non-notable album for non-notable band (band entry was speedied under A7). SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding Bow to the Sceptor EP to this nomination for the same reason. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If, as you say, the band was speedied, the album is certainly not notable...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable artist = non-notable album. Fails WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all above Carter | Talk to me 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also note that the company that produces this is the one that made the article to begin with!--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article about a non-notable album with no assertion of notability. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, part of a WP:COATRACK by User:Galapagos4 about this artist/label. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:52, 27 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. — Scientizzle 16:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galapagos4[edit]

Non-notable record label. Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Maybe borderline notable, but the 'associated acts' reveals only one blue link, and a Google search reveals virtually no reliable third-party mentions...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Its also worth pointing out that the user who made this article works for the company.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:CORP, apparent WP:COI. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:45, 27 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, since there is no pith to merging all this original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Seafood[edit]

Songs not notable enough to warrant their own articles - they were not released as singles etc

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

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All into Incesticide (the album which these songs appear) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Incesticide. Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Incestiside per above; songs aren't notable enough for their own pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While there is enough information to make it an article, I believe it should be merged into one info center, not scattered songs.--LAA Fan 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Incestiside per above, songs are not overly notable by themselves. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan 17:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breast cancer campaign[edit]

WP:AUTO and WP:SPAM. May be notable, but makes no substantial claims as such, aside from monetary volume. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article just needed to be tagged as I have taken the liberty to do. It does need a little wikification which I will also try and take care of. Doesn't need to be deleted though. It's also wrong to cite WP:AUTO as a reason to delete. Doesn't apply here. Carter | Talk to me 10:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean AUTO does not relate to deletion, or that this is not an autobiography? Potatoswatter (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have edited this article slightly in order to better meet Wikipedia's guidelines and have also created references to back up information that has been included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.181.2 (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're still not secondary sources, and it's no less AUTO, if the links are all to breastcancercampaign.org. Potatoswatter (talk)

Keep: Certainly notable, even though the article doesn't assert notability as well as it could...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Has more than established Notabilty as shown here. [30]. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable, many instances of coverage and reference. WilliamH (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although most AfDs follow arguments of notability, this does not. The problem with this article is systemic bias, even if you can't "see" it. At best it duplicates material from the Campaign's website. Interested readers should go to that website if they want that information. It is not a positive contribution here. This article looks fine, but WP:AB#The problem with autobiographies is that there is no problem. Along with the verifiable broad stokes will be the embellishments of an insider. This organization does deserve an article, but the article should be written by Wikipedians with proper standards. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, just read WP:DEL#REASON :vP ... I suppose the specific issue I can point at is copyvio of the website, compared to the cross-"referenced" sections. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:28, 24 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. Those arguing for keeping this based on a more generous interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN make a fairly good case, but the majority consensus seems to reject that interpretation and applies a narrower interpretation of policy. Arkyan 17:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Shenton[edit]

Delete per ample precedent that being an unsuccessful candidate in a British parliamentary election does not confer notability. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query: The relevant notability policy states that "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are considered notable. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As the candidate for the third party in one of the most significant by-elections in a generation, surely she has received significant coverage? A quick search on Lexis Nexis shows up 64 articles in the last month, including national newspapers; Some of these will be mere mentions in passing but others I have seen are definitely not. I agree with you that simply being a candidate in a by-election does not confer notability but there is a serious argument to be made that she has garnered significant coverage. My query is: could you reframe your objection in terms of how this fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN? TreveX^talk 18:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced Crewe & Nantwich is going to be seen as such a significant by-election in the long term but that's for history to decide. But we should be wary of recentism, encouraged by media hype (largely because by-elections are much rarer nowadays than in the past). In terms of whether or not being a candidate in a by-election that is considered significant, I offer the following lack of articles from the last ninety years: Newport by-election, 1922 (seen as the death knell for the Lloyd George Coalition) - none on J. W. Bowen or William Lynden Moore; Westminster St George's by-election, 1931 (a referendum on Baldwin's leadership of the Conservatives) - no article on Ernest Petter; Fulham East by-election, 1933 (regarded as a vote for pacifism and a key contributor appeasement) - no article on William Waldron; Liverpool Wavertree by-election, 1935 (the government comes acropper on its India policy due to Randolph Churchill's intervention) no article on James Platt (that article is on a US representative); Carmarthen by-election, 1957 (amidst divisions over Suez the Liberal Party drops to its lowest ever number of MPs thanks to Megan Lloyd George) - no article on John Morgan Davies; Orpington by-election, 1962 (famous Liberal gain on a huge swing) - no article on Peter Goldman; Carmarthen by-election, 1966 (Plaid Cymru's historic breakthrough) - no article on Gwilym Davies (that just leads to a disambiguation page that he isn't on); Hamilton by-election, 1967 (the SNP's historic breakthrough) - no article on Alexander Wilson (that article is on a late 18th/early 19th century Scottish poet, ornithologist, naturalist and illustrator); Lincoln by-election, 1973 (Dick Taverne takes on left-wing militants in his CLP) - no article on John Dilks; Glasgow Govan by-election, 1973 (historic SNP gain) - no article on John Mair (that article is about a 16th century Scottish philosopher); Ilford North by-election, 1978 (the last Conservative gain in opposition and one that's been replayed in the media a lot recently) - no article on John Freeman (that's a disambiguation page and he's not on it); Warrington by-election, 1981 (the SDP baptism of fire) - no article on Stanley Sorrell; Crosby by-election, 1981 (the return of Shirley Williams) - no article on John Butcher (that just leads to a disambiguation page that he isn't on); Mitcham and Morden by-election, 1982 (the last Conservative gain) - no article on David Nicholas; Bermondsey by-election, 1983 (one of the biggest swings amidst some of the dirtiest campaigning) - no article on John O'Grady (that article's an Australian writer); Glasgow Govan by-election, 1988 (the SNP's second coming in the same constituency) - no article on Bob Gillespie (that article is about a US baseball palyer); Brent East by-election, 2003 (the anti-war backlash against New Labour) - no article on Uma Fernandes. All of these by-elections are more significant than a standard "government loses seat to opposition in the mid-term" by-election. There are some where the losing candidate does have an article but that's because of what else they did - for instance Ross and Cromarty by-election, 1936 (the National Government risks cracking open as a Cabinet Minister's return is opposed by a Conservative) has an article on Hector McNeil who was later an MP and minister, or Randolph Churchill (who was an MP, prominent journalist & author and high profile son of Winston Churchill). Just being a candidate in what were very significant by-elections does not make one notable in themselves.
Yes Elizabeth Shenton has been in a number of press articles about the by-election but most contain standard listings of all the candidates or the results. And it's much the standard fare for candidates in parliamentary elections, including by-elections. I don't see how the by-election in any way raises her above the notability threshold or make her more notable than the others above. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, her only other claim is being a local councillor, which carries no inherent notability as noted here. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: I am surprised that parliamentary candidates are eligible for articles in the first place solely on the basis of their candidacy - we risk being deluged with all sorts of non-notable guff if this is the case. --Smerus (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If we keep this, we will have to undelete loads of other non-notable articles...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is being discussed right now in [31] Iain Dale's Diary, where a number of bloggers are saying that Tim Roll Pickering who initiated this AFD is a Tory activist - does this matter? I would have thought that the day after an election, for a political opponent to suddenly want to AFD a rival's entry seems not to follow general Wikipedia guidelines on conduct, am I right? Smorgasm (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. This article should never have been created, as the person sole claim to any notability was being a candiadate (and councillor). I was going to nominate the losing candidates once the by-election was over anyway. Mike Natrass is an MEP, Tamsin Dunwoody is a former AM and Timpson is now an MP, Shenton is only a councillor, which carries no notability. That Iain Dale is discussing it is neither here nor there, there are clear policies on this WP:BIO and WP:N being the most important. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Tim is a conservative party member and activist and his intention is clearly political, which Iain Dale applauds - surely this is against WP:CONFLICT? 81.149.153.146 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI applies to the creation of articles, not the AfD process. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say what?? Since when? I quote directly from the WP:COI page...

"How to avoid COI edits Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with"

Tim is a leading Tory activist working for Conservative Central Office and in concert with leading Tory blogger and publicist Iain Dale. You can't get much more blatantly competitive than that. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retain: This is an historic bye-election. This article will be a subject of acdamic interrest for many decades. It would be an irresponsible act to delete this entry. To delete it would an Orwellian act of the use of the 'Memory Hole". If this is deleted then a good quarter of the articles on wikipedia should go either on the basis of inaccuracy, irrelevance or bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.142.228 (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Disagree with Darren entirely. It is perfectly reasonable to create an entry for a candidate in an upcoming parliamentary election/by-election, particularly where the candidate is a member of a mainstream party and therefore has at least some prospect, however small, of being elected. Had she been successful in winning the seat, then the notability criteria would have been satisfied. There is clearly a conduct issue here in the manner in which this was AfD'd. Not only is their a clear bias in Tim Roll-Pickering's actions, but the fact that it is being discussed on a prominent political blog within a few hours of being AfD'd suggests that at least part of the intent here may have to set up an opportunity for a bit of cheap gloating. By all means review the article in a month or so to see if there's sufficient interest to warrant its retention, but it be retained until it becomes clear whether there may be anything like the interest that the previous comment suggests —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity2705 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity2705 (talk • contribs) [reply]

It looks like the Iain Dale entry has brought along some SPAs. Darrenhusted (talk)

Delete per nom, consistent with other AfDs on councillors and by-election candidates. Oh, not that Tim's affiliations matter here, but he has been entirely consistent with this issue of notability and has nominated failed candidates councillors of all parties. Martín (saying/doing) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this shouldn't be deleted, especially on political grounds (and I say this as a non-Lib Dem). There is still demand for this information - I am an example of someone who has just searched the page to see more about her (and I did the same for some of the other candidates). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.198 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC) This IP address, 194.60.38.198, is registered to the British Houses of Parliament and is shared by multiple users.[reply]

Keep. It never ceases to amaze me how people assume non-notability. I'd like to see someone classify me as a SPA. As far as I can ascertain it meets all the primary criteria for notability as well as the Biography#Politicians criteria. Precedent with other political figures is just a cheap way of ducking the issue. A small, balanced, referenced and notable article isn't a bad thing now is it? Harlsbottom (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elizabeth Shenton is self-evidently notable, whoever the heck she is. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local councillor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per plenty of precedent. Tim R-P's conduct is irrelevant to the AFD and should be taken up elsewhere. LondonStatto (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As several people, including a number of random IPs are questioning my motivation for nominating the article I'd like to set a few matters straight:
- 1). There is indeed ample precedent in past AFDs that being or having been an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate in the Westminster system does not make someone inherently notable. And by-elections have been found to be no different. Ditto local councillors. Hence the nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#People where it says:
  - Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Bance (second nomination). However, such candidates are permitted inclusion in a merged list of candidate biographies, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. (Note, however, that some dissent may be expressed if the election campaign in question is currently underway — however, dissent has also been engineered on occasion by the candidate's own campaign office, so monitor this for potential sockpuppetry.) Also, review the whole article before nominating it for deletion, as the person may be legitimately notable for other reasons, such as having previously held another elective office. The fact that the incumbent has an article is not, in and of itself, a valid reason to keep articles on electoral opponents who have not already achieved notability — Wikipedia is not a campaign tool.
- 2). As others have pointed out, the other candidates in the by-election who have articles include the new MP, a former Welsh Assembly Member, an MEP and the current Miss Great Britain. With the possible exception of the last (as I haven't much experience of AFDs on beauty contest winners) there is ample precedent that holding any of those positions confers notability. Hence not nominating any of them for deletion.
- 3). I have in the past nominated articles on ex candidates and councillors from both main parties as well as the Liberal Democrats and other small parties, all on the same consistent principle that they do not meet the threshold for notability.
- 4). Wikipedia articles by definition tend to attract editors who have interest in or vague connections to the subject matter. However anyone routinely just making AFD nominations with an axe to grind would rapidly be noticed and the discussions speedily closed. Regular editors from all parties often comment on these AFDs and frequently they do come to the same conclusions - in this area that both being/having been a candidate and being/having been a local councillor does not meet the notability threshold.
- 5). Even before polling day another user added a template to the article querying notability.
- 6). Accusations of bias often come (although not exclusively) from people who are not regular editors of Wikipedia and who lack familiarity with the AFD debates.
- 7). I refute the accusation that I work for Conservative Central Office (I have never done so) or that I am in concert with Iain Dale. (I won't bother disputing the outdated "Tory" tag from someone who may well be a "Whig".) I have no idea how Iain discovered this but if this were a deliberate set-up then surely I would have covered my tracks?
- 8). All of this should be irrelevant to the discussion at hand which is whether or not Elizabteh Shenton meets the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Timrollpickering (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just added two citations to extremely reliable sources - the BBC and the Guardian. These are for separate incidents - the by-election and her union role in the Natwest takeover. Since she is, in addition, a local politician and general activist, I expect that we will be seeing more of her. There is no merit in this nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even whilst she was a candidate, I think notability was pretty borderline; now the only assertion of notability is that she is a serving councillor. Insufficient. DWaterson (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not expire; it accumulates. Every time this person gets into the national news, as has happened repeatedly, she becomes increasingly worthy of note. We are not voting for office here; we are recording history. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, did you read my comment? "Even whilst she was a candidate, I think notability was pretty borderline..." And probably below that borderline, not above. DWaterson (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read your comment and beg to differ. This person was notable before being selected. Because the by-election was important, that party obviously took some care to select a good candidate. She was previously notable for her elected position as a councillor; for her high-profile trade union role at Natwest and for her leadership of a significant civic project. The by-election added hugely to this notability and the result is unimportant. Furthermore, she is now notable because this AFD is being mentioned in the national press - an unusual distinction. The original nominator might be excused because the article was poorly sourced and developed at the time of the nomination. Now that it has been improved substantially and references some of the numerous reliable sources about this person, the notability of this person is evident. Persistence in the face of this evidence suggests political or other bias and so should be discounted. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This individual does not hold a notable office, and being an unsuccessful candidate in a high profile campaign does not give her notability. Mas 18 dl (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the arguments put forward by Trevex and Colonel Warden above convince me more than those opposed. She has been on TV a great deal now in the UK and is pretty well known. Smorgasm (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A candidate from the third party comes third in a by-election; that's pretty "dog bites man" stuff. I'm fairly sure that history will note the 2008 Crewe and Nantwich by-election for its 17.6% swing from Labour to Conservative. It was wrong to create the page for Shenton in the first place, and it's certainly wrong to keep it now. — Wereon (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure it's borderline but I expect we'll be seeing more of her fairly soon. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not persuaded by incidental coverage of a candidacy, and other coverage is not about her but in connection with her job. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lasting notability. It would of course have been different if she'd won the election, which is why it's right this wasn't nominated until afterwards, but now it's over it's clear she fails WP:BIO and is likely to remain that way. Terraxos (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO states 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. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability. On the subject of politicians, it goes on to say, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." We have all that. There's nothing in there which says that if you lose an election, then your accumulated notability evaporates. You seem to be misinterpreting and misrepresenting the guideline contrary to the general statement that the guideline should be should be treated with common sense . I'm not seeing the sense here, common or otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While searching for sources, I found this item in the Evening Standard which is a major London newspaper:

The Londoner's Diary - TAMSIN Dunwoody may be feeling disconsolate this morning but at least she doesn't face imminent obliteration on the internet. Conservative blogger Iain Dale notes that the Liberal Democrat candidate Elizabeth Shenton's Wikipedia entry has already been "marked for deletion". "They used to say there is nothing so 'ex' than an 'ex' MP, but that goes doubly for ex byelection candidates," he writes.

But perhaps this is a little harsh. ...

This AFD nomination is literally a public disgrace for Wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How on earth is that relevant here? Is Wikipedia to be restricted to only discussing topics that won't get mentioned in the Evening Standard? DWaterson (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, public disgrace or not... Marshall (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trollpickering is correct, though he should consider crowing a little less about the Tories victory. I'm sure Mrs Shenton however will be back. I am not a dog (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And to avoid any claims of WP:COI I am a member of the Liberal Democrats. As has been mentioned, Elizabeth Shenton is just a councillor. Other failed candidates in this election include a sitting MEP (fairly notable I'd say) and the current Miss Great Britain. Ms Shenton is at the third tier of British politics; Wiki would have to expand by some 10,000 or more were every city, district, town, borough, parish, or community councillor suddenly had the chance to transfer their Facebook account to here. Last time, the LibDems came third in C&N. This time...we came third again. As much as I wish her well, until she becomes an MP, the article cannot remain doktorb _words^deeds 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are lots and lots of minor conservative councillors from previous slightly, but not hugely, higher roles who have retained articles. See for example Lisa Francis (conservative town councillor for Aberystwyth) (!) who was previously an AM and former candidates who came second or third, see for example Damian Collins who came second in Northampton North 2005. Most of the arguments for deletion above are based on similar levels of lack of notoriety. Smorgasm (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Lisa Francis: er yes, as you say, a former AM = notable. Damian Collins: you may have a point here; although as PPC for the incumbent party there is a reasonable prospect that he may hold the seat at the next election. Perhaps you would like to propose that article for AFD so it can be considered more thoroughly? DWaterson (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - That's not the point - those are only two examples I was able to locate within seconds; there are many more. The whole basis of this Afd is that she is not notable as we are led to believe (or it has been claimed) that the Wikipedia precedent is for local councillors or failed candidates of the above sort to not be considered notable. Clearly there is no such precedent and it's bunk. Hence we are back to speculating why this Afd was kicked-off. And back to noting Iain Dale's euphoric "discovery" of it's proposed deletion just by "chance" the morning after the election. Smorgasm (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Lisa Francis is an irrelevant example because she is a former Welsh Assembly Member and her claim to notability rests on that, not on being a town councillor. As for Damian Collins the reason his article (and probably others) has survived is because it hasn't yet been noticed and put up for AFD. Your example would carry more weight if it had been through an AFD.
    - Here are some examples of candidates and/or councillors that have been AFDed:
      - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Garrett (Green candidate in the 2006 Bromley & Chislehurst by-election), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Abbotts (Lib Dem candidate who was runner-up in the same by-election, also a councillor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shasha Khan (ex Green candidate in Croydon), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Keith (Labour candidate in the 2006 Moray Scottish Parliament by-election), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Weiss (Conservative councillor in Harrow), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Stollar (Lib Dem candidate in Ilford North in 2001 and Brentwood & Ongar in 2005), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Smallman (Labour candidate in Hammersmith & Fulham in 2005),Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Fox (former Lib Dem councillor in Islington and ex parliamentary candidate in several London seats), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Whitbread (Conservative councillor in Epping and candidate for West Ham), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Titcombe (Conservative councillor on Kettering), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Smith-Haynes (ditto), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Parker (politician) (ditto), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Lamb (ditto), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Groome (ditto), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Civil (ditto), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Bayes (ditto), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Anderson (ditto), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Corazzo (Labour councillor on, you've guessed it, Kettering), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Brace (ditto), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Stalford (DUP councillor on Belfast), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Rhys Grigg (former Plaid Cymru Assembly candidate for Pontypridd), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Bristow & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Bristow (2nd nomination) (Conservative councillor in Hammersmith & Fulham and former national chairperson of the youth & students wing), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Fordham (Lib Dem candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Etienne (former Labour councillor in Brent and parliamentary candidate in Southend), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Malcolm (Lib Dem candidate and councillor in Ealing) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayley Matthews (Lib Dem councillor in Brent). You'll note that those examples cover at least five parties and if there's any party or area bias (e.g. Kettering!) that reflects on the original article creation.
    - There are some which have been kept in AFD e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margot James (2nd nomination) but they tend to be because of other stuff making them notable in their own right and not because of being a candidate/councillor or an accumulative effect. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith should be the point. Anyway that's immaterial. In plenty of AfD discussions being a failed candidate for a national legislature and/or a local councillor has not been grounds for notability. Inevitably it's easier to find examples which have slipped through or not been through the AfD process, but where there has been a full debate between established editors, consensus has been as above. See Alexander Hilton (actually asserted notability beyond political activity), Marilyne MacLaren, David Kendall & 12 others, Gavin Barwell, Bridget Fox, Melanie Smallman, Pat Anderson and Bob Civil (a Conservative cllr nominated for deletion by, err, Tim - there were others, see here). Martín (saying/doing) 14:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable per WP:BIO as she fails to meet any of the criteria for the inclusion of a politician. Indeed its unfortunate that we've now got to the stage where articles are being created for people standing for anything, due mainly to those contributing them simply not being aware of the minimum standard needed for inclusion. - Galloglass 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if we let her through, every Tom, Dick and Harriet who contests a seat and loses is going to have justification for a WP page.Bedesboy (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete almost the epitome of non-notable. "she worked for natwest and has problems paying her bills' or something- highly notable stuff! (no offence meant, elizabeth) :) Sticky Parkin 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such material comes from reliable sources such as national newspapers who have discussed her extensively - even the names of all her seven cats. Notability is determined by such indications that others have found her worthy of note. Our personal opinion of her importance is irrelevant. See Notability guideline for details. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:46, 27 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 as a copyvio. faithless (^speak) 20:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Weaver[edit]

Entirely non-notable artist, with no press about them anywhere, no notable songs written by them or recorded by them, with page created by the artist themself. Does no pass WP:Notability or WP:Notability (music) under any category. --MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This, while written by the artist, is encyclopedic and I think he warrants an article. It's well written, but could be improved. I say keep. Carter | Talk to me 10:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. Definitely doesn't pass WP:Notability (music) either - not in the musician category, or the composers/lyrics category. --MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One can't always wait for others to write an article about themselves. I just disagree with it being a problem that the artist wrote the article. We'll see how it pans out. Carter | Talk to me 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, it doesn't pass any of the other guidelines either. Not a hit songwriter, no newspaper or magazine articles about the artist, no competition win, no Grammy award, no charting song, not listed as a major influence for another notable artist, etc. --MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although autobiography isn't really a reason for deletion he does seem to fail the notability and verifiability requirements. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I've heard the name somewhere, but he certainly doesn't see mo pass WP:N...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - if someone independent of the source would like to write a neutral and well-sourced article, ok, this topic probably meets our notability requirements. But an unsourced autobiography is not a great idea. --B (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 as copyvio of this (except for the track listing, which isn't worth saving). So tagged. (By the way, this does not seem to be the same Justin Weaver who's a member of Highway 101.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:07, 23 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. Singu larity 07:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nerimon[edit]

Non-notable, weak sources Beach drifter (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find one mention of him in this BBC article [32]. Beach drifter (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick scan shows that most Google results are YouTube, forums etc. If this person was notable, they would have received a mention in a third-party website (and with a single BBC article, you could claim my brother was notable)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 07:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Carter | Talk to me 10:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete having 18,000 subscribers on a website isn't an assertion of notability.--Otterathome (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I've heard of him before, but the only media coverage I can find in Google News Archive and NewsUK is (a) the BBC article cited above, and (b) one line in a list of London video bloggers in the Evening Standard. EALacey (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Otterathome. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable YouTube user. Google reveals very few (if any) reliable sources. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:50, 27 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 but suggest agreeing on a merge outside of AfD, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi no Naka de Odoritai[edit]

WP:N, the artist is perhaps notable, but afaik that doesn't mean that all of their singles need to have articles on Wikipedia. They are likely going to be permanent stubs as they currently stand. I nominated one of these articles and wasn't sure if it would be best to nominate each of them separately, or if a decision on all of them can be reached here. At least I'd like to nominate all of the articles on the B'z template in the Singles section. Let me know what steps I would need to do to ensure it's done correctly. Chris M. (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the guidelines in WP:MUSIC into the article about the album, Off the Lock. I note that even the rather complete B'z discography page doesn't have information about sales or charting for this single. If enough material is uncovered to make an article that's more than a permastub, it can be recreated then. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:MUSIC suggests that articles about released singles shouldn't be deleted but merged into articles about the albums they're from. Rather than bring the rest to AdD, I recommend instead you start merge proposals using the various ((merge)) tags and go from there. I'd also specifically recommend that you start with those singles that don't have information about charting or exceptional sales figures, as those are almost certainly going to have third-party sources (if only in Japanese). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article for album or artist; no reason to have this permanent stub. — λ (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This seems to be the best course of action based on the suggestions above. I'll throw ((merge)) on the articles without any sources initially. Thanks Chris M. (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged all of the singles to merge into their respective albums, but some didn't have any listed, suggestions? Chris M. (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can see there's no way to save the article, so let me humbly ask you to merge the article with all its content, I mean, let's take everything to Off the Lock: Infobox, track listing, Japanese ideograms, etc. Victor Lopes (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and deal with it being a stub for a while. B'z is a very notable Japanese band and I understand the conflict between lack of readily available English sources and system bias and I favor thwarting the latter. gren グレン 09:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a released and verifiable record. Agree with gren above that deleting this could be an example of systematic bias, as it is likely that any significant secondary material on this single is in Japanese. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete but with no objection to restoring it if reliable sources can be found to verify the content. Bduke (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Palmer (drummer)[edit]

Article claims appearances with several notable bands but provides no sources, or even identifying information. The Amboy Dukes had a drummer named David Palmer in 1968... is this the same guy, or one of the other musicians at David Palmer? Potatoswatter (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has worked with various notable bands. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 07:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that he even exists without secondary sources. We can verify there's more than one rock musician with that name. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 07:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable 3rd party sources are found and included in the article that assert and verify his notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN due to lack of WP:RS & WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the verifiability concerns cited above. If they cannot be addressed in the next 5 days the article needs to go. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject allegedly has no problems with notability but verifiability is a different matter: it's unclear how much of this article is even true and that has not changed over the course of this AfD. ~ mazca ^talk 14:43, 28 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acroyoga[edit]

A physical practice which blends elements of Yoga, Acrobatics, and Thai Massage. Not much evidence of notability. Essentially spam for one school. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Acroyoga.com uhuh. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability requirements and doesn't have any reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Acroyoga is an important modern school of yoga, simliar to Bikram or Ashtanga (both of which have substantial articles here on WP). I have added more information. It has been featured in Yoga Journal, the most prominent publication in this field, distributed internationally. --Comixboy (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.210.83 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm an acrobat, and acroyoga is the new trend. --Eiland (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure -- I practice acro-yoga. I first witnessed it in 2003, and finally figured out what it was in 2007. It has been a long hard road to track down this artform. I want to help others understand and appreciate it. I have never met the "founders" of the modern AY movement. Commercially, I have purchased one class, in Atlanta, for $20 for 2 hours. It was by a teacher who was not formally affiliated with the "school", which is really two people in SF. My point it, acro-yoga is far more than a "school", it is a transformational movement within the yoga community that teaches the bliss of physical human contact, trust, and communication. --Comixboy (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I move to close this discussion. Keep the article. imho, advertisement style links have been removed, and the article reflects the broader cultural fusion between partner acrobatics and yoga and Thai massage. --71.204.61.67 (talk) 02:14, 31 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. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Reginism[reply]

Reginism[edit]

This appears to be a completely unsourced page created and edited by a single user. Unless there is actual substantiation that this religion exists, it should be deleted.--Thalia42 (talk) 06:07, 23 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 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic centre[edit]

[33] It exists and there are press releases, but there's no evidence of notability. Appears to be just another electronics chain. Claim of 'pioneer' seemed enough to avoid a speedy. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ No sources in the article for the moment. GoogleNews does produce 7 hits[34], but they basically contain cursory mentions of the store and no in-depth coverage. Does not satisfy WP:N based on the sources available. Nsk92 (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Neutral for now, in view of references added by Eastmain. They certainly improve the article but do not seem sufficient yet to pass WP:N. I understand the problem with systemic bias in the coverage of this geographic area on WP and am willing to stretch WP:N quite a bit here, but I'd still like to see more sources before going to keep or weak keep. Nsk92 (talk) 03:05, 20 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) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to revisit this AFD and I now confirm my opinion. The first two refs are inaccessible, the second two are press releases. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references, but I'm not sure how useful they are. Newspapers in the Philippines don't seem to show up on Google News as comprehesively as North American newspapers do, so it's harder to find good references. --Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I cannot offer an opinion on the sources, as they seem to require registration to view them in full, but I wish to err on the side of countering geographic bias. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Back at the request of Eastmain. I think these sources only confirm it exists, not that it's notable per WP:CORP. While bias could be an issue, I think it's more a case of Wikipedia not being a directory of every company that's existed. Just because it exists in the US, Philippines or Timbuktu doesn't mean it warrants an encyclopedia article. That's at the crux of my issues with this article and subsequent nom _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can vouch that Automatic Centre is among the first three or so retailers of appliance products that will come to the mind of Metro Manila residents, though I could not assert the same as for other cities or urban centers in the Philippines. However, its somewhat more ubiquitous competitors, Abenson and Anson's, do not have their own Wikipedia entries. Anyo Niminus (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the fact that the bigger competitors of this chain do not have their own pages yet. It is not the fault of this chain that nobody created articles about them yet. However, personal assurances and WP:IKNOWIT arguments are not enough to satisfy either WP:V or WP:N, even when coming from well established and respected editors like you. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing to keep. I'm just adding a local boy's perspective to help build consensus on whether the article satisfies notability. It may be difficult to establish more quantitative evidence when it comes to older Philippine businesses such as Automatic, as many of them have not bothered to establish any presence on the Web. If this helps -- Automatic has branches in some of the country's largest malls, but I think it is at heart a locally-oriented family-owned enterprise which has not bothered to undertake massive expansion or public listing in the stock exchange. But because it has endured for several decades, it has somewhat strong name recall, at least in Metropolitan Manila. Anyo Niminus (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's at least two Manila Bulletin articles archived in the Main Library of UP Diliman, one for Benito Lim and the other for the Automatic Center. That should cover verifiability (if a UP student/faculty has time to go there then it is verified). Both are dated 1998 so I think it they are not yet digitized. --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:27, 20 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, jonny-m t 05:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks interesting. Now there are sources. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added references Carter | Talk to me 10:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest speedy close. References have been added, solving the chief problem. This is a consumer business with a public face. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are sources in the article which establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:28, 27 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 already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crash TV[edit]

Disputed prod; "references" tag removed without provision of references or explanation. This is either a protologism without reliable sources or original research by synthesis; my limited research can't find anything to substantiate the claims for the existence of this term and it may even be a hoax. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unnotable neologisim. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 07:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

d per above Carter | Talk to me 11:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The earlier comments said it best (and first). There should be a separate AfD section for professional wrestling articles, no? Seems like there's a glut of them around here. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/neutral We should probably get some verification from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling to see if they know anything of the subject. The article is obviously poorly written and has no sources, but it may just need a clean-up. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if this term does exist, it isn't notable enough for an article of its own...so delete unless someone can prove it exists with a reliable source. If it does exist, then I think it should be merged and redirected to the List of professional wrestling slang. Nikki311 04:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Fails notability and completely unreferenced. Artene50 (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am aware of wrestling websites calling certain events "Crash TV", but this article is nothing but OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:58, 28 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. Ty 00:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Smith (artist)[edit]

Small local artist with no assertion of notability and no reliable sources. Contributor contested prod and has removing notability maintenance tag. Royal broil 04:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe some provincial notability, but not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established per WP:BIO. No reliable sources are present in article either. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 05:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO isn't satisfied, and trying to find anything related to this particular person is a needle-in-a-haystack job; I've tried, and I'm finding nothing other than a reference to her (possibly) being involved with the Wisconsin Equine Art Guild, in 2002. Failing other references to notability, this is likely to dead-end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeternitas827 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BIO. Leans too much on one primary source, notability is not asserted. And the article seems to be the pet project of one person Darrenhusted (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CREATIVE. Reliable secondary sources do not appear to exist to indicate this artist is notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:18, 24 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 this codswallop. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency[edit]

Fails WP:N. Google search shows several ghits, [35] but no significant coverage in secondary and third party reliable source. It has only a mention in USA Today, but that is not multiple reliable source and not significant coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:N. Passing reference insufficient. Edison (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Normally, I'd propose a redirect to the material that uses the term, but I can't really discern what that is. Unfortunately, I think it's best to simply delete it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is basically web content which should be judged per WP:WEB; the agency seems to have been created for the self-titled web site, not for a book or movie or other media. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources sufficient to assert Notability. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Celarnor Carter | Talk to me 11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somebody's web site for a fictional government agency WP:MADEUP in one day. Not even remotely notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and verifiable subject. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - valuable for explination of the site's satirical nature, which is not explained on the website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.140.6 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:20, 24 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. Singu larity 06:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gift of God[edit]

This article is an essay composed purely of original research and does not cite any sources. I brought this up at the Wikiproject:Christianity talk page and three of us concur this article should be deleted (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#The_Gift_of_God). We would like to see this decision assessed and the article deleted if it continues to be seen that this is the right decision. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This essay is unreferenced original research. Edison (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and spam. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lord please forgive me, but this original research must be deleted. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research with no grounding in reliable scholarly works. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not "OR" because no research. Just an essay. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 13:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous comments. Hey, the Lord giveth and AfD taketh away. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Religious POV and original research. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:26, 26 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. Singu larity 06:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doomcraft[edit]

Doesn't meet the notability standard of WP:FICTION and lacks reliable sources. brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable source. Fails WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Fails both FICT and general notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article as it presently stands fails to assert real world notability, namely, through the lack of reliable, third party sources. It also fails to assert general notability, through third party souces, shown by Google, there seem to be none. I can't see how this could be merged, therfore, deletion would be best here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This appears to be a random person's online persona in a video game. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why wasn't this speedied?--137.186.84.54 (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:02, 27 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, so keep. Bduke (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorshei Derekh[edit]

Well developed and written article does not establish notability. It seems unlikely that further development will be able to remedy this. ike9898 (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found an article discussing the emergence of this group and one discussing their position on something religious I don't understand which appear to demonstrate notability. Both are in the "Jewish Exponent". What is the reliability of this source? Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Exponent seems like a legitimate source, although possibly too closely tied to Dorshei Derekh. ike9898 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There do seem to be reliable sources that discuss the subject, although they are few in number; still, two sources is enough to pass N. I'd say trim it to the extent that available sourcing allows and keep an eye out for anything else that we can use. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG because coverage isn't substantial. A better idea would be to merge into an article about Judaism in Philidelphia. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do you know the coverage isn't substantial? One article appears to be entirely about the group. Because they are pay-to-view I haven't been able to view the full articles, but an article focused on the group seems substantial to me. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:59, 25 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. Singu larity 06:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Staton[edit]

This article fails to show how this person meets the notability standard of WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC. One hit in Google news. brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any assertation of notability either -- nothing that proves he's worked with the artists listed. Even if he has, that doesn't mean he's automatically notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Even if he has worked with other notable artists, that doesn't make him notable himself. He still needs objective independent coverage. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Celarnor's response, working with notable artists does not satisfy WP:MUSIC. WilliamH (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Google news reveals nothing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to justify this under WP:MUSIC criteria JBsupreme (talk) 17:24, 26 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. Singu larity 06:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Combined Assault[edit]

This article fails WP:Notability, as it asserts no notability through reliable secondary sources. The list of in-game weapons violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GAMETRIVIA. --Silver Edge (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT#INFO. Game guide material. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide, nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. This fails both of those, and has no potential to establish notability. Any mention of weapons is far better covered in the main game article. -- Sabre (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Violates WP:GAMETRIVIA. Fails to show that the weapons of SOCOM are notable. Nothing worth merging into the main article, since lists of items are discouraged, and WP:PLOT only permits the use of concise plot summaries and not comprehensive details of the fictional world. Randomran (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might also consider a Speedy delete - quoted from WP:GAMETRIVIA aka WP:VGSCOPE aka WP:GAMECRUFT -

Unsuitable content ...

3. Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts.

The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game.

I've displayed this guideline for the benefit of other editors. Randomran (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A section that you alone added and that does not reflect actual consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeating that falsehood. That section has been there for a long time. Especially the part that says "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." The further edits to that section have been to add clarity. Any edits to that section that actually change its meaning have been rejected, as they change the consensus which has been that way for months. Randomran (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a guideline. In some games weapons may not be notable, but in a game that is about the military, they are. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not subjective. It is based on the general notability guideline. If this topic is notable, then provide reliable references independent of SOCOM that show these weapons are actually notable. Otherwise, nobody's opinion -- yours or mine -- is helpful. Randomran (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The interpretation of that guideline is subjective. The topic has been covered in reliabel references. Look for some published magazine reviews of the game that mentions the weapons and combine those with published game guides to work as a mixture of primary and secondary evidence. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You look for it. I did, couldn't find anything, and that's why I nominated this for deletion. Randomran (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All these hits show that sources exist. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable ones, though. Randomran (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lives in a gaming wiki, not wikipedia. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:GAMEGUIDE. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per what Wikipedia is. The article is simply not a game guide, as it is not a how-to. Nor is it trivia as it concerns a major aspect of a military themed game. Nor is it indiscriminate, as it focuses on a specific element of a specific game. It is, however, notable and verfiable through reliable secondary sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GAMECRUFT is not exclusive to how-to; it also includes lists of weapons, enemies, et cetera. WP:IINFO does not mean that articles should only include specific information. Essentially, WP:IINFO states that "Simply because information exists on a subject, does not mean that it is notable." Also remember that notability is not inherited, simply because the subject of the main article is notable doesn't mean that this is. You have also failed to explain how the weapons of a military-based game are more notable. If anything they would be less notable because they are either clones or direct copies of real-world weapons.ZappyGun, his (empty) talk page, and what he has done for Wikipedia. 14:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lists of weapons cannot legitimately be called the nonsense word "cruft". Notability can be inherited. No one has successfully provided a real reason for outright deletion, maybe for merging, maybe for redirected, but there is simply no reason for outright deletion. Weapons are notable aspects of video games and merit inclusion in our project. We gain nothing by not covering them, whereas we may gain something by covering them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a game guide. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:Writing about fiction. Article presents no out-of-universe context. The list, with its "in-game labels" is WP:OR. The short "new weapons" paragraph is sourced but can easily be integrated into the main article. Marasmusine (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Game-guide material. Almost entirely in-universe, largely unsourced, and with little apparent notability. Jakew (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Cruftcruft and WP:ITSCRUFT. Other concerns can be addressed per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ITSCRUFT does not apply here because Jakew is citing Wikipedia's guidelines rather than personal opinion. Furthermore, ITSCRUFT does not translate to "nothing is cruft". ZappyGun, his (empty) talk page, and what he has done for Wikipedia. 14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As others have suggested, the word itself is "unconstructive" and should never be used. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - An opinion to which you and others are of course entitled to hold. Jakew (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Transwiki'd over to StrategyWiki:SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Combined Assault/Weapons. -- Prod (Talk) 20:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making a reasonable effort to actually preserve this useful information. Just because it doesn't belong on wikipedia doesn't mean that it should be lost completely. Randomran (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure game guide material which, thanks to Prod's efforts, has now found an appropriate home on a gaming wiki. --Stormie (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that this is a valid search term and there is a valid redirect location, I see no reason for an outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:55, 26 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. — Scientizzle 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squints by Offwhyte[edit]

Contested prod. Reason was, "Non-notable album. Also, I could not find this Village voice review that the article mentions, or the Urb one for that matter, except on promotional sites made by the company." SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Artist doesn't have a page and is unlikely to, so this album isn't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, artist doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, therefore album is non-notable; apparent WP:COI as creator of article shares username with this artist's label. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:12, 26 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close Knit Productions[edit]

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:' No significant coverage in reliable source. Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:36, 27 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 without prejudice to any future merge. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit World (Avatar: The Last Airbender)[edit]

This article has been tagged for notability issues for quite some time now, and no effort has been made to improve it. It seems most of the article is plot summary. Obviously, this fails WP:PLOT as well as WP:N (if only the WP:FICT proposal became policy, then there would be a more specific notability citation). In fact, there are only four references in the article, and they are all to the show. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any 3rd party reliable sources which discuss this element of fiction as important or notable; even in the context of the television program. Perhaps this would be better served as part of a "World of Avatar: The Last Airbender" or something? --Haemo (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While it needs improvement, there are other articles in the same vein--seeCategory:Avatar: The Last Airbender nations -- and AfD is not a substitute for improvement. I know my argument is somewhat against WP:OTHERSTUFF, however, if this article fails WP:PLOT then the others in the above category would too, and I don't see that would be quite appropriate, as the other articles are well-written--and that is really all this article needs. At the very least, I would say, give this article another stay of execution so long as there's someone willing and knowledgable enough (where to find sources-wise) to do the work. Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the articles in that category do deserve to be either deleted or merged. In fact, the best solution would probably be to do what Haemo said, and merge them all into a World of Avatar: The Last Airbender. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 11:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider merging. Parent seems to agree that merging would be a suitable as deletion, so, given that deletion policy is that deletion is the last resort, I suppose he actually supports a keep , and that he will then propose a merge. DGG (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, at first I believed the article should just be deleted. But then I realized that this article is just one of about ten articles that need to be merged into one. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm good with the idea of merging this article with the other non notable Avatar articles related to the Avatar world. SkepticBanner (talk) 00:17, 27 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Toprak[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO as a non-notable biography. Possible A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ The article needs sourcing and clean-up, but the facts stated there appear to be correct and the subject is notable. GoogleNews gives 1,250 hits for his name[36] and he is indeed frequently quoted in the press as an auto industry expert. Notable per WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral. On close inspection of the ghits, the only thing they say about him personally is his name and position at Edmunds.com. While the fact that his opinion is frequently quoted may be construed as nontrivial coverage of him, it is unclear if WP:BIO was meant to apply to cases like this. Nsk92 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find numerous times that he has been quoted, yes, but in his capacity as a spokesperson for Edmunds. It's not clear that he has ever himself been the subject of an article or even at-length interview. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be one of those cases where quantity transcends into quality. WP:BIO says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." There seems to be plenty of nontrivial coverage of him, even if this coverage is not in-depth and he is not the main subject of it. Nsk92 (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this with numerous journalists. Their byline shows up frequently, but they themselves aren't written about. For the case of Cyrus Farivar, who had numerous byline citations and ~~originated~~ exposed the greenlighting hoax, even Jimbo said "Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored." After multiple VFDs and a DRV, though, his article was deleted. It's not an absolute precedent, but it seems to indicate that WP:V trumps WP:GHITS. --Dhartung | Talk 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. Nsk92 can you please demonstrate to the rest of us where this person has received plenty of non-trivial coverage? I will make a !vote after a reasonable period of time has passed after reviewing what you have available. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my understanding of "trivial coverage" is something like a directory listing or a passing mention of the name. When someone is asked to express an expert opinion on a particular topic, that would seem to constitute non-trivial coverage of that person (this is not the same as in-depth coverage where the person himself/herself is the subject of the interview). Essentially all of the examples in [37] are of this kind. Nsk92 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:26, 24 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. Arkyan 17:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language systems international[edit]

Conflict of interest in non-notable article:

The vast majority of edits have been done by Lsiryan and IPs from the same block (AT&T Internet Services).

LSIryan was created with the sole intention of creating and managing "Language systems international."

IP from the same block SPAMed several Los Angeles Community College pages for LSI (69.233.93.191).

~~Main page at "http://www.languagesystems.com/home.asp" uses Wikipedia to validate its status, i.e. "Read about us on Wikipedia".~~ Article reads like an advertisement; Not-notable. Wherewithal (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Excellent research. Duncan1800 (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the company seems to misunderstand notability criteria in Wikipedia. Pundit|utter 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources in the article do not demonstrate notability. I have also searched Google, news and scholar and not found evidence of notability. Which surprises me a little, given the size of the school. I wonder if there are non-English-language sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I do not know if you consider this, but if you search for English School in google, this school is in the #3 position. That is the top position of all ESL schools in the world. Again, not sure if that is considered, but if it is, it seems to imply some notability. lsiryan 12:55, 23 May 2008
- Actually, LSI is nowhere to be found in the first 10 results on Google. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I hope comments by people such as Wenli will be ignored. Clearly he is just trying to cause trouble. Please see this link Listing on Google. Again, I don't know if that is considered, but my post was correct. lsiryan 18:45, 24 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.93.191 (talk)
    - I've looked at your link and I can't see the school listed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Strange. When I go to Google it is listed 4th in the organic results (previously it was 3rd, now it is 4th). Perhaps you can just go to Google directly and search for "English School"? It is there, I promise! Lsiryan (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just found another instance of the spam. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. I really do not understand these comments at all. The article does not read like an advertisement. No where does it say if the school is good or bad, nor does it encourage enrollment. It simple states the history, and what classes are offered. I went out of my way to make it not an advertisement. Almost no esl schools are listed on wikipedia, I simply tried to add this one. I know its details very well. Someone else can add another that they are familiar with.I did not spam area colleges. I added useful information to the thousands and thousands of ESL students in southern California. I added, at the bottom of their listings, a short section "International Students". I then put there the school's policy as stated on their website regarding transfer for international student without taking the TOEFL. This information is HUGELY important to international students as I can attest from personal experience! If the school listed all the schools it had an agreement with, I copied all the school's info. If it did not, I only put the schools which I know. Anyone with further information is welcome to add it. Finally, this is the largest ESL school in the USA, and probably the world. If that is not notable for this category, what is? Or is it just that ESL schools are not notable at all? Why? lsiryan 11:43, 23 May 2008

Comment You need to find news articles about the school, or something similar, to demonstrate that it is notable. I can't find anything. Can you find an independant source saying explicitly that it's the largest ESL school in the US? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. Here is a link to US government stats: SEVIS by the numbers, as you will see, LSI is ranked #25 of all schools in the nation. The 24 above LSI are universities, thus we can say LSI is the largest ESL school by student volume in the USA. lsiryan 5:03, 23 May 2008

What does this document actually represent? It doesn't actually say. It lists active students - what are they? It's hosted by the US dept of immigration and customs enforcement. Which seems strange to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, regardless of what this list is and where it comes from, being in a list doesn't not count as "significant" coverage in the sense used in the General Notability Guideline. Being in a list or directory is considered "trivial" coverage, which doesn't demonstrate notability. What you need is an article specifically about the school, or several articles that all cover the school in a more than trivial way. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understandably most of you seem to know nothing about international students in the USA, or ESL schools. That is typical and understandable. This document is from the US immigration depts SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) that tracks all F-1 visa students in the USA. Every international student in the USA is tracked by this system. This is their list of where the students are. Nearly 3000 are at LSI. That makes LSI the largest ESL school in the USA. ESL schools and foreign students are rarely tracked by the media. That does not make them unimportant or non-notable. Probably almost no Americans knew anything about international students or F-1 visas or any of that until 9/11. Even after that, I guess probably 98% of Americans do not know much about it. Nevertheless, around 100,000 foreign students come to the USA every year. They send billions of dollars from their countries into the US economy. To say something is not notable simply because the media has failed to pay attention to it does not seem correct to me. LSI is the largest ESL school in the USA, that alone seems to be notable. Perhaps if more people knew about ESL schools, F-1 visas, SEVIS and the like, it would be more notable. Perhaps Wikipedia can be allowed to do what it does very well, spread that information. Lsiryan (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. lsiryan, please don't make up "facts" to try to sway the consensus. Tavix (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is going on here? Tavix, what facts do you claim I am making up? Please do not make unsubstantiated and general claims. Please state why you said delete, and repost lsiryan 12:46, 23 May 2008

Delete per the nominator's excellent explanation. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sites already rebuffed reasons. No personal explanation or reasons given. Unprofessional and not necessary. Please resubmit with detailed reasons. Thank you. lsiryan 4:46, 23 May 2008
- Please don't delete other people's comments. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not delete anyone's comments. I used strike out tags to get your attention. I want to hear reasons why your voted for deletion. It seems to me that you are all just "deletion happy", with no justification. If that is the case, then your opinion should not count. Some people have posted good points, such as Ryan Paddy, but most of you just seem to have voted DELETE for the pure sake of it. That is not helpful or useful to people who use Wikipedia. lsiryan 13:45, 24 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.93.191 (talk)
    - Please don't strike out other people's comments to get their attention. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lsaryan, editing other people's comments is very bad form. Editors have the right to post here, and you should assume good faith that they have given due consideration to the arguments presented here and done research if they felt it necessary. Antagonising people will not help. Please help by finding substantial articles about the school, or accept that it's likely to be deleted. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I consider it very bad form to vote "delete" arbitrarily an with no good reason given. However, I take your point. I only struck out their comments to get their attention, I did not change or delete anything. Anyway, I won't do it any more. Deleting this article, IMHO, would be wrong, and I would not accept it. Why should I?Lsiryan (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is deleted, it will be because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion. Accepting the result would indicate that you abide by the guidelines for inclusion created by the concensus of the Wikipedia community. There are two main reasons for the notability guideline's general criteria of significant independant coverage, and in my opinion they are both very good reasons. Firstly, there has to be a way of gauging whether subject matter is of interest to people at large, because wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Significant independant coverage demonstrates this: if an author or journalist has taken interest in the subject, then it presumably has some level of general interest. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, if there is not significant independant coverage of the subject then where will the article get verifiable information about the subject from? Wikipedia is not supposed to consist of the original research of the editors, information should be sourced from reliable sources. My advice, if you want the article to stay, is to use your time wisely by looking for coverage of the school rather than debating core policies and guidelines. That's the best help I can offer. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete My friend showed me that you plan delete this page. I am a student at LSI. When I was in Japan I made a lot of research to find school in California. I searched Google.com and Wikipedia in English because in Japan many agents provide only the information for most expensive schools, but not all informations. I found LSI because of Wikipedia. Wikipedia helped me a lot to find out about LSI, but also Los Angeles area and where to live and more. Now I am asking all my friends who used Wikipedia to find this information which was helpful to make the account and post here. Please do not delete this page. It is very useful for many foreign people! RyokoN (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't send people here, it is frowned upon as canvassing. This is not a vote, it's editors providing good reasons to keep or delete. Instead, use your friends to search for an article about the school in the media: newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. Perhaps you can find an article about the school written in Japanese? It can't just be an advertisment paid for by the school, it has to be independantly written by a journalist. It has to be from a reliable source (e.g. not a high school magazine written by students). If you can find something like that, you will save this Wikipedia article. Otherwise, it's likely to be deleted. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I did not send this person here. I don't know if their user name is reflective of their real name, but Ryoko is a womans name, and common, but I have not mentioned this page to any Ryoko, and I cannot think of any Ryoko who I know. However, some students a few weeks ago started working on a Japanese language translation of LSI's page, because they wanted to post such a page on Wikipedia Japan. This was incorporated into a class activity for some advanced level students, I think on how to use "Reported Speech". Thus they may have discovered that the English language page is being considered for deletion. But I do not know.Lsiryan (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comment was directed at RyokoN, asking her not to go through with her stated plan of sending people here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I understand that. If I can find this person, I will ask them not to do that. Lsiryan (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The conflict of intrest part is problematic, but if that had been the only problem I would have advocated keeping and cutting down to a stub. However, the article does not include any proof of notability. It fails WP:N, plain and simple. --Bonadea (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wanted to add, the research done by the nominator was great. Thank you, Wherewithal! --Bonadea (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This school is very famous in Japan. I don't know about USA, because probably Americans dont go to ESL school!! Some links [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. These are just one I can find quickly. Also many people post about this school on MIXI. Some famous Japanese pop star went to this school, and many gossip kids follow it. Thx to you!!!! KazGuy :) (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you. Could someone who reads Japanese and knows the Wikipedia notability policy please have a look at these? To me they look like commercial profiles or directory entries, not substantial independant coverage, but my high-school Japanese is totally insufficient to be sure. Note that a famous person going to the school doesn't make the school notable, unless the school itself has received substantial coverage as a result. Forum postings are not reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability either. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've run all of these Japanese pages through Google translation. They're all essentially advertisements, except the last one which is about some dance thing and doesn't mention the school. They don't demonstrate notability because they don't appear to be from independant reliable sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Read about us on Wikipedia" has since been removed, but still persists in google cache and non-english versions of the homepage. Additionally, I forgot to mention that this article had a notability tag which was removed by 69.225.132.176(Again, AT&T Internet Services) ~5 months ago in defiance of the talk page.--Wherewithal (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I informed the school to take the link to Wikipedia off. They (and I) did not know that was some violation of Wikipedia rules, or a bad thing. But when I emailed them the comments on this page, they decided it was better to take off. I guess they did not go to the secondary language pages. I will ask them to. As for the notability tag you mention, I am not sure what exactly that was/is, but students from the school have edited the entry, indeed it was part of the work they did in the school (BTW: Way to disappoint them everyone!), so they may have edited or changed something... in fact they probably did. Probably they didnt know what they were doing or that it was wrong (if we give them "the benefit of the doubt", it is an interesting concept some of you might want to look up). Lsiryan (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement, as shown by the somments supporting it. DGG (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Fails WP:CORP and, I think, every proposal for WP:SCHOOLS. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison A competitor to LSI is Kaplan, Inc.. I have been reviewing other school entries and wondering whether they deserve deletion or not. Perhaps Kaplan, Inc. does, but if it does not and LSI does, I would appreciate an explanation why. Lsiryan (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a separate issue to this discussion. However, I've done a quick Google news search and found several independant articles about Kaplan, Inc. that I think would cause it to survive a deletion discussion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Could you list those articles here or on my talk page so I can see examples of what you are looking for? Lsiryan (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A potential list. -Wherewithal (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link provided above by Wherewithal has numerous articles from independant reliable that demonstrate notability for Kaplan, Inc. If LSI had that sort of coverage we wouldn't be having this discussion. Bear in mind that even if LSI is deleted now, if it can later demonstrate notability there's no reason it can't be created again. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is a ranking on Google's organic search results considered for notability? I guess you could make an argument either way, but it seems that Google is pretty good at determining the relevance and importance of things (hence the billions of dollars they have earned). Anyway, LSI is the top rated school when you search for "English School" on Google. It is in the 3rd or 4th position on the organic results, behind lists of schools and the Wikipedia entry. Combined with US government published reports (previously mentioned) showing that LSI is the largest ESL school in the USA, and this Google listing indicating that Google considers LSI the most relevant school-site to "English School" in the world (in English Google)... well? Does that count for something? Lsiryan (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Search ranking is not mentioned in any of the relevant notability guidelines: WP:N, WP:CORP, or WP:SCHOOL. Personally, I think that's for the best as I see search rankings as both transient and open to manipulation. If someone independant and reliable writes an article about you, that's forever. If you manage to get your school highly-rated in Google this year, that's a temporary commercial achievement. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can understand why a Google ranking would not be included. But honestly, I could ask a friend at a small paper/publication to write an article on me or my company. Heck, most small magazines will do so if you advertise in them. However, if you think you can manipulate Google to list your site in the top 5 organic spots for a 2 word key phrase such as English School, you should quit whatever you are doing and get into Web SEO, you will make millions... :-) Lsiryan (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most small magazines would not be considered reliable sources. A better comparison is whether you can get a journalist at the LA Times to cover your company in some depth. That will also provide a source of verifiable information, unlike a Google ranking. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:48, 28 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. Singu larity 06:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was Speedy deleted as hopelessly promotional, & I rarely speedy when at afd, but this is an instance where it's appropriate. DGG (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've been asked to undelete it and let the discussion proceed, so i will do so. Simpler to do that than have a deletion review. DGG (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truespel[edit]

This article was previously deleted on a PROD [45] with the notation "One person's spelling crusade--which the rest of the world hasn't noticed, yet. No refs, no sign of notability or much in the way of Google hints, and published by a vanity press." The article was recreated and all of this is still true. The thing is a blatant advert. It should be salted this time. Qworty (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G11 as blatant advertising. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH as the poorly written, unsourced advert-spiel it is. Note also that the first entry in the history list is "submitted by the creator of truespel - Tom Zurinskas". On a side note, am I the only one who finds it ironic that the (apparent) marketing effort for this theory/process/thing is using truly atrocious grammar? Granted, the spelling is fine... Duncan1800 (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Blatant advertising. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear example of advertising: look at the content DGG (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content is entirely promotional. We are not provided with any commentary by outsiders on the significance of this idea. No reliable sources at all. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the editor who requested the (almost certainly temporary) undeletion, I am glad to see EdJohnston's comment, which hits the nail on the head in distinguishing between an idea and a product, and setting out the appropriate standards for evaluating the article on its own merits, or lack thereof. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clear advertising and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Its not notable at present. Article is also wholly unreferenced. Artene50 (talk) 06:00, 24 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. — Scientizzle 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario cast members[edit]

This article is purely duplicative; the cast of the various Mario media is huge, and should be found in the article appropriate to it. As the various Mario articles already list their cast members, this is duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The games, the TV show, the movie, and every other thing ever related to Nintendo's plumber already have all the articles they require. This one, in fact, only relates to the Mario franchise by its title - the list makes no attempt to even classify how the people in it are related, which all of those articles do very well (besides that, the other articles are actually more complete in their cast listings as well). Easy decision. Duncan1800 (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Duncan1800. This is basically a "performer by performance" category, which is disfavored, but in list form. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencylopedic; it's a list with no information. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant: this information is already covered in Mario games, cartoon, movies etc. And this article don't says what person does in each Mario media. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as good faith WP:OR WP:CFORK. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Matoran[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is a repetition of plot information from the Bionicle book and video game articles. It is therefore duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this in-universe list of nn fictional characters to Matoran. JJL (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Delete. These list is so large that I don't think a merge is reasonable. I'm not opposed to a keep or delete ending though, leaning towards delete. Wizardman 23:30, 31 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. Arkyan 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Rigsbee[edit]

Save all information: I personally worked with Austin Rigsbee at WTIK Radio in Durham, NC and saw first hand his contribution to country music and to radio broadcasting in North Carolina. I see nothing in the article below that is not true about Austin and his background in the industry. I personally saw his friendship with many country music such as Conway, Loretta, Ralph Emory and so many others. I find the persons below that doubt or make underserving comments below to be insulting.

Delete local radio personality with A-list friends, whose notability doesn't rub off. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Turn the dial away from this non-notable radio host. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If done right this could be an interesting article due to some of the history involved with his efforts. However, the claims are not backed. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete No reliable sources and it fails WP:BIO and WP:N.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, however it does fail WP:V. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 10:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Austin Rigsbee was listed in "Country Music Who's Who" Magizine every year from 1965-1979. Rigsbee also has a 5 page article in the 1971 in "Radio T.V. Mirror Magizine", which was an extremely popular magizine in the 60's & 70's. Rigsbee is a great man, I only regret that more couldn't be done in his honor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad1085 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC) — Chad1085 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ Austin Rigsbee was and is a very important in Classic Country Music. He was very well known in North Carolina, and was the first man to bring A-list Country Music concerts to North Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad1085 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Note: This is a second keep vote by User:Chad1085. Nsk92 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google reveals only 3 results. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Google is a great tool for researching people active in the last 15 years or so but not as useful for the 1960s and 1970s. Notability is not temporary but fame certainly can be so don't think a lack of Google hits for a mid-20th century figure carries the same negative weight as it would for a person alleged to be active here in the early 21st. - Dravecky (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. No reliable sources. A minor radio personality at best. Artene50 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aparentlly Mr. Rigsbee does have a 4 Page write up in April 1971's T.V. Radio Mirror Magizine. I have also found that Rigsbee was made an "Honorary Attorney General" in 1972 by Rufus Edminston (Attorney General of NC at the time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkin7460 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC) — Wilkin7460 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as would clear notability if sourcing noted above could be provided for verifiability, era of subject's activity leaves this article prone to FUTON bias. - Dravecky (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability. FUTON bias is very important to consider but it's just a consideration, not a free pass for unsourced articles. Those sources still need to be produced at some point according to WP:BURDEN. If this DJ contributed to the industry the way WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO instructs, there would be some significant mention of her on the net somewhere. Many major newspapers have their full text archives available on Google News or their own websites going back to the 80's and images going back even further. Major awards and hall of fame inductions going back to the beginnings of these awards are easily sourced online. If a AFD doesn't flush out these references will additional time?--Rtphokie (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I have a copy of the T.V. Radio Mirror magazine listed above. The story on Rigsbee is entitled, "Austin B. Rigsbee: Southern Royalty" The Story reads... Austin Rigsbee is a name that, if you're not familiar withit, may sound like a new forign sportscar monicker of a count or a king of a small country tucked away on the other side of the world. But if you are fimiliar with Austin B. Rigsbee, you would likely have your dial tuned to the big "K", WTIK-Radio in Durham, North Carolina. Austin is synonymous with modern country-western and gospel music, and he fills four hours a weekday (6-8 A.M and then again at 5-7 P.M.) with the sad, true-to-life C&W songs of Burl Ives, Merle Haggard, Archie Campbell, Buck Owens, to name a few, on his "Country Club" show. Between his radio time and his monthly "Shindigs", concerts in the Opry style, Austin has met all the country stars. "After an interview and joke session with Archie Campbell at the station, he came to my house for dinner," he relates. "All through dinner, Archie was being his humorous self, much to our delight and that of our younger daughter Kaye. "After dinner, Kaye disappeared and returned with approx. 25 of her friends. Archie gave an unexpected "command" performance for them right in our living room!" Austin loves the musicmakers, but there is a pecial place in his heart for the listeners. "For the past five years I've been doing outside remote broadcasts at two business locations. This is one of the most special and meaningful phases of my job, for it gives me the opportunity of meeting and talking with the people who enjoy our type of music as much as I do." To Austin, his followers are loyal and dependable, with a genuine love and concern for their fellow man. "For whenever a community crisis or emergency arises, we've never had to doubt weather they would come to aid." People tend to agree that Austin's special warmth would attract followers even if he haden't pursued broadcasting. "My father," he says. "was in the retial furniture business and he always used to say he wanted one of his sons to follow after him. Since I love work that involves people, it seemed only logical that I go into some sales field, and furniture that I knew best." As a child growing up in Durham, Austin spent a large part of his childhood in his father's store. " I knew it so well that I joined a large furniture chain as manager before I even thought about broadcasting." In fact, although the two don't mix, a chair was very instrumental in introducing Austin to radio. "A salesman from WTIK-Radio called on me while at the store and convinced me that an hour-long record show from the store each weekday would be good for our business. I decided to try it and for a while a staff anouncer would come in every day and do the program. The more I watched, the more facinated I becameand finally decided to thy my hand at doing the announcing. My program lasted for two years , at which time the Durham store was moved to Florida. Wanting to leave the store with an unprecedented happining, Austin organized a talk-a-thon where two wemon competed talking continuously around the clock. "One talked for 76 hours and the other for 72 hours without stopping-talking apparently must be natural for wemon! However, we had so much fun that when the time came for me to move to Florida with the store, I decided to stay in radio and continue the good times." A graduate of Durham High School, Austin recalls his childhood as a very happy one, complete with an abundance of love and activity. Being the middle child of 5 boys and 2 girls in the Rigsbee family, he was always "in the middle" in more ways than one. "From some of the tales my mother and older sisters have told, I probably was the most mischievous of the family. My brothers and I would get into scraps occasionally, but we always stuck togeather when it came to others." Not one to relax, Austin always liked to stay busy, weather it meant working in drive-in restaurants or at school. He learned that in order to partisipate in his favored activities, he would have to earn money. Special interests included, and still include, horseback riding, sports cars, stock cars, and finding out what makes them tick. "I useually buy two or three cars a year." says the 40 year old youngster. Being in the entertainment world, Austin admits that he has not been able to seperate his professional life from his family life. "This business isn't on a time clock basis, and personally, I wouldn't want it so. In this world we live in, it's a common complaint that we can't find enough time to do things. But all of us seem to find the time to do the things that are really important to us. My family and I may not have as much time togeather as some other families, but we really pack a lot in to the time we can call ours," says the proud husband of Louise Rigsbee and the father of Sharyn, 16, and Kaye, 12- and master of Yogi, a German Shepherd. Austin's occupation is something that can be enjoyed by the entire family. At his "Shindig" sessions, he has them working. Louise helps with the many detials of the country and western stage shows, such as correspondence, keeping records, helping with tickets, etc. The younger Rigsbees help by serving as ushers and distributing programs. The homestead is a three level house located 5 minutes from the station. "It's comfortable and convenient, but nothing unusual," according to the headmaster. "But the biggest joy is having a family that cares and encourages", says Austin. "It's been said that a man recieves only what he puts into a situation. I believe we receive from life in proportion to what we give. Life has so many important meanings and I try not to get bogged down with trivialities. I think BIG!" Not only does Austin Rigsbee think big, but he is BIG, has a BIG following-and deserves every bit of it.

The story is tagged with photos... The first is Rigsbee with Merle Haggard in front of a ton of people. The second is Rigsbee on stage with Conway Twitty. The Third is Rigsbee with his family in their home. The Fourth is Rigsbee on stage with Dolly Parton. The Fith has Rigsbee on a horse farm with Buck Owens.

I do not believe that just because they did not have the internet in those days, the important people of yesteryear should not be recognized! I would be happy to scan and send this story to anyone who wants to see "Proof"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewlovic (talk • contribs) 16:52, 25 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. Reliable sources to assert notability exists. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly Stoopid[edit]

This looks like a case of Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. The article does not assert notability, aided by how it has no reliable sources so I googled and found nothing to tell me if this band was notable on google, either. Looks amateur and non-notable. William Ortiz (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll pretend like "The band was originally signed by Bradley Nowell from the band Sublime to his label Skunk Records while still in high school" is at least a claim of notability, thus barely managing to skirt past CSD A7, but - unfortunately - notability is not inherited. --Badger Drink (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This actually seems like a case of Wikipedia:Google is a terrible indicator of notability. The band has a profile on allmusic.com, and that is a strong argument in favor of notability. --Badger Drink (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Badger Drink's link and because it looks like they have established notability. Tavix (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having a profile on allmusic.com doesn't make a band notable, anyone can make a profile, however, getting them to review 2 of your albums, that's different. Band meets WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Post-closure comment per "anyone can make a profile" -- this isn't true, you have to submit something that is commercially available and they retain editorial discretion over inclusion.[46] --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:MUSIC, C1? Check: [47] [48] [49], C2? Check. C4? Check. C5: Skunk Records. That's just in 5 minutes of searching. Plenty of evidence. — Ocatecir ^T 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Never heard of them before, but a quick look at some of the article's sources reveals that it's a band's band. A fact that is more than 'slightly' obvious. It should never have been nominated for an AfD, nor should the nominator be mentioning a google search (how embarrassing for him or her). Here's a WP:Trout for this Slightly Stoopid nomination (hate the sin not the sinner). --Firefly322 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Were signed to a notable independent label, I found articles on them from Billboard, and review (not just a bio) from All Music Guide and Their albums have charted in the US, one of them hitting #55 on the Billboard Hot 200. That's pretty notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Post closure comment: Actually, Allmusic tends to wait until a couple of reviews before they do a bio. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:GARAGE is clearly marked as a humor page. Why is it being used to back up a serious AfD nomination? Townlake (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and trout the nom. Multiple reliable sources exist to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:12, 23 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 consensus is to delete. Claims of inappropriate !votes by Hindus is disregarded as there is no evidence of canvassing. Vandalism/sock abuse in the article istelf is no reason to abandon good faith when dealing with the participants to this discussion. Arkyan 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu terrorism[edit]

Firstly, I dispute the definition of Hindu Terrorism provided - just because terrorist attacks are carried out by members of a religion, it doesn't automatically infer the terrorism is religiously motivated, it could have other motivations, such as nationalism. Secondly, reliable sources indicate the Nepal group isn't considered to be terrorist - see this news report. Lastly, the Hindutva movement group isn't considered to be terrorist, although it has been classified as a hate group. PhilKnight (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books shows 39 citations for "Hindu terrorism".[50] Surely this is a notable topic? The other major religions have a main article for discussing religious terrorism (Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism). I dispute that a single source saying "X isn't terrorist" means that a group isn't terrorist (consider a single source that states "Al-Qaeda isn't terrorist"). Josh Keen (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the google book results, they include uses such as "the actions of the LTTE in Sri Lanka are not referred to as Hindu terrorism", from Counter-Terrorism Policing: Community, Cohesion and Security - Page 117 by Sharon Pickering, Jude McCulloch, David Wright-Neville - Social Science - 2008. Also, just because there are articles for Christian or Islamic terrorism, it doesn't imply that we should create articles that don't comply with our content policies. Finally, you haven't provided sources to demonstrate the groups mentioned in the article are considered to be terrorists. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Google book results also include many valid uses of the term. I have provided a reliable source that indicate one of the groups (the one with trained suicide bombers) is considered "the Hindu Al-Qaeda", with the many terrorist connotations of that term. Plus reliable sources stating their religious goals (establish a Hindu state etc.), plus details of religiously motivated attacks (bombing of Christian orphanage). What more do you want? Josh Keen (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write an encyclopedic article about the Nepal Defence Army, then go ahead, but this article is original research. PhilKnight (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here are some excerpts from the google books:

"why the actions of the LTTE in Sri Lanka are not referred to as "Hindu terrorism"...[51]"

"...should Islamic terrorism materialise it would be met by Hindu terrorism (ie it doesn't exist yet), ...[52]"

Furthermore, one sensationalist third world tabloid calling somebody "Al-Qaeda" doesn't automatically make them a reliable source for "Hindu Terrorism". Many overly liberal and PC Israeli newspapers refer to orthodox Jewish groups as Chabad as "Jewish Taliban" or "Jewish al-Qaeda", which is insufficient reason to include them as such. Finally,terrorism by Hindus is not always religious in character. There is the issue of who exactly is a Hindu. It may be defined as religion or an ethnicity. A "Hindu state" need not be based on religious Hindu laws, but secular with a Hindu demographic. Ergo, some of the organizations listed may, at best, be classified as ethno-extremists or something, rather than religious terrorism.

Chiefofall (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV is obvious - I just undid your delete claiming "nationalism" - which bit of the following did you have trouble seeing the religious motivation in?

“

a document entitled "Exploring Religious Conflict", published by US-based think-tank, the RAND Corporation in August 2005, categorised the RSS as a "New Religious Movement", affirming that, "[i]t espouses a strong and militant religious philosophy based on exclusivity and hate".

”

Sorry, but followers of Hinduism are no better or worse than followers of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. I fail to see why this should be some kind of special case. Josh Keen (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, but they haven't been explicitly accused of terrorism, except by you, of course, whose POV is not so obvious until one does a simple google search.Chiefofall (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't say whether or not I personally consider them terrorist, since that is irrelevant to the discussion. However, two US think-tanks have classified the RSS as a religiously motivated terrorist organisation: the Terrorism Research Centre and the RAND Corporation.[53] Congress Chief Minister of Kerala A.K. Antony on July 14th 2002 in a statement branded R.S.S (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) as a terrorist organization.[54] Also some other groups that may be in this article:

Two non-notable think tanks (probably dispensationalist fronts, definitely so for the RAND corporation[55]) is not enough I'm afraid, and fall under WP:UNDUE. Do any governments declare them terrorist?Chiefofall (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is already established since there are Wikipedia articles on both groups, and notability is a prerequisite for existence of said articles. Josh Keen (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them show any pattern of terrorism.Chiefofall (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically arguing that the Terrorism Research Centre and the RAND Corporation are wrong. However, they are notable and can be included in this article. Your personal views aren't. Josh Keen (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"For the holy terrorist, the primary audience is the deity, and depending upon his particular religious conception, it is even conceivable that he does not need or want to have the public witness his deed. The Thugs are our most interesting and instructive case in this respect. They intend their victims to experience terror and to express it visibly for the pleasure of Kali, the Hindu goddess of terror and destruction.".[Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions, David C. Rapoport, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 658-677, Published by: American Political Science Association]
"Bengali revolutionary terrorism was simply a takeoff on the European variety. The only indigenous element in it was the dangerous infusion of Hindu religious fanaticism" Foreign Influences on Bengali Revolutionary Terrorism 1902-1908, Peter Heehs, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 533-556
" In Bengal, activities were often conducted through secret societies that sometimes practiced terrorism" "the RSS was influenced in its organization by Bengali terrorist societies" Ideology, Organization and Electoral Strategy of Hindu Nationalism: What’s Religion Got to Do with It?
Terror in the mind of God has a chapter on Hindu terrorism (p.92, "Sikh and Hindu justifications for violence)
Shiv Sena - "Shiv Sena chief, Bal Thackeray, steppted up his anti-Muslim diatribe, urging his followers to take up a holy war or dharm yuddh" "Thackeray's admiration for Adolph Hitler is also widely cited in interviews" "Shiv Sena's media clout reflects the confluence of the party's organizational acumen and its terrorist tactics." "The home of Haroon Rashid of the newspaper, Blitz, was attacked and all his possessions were burned... The effect of this incident and of Shiv Sena's terrorist tactics more generally have been an understandable self-censoring by the media." The Rebirth of Shiv Sena: The Symbiosis of Discursive and Organizational Power, Mary Fainsod Katzenstein, Uday Singh Mehta and Usha Thakkar, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 56, No. 2 (May, 1997), pp. 371-390, Published by: Association for Asian Studies
"The United Liberation Front of Assam is a Hindu terrorist group that targets Muslims rather than the other way round." [56]

Josh Keen (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources are either op/eds (unreliable), dispensationalist propaganda sites, or flat out misrepresented (if the anti-India secessionist ULFA ie The United Liberation Front of Assam is a "Hindu terrorist" outfit then scientologists are Vulcan monks from Mars). Plus, using the word "terrorist" as an epithet doesn't count, even if it IS used by some whiny Indian polemicists. The sources have to show clear patterns of terrorist acts performed by "The filthy pagan Hindoos", which they don't.Chiefofall (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the sources are academic journals, another is a book published by the University of California Press. The Times of India is the most widely distributed English language newspaper in India. The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies is a research center operated by the Department of Defense. These are good, reliable sources. Josh Keen (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. not impressed. The Times of India, despite it's flowery sounding name, is basically the National Enquirer of India. A cheap tabloid that got caught stealing nonsense out of wikipedia itself a while back (see User:Blnguyen/Times of India).As for the other sources, they may mention the term "Hindu terrorist", but only as a political epithet. Hindu terrorism would be a clear pattern of subversive activity (like suicide bombings, ramming planes into buildings) carried out by Hindus in order to establish a Hindu state governed by Hindu religious laws (which fell out of use some 250 years ago). No such pattern is indicated. Political epithets, even if they are used by pseudoacademics, fall under WP:NEO as inappropriate for wikipedia.Chiefofall (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, these are standard academic sources. I realise that what they say goes against your POV, sorry, that's just the way it is. To quote WP:RS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered the most reliable type of source" Josh Keen (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. Standard academic sources only count if they are detailed and descriptive. If some whine Indian Communists publish "whine whine Hindu terrorist Hindu terrorist don't look at the Muslims" then it may be reliable, but is not notable.Chiefofall (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "whine Indian Communists" : University of California Press is an academic publisher, The American Political Science Review is a peer reviewed academic journal, Modern Asian Studies and The Journal of Asian Studies are both peer reviewed journals published by the University of Cambridge, the Terrorism Research Centre and Rand Corporation are military and private research outfits respectively. Josh Keen (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that they are "academic". Their academicity does not automagically make them notable unless they discuss the purported phenomenon of "Hindu Terrorism" in a scholarly way, which they clearly do not.Chiefofall (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is your personal opinion, and you are entitled to it. If you could provide some appropriate peer reviewed expert sources that also share your opinion, that would be even better. Oh, and Notability and reliable source are two separate concepts. Josh Keen (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the think tank also lists the Osho cult (which IS a terrorist group actually 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack) and the Jamaat-e-Islami as terrorist groups, while a perusal at the wikipedia articles show that they (the Jamaat) definitely count as extremist, but not necessarily "terrorist" in on themselves (except as a political epithet). Clearly, thair standards of defining a "terrorist" are weak. Too weak for wikipedia.Chiefofall (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TERRORIST says that we don't have to show that "X is a terrorist", just be able to say that "reliable source X published something saying X is a terrorist." Josh Keen (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic topic. Also follows other naming conventions such as Christian terrorism. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously. Article full of scurrilous Original research, misrepresented claims, and is a transparent attempt at political correctness. Not all religious subjects are equivalent.No notable sources exist discussing "Hindu terrorism", and third world tabloids and partisan thin tanks (well, just one) don't count. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy.Chiefofall (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the Hindustan Times isn't a reliable source for information on terrorists based in that part of the world? Apparently, "Hindustan Times (HT) is a leading newspaper in India, published since 1924". I see no indication that it wouldn't be considered reliable. And the only reference to "tabloid" is referring to the print format, not the other meaning of the word. Josh Keen (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because India is a country whose press has precisely zero journalistic integrity. In India, there are no real libel laws and so a crank journalist can pretty much write any nonsense that he can without any fear of consequence, unlike in western countries where journalists are held to a higher standard. Thus, Indian media has no independent fact checking system, no accountability, and no real factual accuracy or factual absolutism. Everything written in Indian media is politically motivated nonsense (here are several articles in a "prominent Indian newspaper" that Jews did 9/11, for instance [57].Chiefofall (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We nonetheless accept Indian sources. The claim that they are totally unreliable needs to be discussed elsewhere. That you can find a few biased articles doesn't prove all the articles in all their newspapers incorrect. You can find some biased articles in the press of every country. DGG (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm gonna go run this topic through a few high power databases, see

what exists. (Will take me a couple hours to get to site with access.) --Firefly322 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google books shows 863 hits for "Sikh Terrorism"[58] (no wikipedia article, and evidently quite a notable topic given given Khalistan and the Air India Flight 182 bombing), 1950 hits for "Jewish Terrorism"[59](no wikipedia article, actually kind of covered in Zionist political violence). Obviously, the number of google books hits is insufficient to establish notability. Mostly the term "Hindu Terrorism" as a google search term reveals it to be a canard used by Dominionists and right-wing paleoconservatives in the US to encourage racial discrimination against Indian Americans.Chiefofall (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to put quote marks around the search terms. The correct results are "Sikh terrorism" 280 results, "Jewish terrorism" 661 results. Jewish terrorism does have a main article - Kahanism. Sikh terrorism doesn't - as you point out, it seems notable, so maybe you would like to start one? Josh Keen (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kahanism isn't religious terrorism. It's Revisionist Zionism, which is a different thing altogether. Most Hindutva extremism is a manifestation of ignorant skunks expressing frustration at atrocities committed against Hindus by Islamists in Pakistan (see 1971 Bangladesh atrocities) and by the Christians in fijiand Northeastern India Christian_terrorism#Groups_in_India. Violent, certainly. However, I fail to see any pattern of surreptiousness that indicates a terrorist act. The violence is typically conducted openly and in large organized mobs, rather than decentralized "terrorist" cells like Muslims and Christians do. Mostly, the accusation is either an epithet (in which case it fails WP:NEO or a canard used by pat Robertson and his ilk (in which case, it fails Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources.Chiefofall (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the main article for Jewish Terrorism is Kahanism, then I suggest the main article for Hindu Terrorism should be called Nepal Defence Army. If you move the existing article, I'll withdraw the deletion nom. PhilKnight (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article: Kahanism is religous in nature, and different from Zionism which can be secular or not... "Kahanism is a term used in Israeli political parlance to refer, specifically, to the ideology of Rabbi Meir Kahane, and, more generally, to other right-wing Religious Zionist movements or groups that share a belief in the fundamental tenets of that ideology, chief among them being the idea that the State of Israel should be governed theocratically"

Josh Keen (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the organizations mentioned, the NDA may qualify as a terrorist outfit, perhaps even a Hindu terrorist outfit (given that they claim that they want to establish a Hindu theocracy in Nepal). In which case, an article on NDA is fine. However, their inclusion in religious terrorism is inappropriate per WP:UNDUE, given that they are maybe 5-6 people in a population of some 900 million Hindus, and can easily fall under the 10% or so of morons that constitute a fraction of any sizable population group.Chiefofall (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, Al Qaeda shouldn't be included in religious terrorism or Islamic terrorism, since they have maybe a few hundred members, in a population of 1 billion Muslims. Hardly a convincing argument, is it? Josh Keen (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument here.Chiefofall (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't think the present article is well balanced. Nor is it very complete. Actions that might possibly be referred to under this heading have occurred elsewhere also. But i can't deny that terrorism has occurred using the banner of a very wide range of religious groups, both earlier in history and at present. This does not imply that everyone of such religions is a terrorist, or that the religion as a whole or even to a significant level promotes, supports, or justifies terrorism. A article can be written about groups or actions that are normally classified as terrorism and claimed to occur for the purpose of defending or promoting this religion. An editing problem--a severe one, actually, and a difficult one to deal with. But Wikipedia can deal with it.DGG (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more complete if people didn't keep deleting bits that they personally disagree with.[60] Josh Keen (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean [61]. Even experts writing in peer reviewed acadmemic journals aren't good enough for this article! I had no idea that Hindu terrorism was so controversial. Josh Keen (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the Thuggees were assassins, not terrorists. The term "terrorism" did not even exist back then (since it was first applied) to radical Bolsheviks, who came about much much later). A thuggee would pretty much kill anyone you paid him to kill. They were mercenaries, not driven by any clear cut paradigm.Chiefofall (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is your personal opinion that the Thuggees were not terrorist, however, the text you keep reverting comes from an expert writing in a peer-reviewed academic journal, who states that in his opinion the Thuggees were religiously inspired Hindu terrorists. And your reason for deletion - "original reason" - is ridiculous; this is a direct quote from an expert source, how can it be original research?

"For the holy terrorist, the primary audience is the deity, and depending upon his particular religious conception, it is even conceivable that he does not need or want to have the public witness his deed. The Thugs are our most interesting and instructive case in this respect. They intend their victims to experience terror and to express it visibly for the pleasure of Kali, the Hindu goddess of terror and destruction.".[Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions, David C. Rapoport, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 658-677, Published by: American Political Science Association] Josh Keen (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Chiefofall (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Chiefofall (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteTrue that the Hindu community has its fair share of black sheep. there have been riots etc motivated by them but nothing that can be really defined as Hindu terrorism in the same vein as Islamic Terrorism, which is more organised ,well-spread, has a cohesive ideology and a determined task-force. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article contains virtually no relevant info, and lumps disparate phenomena together in an arbitrary fashion. It is fair to say, as part of a political discourse, that say VHP, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena are murders, fascists, communalists, etc., but wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia needs to treat the term 'terrorism' in a strictly academic fashion. The fact that there are Hindus that are terrorists doesn't mean that there is such a phenomena as 'Hindu terrorism'. --Soman (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hindu terrorism, terrorism inspired by Hindu holy books/doctrines is nonexistent. The Tamil Tigers are an avowedly secular group, with a disproportionate amount of Christians represented in their ranks. Does Al-Qaeda have Christians? Does the Lord Resistance have Muslims? No. This "article" (if one wishes to dignify it with that term) is a conglomeration of disjoint incidents, some out-of context quotes, and no phenomenon to illustrate.Baka man 00:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources provided that discuss the concept. Mere use of the phrase is not enough. - User:Relata refero 00:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC) (signature added later by — Nearly Headless Nick {C})[reply]

Delete: Unlike Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism, the concept of Hindu terrorism does not exists. Some google ghits does not mean there can be any thing like "Hindu terrorism", some people might have used the term "Hindu terrorism", but the concept is not accepted in the academia and nonexistent. Even if an organization attacks other religious groups, kills people, we cannot label the organization "terrorist" unless that particular group is designated as terrorist organization by at least one government. In this article some violent Hindu organizations are presented as terrorist group. But none of these organizations are designated as "terrorist". Hence the article is a WP:SYNTH. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm a little puzzled by your argument, since the two articles mentions have been upheld at AfD (or never brought to AfD at all). Your argument is for keep, not delete. DGG (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I did not understand what you are talking about. I do not have any agenda here and I have been accused of previous times as being a Christian terrorist, anti-Hindu propagandist etc etc. See Talk:Religious_violence_in_India/Archive_1#Anonymous_edit and Talk:Religious_violence_in_India/Archive_2#Fox_News. Please explain more which of my argument "puzzled" you and why? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but I never referred to your agenda, just that you wanted to delete this , saying that two other analogous articles existed--& one were kept by very large majorities & the other never even brought to AfD.. The arguments for keeping them apply just as much to this. Or did you mean unlike Islamic terrorism .... In which case, just fix your typo.DGG (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure OR -Bharatveer (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, despite the fact that every bit of content was correctly cited from peer-reviewed academic journals... Josh Keen (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears that we will soon entertain articles like "The Cult of Dalai Lama", "Tibetan terrorism" and "Buddhist terrorism", just because Xinhua said so – [62], [63], [64]. I find Phil's contentions very agreeable. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the content that was here was cited from University of Cambridge and others. Not Xinhua. Josh Keen (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hinduism is a philosophy/religion and not a political group. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? You could say the same about Islam or Judaism. I fail to see the relevance. Josh Keen (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strange article. I've always thought that encyclopedias should be written in passive form, and not like a newspaper article that attempts to prove something. This piece is just purely written to influence the reader towards a particular mindset and is bouncing around a few quotations, neologisms and opinions from controversial people. Vishnava_talk 01:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:QUOTEMINING Sarvagnya 17:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are just a couple of legitimate reasons for deleting this ~~editorial~~ 'article'. ~ priyanath talk 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - there is no reason for this article as the element is not specific to a particular religion. The subject should be discussed on a more wider articles such as Hindu thus avoiding WP:CFORK. Wikidās -ॐ 09:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hindu nationalism does exist, and many violent acts have been committed in its name, but terming it terrorism is still pretty much a fringe view. Any content that can be salvaged from this article can go to Hindu nationalism#Violence instead - that section is pretty pitiful as it stands and could usefully be expanded. -- Arvind (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article has only two real reference to hindu "terrorism". One is from Noam Chomsky and another from Pervez Musharaf. Musharaf's comment is obviously biased and does not reflect that of major consensus. Thus leaving only once scholar for such an article. In light of WP:REDFLAG, or the subsequent violation of redflag, this article needs to go. Clearly a case of fringe Watchdogb (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you missed the article before the content was deleted repeatedly by the now-banned sock puppet Chiefofall? There were real references to academic journals. Josh Keen (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu fanatics[edit]

Comment News paper reports usually use the term Hindu fanatics. I have hundreds and hundreds of articles on this topic. I found them using the search engine Lexis-Nexis, all are from very respectable and very reliable sources. Many describe what can be fairly and objectively be called Hindu terrorists. Such hindu extremists include the one who killed (i.e., shot) Mahatma Ghandi, those who organized a riot that tore down a muslim mosque Babri Mosque, and those who kill Christians to terrorize other missionaries from further conversion of lower cast Hindus. See my User_talk:Firefly322 talk page for quotes from such articles. So far such contributions have been completely removed by User:PhilKnight and User:Chiefofall. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and they will continue to be unless you provide sources that clearly describe them as terrorists. PhilKnight (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my User_talk:Firefly322 talk page. The news reports and hindu extremists and their relgiously motivated acts of murder and destruction speak quite objectively for themselves. Also it seems to be a poor response to a lot of hard work. If you can't be rational about this perhaps you should withdraw the AfD nomination. (Please also see my addition toTalk:Hindu_terrorism) --Firefly322 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant. No notable source accuses them of explicit acts of terrorism.Chiefofall (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are describing religiously motivated actions that cause fear to what Martin Buber would call the other. Would Chiefofall say that a pogrom is not terrorism? Would this user also say that Kristallnacht is not terrorism?--Firefly322 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, neither Kishinev pogrom nor Kristallnacht are known as terrorist acts. They are what people in India would call Communalism (though the term is not widely used in Europe. Again, quite different things.Chiefofall (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristallnacht was evil, but that doesn't automatically imply it was an act of terrorism. Evil and terrorism aren't synonymous. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of reference to Noam Chomsky's scholarly lecture and conclusion (See current Hindu terrorism article), regarding Hindu terrorism, I believe the article looks much more promising. I will await some response from Knight and Cheif before adding back fundamentalist material. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Ism schism (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable sources for the term. Hindu Fanaticism is more accurate.--AkshayDandekar (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTABLE and WP:SNOW Taprobanus

(talk) 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the light of comments below Andycjp (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption of this AfD[edit]

This AfD has been utterly corrupted. Links to Hindu terrorism have been consistently removed from religious terrorism, meaning that anyone interested in religious terrorism will be unable to find this article. Material completely relevant and appropriate to this article has been removed, making it "appear" that this article has no strong sources, when in fact the cited sources are scholarly academic journals. Material has been deleted (see [65]) with the claim that it is "Original research" - and yet a simple look will show that all of the material removed was correct cited and accurately represented the original sources. Almost all of the Deletes are from Hindus who actively and almost exclusively edit Hinduism related pages... obviously not an unbiased source (here's an idea - canvas Muslims on deleting Islamic terrorism, it would be at least 90% in favour, yeah that's fair...). Josh Keen (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. "User:Chiefofall is a sock puppet of Hkelkar, and has been blocked indefinitely." [66] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Keen (talk • contribs) 08:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given Josh a level 3 warning for not assuming good faith in regard to Hindu and Muslim editors. PhilKnight (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to continue assuming good faith when people are using sock puppet accounts to vandalise the article so that it "appears" that there are no reliable sources and the AfD will pass. I spend time finding rock solid citations in peer-reviewed academic journals, and yet there are a string of deletes for no other reason than conflict with personal POVs. Nobody has presented any reliable sources that refute the cited papers, the only objection is appeal to the personal point of view that "there can't be such a thing as a Hindu terrorist". Josh Keen (talk) 12:33, 29 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.