< May 5	May 7 >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ofer shouval[edit]

Strongly suspect hoax. Googling for the name brings up only a few hits, including some girls' Facebook, a soccer club, and a band self-promotion site (seems to be a sort of MySpace Jr.) with a semi-incoherent description. Article is full of hyperbole and unsourced claims of highly dubious veracity. Oh, and the title is poorly capitalized too. — Gwalla | Talk 23:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —— Gwalla | Talk 23:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I agree it looks hoaxy, it might just be really poor writing. (In fact, it's really poor writing either way.) I found a hit that has the potential to show him to be for real. I am personally acquainted with the principals of that web site and I am attempting to find out if they can verify anything. (BTW - if your comment was about that site: rather than Myspace Jr., it's actually Myspace on steroids - strictly for indy music.) Frank | talk 00:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established, may be a hoax. Frank | talk 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The article is completely unsourced. It is also self-contradictory, stating that the subject was "[r]ecently" seen at a Deftones concert but later stating that "he hasn’t been seen for over 5 years" and lives on the streets of New York with the homeless. The article says Shouval has worked as a technician and producer and with artists such as My Chemical Romance and Tool, yet we have articles on all of those bands' albums and none of them list him as a producer. The citation found by Frank from Reverbnation.com identifies Shouval as a member of a band called Co'Relous, which is not mentioned in this article, and says nothing about his work with My Chemical Romance or Tool. Also, the Reverbnation page indicates that he and a fellow band member used to do homework and play videogames together, whereas this article says Shouval was born in 1949 and thus would have been 23 years old by the time home videogame consoles were introduced. This may be a hoax created by or on behalf of the Co'Relous band member as a joke, but at any rate it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:A. Aside from what would appear to be a trivial mention above, the bio is completely unverifiable through the utter lack of sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It completely lacks sources, and makes potentially controversial assertions about a living person. silly rabbit (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis is ridiculous. How can you all insult such a legend. I stood side by side with Ofer at a greenpeace rally. He deserves respect. My biggest complaint is that this is the first article about him on WikiPedia.

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

The result was Speedy delete g3 vandalism, User:Lyle123 sock. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jungle Book Strikes Again[edit]

Sorry, but...

This sure has to go (WP:Hoax). Enough said. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Obvious hoax, so tagged. Creator is probably part of a family of socks ~~as well, tho I forget which family.~~ of User:StealBoy, who's made several Disney hoaxes of this nature. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Looks like a hoax to me as well. The reference to it was created 27 minutes before this page was created. Someone's having fun, but this should be done per WP:CSD#G3 (with revert on Jungle Book 2). I don't know if this is an appropriate situation, but if you're inclined, a checkuser request could be made for 220.233.239.118 and Junglebpook555 based on the edit I referenced and the creation of this page 27 minutes later. If neither is banned, though, I'm not sure it would be useful. I invite someone with more experience in these matters to educate me. Frank | talk 00:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete banned users can't make articles. JuJube (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as a non-notable company per WP:CSD#A7. --jonny-m t 03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of You[edit]

Seems to be non notable as per WP:ORG. Throws up over a hundred million ghits, but very little have any relation to the article. Only source is the comopany's website, and there may be a potential of WP:COI here: the company's founder is Sean Anderson while the article creator is Sean A1. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella.net[edit]

A wireless network connecting umbrellas. Of no practical use. Despite the large number of references, I feel this is non-notable as a work of art. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No notability. Work of art. There is NO substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See WP:NOT Nk.sheridan Talk 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure about this one. It looks like it has potential. If an editor wants to improve it, I'd want to let it hang around. I'm reserving an opinion one way or the other at the moment, hoping someone will step up and save the article. If it's not a hoax (and I know the concept itself isn't), it would be interesting to see it developed into a full article. Frank | talk 00:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't think this can be improved as I didn't find more reliable sources for it, but there are a few linked in the article (a couple are now dead links). Seems almost but not quite notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to speak of, not notable in any event. (I originally PRODded this article.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. You speedy'd it - which the author removed (a capital offence). I prodded it! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I knew I did something in an effort to get rid of it. After an hour of new-page patrol, the mind gets a little fuzzy. Do I get extra points for warning the author, who went back and removed the AfD notice? :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep the work is well known in net.art circles, it is featured in Mark Tribe's book on new media art and rhizome.org rubaiyat —Preceding comment was added at 07:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and be warned that this article appears to be a part of a class assignment to create and expand new media articles. If a bunch of new, apparently SPA editors weigh in in the article's defense, that might be why. -- Vary | Talk 12:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move/merge. The work was awarded a prize by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology [1]. Artworks that win prizes don't usually have their own articles, without sufficient third party coverage, but prize-winning artists do. A move to Brucker-Cohen and Moriwaki or Jonah Brucker-Cohen (the more significant of the two), would make sense. Notability would still be an issue, but I think it would just about scrape through.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaker fetishism[edit]

This article smells of hoax. _→AzaToth 23:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only thing it smells of. Delete. DS (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do people still say "sneakers"? Something you wear with your trousers maybe? I like how they worked in a reference to Masters and Johnson. Mandsford (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sneakers is a regionalism. There is actually an isogloss for "sneakers" vs. "tennis shoes" (and some others like "gym shoes") that has received academic study. --Dhartung | Talk 00:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let the other ... shoe fetish drop. No sources for anything but general shoe fetish information. --Dhartung | Talk 00:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe even speedy. Come on, obvious hoax. I mean, seriously people. Valtoras (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shoe fetishism. Debate (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the issues cited above. Previous prod removed by single purpose account. And someone should take a look at spandex fetishism, latex and PVC fetishism, and my favourite article, robot fetishism, for the same issues and possible deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources not credible. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't a hoax, but rather an attempt at humor. It doesn't belong here. Merenta (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation under CSD G12; questionable notability too.--Kubigula (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denny sargent[edit]

From what I can see, this person does not satisfy WP:BIO. asenine ^{say what?} 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Feels like nn-autobio. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability; copy-paste job from [2]. —97198 talk 05:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12: Marked as a copyright violation. Peacock (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Strange[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was nominated for deletion at the height of the incident's coverage. Now that time has passed, I am nominating this biographical page for deletion because the subject is only notable for one event. As quoted in WP:ONEEVENT: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. VegitaU (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not known for anything else but dying; Her death did not spur any law changes or suchlike means that she fails WP:BIO. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rather obviously fails WP:ONEEVENT; no evidence that she ever met WP:BIO. One wonders how many of the Keep proponents the first time around would even recognize her name now. RGTraynor 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:ONEEVENT and the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Covered in adequate detail in the articles on Water intoxication and on the radio station. As I said in the initial AFD, "Maybe the next bunch of radio station geniuses thinking up a contest will be reminded to choose a different task." Edison (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an article, but make it a redirect to the radio station. I voted keep last time based on other articles about water intoxication deaths, but this time I think the radio station article does enough.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Horse Pub[edit]

Article does not claim notability. Looks like a regular pub. The article does say the pub is the first in Merseyside to have a no-smoking policy, but I don't think thats good enough to get an article. Article also says "It is known as one of the smallest pubs in Liverpool " --Coasttocoast (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the pub was five hundred years old or Winston Churchill used to smoke opium with the working girls here, I guess one could make a case for notability. Just seems like a regular old pub throwing up an ad here. Montco (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I feel like a tourist (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's not really even a claim of notability here. Merenta (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this brief mention is all I can find. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. EJF (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect album articles, merge as appropriate. Keep bio article. Pastordavid (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Talia from Australia[edit]

not notable [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable album by non-notable artist, no reliable sources found to satisfy WP:MUSIC. The artist herself was up for PROD, but I'll bundle her and her other album into this AfD as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will the deleting admin please see that Category:Jenny Talia albums gets deleted as well? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, her father is a dead-set Aussie legend, but notability is not inherited, and this artist would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the above, I find no evidence that she meets WP:MUSIC. That said, when I first saw this show up on the Aus related discussions I didn't realise it was an album name and thought eek what an awful article title _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jenny Talia She is a reasonably well known comedienne, certainly within Australia. Enough material should be out there to enable an article to be written. Mjroots (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete album articles if the don't meet notability criteria. Mjroots (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge article about artist with father. I have found some sources but only for her as a support act for KBW.--Matilda ^talk 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Jenny Talia, which itelf is sufficiently sourced for an article to be built. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- the lot into Jenny Talia - Longhair\^talk 03:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First Borg Encounter[edit]

No sources, unencyclolpedic, WP:PLOT, this material is surely covered in individual episode articles. Beach drifter (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non encylopedic, wall of text personal essay. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This must not be assimilated (delete) per nom. 100% in-universe plot description in excruciating detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author is encouraged to visit memory-alpha.org, the Star Trek wiki Mandsford (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Wikipedia is not a fan fiction site. RGTraynor 13:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLOT, verges on an essay, this encounter is already described in the article for episode which it appears Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, non-encyclopedic, etc.-- danntm ^T _C 22:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Star Trek Wikia. Resistance is futile. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fanfict essay of plot summary. Utterly unencyclopedic. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The article fails WP:N; and the subject matter can be found in Borg (Star Trek). Rosiestep (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. On the "delete" side, editors point out that this (not very original) term has been used by exactly one news source, and that the contents are redundant to those of various articles in ((2008Demprimaries)), among others. On the "keep" side, no convincing policy-based argument is made why we need an article on this election day despite these shortcomings. If it later turns out to be historically significant (and covered by multiple reliable sources as such), and its coverage in an existing article would be unwieldy (per WP:SS), we can recreate it. Sandstein (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Tuesday III, 2008[edit]

The term may have precedent in news coverage, but article can do little more than index and recap a few other articles with little difference in scope. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per nom. As I came across this earlier I was thinking exactly the same, but decided to wait. It's only two states and is nothing major. The election statistics are already on the IN and NC articles. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is the most number of delegates available through the rest of the primary season, and is notably the biggest game-changer since Super Tuesday II. CoolKid1993 (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a single fact on there that is notably independent of Indiana Democratic primary, 2008 and North Carolina Democratic primary, 2008. I see this as just another term used by the media. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be? If someone goes to find out what "Super Tuesday III" was, shouldn't they be able to find that information via Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.0.10 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument could be used for everything in the universe; maybe someone wants to know about my dog. Should he be able to find that out here? It could be listed in Super Tuesday and link to the primary links above, as there's little unique info. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that as per WP:NOTPAPER, we are not limited as to the number of topics we can cover. Likewise the reductio ad absurdum example of a Wikipedia article on your dog does not really apply here because if your dog were notable -as is this topic- and if its article were well sourced to multiple reliable, third-party, published sources -as is this article- I have no doubt that much like Judy or Indiana, your dog would warrant a Wikipedia article of its own. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As CoolKid1993 noted, this is the final "Super Tuesday" event in the 2008 election cycle. It is especially significant since this is the first time there has been a "Super Tuesday III" in a primary season for quite a few years; the Super Tuesday article indicates that the last was in 1984. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it sounds like the Super Tuesday article is informative about all days named Super Tuesday! Potatoswatter (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term "Super Tuesday III" is not used at all in American news coverage as far as I can tell in reference to the May 6, 2008 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. A Google News search garners one hit in the last month, from a British source [3], and a Google News Archive search garners six hits, five of which are from past election years and one of which is from this year, but in German, and seems to be about the 1984 election. [4] The primaries themselves are notable but should be covered in articles such as Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 instead. Also, the article's claim that May 6 was the day with the third-highest number of states or territories holding primaries and caucuses during the 2008 election season is incorrect. There were more primaries on Feb. 5 (23), Feb. 9 (4), Feb. 12 (3), and Mar. 4 (4). (May 6 was the day with the ~~third-highest~~ fourth-highest number of delegates selected, as far as I can tell.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in this article that can't be covered by the individual articles of the NC and IN primaries. - Prezboy1 talk 03:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One media source uses a term and we have an article on it? Delete. - Chardish (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NEO, undersourced and ephemeral neologism. Only 101 Google hits, only two G-News hits. RGTraynor 13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article's name is not from the news media, but comes from past Wikipedia precedent. As I noted on talk page, the news media has been calling it just "Super Tuesday" (or "the latest Super Tuesday," "the final Super Tuesday"). The election itself is notable as it is the first time in 24 years that this particular Super Tuesday race has been contested by multiple candidates. Please do not judge the notability of the article on my ability to pick a name for it that makes it easy to find supporting G-hits, or for that matter, to differentiate it from the other 14 Super Tuesday elections that have taken place in the past 24 years. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Some elections are hotly contested contests. Some are not. This particular one (Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008) has had a longer run than most, but there's nothing so particularly notable about yesterday that it requires an independent article, any more than the two remaining Tuesdays with multiple primaries will. RGTraynor 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. If anything notable had happened, the text would have been updated beyond just the numbers, and more numbers would be reported so as to provide a coherent view of the results. It still reads in the future tense and doesn't even note that Obama gained overall by a significant margin. Consider if someone added text here but not in the main results or state results articles: readers would miss it or be confused. This article distracts too much from the main series. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure about the name, but the topic needs an article. Everyking (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, notable event; the name may have to be changed. —Nightstallion 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note a name change to an already existing article such as just Super Tuesday amounts to a merge. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Super Tuesday "I" had a over 20 contests on one day, while this Super Tuesday had only two in each party's primary? How is that "super?" I don't think we need to chronicle ever huge primary day because one just might be the end of Clinton's campaign. The media hypes it up as "this is make or break for Obama," and "Clinton will run out of options if she loses the state of _______" If any thing, just MERGE into "Super Tuesday 2008." conman33 (. . .talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's still too early to know whether this article is warranted, because such a decision can only be determined in a historical context. At present, this date appears to have been a game changer so a detailed analysis of the context of these two primaries may be valuable since this looks to be the point where the perception changed from close race to having a likely winner. The circumstances surrounding that shift are encyclopedic in a way that extends in a broader context compared to the individual primaries, but in more detail than can be covered in the nomination page. I too dislike the current name. Why wasn't the Potomac Primary a Super Tuesday also? --Aranae (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term was also used for Ohio and Texas Francium12 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Sorensen[edit]

Non-notable person, no real ghits for name or title, no Google News archive hits, very few for "Miss Teen World-USA" and none for "Miss Teen World Arizona. Prod was contested after the article was deleted on the deleting admin's talk page, he restored it, I'm bringing it here. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One wonders if this "Miss Teen World Arizona" even exists; the only five G-hits mentioning it all are attached to Sorensen's name. "Miss Teen World-US" (which pageant Ms. Sorensen did not, in fact, win or place) returns less than ninety hits, and the few hits that aren't porn sites are all craigslist ads soliciting contestants; the conjunction is none too savory, IMHO. Ravenswing 13:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article clearly fails WP:BIO and my quick search could find nothing to uphold the information in the article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Allicock[edit]

Biography of a non-notable opera singer. Recent music school graduate. No significant career [5] or significant independent coverage.[6] Judging from the edit history and creator's name (User:Aallicoc), probably autobiographical as well.Voceditenore (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Opera—Voceditenore (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure I'm not the only Wikipedia editor who wishes this young artist well, and hopes that one day we regret this deletion, but one simply can't write one's own article on the pedia. Lacks reliable independent sourcing. 1st source lists him as the second half of the compound subject of a prepositional phrase, and mentions his last name once. 2nd source is his program biography from a single vocal performance which occurred on an evening 17 month ago. 3rd source is a virtually identical bio for his college vocal performance department website. BusterD (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kleinzach (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination. I also wish this young singer well.Voceditenore (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin In the interim, an anonymous IP who has also extensively edited the article and is probably User:Aallicoc requested speedy delete per author (G7) [7]. An admin declined: "G7 was requested, but not by the account that created the article; may as well just let the AfD run at this point". [8] Voceditenore (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNA 2005 Super X Cup Tournament[edit]

Another non-notable TNA tournament that doesn't have many edits since early last year. King iMatthew 2008 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable tournament run by notable wrestling federation. Also, your reason for nomination (that no-one edits it) is incredibly poor, people don't need to edit something all of the time in order for it to be notable. It also happened in 2005, so it's not likely to be edited much anymore. Esteffect (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable - see AFD above. Less Than Clippers 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A sourced article on a nationally televised event. For my part, I'd be interested in hearing from the nom the grounds upon which this is non-notable, as well as the policy or guideline referencing the number of recent edits an article must have to warrant retention. RGTraynor 13:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNA 2006 World X Cup Tournament[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This seems to be a non-notable tournament from TNA, which it rarely ever edited by other users, with no references. King iMatthew 2008 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable tournament run by notable wrestling federation. Also, your reason for nomination (that no-one edits it) is incredibly poor, people don't need to edit something all of the time in order for it to be notable. It also happened in 2006, so it's not likely to be edited much anymore. Esteffect (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Notable. 67.52.102.250 (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A sourced article on a nationally televised event. For my part, I'd be interested in hearing from the nom the grounds upon which this is non-notable, as well as the policy or guideline referencing the number of recent edits an article must have to warrant retention. RGTraynor 13:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete (WP:SNOW). Please note this has been userfied on request for potential restoration in the future as a vialble article, if it can be revised to meet the below criteria cited as reasons for deletion. Neıl ☎ 14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pheo-Con[edit]

A "made up" convention with no claim of notability, no reliable sources to support it, and contents of article is entirely unverifiable original research. Previously prodded on March 24 but was removed by Eris.alice (talk · contribs) --Farix (Talk) 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gsearch not showing a whiff of notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posted By Joshua Andrade, COO, Lazarus Entertainment Group

Unfortunately, the Ikkicon website is down right now (www.ikkicon.com) for updates for their next convention. All of the original information (including information from unrelated 3rd parties).

The latest rendition of the AtsuiCon forums has added a section to their forums dedicated to special groups who hold "meetups" at conventions across Texas - such as Gaia Online (www.gaiaonline.com/), obviously another "fake" group. http://atsuicon.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=18

While it isn't a scholarly article like you find source for all of the other Wiki articles, you can also reference Anime Matsuri's forums (http://www.mashharder.com/forums/showpost.php?p=62472&postcount=113).

This article was created after consultation with several admins regarding the qualifications of events to be listed under Wiki. I wrote the original wording, and it was edited by eris.alice to make it conform to standard Wiki formats.

Finally, the comment "Ego Trip" shows an obvious lack of any form of professional integrity. While the editors of Wiki are not paid, they should do their best to maintain a neutral position to ensure that their actions are legitimate and fair, instead of displaying a gestapo attack against any topic which they do not personally have a personal interest. As a business executive, I must (on occasion) publicly display a position that is against my personal feelings or agenda because it is the official stance of the corporation that I work for. I must maintain a "neutral" position, leaving my personal agenda out in order for accurate, legitimate business functions to continue. Try it some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meauho (talk • contribs) 01:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC) — Meauho (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment None of the links that you have provided gives any indication that Pheo-Con can pass any of the notability criteria, much else can become remotely verifiable through reliable third-party sources. As for the "consultation with several admins", where is it? because a full site search isn't turn up any. --Farix (Talk) 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is just a guideline. No reliable sources, now that's a quality reason to delete. Kopf1988 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no reliable sources which demonstrate notability for this subject. Appears completely unverifiable. --Haemo (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Fails Google News test, Google test. Comparing other editors to the Gestapo does not help your case; see Godwin's Law. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look. I think everyone is being a bit brash here. I suggest that we approach this in a more formal fashion and not just have random people pop up and yell "delete!". We need to determine the notability criterion for a convention, then move foreward from there, alright? Jack Cain (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability criteria are here and here, at which this "fake" convention doesn't meet. --Farix (Talk) 10:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For one thing, I think you're confusing "fake" and "satirical", sir. Jack Cain (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't pass any of the notability criteria. --Farix (Talk) 11:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is just a guideline anyway. Why would we argue over notability when this article does not first pass WP:V? Notability criteria should be determined when relevant, but this article does not even get that far. Kopf1988 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its pretty much just a panel at a few conventions, no? It isn't EVEN a convention, its just a convention event, and a very local one at that. Now, if it were an actual self-sustained convention, that might be another thing. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule Team Delete: For pity's sake, no one's being "brash." This is not a "convention." It's a bunch of folks - an alleged bunch of folks - getting together for a self-referential party, and they admit the first one of the two of these solely involved a group trip getting munchies at a Wal-Mart. There are no sources, almost no G-hits, no evidence this actually took place, no suggestion of notability, no nothing, and I am at a near-complete loss to imagine upon what policy basis anyone can defend the article. Spectacularly fails WP:NFT, WP:ORG, WP:V, but man, does this hit WP:BULLSHIT pretty solidly. RGTraynor 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitosphere[edit]

Non-notable neologism. nneonneo ^talk 20:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable nonsense. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Francis Holland promoting his own blog. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-copyvio JuJube (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author claims that it's his own quote, so it's not a blatant copyvio (it could still be copyvio if he doesn't provide sufficient proof that it is his own blog, etc.). nneonneo ^talk 15:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense Czolgolz (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio. The original blog has copyright, and he hasn't released it for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even so, article should be deleted as the term was coined by Holland himself. B.Wind (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. Fabrictramp (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin & Bean's Christmastime in the 909[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kevin & Bean's Christmastime in the 909

Ephemera. Glorified mix tape with no significant original work. Herostratus (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Also nominating the other articles in Category:KROQ albums, namely:[reply]

Kevin & Bean's Super Christmas
Kevin and Bean: Swallow My Eggnog
Richard Blade's Flashback Favorites
Richard Blade's Flashback Favorites, Vol. 2
Richard Blade's Flashback Favorites, Vol. 3
Richard Blade's Flashback Favorites, Vol. 4
Richard Blade's Flashback Favorites, Vol. 5
Richard Blade's Flashback Favorites, Vol. 6
2005 KROQ New Music

But I am not nominating The Best of KROQ's Almost Acoustic Christmas since this appears to have unique live cuts. Herostratus (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable album. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not notable albums; no reviews, no original material, no third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relatively large (15+) line of albums by a well-known radio station. also, does contain original material, such as "Christmas Vacation" by +44, which was only released on Kevin & Bean's Super Christmas --Tingrin87 (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: per above. No reliable sources, no independent reviews, and you can't quite claim that a radio station constitutes a major indie label. Fails WP:MUSIC in every particular. RGTraynor 13:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all completely fails WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), because notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red-green-brown alliance[edit]

Non-notable neologism. The definition of the term is given as "brown-green-red alliance among ultra-nationalists, the populist green movement, and communism's fellow travelers" by Roger Cukierman. [9] The term has no significant coverage in any reputed peer reviewed journal or anything. No hint in google book search [10], no significant coverage proved in google schlar search [11]. The term is mostly used by some advocacy groups and related people. The references given have only passing sound on this term, do not describe the term significantly. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and sourced. I even remember an expression that "greens" are like watermelons: "green" outside but "red" inside.Biophys (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis it is notable? Sources do not significantly describe the term. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge I have found two sources in English and, since there seem to be a lot more in French, the concept is notable. Since the parties represented by the colours seem to vary, I suggest merging with Rainbow Coalition. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly move. The term "red-green-brown coalition" seems to gain a few more ghits. BTW, the term is also used with different connotations here in New Zealand, where it indicates a broad similarity of policies among the Labour, Green, and Maori parties. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Cheapshot & DJ Marshall Barnes: Party Mouth![edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Mixtapes are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Article clearly fails all of the criteria in WP:MUSIC, and no reliable sources provided. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and redirect to Monologue#Rant. A redirect to a different target is not GFDL compatible, unfortunately, but a hatnote can be added to Monologue if editors deem this necessary. Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rant[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Poorly written dictdef. Already deleted twice and subsequently recreated; if admins find the previous pages were substantially the same could this be speedied? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, ~~recreate as soft redirect~~ ~~to wikt:rant as a plausible search for a dictionary definition. -- saberwyn 04:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)~~ redirect to the disambiguation page, or move the dabpage to this location. -- saberwyn 05:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It turns out there's actually a rant (disambiguation) page. It might be better to redirect there. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is nothing wrong with it except it missing a few citations, and that can easily be fixed. Smartguy777 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete G4, since it's been deleted twice through AfD. With that done, move the disambig page there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't tag it earlier, will do so now. I'm not sure if it's close enough to the previous version to G4; we'll see. JeremyMcCracken (talk)(contribs) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - reply - It's nothing like the prior deleted versions. We'll have to judge this one on its own merits. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, with that in mind, delete to move the disambig page to this name. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per JeremyMcCracken. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monologue. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the Colonel suggests. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a particular reason why several articles other than Rant are listed in the AFD box? 23skidoo (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure; I think what happened was I used ((subst:afd)) instead of ((afd)) and that this caused strange things to happen. I R noob. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to rant (disambiguation). That page already has a concise definition, and a link to Wiktionary. Frank | talk 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was previously closed as follows: "The result was Merge (non-admin closure). Merged contents with with Monologue#Rant and redirected Rant to rant (disambiguation) . SilkTork *^YES! 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)". I have undone this closure in accordance with Wikipedia:DPR#NAC because, as that policy states, "close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." In this case, the "keep" consensus and the merge target, if any, are not clear enough for a non-administrator to determine. Sandstein (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to rant (disambiguation), to help readers who look for other meanings. The disambiguation page points to the section "rant" in the wider context of monologue, which I think is very appropriate. Sourced content of the current rant can be merged to "monologue". --The very model of a minor general (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monologue. Incidentally, merging to one article and redirecting to another is probably not compatible with the GFDL. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge contents to Monologue#Rant and redirect Rant to rant (disambiguation). The valid contents have already been merged to Monologue#Rant, with an appropriate link to Rant to comply with GFDL. The "title" Rant is redirected to a disamb page which provides a link to Monologue#Rant. This meets the general consensus of the previous and current discussion, as well as complying with GFDL requirements to retain links to the history of contributions. The community are indicating they wish the title Rant to go to the disamb page, while the contents they are indicating they wish to be moved to Monologue or at least saved in some form. What is clear is that only one person wished the article to remain as it was, and there was no consensus for a delete. I have done several of these merges closures and I thought that while the solution might be seen by some to be perhaps over elegant, it was not hard to follow and my actions appropriate. However, if people feel I have acted inappropriately in this, it might be as well to review my other non admin closures. If anybody is interested I will provide a list of those I have done. SilkTork *^YES! 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept where it is, and a disambiguation notice should be placed at the top. I feel this article should not be deleted, as ranting is a cultural phenomenon, and it can in some cases be quite different from a monologue; not all monologues are rants. This article could do with expansion, and cleanup, rather than deletion, and these are the arguments for it being kept. If this article is kept it should be less like a dictionary definition, and more about the social and cultural aspects of ranting. --1qx (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge contents to Monologue#Rant and redirect Rant to rant (disambiguation) as per SilkTork. Conceivably, this could have its own article, as per User:1qx, but this would require substantial references differentiating it from monologue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Cooke[edit]

An unsourced biography about an alleged football player, which was speedy deleted four times last year[12] and has recently been reincarnated with the claim that he had made appearances for English Football Conference side Ebbsfleet United F.C.[13] despite the official site for the club not showing him as a member of the first team squad[14]. Thus it is believed to be a hoax; even if true, he fails WP:Athlete as he has never 'played' in a fully professional league. Another editor has removed the false information about Ebbsfleet United, which leaves us with the current article[15]. Prod was removed hence this AfD. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale provided by the nominator. Wow. Just wow. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect against reposting. Looks to me like the boys down at the pub were having some fun. Montco (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable by any stretch of the imagination. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD critirea A7 OZ OO 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dog poop girl[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:ONEEVENT I believe this should be erased from Wikipedia, this was a small interest story for a short while in the internet community but beyond the dog poop incident she is without question not notable. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event was well covered, and has been used as an example of how the internet has been used to harass people. Perhaps the name of the article should be changed, but even this is WP:ONEEVENT, it's still notable enough for an article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale I've provided above (as nominator). Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This would be pushing WP:LESSTHANONEEVENT. Gimghoul28 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wide, international coverage, commented on by a legal expert from George Washington University, THIS ARTICLE (and the movement to delete it) have even been cited. Obviously notable. Dekkappai (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have enough coverage in sources. Though i would consider slight adjustments so the subject of the article is not the person but the obviously notable event to avoid further afds. --neonwhite user page talk 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources, enough to satisfy notability. Nominator appears to be confused; the article is about the event, not the person. PC78 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article reads like it is a bio about the person which is something i suggest changing. --neonwhite user page talk 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By the way, Colonel, I'm not sure if I should thank you or curse you for introducing me to Wikipedia:Deletion today... :) Dekkappai (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are worse places here. I've managed to avoid being sucked into RFA, for example. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see the relevance or encyclopedic nature of this. Everything reported in the news is not worth an article - Otherwise we'd have articles on that guy who married a goat, or the girl who got thrown off a bus because her boyfriend kept her on a lead (at least I hope Tasha Maltby doesn't exist). Esteffect (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever someone says something like that, I always find that we have it. In this case, it's here. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the goat. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a goat with its own article... and I have to fight tooth and nail to keep some actress articles... Bah! :-( Dekkappai (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One has to fight tooth and nail to keep animals too. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God, you're kidding me, right? Even as a local no-one really gave a toss about the goth couple after 24 hours. If you need to put a piece about criticising Arriva, don't do it about something that got in the news on a slow day. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually a fairly important story about privacy rights, the Internet, and the ubiquity of cell phone cameras (particularly in East Asia). The previous two nominations were also closed keep with strong support. Three strikes and this AfD is out; let this be the last, please. — Gwalla | Talk 23:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revealing insights into Korean Culture and its language. Well-referenced and obviously notable. --Firefly322 (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources. Notability well established. Ford MF (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this story actually has references. Although, I strongly recommend renaming and refocusing so it is clear that the article discusses the incident and reaction thereto, and not the actual person involved.-- danntm ^T _C 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Dog poop girl incident, perhaps? — Gwalla | Talk 15:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider that the title necessarily needs changing as the event is probably known by that title. I do however suggest changing the lead to make it clear that this article is about the incident not the person although maybe a title change would help this. I have posted a brief proposal on the talk page Talk:Dog poop girl#Focusing the article feel free to contribute! --neonwhite user page talk 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mixed opinions on keeping it. But as to renaming: Per the article discussion page, the more literal translation would be Dog shit girl, not really much of an improvement. If kept, the focus must be on the internet vigilantism and not on the individual. Edison (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I saw this on the list and immediately thought, "Do they mean Dog Shit Girl?" Well-covered in the media and an interesting, albeit creepy, social phenomenon. As others said, "Dog shit girl" is a more accurate name, and the article should focus on the people finding her, but this is a keeper. Fogster (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the definition of WP:ONEVENT. That being said, the reason that this gained any notability at all was for the issues of internet vigilantism, to which portions of this article should be merged. That the article has references in undisputed; but the topic (removed from the internet vigilantism aspect) is totally unencyclopedic. BWH76 (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge. Internet vigilantism is, at the moment, a fairly well-balanced article. It discusses the Dog Shit Girl incident but only briefly as part of an overview. Merging the details of this article in would dominate that article. — Gwalla | Talk 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is referenced from the List of Internet phenomena page, and is very relevant in that context. That page is a repository of essentially one-hit wonders of the Internet World anyhow. To delete this article wouldn't be all that different than deleting the Video Killed the Radio Star page on grounds that the first song on M-TV is now, 27 years later, irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechCat (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Artichoke2020 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Social Work[edit]

No sources and mainly consists of external links and information taken from the school website by a member of that school. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose, unless someone can add secondary sources. 20:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimghoul28 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Merge into Schools of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Gimghoul28 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ~~University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill or~~ new article Schools of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Tertiary, degree awarding bodies are notable. It is an editorial judgement as to how best to organise the material but we don't delete notable content for lack of sources; we look for improvement. TerriersFan (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In an ideal world that would happen, but no one has been interested in improving the article despite tagging for some time it appears. Also the UNC main article has just got down to a good length after some editing, so I would very strongly oppose a merge there.Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry just saw the other suggestion. A new Schools of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill could be good. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that the absence of content on the Schools seems quite a significant omission from the main UNC page. If this suggestion is adopted, then all that would need be added to the main page is a summary section. I would add that the time that we delete notable pages is when the content cannot be verified; here it plainly can be against the schools' websites. In the view of your comment I have amended my recommendation. TerriersFan (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is easier to categorize a single school than an article on a bunch of schools within a university. The three schools are unlikely to share many references or external links. --Eastmain (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Remember (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Easy answer: Add sources instead of an AfD tag. SuMadre (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cigar brands[edit]

This list is unnecessary and does not provide any useful information beyond what Category:Cigar brands does a much better job of handling. If the cigar brand is actually notable, an article can be created for it and placed in the appropriate category. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:CLN. Lists and cateogries do not compete with each other, they co-exist and complement each other. Developers should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. --neonwhite user page talk 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think i understand what you're aiming at here, this list neither competes with or compliments the categories which are much more suitable. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the guidelines. All categories and lists are considered complimentary and should not be nominated for deletion because you favour one or the other. If one is of better quality use it to better the other. --neonwhite user page talk 03:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not knowledgeable about nicotine, but even as a complete layman there's some value in learning about what exactly are Cuban cigars. The category could not do the same. --Kiz o r 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unless there are sub-categories for each of the countries mentioned on this article, in the Cat that the Nom mentions, this Article does do something that would be a burden to do via Cats. Also, a list like this promotes the creation of articles that a Cat'd setup would hinder. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list gives more detail than the catagory page can. Darkcraft (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Redundant with category" is never a valid delete rationale. AndyJones (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - until/unless subcategories are completed to list the nation of origin for each cigar brand. The total lack of any references in this article, though is troubling (leading to the "very weak"). BWH76 (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Artichoke2020 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Journalism and Mass Communication[edit]

No sources and mainly consists of information taken straight from the school website. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose, unless someone can add secondary sources. 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimghoul28 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Merge into Schools of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Gimghoul28 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ~~University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill or~~ new article Schools of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Tertiary, degree awarding bodies are notable. It is an editorial judgement as to how best to organise the material but we don't delete notable content for lack of sources; we look for improvement. TerriersFan (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In an ideal world that would happen, but no one has been interested in improving the article despite tagging for some time it appears. Also the UNC main article has just got down to a good length after some editing, so I would very strongly oppose a merge there.Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry just saw the other suggestion. A new Schools of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill could be good. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that the absence of content on the Schools seems quite a significant omission from the main UNC page. If this suggestion is adopted, then all that would need be added to the main page is a summary section. I would add that the time that we delete notable pages is when the content cannot be verified; here it plainly can be against the schools' websites. In the view of your comment I have amended my recommendation. TerriersFan (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'm a bit confused. In my mind an article is either about a notable subject or not. If it's not, then delete it. If it is, then keep it and let it grow. The alternative is to delete all stubs until someone can post up enough information about them enough so that the can exist on their own. Creating another article to move this to just to split them up once enough information is gathered seems pointless. To me, the question on whether this article should be deleted was answered with the statement "Tertiary, degree awarding bodies are notable." Remember (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - merge is a variety of keep. It is a question, from my viewpoint, of how the information is best organised. Generally, we don't have separate pages for individual schools/departments. The nominator is pressing ahead with the new page, an action which I support, and the advantage is that all the schools can be covered, not just the three who were the subject of these pages. TerriersFan (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying we don't generally have separate articles for Medical schools and law schools? Then what about all of these articles here Category:Schools of medicine in the United States and here Category:Law schools in the United States about? Why delete these and not other stubs? Also, there are plenty of schools with their own articles (See here). I would note that UNC-CH's school of journalism is consecutively ranked as one of the best in the nation. Thus, if others deserve their own article, surely UNC-Ch's does as well. I think that this is a massive waste of time and effort just to move the material to a page where they will inevitable be split from in the future. Remember (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article could use some expansion and I'd be willing to undertake that -- but couldn't get to it for a week or two at best. I don't think either deletion or merger are appropriate. The school is significant in its own right, as Remember pointed out it is consistently rated one of the top in its field. Also, the majority of its peer schools have their own articles -- Columbia School of Journalism, Missouri School of Journalism, Medill School of Journalism, S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Philip Merrill College of Journalism -- are we proposing deletion of those as well? Ncjon (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ncjon. The journalism school is notable as a part of Chapel Hill, is too large to be merged in effectively. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is easier to categorize a single school than an article on a bunch of schools within a university. The three schools are unlikely to share many references or external links. --Eastmain (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Add sources if you think it needs more. SuMadre (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Artichoke2020 (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health[edit]

No sources and mainly consists of external links and information taken from the school website by a member of that school. Artichoke2020 (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose, unless someone can add secondary sources. 20:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimghoul28 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Merge into Schools of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Gimghoul28 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ~~University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill or~~ new article Schools of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Tertiary, degree awarding bodies are notable. It is an editorial judgement as to how best to organise the material but we don't delete notable content for lack of sources; we look for improvement. TerriersFan (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly oppose a merge to the main UNC page as it is now a good length, but Schools of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill could be good if someone can extract the good information. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that the absence of content on the Schools seems quite a significant omission from the main UNC page. If this suggestion is adopted, then all that would need be added to the main page is a summary section. I would add that the time that we delete notable pages is when the content cannot be verified; here it plainly can be against the schools' websites. In the view of your comment I have amended my recommendation. TerriersFan (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is easier to categorize a single school than an article on a bunch of schools within a university. The three schools are unlikely to share many references or external links. --Eastmain (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Remember (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major professional schools at distinguished universities usually have sufficient notability on their own account, and sufficient material for a good article--its the logical unit. I suppose if knowledgable people work on it, they'll find articles here for a few dozen notable alumni. However, some if it is sufficiently PR-like to warrant rewriting and a very close look for copyvio. DGG (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG. SuMadre (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No More (Heidi Montag song)[edit]

Recreation of article deleted as expired prod. Reason then was "Non-notable, non-charting (and unlikely to do so) song with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V." Only reference now provided is a MySpace profile. --Geniac (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Geniac (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can add secondary sources. 20:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimghoul28 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. BWH76 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BootX (Anti-virus software)[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this software program is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable. There is little content and the article has no references. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't even a claim of notability. This is arguably a candidate for a speedy. Merenta (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, default to keep. I don't see a consensus to delete here, and a few new sources (none of which are all that reliable) have been suggested.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crud (game)[edit]

I'm not sure that this game here as explained is notable - it seems to have a history of some sort, but I find it questionable at best. Somewhat reminiscent of something made up one day. What are other people's thoughts? Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, needs better sourcing, but it's pretty easily verifiable as a "fighter pilot tradition". Description here, a tournament result here. The search terms pretty much have to be "crud+billiards", as "crud+pool" brings up a lot of unrelated material as you may imagine and as you may not (such as nuclear slag!), and "crud+air.force" brings up venereal disease. There are a few Google Books results, but nothing in Google News Archive that I could find. Just enough for notability, and combined with the organizational sources, enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly meets notability standards and basic verifiability...though it certainly could use some more inline sources. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's also mentioned on WP as being referred to in a novel: X-COM_:_UFO_Defense_-_A_Novel. Kay Dekker (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, two of the three external links provide much of this information. It simply isn't inline cited (already acknowledged as a deficiency), but that isn't a reason for deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they aren't reliable sources. The first is a primary source and not independent, the second is a web forum, and the third is a paintballing club. I would like to see mentions of this game in mainstream media. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree, so let's talk about it. :-)
The first is simply an explanation of the rules. While it certainly is a primary source, that doesn't make the information contained inherently unreliable, merely that it must be treated with care. I will concede that it is not notable based on that source, but it is inherently reliable as a primary source.

The second seems to be mostly a reiteration of the information already stated, however, this source does show there is an interest outside the American CRUD Players Association and does show some notability, though not as much as I'd like.

The third is a reiteration of the rules again, but with some commentary. Given that the sourcing of these independent sites comes from two different countries and three regions of the world, I assert that notability has been established, even if it is at a most basic level.

I concede that independent coverage would be useful, but in simply stating the rules and the basics of the game, these sources are sufficient. I'll see what else I can find. Gimmee a few minutes to see what I can find. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary
from www.af.mil

from the University of Illinois

Tournament results [16].

Table manufacturer website info about the tables

Other
[17]

[18]

This was all from the first page of a google search. I'm not saying that the article doesn't need improvement, but its basic status as an article is firmly established IMHO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: in short, they aren't the best sources, but they are reliable enough to be used in this context. Is there anything in this that doesn't fall in line with these cited references? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle. In addition to verifiability, I'm not convinced of the notability of the subject: I'm unable to find significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Jakew (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um seriously, where is the problem here with regards to verifiability. I've already acknowledged that it lacks inline references, but that the given sources plus the ones above clearly verify the given information. As for notability, I showed above where it was mentioned in several publications from various regions of the world. What specifically are you looking for? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can add secondary sources. 20:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimghoul28 (talk • contribs)

Respectfully, secondary sources are not required for verifiability (feel free to quote the policy and show me where I'm wrong), though they are preferred. See notations above for more rationale and additional sources. If anyone isn't going to look at them and respond, then please don't bother posting an ill-informed opinion on the subject. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be mostly drive-by remarks with very little of the desired "...more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached..." — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public endangerment[edit]

Delete no indication where this is a crime or what constitutes it or whether, when all is said and done, it's a notable crime. I will not assume that just because someone somewhere outlaws something that the something becomes notable for WP - are we ready for Spitting on the sidewalk, Eating your left forearm, Taking scissors on board an aircraft, Drinking in a dry town, Wearing a head scarf to school, Failing to wear a head scarf to school and other things that are crimes somewhere or another, or even everywhere... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now backed up with sources. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not much here, but I would think more could be written on this topic (e.g. applicable laws; controversies over those laws, etc.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above This is more than a "spitting on the sidewalk." It's an entire legal concept. I'm surprised there was not already an article. 203 Google news hits including a Forbes article about a US Supreme Court Case as well as 59 Google Scholar hits and 57 Google book hits is not just "significant media coverage," it's potential sourcing for a much improved article. Dlohcierekim 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above it has potential for a much improved article. Plenty of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I'm also surprised there was no article already! Nk.sheridan Talk 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that substantive criminal offenses defined by statutes are per se notable, although a case could be made that merging articles on similar offenses might be a good idea, since the terminology varies according to the caprice of legislators. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but it is in dire need of expansion. If nothing is done to the article in the near future, I think it should be relisted for AfD. BWH76 (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep. No rationale was submitted for deletion, and all the responses stating an opinion have been in favor of keeping the article. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Harlan[edit]

Megapen (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was just created, and you want to delete it already? Let's give the creator a chance to expand it first. ArcAngel (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a) No reason for deletion has been given. b) Nominating for deletion 2 minutes after article was created, with the editor still working on it (as shown by an additional edit), is too bleeping quick on the trigger. If you've notability concerns, tag it, step back, let the editors do the work, and if you still have concerns later, THEN suggest it be deleted -- per official policy. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close because it's so new. It's referenced at least, though notability could be a concern. However, more time could mean more references demonstrating notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) No rationale for nomination given; 2) tagged within two minutes of creation, that is way, way too soon; 3) has at least two reliable sources, Fort Worth Star-Telegram and Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which are adequate for a stub to be expanded later, 4) plenty of google hits for this guy[19][20] suggests notability and more sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on keep. Article is shaping up nicely, and is showing notability. Suggest withdrawing the nom.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per JeremyMcCracken. Gimghoul28 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep everything appears to check out and look okay, so I don't think notability is a concern regardless of how soon this was nominated after initial article creation. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is unfortunate that the article was nominated for AfD so quickly after being created and perhaps one could use the absence of the stated rationale by the nominator as a reason for keep or speedy keep. I will say, however, for future discussion(s), that notability of the subject will need to be established, probably more likely per WP:MUSIC than per WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Far from a slam dunk, but the consensus is that the article has improved sufficiently to just get over the notability hurdle. I note that those who commented later (after improvements had been made) were more apt to support keeping it.--Kubigula (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sherwin[edit]

Repeatedly deleted non-notable artist. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple claims here and there, but all in all it's way too far from general notability guidelines (none of the sources are really substantial). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN; the website he's notable for (myartspace) wouldn't even meet notability; even if it did, there have been a great many AfDs for a NN creator of a notable website. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hangon I stand by my views. Should he just be listed as writer and art critic? A person who has been mentioned in Juxtapoz for his itnerviews and who has had reviews in Hi Fructose Magazine is notable. Those two sources also involve about 80,000 subscribers. The Stuckist site is a legit source and they have millions of members. The Illinois Times has a circulation of about 40,000 and is read by many more since it is delivered in public areas throughout that region of Illinois. His blog is one of the most visited art blogs on the net go to Alexa and find out for yourself. I also found mention of him involved with art charity. Chet Zar, Elana Guttman, Carrie Ann Baade and others have donated art to charity events he has managed. I don't think anyone off the street could interview James Rosenquist, Sylvia Sleigh, or Michael Craig-Martin (who instructed Damien Hirst I might add). And myartspace and Mr. Sherwin are very notable in the mainstream visual art community. When a person interviews artists who normally are only interviewed by ARTnews they are notable. Have you bothered to look at some of the jurors they have had? I don't see deviantart hosting competitions with jurors from the Tate Modern nor do I hear that site discussed in Chelsea. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I also found more links where Sherwin is mentioned. www.beinart.org, www.undergroundartunion.com, http://artnews.org/artist.php?i=3622, www.photonewstoday.com/?p=11262, www.caniglia-art.com/news.htm, www.madhattersreview.com, http://www.myjournalcourier.com/articles/art_17151___article.html/gallery_damsgaard.html (Roodhouse1 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete In short, I couldn't look at any source here and conclude that Mr. Sherwin has been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. I couldn't even find him in the Illinois Times piece and the Journal Courier has a blurb on his having organized a charity art auction (for his own charity). Being mentioned in a publication and being the subject of a piece are vastly different things. Montco (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hangon There are two of his paintings on the cover of that issue of the Illinois Times. His paintings along with the other art on the cover were chosen to represent the art community in that region of Illinois. The charity was put together for the Eclectic Gallery by Sherwin to help raise money for youth art programs in that area of Illinois. Sherwin does not have a charity. Based on what I read he helped sponsor it by obtaining art from artists he is associated with. The Illinois Times and Journal Courier online articles represent articles that were published in those respected papers. As you probably know, online stubs like that rarely contain the full article because it is expected that the reader will buy the issue or find an issue. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

hangon I just found this http://2winks.blogspot.com/2008/04/schweeeet-kokeshi-in-hifructose-vol-7.html there you will find one of his reviews in Hi Fructose Magazine mentioned. If the main issue is about him being listed as an artist what do you think about having him listed as just a writer and art critic? I do find it interesting that he is an artist though because most art critics and review writers are not. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There, I made some more changes. Does it work now? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

hangon I also want to make it clear that my original article about Brian Sherwin was deleted within minutes. I did not have time to edit and when I tried I was unable to do so. Is it common for articles to be deleted within minutes? I thought I would have time to flesh it out. I'm new so I'm sure I made some mistakes. One of the rules on notability mentions that a person must have significant coverage if they are notable due to the people they know. I think Brian Sherwin fits that criteria. Many of the notable artists Mr. Sherwin has interviewed, such as Aleksandra Mir ( http://www.aleksandramir.info/bibliography.html scroll down to interviews ), have their interviews with him mentioned in their cv or resume which is a type of reference that is often included in published works about the artist or exhibit materials. Other notable artists such as Chet Zar, Cam de Leon, Mark Ryden, Michael Craig-Martin, Patrick Brill, Sylvia Sleigh, Alex Grey, Georgina Starr, Mark McGowan, Norman Carlberg on wikipedia that have been interviewed by Mr. Sherwin have no doubt passed those interviews on to a countless number of people and are referenced by people throughout the net. If they see him as notable as someone to mention on their resume I would think that wikipedia would see him as notable as well based on that criteria alone. Art sites/magazines like Juxtapoz have selected his interviews for coverage and are notable according to wikipedia. His interviews and reviews have been published online and offline. So I fail to see how he is not considered notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roodhouse1 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Keep, seems notable, credible, clearly the article needs work, categories, and other links but the article seems worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 01:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on an overall assessment that this improves the usefulness of the encyclopedia rather than lowering its standard. Sherwin's name undoubtedly gets around via his interviews, which constitute a very impressive list. He is a significant face on Myartspace, which on my Alexa check came in with a rank of 162,000 out of 100,000,000 web sites in the world, which is very good for an art site of this nature (compare the Frick Collection some way below at 463,000): I realise the limitations of Alexa, but it does provide some rough indication. Sherwin is not a major figure, but passes the threshold. He is someone that those interested in contemporary art may well want to find out more about and turn to wikipedia for that information. That is what it is here for. Ty 02:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JeremyMcCracken. BWH76 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bio has had many changes since Jeremy's vote. I don't think that is fair. Jeremy's opinions are based on assumptions and are false as well. Sherwin is not the creator of myartspace. He is their Senior Editor. I don't think an assumption of if myartspace is notable or not has anything to do with this specific bio. However, I will say that myartspace is notable in the since that the site has had exhibits in the South of France an in the Chelsea art district in Manhattan with jurors from the Tate Modern, Sotheby's, National Portrait Gallery, SAIC. Professionals regard the site highly. As far as artist networking sites are concerned it is very notable. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - the following is what Roodhouse1 wrote on my talk page about this AfD.

"I was told I put this in the wrong place. Hopefully I have it in the right place now. I noticed your vote for this bio. It seems to me that some of the statements about this bio being deleted are based more on assumptions than fact. For example, JeremyMcCracken voted for deletion of the Brian Sherwin bio stating "the website he's notable for (myartspace) wouldn't even meet notability; even if it did, there have been a great many AfDs for a NN creator of a notable website.". I think an artist networking site that has been involved with curators from the Tate Modern, The National Portrait Gallery, SAIC, and Sotheby's, and that has had exhibits in the South of France and the Chelsea art district in Manhattan is notable.

The question about myartspace is not the issue here in the first place and I will add that the idea that Sherwin is the creator of the site is an assumption because he is not nor was it ever stated on the bio that he was. He is their Senior Editor and a founding member as noted by their Management Team page. That is clear in the bio. So how can someone mark a bio for deletion when they obviously did not read the bio and the changes that have been made? I appreciate your vote, but I don't think it was made in good faith because you simply agreed with Jeremy's reasoning without additional reasons for your vote. Much has changed with the bio since Jeremy's vote. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC))"[reply]

reply to comment In your vote you simply agreed with Jeremy. However, Jeremy's info was 1.) outdated because the bio has changed much since his vote. 2.) contained false information about the subject of the bio that had nothing to do with the bio in the first place. You sir obviously did not read the bio because you agreed Jeremy's exact words and you did not offer additional reasons that could help improve upon the bio as a whole. Since assumptions rule the day here I can only assume that you made the delete vote in bad faith. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep in its current state given the fact that the author has done an exemplary job of coming up with third-party references. The original was a clear-cut speedy, but it sure looks fine now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - although I agree that the article is much improved from the original, I still don't see any independent, reliable sources in which the subject of the article is the focus. I did a very quick search on him, but came up empty-handed. He's mentioned in several articles, but his coverage from what I've seen is sparse. Are there any independent sources listed as references in the article in which he is the focus that I have missed? If there are, I'd be happy to change my opinion on this.BWH76 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It comes under "multiple independent sources". I found a lot of people were citing him for his interviews, including Juxtapoz, which is very highly regarded in its sector of the art world. Ty 02:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment BWH76 I can't find anything written directly about Sherwin aside from the mention of the charity he helped put together and where he has been mentioned for his interviews. You have to realize that he is an interviewer and a young one at that. There is no biography written about him if that is what you are suggesting should be listed. However, that is not the only sign of notability according to what I read in the rules about notability. Interviewing 400 artists since late 2006 is no easy task nor is combining the mainstream artists and underground artists as Sherwin has done. These interviews are important because they document both sides of art culture and these interviews would not take place if Sherwin was not asking the questions. His work deserves to be noticed. I've provided everything I've been asked to provide for this bio. I've provided more cites on the Sherwin bio than what I see on most of the bios that I've found on here. Wikipedia is supposed to about revealing new people and things of interest and things and people that deserve notice, not just show boating the same content we can find anywhere else. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- You're entirely wrong on that one. Wiki only allows content that is show-boated elswhere. See WP:NOR and WP:V. That is what the references establish. Ty 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that wikipedia is not just about having articles and bios about people and things that have been in the New York Times. Other publications are notable in their own right and I think that has been established with this bio. This is not NewYorkTimespedia. Other publications both online and offline should be considered with the same respect or at least given the benefit of the doubt. Just because a publication is not notable to Person A does not mean that it is not notable to Person B and hundreds of thousands of people who agree with Person B. That is how I view it. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

So is that it? PMDrive, does that mean the bio is accepted? Should I start working on the other bios I plan to contribute? Also, if I do an article on the major art fairs of today should I do one for each fair or combine them all in one article? I'm talking about Scope, Pulse, Art Chicago and fairs like that.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- The outcome will be decided by whichever admin closes this discussion in due course by weighing up the arguments put forward. I will post on your talk page about the fairs. Ty 00:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link showing Sherwin listed on Aleksandra Mir's resume. Mir has been mentioned in several top art magazines, the New York Times, and has shown at the Tate, Saatchi's, and the Mary Boone Gallery as well as other important venues. She has been at Frieze as well. Trying to track down other resumes but I've noticed that a lot of these artists have not updated the online version of their resumes for years so it might be tough. I'm still considering the link to Grateful Web's post containing Sherwin's interview with Alex Grey. Grateful Web has been around since the early 90s but I don't know if they would be considered reliable based on that alone. I also think Sherwin's review of the Kokeshi Project for Hi Fructose would be interesting to add since some people have described that as a new movement and it is starting to get some mainstream (in Japan) attention since that issue. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Add whatever you think suitable. If others disagree, it can be discussed. Ty 22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ty et al. Nom might note he is not described (except in passing) or categorized as an artist, but as an art critic and curator. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, for the reasons shown, and for the vast improvement in the article since the nomination. Closed early per WP:SNOW. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nitroindazole[edit]

Delete perhaps enough context to gather that this a chemical or drug, but no refs or indication that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has 5590 Google scholar hits. I spelled out an acronym in the article and left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology in hopes that someone from that project would have a better idea how to handle this. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been expanded substantially since the nomination and has several references. --Itub (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching PubMed with the MeSH term "7-nitroindazole "[Substance Name] yields 619 citations. Based this PubMed search, the article is clearly notable. Boghog2 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, discussed in reliable sources and is an inhibitor of a particularly important enzyme. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly worth a Wikipedia article - thanks to Boghog2 and TimVicker for their recent expansion of the article addressing its deficiencies. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it is beginning to get a little tiresome when the nom could have done the google search himself--and, if one doesnt feel competent to expand, mention the article at the apropriate project. DGG (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep - perhaps the only known inhibitor of nNOS of any use experimentally. Snellios (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the Code[edit]

Delete nn play, although the author is a bluelink, he is not the super high notability author that all of his works are presumed notable, hence this play's notability rests on its own (notability) merits which are found wanting. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NYT TIME TV movie w/ Derek Jacobi, won award etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Before saying "found" it might do one good to actually "search"? --Dhartung | Talk 18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway production nommed for three Tonys and two Drama Desks. --Dhartung | Talk 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cleary meets WP:N and per Dhartung's links. PeterSymonds | talk 18:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with a hearty endorsement of Dhartung's comments. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, I suppose the subject is notable, but the article is in dire need of expansion. (It's barely a single sentence right now.) Any volunteers? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. I just added a link to the review from Time, but much more could be added without too much difficulty. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sazón[edit]

Delete minimal context and no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jacchigua (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT. Effectively copied from here with the exception of two words. PeterSymonds | talk 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not a dictionary. Seasoned salt is not notable. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was an Emilio Estefan-penned single sung by the late Celia Cruz called "Sazón". Just a note. This one is just a dicdef. JuJube (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alcaparrado[edit]

Delete no context or assertion that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems to be a fairly widely-used combination, but I'm finding no non-trivial references to it, just recipes using it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition of Spanish word. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SeedStudios[edit]

Unknown company fails WP:Notable. SkyWalker (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. SkyWalker (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. The company is small, has received very little secondary coverage. Note that this article was titled SeedStudios, but this was a typo; the company has a space in it. PeterSymonds | talk 18:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure about possible magazine coverage, but certainly nothing on Google. (72 hits for "SeedStudios", of which I can't see anything useful.) Marasmusine (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of significant independent coverage of the company or its games. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 17:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pettingill family[edit]

This page was speedy-delete-tagged db-attack, but it is claimed that some of it it true. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 09:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup - The Pettingill family is notable as a major crime family in Western Australia, being written about in various newspaper articles and books... just as a couple of examples - newspaper article, and "Australian Crime - Chilling Tales of Our Time" (New Holland 2004, by Malcolm Brown, ISBN 1741102332)... it may need cleanup for neutrality and references but needing cleanup is not justification for article deletion. The major members of the family also seem to be accepted as notable enough to have their own articles (Kath Pettingill, Dennis Allen, Victor Peirce), so surely they're notable as a group when they are (or were, with Dennis and Victor now both deceased), together, a major crime family... Xmoogle (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- as the initial author of this article, I took it upon myself to expand and reference the content. I'll try improve on it during the week. The ABC's Radio National Breakfast program referred to this family as Australia's most famous modern crime family [21]. They've made mention in many local crime books, countless newspaper articles and television shows. This family was more active during the 1970's and 1980's in Melbourne so online searches for references will produce somewhat limited results. -- Longhair\^talk 14:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noting the considerable effort that has gone into clean up and provision of citations --Matilda ^talk 01:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Declining salt recommendation, however if article is recreated without showing notability, it will be eligible for a G4 speedy. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T.P. Callaghan[edit]

Unsourced article on a non-notable athlete. The only reference I've found so far says he won a county cross-country championship, which hardly satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Nothing yet to indicate that the guy won "medals...around the world". Article has already been A7 speedied four times; recommend salting if deleted. --Finngall ^talk 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I failed to find any references for this person. Finngall's ref above is a minor mention in article about an athletics club event. Current sourced information on this person shows that he fails to meet the WP:ATHLETE requirements. I would argue against salting, as it is just possible that further referenced information might be forthcoming (although I think this is unlikely). -- MightyWarrior (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author, or someone else, posts sources establishing his notability beyond local races. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DownSide Out[edit]

No media mentions, no AMG entry, only Google hits are this and their MySpace page. Looks like a vanity page/ad. —Chowbok ☠ 16:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty blatant COI (created by User:Downsideout), and the creator's been an SPA for the band. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkowski-Institute[edit]

OK I'll nominate this one -- non-notable "institute", no RS, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that this website is non-notable per se, but as stated on Talk:Pinkowski-Institute, I created this article because this "Institute" is used as source on Wiki to promote Polish POV, and I want to have this investigated properly. See also Talk:Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin, and mainly Talk:First Partition. -- Matthead Discuß 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, non-ecyclopedic. Phrases such as apparently named after and seems to operate are WP:OR and fail WP:V by means of WP:RS. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - who the heck is Edward Pinkowski who allegedly operates some business or other out of Florida? The one who catches fish in murky water meaning mafioso which are plenty in Florida, especially in real estate, or so I heard? This article must be completely rewritten to fulfill Wiki standards, otherwise delete. greg park avenue (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Talk:Pinkowski-Institute, Matthead has created this article to "collect info about the trustworthiness of this site as source for Wikipedia articles. Or the lack thereof..." Strong Delete re: WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Okay, nobody likes the article, I got that by now, thanks. But then, do you guys accept that several Wiki articles were/are sourced by this website? The following Wiki articles link(ed) to the site poles.org, as of a few hours ago: Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin (added again by Piotrus), John M. Budarz, John Scolvus. Nobody edited them since the AFD is up. Independently from the current state of the article, is the "Institute" considered as reliable source, or do you reject that also by voting "delete"? If the article gets deleted, can further attempts to use Poles.org as source be rejected by pointing to this AfD? -- Matthead Discuß 22:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splash it as a source of reference - anyone can contribute to this website at His and Mr Pinkowski's will. Don't touch the articles you have listed above though - these will survive without this autobiographer's "eldorado" as long as the other sources are valid, and I checked out they are. greg park avenue (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get the colloquial subtleties of the "Splash it" remark ("forget it"? "distribute it all over the place"?). As I understand, you checked the articles, and obviously accept the Pinkowski source at least as decoration, as you made no edits? -- Matthead Discuß 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splash it means ground it as an airplane using a missile but over the water - an idiom used by US fighter pilots. In Wiki language - delete all references related to this source and parts of text based upon it. I saw something has already been done by User:Piotrus in Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin article. And yes, it's more like a decoration, worthless as a source over here. I saw also your contribution to discussion on the talk page of First Partition article - a bit overdone. These articles are very well referenced and removing this one source won't accomplish a thing, still I agree with you that some expressions as "civil war" or even the title "first partition" are not formulated precisely and misleading, and an insight of an outsider like you is very welcome. It should be named First Partition of Poland (1772) at least. But it's Piotrus' baby, he should work on it some more. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The place to discuss reliability of sources is the reliable sources noticeboard, not mainspace or AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just listed there, thanks for pointing to it. -- Matthead Discuß 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that other articles may use this institute's web page as a source has nothing to do with whether the institute itself is notable enough for an article. It clearly isn't. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War on Skaro[edit]

User has created an article for the 12th episode of Doctor Who series 4 but the title has yet to be officially revealed. This is WP:OR at minimum! Stephenb (Talk) 15:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Who (series 4)- not enough info about the episode for an article, not to mention the unconfirmed title. OZ OO 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very speedy delete - clearly an unsourced title going around the fan community big-time. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep of Reason (album)[edit]

Does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for wp:notability Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for being a major-label album by a notable band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that notable under wikipedia guidelines or your own thoughts?
Keep. Notable band, notable label, notable album and Google finds many sources. Prolog (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. No need for a redirect either, as it is an unlikely search term. No information from this particular article is necessary for a merge either. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E=MC² Promo Tour[edit]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/(({1))}|edit]] | [[Talk:(({1))}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/(({1))}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/(({1))}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/(({1))}|delete]] | [((fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/(({1))}|limit=999)) links] | [((fullurl:(({1))}|action=watch)) watch] | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The page is unsourced, but beyond that, it's for a trivial series of promotional events that does not merit inclusion into Wikipedia. The most it should have a is a blurb on the album page, stating where she went (and even that inclusion is debatable). It should therefore be deleted. (Note: I have tried making it a redirect into the album page, but apparently there are issues with that with other editors.) SKS2K6 (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate info to E=MC² (Mariah Carey album), then delete as this is an unlikely search term.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Already merged; see album page. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced, unreferenced, non-notable article introduced by an indef blocked sockpuppet of the well known pupeteer Brexx (talk · contribs). I would advise to not even keep it as a redirect since it is a very unlikely search string to be used by someone trying to find this info, ie it is an official name given to a not yet officially confirmed event. As far as the creating editor Girl Get it (talk · contribs), I will more than likely request a WP:CHECKUSER on the account to confirm that it is in fact one of Brexx's many many block evading socks. Upon confirmation, since community banned users are not allowed to edit, this article should be deleted anyway. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely merge and delete, especially the photograph. The "editor" who created it has an extremely poor understanding of Wikipedia, and often uploads unnecessary back covers, fakes image contexts or copies them from other sites without credit, writing in a childish fanzine manner and makes no attempt to address this even when brought up by other editors. This page should be condensed and then merged with E=MC² (Mariah Carey album). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reqluce (talk • contribs)
Comment Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it has confirmed that the creating editor of this article (Girl Get it (talk · contribs)) is a sockpuppet of banned user Brexx (talk · contribs). SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I think the ideal solution would be to have an article dealing with the album's promotion in general, including this promo tour. I must also remind the "merge and delete" voters above that their votes are invalid according to policy, because if you merge content while deleting the article it came from, you lose the history and therefore the author attribution. Everyking (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to funk. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funk rock[edit]

This isn't a bad article, but it appears to be completely based on original research, as it cites no sources, and has been flagged for references since 2006. There is already a funk article, and the funk rock article simply discusses some of the bands that have fused funk with rock and the subgenres that have subsequently developed. This information may be notable enough to be on Wikipedia, but I don't think this article is the place to put it, AND all of this information needs to be referenced. The article also contains an extremely long list of bands which should either be completely scrapped or converted into a list. What should be done? I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Funk. The information would serve better under one page. PeterSymonds | talk 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Funk. A section should do it. It seems to be a list of examples of funk rock musicians, and perhaps a little in Funk will suffice to present the salvagable information in the funk rock article. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 15:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not necessary to merge. I believe there is sufficient widespread use of the genre term [22] to warrant its own article. It just needs to be improved with the addition of reliable sources, of which there are several. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable musical genre. Article just needs some references, which isn't a reason for deletion of an article on a notable topic. Klausness (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Funk. Article in question is entirely original research as I could find no reliable source defining the purported genre. Note that P. Funk and like acts were often categorized as "Funk/rock" (with slash), not as a separate style but as within the overlap of funk and rock music. B.Wind (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. No prejudice against recreation when published, reviewed, and otherwise passing, notability and sourcing guidelines. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Blur[edit]

Future book article violation of WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL, but with no prejudice against recreation when it comes out. At the moment it doesn't meet WP:N, but that might change when it's released. PeterSymonds | talk 15:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per PeterSymonds. Gsearch not coming up with a whole lot of notability (more hits for contact lenses for Olympic athletes); google news coming up empty. May very well become notable after release, but it's not there yet.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. The event is notable (a noted Australian journalist published by Australia's leading publisher and listed by major chains and libraries) and certain to take place (verified at Penguin Book's website - published June 2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.94.5 (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James West, the author of the yet-to-be-released book. The article can be recreated and (preferably) greatly expanded upon official release. B.Wind (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chua Bo De[edit]

Unreferenced article about a non-notable Buddhist temple Closedmouth (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no notability established. SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- Dekkappai (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just a quick Internet search brought up university-level sourcing, which has been added to the article. Dekkappai (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of references to prove notability. --Eastmain (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice the article was largely a copyright vio of THIS source. I've commented it out until someone can repair it. Dekkappai (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Evans (footballer)[edit]

Previously deleted via WP:PROD but now recreated. The subject fails WP:ATHLETE as he never played in a fully professional league. And, no, his appearances with Ostersunds FK do not make him notable, since that team plays in the Swedish third tier, which is not fully professional. Angelo (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'd say playing in the FA Youth Cup final and for wales youth is probably just enough for notability. --neonwhite user page talk 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 16:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no such consensus, please point it out. --neonwhite user page talk 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various discussiona at WP:FOOTBALL have determined such a consensus; also look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, which states "Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games." Giant Snowman 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete For some reason I completely missed the part in which it said he hadn't played; WP:ATHLETE says: "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a high-level, fully professional league". Manchester City certainly meets that, and Swansea are about to go to championship level. PeterSymonds | talk 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC) PeterSymonds | talk 16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As clearly shown by the stats in the infobox, though, he's never played a first team match for either club therefore he does not satisfy WP:ATHLETE therefore Delete ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify the professionalism or otherwise of the 3rd division of Swedish football in order to make a judgement according to WP:BIO Kevin McE (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that the top division of the Swedish league is not fully pro, I very much doubt that the 3rd division is. Therefore I do not believe that he has played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:BIO#Athletes as consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as per nom --Jimbo^[online] 16:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilsen Photo Group[edit]

No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. 51 non-wiki ghits, most of which are blogs and passing mentions; none of which show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as NN; no members or exhibition venues are notable; no shows outside Chicago. Creator has only made 2 edits not on this article. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. This fails the notability guideline. PeterSymonds | talk 15:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, unfortunately I was unable to find anything supporting notability either in the article or online. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Modernist (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PERNOM. ;-) Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Frankly, the two "delete" opinions make no sense at all. What obvious reasons? Sandstein (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant views of Mary[edit]

This article has no content except what is in the many other articles on the Virgin Mary. There is no sign of authors knowlegeble of Protestant views of Mary to improve it. Carlaude (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No content? This article already contains more soures than other stubs featured in Project Christianity. More are on the way. No authors knowledgeable of Protestant views? I take issue with that. At any rate, few members of the wiki community have had a chance to add to it yet. Give it time. --Mordecai99 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can this be merged or cleaned up? The article is poorly written and not neutral. It reads like a personal essay to me. --neonwhite user page talk 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; don't destroy a house before it's been built. So far, there are several footnotes and sources. Can we wait until it's finished before we judge its fate? The topic is so far an encyclopedic one. PeterSymonds | talk 15:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For obvious reasons. However, I will gladly switch my vote if and when the article is rewritten. I'll keep an eye out to see what transpires. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or strong delete For extremely obvious reasons. The argument that there's more to come is stupid. More opinions? and if you take issue with any views about the subject that just goes to show how biased and POV you are. All the more reason to get rid of this nonsense. MiracleMat (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge Better sourced and referenced than some, and a topic that could be argued to be notable in its own right, particularly when there is an Islamic view of Mary extant, although I'm not convinced they couldn't both be merged into Mary (Mother of Jesus) -- Ka renjc 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those arguing for a deletion, please be advised that:

There are several articles detailing "views of Mary" in particular denominations and religions (Islamic view of Mary, Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church and Anglican Marian theology). There ought to be one for Protestantism.
Currently there is a POV fork that details various denominations' teachings about Catholic teachings on Mary (Christian views of Mary Contrasted), without stating positively what it is that many of those denominations (some Protestant) believe. In the interest of NPOV as well as the wide-ranging, encyclopedic scope of wiki, Protestant views of Mary ought to be kept as a place for stating what it is Protestants believe in regard to Mary, what controversies there are, and what commonalities there are between Protestant churches.
It is unfair that the diversity of Protestant beliefs should be described only in negative form in relation to other churches (notably the Roman Catholic one). It may seem counter-intuitive, since Protestantism is, after all, rooted in "protest" or reform; but there are various "new" Protestant ideas on Mary that don't seem to have any roots either in Catholicism or in critique of Catholicism (see links section in article), but rather in traditional Protestant exegesis.
I take serious issue with the accusation: "and if you take issue with any views about the subject that just goes to show how biased and POV you are." On the contrary, I would like this article to be as broad and neutral as possible. I would like to include sections on the development of Protestant views on Mary, perhaps a section on the influence of the Enlightenment, Pietism, feminism, etc. Any help in eliminating POV in this article is much appreciated.

--Mordecai99 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A legitimate enough subject for an article, I suppose, but this seems to be original theology, like original research except that the synthesis is on the subject of religion. Author's thesis is that "nevertheless, a uniquely 'Protestant' Mary can be said to exist", and then goes on to describe "typical Protestant" views, and cites one person's article as evidence of a newer, controversial, Evangelical movement school of thought. I think you were right the first time when you said that it's difficult to generalize about us non-Catholics. Mandsford (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be a "generalization" when I noted its controversy and novelty? Let's not generalize about all Protestants, certainly. Rather, let's expand this article to cover the full range of opinions.

--Mordecai99 (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Christian views of Mary Contrasted is not a POV fork. It is the main article out of which this article Protestant views of Mary could and should grow out of-- but not until there is much more and better content.

The name of Christian views of Mary "Contrasted" is already contested-- and should change. I have already indicated the counterproductive nature of including the word "Contrasted." Perfect example-- have Protestant views there-- link to other articles as needed.

Wikipedia is not about creating an topic to be "fair" when there is not reason to think the content will follow or that it is even needed in the format of a separate article. --Carlaude (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Polite question?[edit]

I do not understand, why our fellow traveler Carlaude first contributes actively to this (new) topic, changes its name, and then requests deletion? AFTER his deletion request on May 6, our friend was busy linking Protestant views of Mary to several other mariological pages ( see:Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church, Anglican Marian theology, Mariology, Blessed Virgin Mary , Mary (Mother of Jesus) and others. Why??? Carlaude likes to engage long debates on the talk pages of Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian views of Mary Contrasted‎. Why not talk first to the author of the day old article in a friendly manner?

Sorry, but maybe he can explain to us, why a new article, he contributed to, should be deleted, and, why he made all these links after his deletion requests? I am too dumb to understand. -:)) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not so such linking to Protestant views of Mary as correcting the existing links to Protestant views of Mary. I had changed the article name-- from something like "Mary in Protestantism"-- and considered it a duty to correct the links even if I had AfD'ed the article.

Any tempary "name change" was inadvertant-- I made an error with My preferences and I did not see for an hour or so.

No I do not "like to engage long debates"-- but I had already stated that Protestant views of Mary was a poor idea, etc., before it was created.--Carlaude 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

From the History of Protestant views of Mary

(cur) (last) 13:40, 6 May 2008 Carlaude (Talk | contribs) (2,761 bytes) (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protestant views of Mary) (undo)
cur) (last) 13:36, 6 May 2008 Carlaude (Talk | contribs) m (moved Mary in Protestantism to Protestant views of Mary: Better title form. Parallel form to other articles.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:34, 6 May 2008 Carlaude (Talk | contribs) m (moved Protestants views of Mary to Mary in Protestantism over redirect: typo) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:29, 6 May 2008 Carlaude (Talk | contribs) m (moved Mary in Protestantism to Protestants views of Mary: better title form. Parrlle form to other articles.) (undo)

Strong Keep Protestant Views of Mary certainly should not be deleted. There needs to be a positive article detailing the different protestant views of Mary, and their background. This article may not cover all of that yet, but hopefully it will grow into such a resource. If any article is to go it should be "Christian Views of Mary Contrasted", which to my mind is an ill-judged and confused concept. Xandar (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)--Yes, Xander, that is exactly the way to do it, but it will take time to build up such a compendium. God did not create the world in one day either. -:)) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a well-referenced article covering a very notable topic in broader Christianity. While the article may need work, nominating it for AfD certainly isn't how that gets done. —BradV 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, preferably wikify The article has continued to evolve as this discussion has continued, and I am impressed that the contributors are relying upon a variety of book sources. I think that the better thing to do would be to wikify this and retool it. It's a big topic, kind of like doing an article about "what is the meaning of life"; the generalizations about the views of hundreds of millions of Protestants had been a major problem, although it's fair to say that Protestants don't do "Hail Mary" except maybe after the two minute warning; it's a mistake to base the views of Protestants on the actual writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin or Karl Barth, although it's OK to summarize what religious commentators have observed about views in general. Looks like this is moving in the right direction, but maybe the topic is bigger than any writer can address. Good luck to you. Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

, although it looks like there's a recognition that this needs to be fixed.

-- Strong keep. I agree with Mandsford, the article is moving in the right direction, needs more work and time to develop. The request for deletion was made within one day of the creation of the article without any previous discussion.

Maybe we should have a Wikipedia policy to give new articles a chance - unless they are obnoxious or highly insulting of course. My own articles all developed over time. None of them was perfect day one. There is such a thing as "start up". Let's build up, rather than tear down! --Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve. I do not know this topic, and would like to understand it. I have been hoping that someone with that knowledge will write more and/or improve this article. Is there a way to advertise on Wikipedia for a protestant expert who will improve this article and do everyone a lot of good? Instead of a deletion tag, this article needs a please improve tag. History2007 (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctuary (Irish charity album)[edit]

Charity album which seems unlikely to pass WP:MUSIC, and at this time it is scheduled for release on June 1st through Itunes. ArcAngel (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Future releases are permitted articles. This album contains several notable artists. --neonwhite user page talk 15:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just - as some notables are involved.Red Hurley (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Cabot Podmore[edit]

Delete. First off, obvious WP:COI and WP:AUTO here...the main contributor is none other than User:Ric Cabot Podmore. Furthermore, a google search for "Ric Cabot Podmore" only turns three pages of results. The first page's results are mostly MySpace related pages, this page and the company's official site. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, which states that the musician or ensemble has to have released something of widespread notability, significant enough to be covered by secondary sources. This article does not meet this requirement. PeterSymonds | talk 15:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Delete Self-promotion!!!!!!!! MiracleMat (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:VSCA — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 09:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted by Orangemike (A7). Fabrictramp (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reign of Chaos Band[edit]

I don't think the band do not currently pass our music notability guidelines (WP:MUSIC); both items of coverage are from a single Hull-based website published "to help promote local talent" so I would question it as a WP:Reliable source and multiple sources are preferred anyway. I'm sure once the band become signed they will achieve more attention. ) Marasmusine (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Marasmusine (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no assertion of notability --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Dweller. The article fails all twelve criterias at WP:MUSIC, and furthermore does not indicate notability. PeterSymonds | talk 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Taxidriver (wrestler)[edit]

Not notable, three of the four refs on the page all lead to the same place. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Darrenhusted (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the TVSA reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajstyles tna roh (talk • contribs) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a000d'

Type mismatch: 'request'

/actorprofile.asp, line 82". How does that establish notability? And the other three refs are 403 or 404 error pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very strange, because it works perfectly here. I highly advise you to try to get other users to check as well. Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And do the other three refs work, because if they don't then this article has no working refs. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. This wrestler has not competed at a high or national level, and does not have significant secondary sources written about him. PeterSymonds | talk 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PeterSymonds. --Endless Dan 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per [23]. Nikki 311 23:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Sumy. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics in Sumy[edit]

I see no reason why this cannot be in the Sumy article. It provides no information which illustrates notability that cannot be covered in this article, and in fact what content there is there is my creation, as initial article was nothing more than a fly-post about the church with email addresses phone numbers etc. SGGH ^speak! 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sumy. The section under "Religion" on the Sumy artice is one sentence long. It could do with expansion, and this article isn't ready to stand alone at the moment. PeterSymonds | talk 15:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete for obvious reasons MiracleMat (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sumy, as per User:PeterSymonds
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge for sure. Ostap 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Clearly no consensus for deletion and strong support for keeping, though there does appear to be a rough consensus for a title change, but that can obviously be discussed on the talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol controversy[edit]

Unworthy page, all of this info is in the articles anyway K C 109 01:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's possible this might be an attempt at creating a spinoff page to lessen the length of the original article. Considering how notable this series is, a separate article on the controversies is justified. And there are certainly plenty of sources. Needs to be policed for WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, especially to avoid the dreaded POV Fork Syndrome. And it needs a better lead. And the title needs to be changed because it suggests this is about only one controversy. It could also possibly be expanded with sections on controversies in regional versions of the show (i.e. World Idol, Canadian Idol, etc). Other than these content issues I don't see a problem with the article's viability or "worthiness" (I don't like the term "unworthy" being used in AFD as it sounds a bit too much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I only say "weak keep" because maybe others won't mind the main Idol article ballooning with a controversies section. 23skidoo (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems well sourced and of a significant length that it is unlikely to be possible to merge it with the main article. Although there is some OR that could be removed. --neonwhite user page talk 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the existing American Idol article. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a legitimate split page. American Idol is a long article, and this is backed up by significant secondary sources. PeterSymonds | talk 15:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to American Idol Controversies. The parent article is large enough, with only the possibility of umpteen more seasons of being on the air growing it even larger. Seems to be a very reasonable split. Jim Miller (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of this is already in the articles for the seasons they occured in anyway. K C 109 21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

They could be summarized with a link to this page. --neonwhite user page talk 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content fork Sceptre ^(talk) 01:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content fork Wikipedia:Content_forking#What_content.2FPOV_forking_is_not it's classed as an article spinout. --neonwhite user page talk 03:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "it's a spinout not a fork" argument - totally wrong because it's a "X controversy" article. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Neon. Jim Miller's points are also salient; spinning off into a justified page, linked from main article, helps reduce bloat. Common sense. Minkythecat (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the top of the article clarify that it covers recent controversies, that significant (and reliably sourced) controversies will be incorporated into the controversies section of the main American Idol article (include link), and that older controversies that don't get moved there will be removed. Also, rename the article with the plural, "controversies". VoteFair (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above. I frankly don't understand the nom. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 01:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most certainly a notable topic, as the show draws plenty of criticism from reliable sources and, as an above user pointed out, the original article is large enough. faithless (^speak) 01:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my nom, I will again say I did not refrence the original article in my nom. I am talking about the respective seasons in which these controversies occured. (I.E. American Idol Season 6. K C 109 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep and Rename to American Idol Controversies. --Skylights76 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--24.129.100.84 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these controversies are notable, and some might warrant having individual articles. Everyking (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert into list article List of American Idol controversies. Structure of current article lends it to this format, but it needs to be consistent throughout. Even if it isn't listified, the name must be changed as the current one is vague. B.Wind (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as a legitimate split page. American Idol is a long article, and this is backed up by significant secondary sources. as per PeterSymonds. Rename to American Idol Controversies as the content comprises multiple independent controversies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep content possibly merged to Hard Candy (Madonna_album) - Nabla (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Candy Promo Tour[edit]

Is a promo tour for an album, consisting of a whole three shows, really notable enough for its own article? The whole article cites all of one source.

I think it should be deleted or merged with Hard Candy (Madonna album) Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 10:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Hard Candy album page. There really won't be much information about this promo tour to warrant its own page. However making it a section of the Hard Candy album page with the setlist included should provide enough information on it to keep it a relevant topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.19 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Hard Candy album. Madonna tours are always a big deal, but this is just a brief warmup for the real tour later this year. Also, the present article is a highly subjective review of one gig. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the hard candy album. After removing the copyvio, the article doesn't have any content to suggest it is notable beyond the album itself. -Verdatum (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging it to the Hard Candy article would limit the amount of information that can be included. All of the other Promo Tours have their own page. Lecarlos (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merging the article with Hard Candy would make it clutered. Although small, this is a promotional tour and does deserve its own page. If you delete this page, then you would have to delete the others. Alkclark (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on it. Depending on how this one works out, I'm planning on noming the other promo tour articles for merge. Promo tours just aren't notable enough for their own article. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 04:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion, they should remain as separate articles. Kylie Minogue, Celine Dion, Anastacia, etc. all have articles that are "notable concerts" or "promo tours" that are separate from the album, tour and artist article. You will rarely find information about these concerts on the artist's official pages and/or fan sites. Merging the articles is a good concept however, to slap them all on one page would make it appear cluttered and unorganized. However, I would recommend providing a link to the NC/PT article in the main artist's page along with those infoboxes at the bottom of the page (I'm unsure as to its name) so visitors are aware of the article. Also, I believe the HU Promo Tour was originally 3 shows but ore were added as time progressed and I feel the HC Promo tour will be the same. Alkclark (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Hard Candy album. Don't think it is notable for its own article. Having it merge with its information is enough to keep it relevant for its own section. Atlantics88 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As has been previously stated, all of the other promo tours have pages of their own, and merging it with Hard Candy would indeed make it too cluttered. Besides, the tour caught lots of media attention, and seems to be fairly notable. 74.227.52.50 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Thankyoubaby (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is performing 3 times - New York, Paris (both with the same performance) and Kent. It is a promotional tour, like the others she has done; Don't Tell Me Promo Tour, American Life Promo Tour and Hung Up Promo Tour. This is a legitimate seperate page with concert dates, setlist, personnel and other details. It should not be deleted. A merge would make the album page too long and cluttered. JWAD (talk)
Keep, perhaps remake it into a broader article about the promotion for this album in general. Everyking (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Convincing evidence that the subject meets WP:ATHLETE was not presented; in particular that the league is fully professional. Separately, reliable sources were not cited to attempt to establish notability. TerriersFan (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adilson Melo[edit]

Contested prod (no reason given). No evidence that the player meets WP:BIO#Athletes criteria, i.e. having played in a fully professional league. Also severely lacking in significant independent coverage.[24] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination --Jimbo^[online] 12:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE. "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a high-level, fully professional league." The league in which his team plays is the second-highest level of football in Australia, ranking only below A-league. PeterSymonds | talk 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Victorian Premier League is a regional league, not national. Giant Snowman 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Victorian Premier League: "Nationally, it is one grade lower than the A-League". A-League is the first league of the country, and therefore VPL is the second. It's still a nationally notable league. PeterSymonds | talk 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key is "fully professional". Do you have any evidence that the league is fully pro? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site says that a professional player contracts are given to those in the Victorian Premier League. "A player may only be registered as a Professional in one of the following two (2) leagues: Victorian Premier League; State League One (1)" PeterSymonds | talk 18:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so that says it's possible, but not that it's the case that all teams are fully pro. There are fully professional clubs in the Conference North and South (and Truro were considering turning pro in Division One of the Southern League) but it doesn't make the entire league professional. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, fair enough, I'm not a sports writer so I'm probably getting the details a bit muddled. :) I'll leave my !vote for now in case anyone wants to chip in, but in the absence of players from the same team I can see arguments on both sides. PeterSymonds | talk 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor Transform[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/O'Connor Transform

Non-notable mathematical device. Nothing at all on Google Scholar; only hits on Google appear to be on forums and newsgroups (most of which, in themselves, seem to be spam from the creator of the transform), therefore I'm assuming it's original research. PROD removed by article creator. Oli Filth^(talk) 09:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Nothing in GoogleScholar[25] or WoS. No evidence that the term or the object it refers to have substantial use in the scientific community. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. There are no reliable sources establishing the notability of this topic. Within the context of scientific articles, a reliable source is generally a paper in a peer-reviewed journal with a reputation for fact-checking. Absence of any such references in the article, and further lack of any hits on Google scholar, establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the topic of this article fails to meet the guidelines set forth in the WP:N policy. silly rabbit (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete if you want but you will be removing a valuable contribution to computer science from wikipedia. Any rational reading of the article and contemplation of the implications would reveal that a) It is entirely correct. b) It is indeed novel, as you yourselves have established. c) That it is of such extreme utility that that outweighs it's lack of scholarly background. Anyway up to you, but you will be putting it back in a few years time. Sean O'Connor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatom (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Items a) and b) are irrelevant for notability. Regarding c), if you can prove it by multiple references to independent reliable sources, then great. If not, the article has no business being on Wikipedia now. If in a couple of years it turns out that the scientific community has picked up this term and it has become widely used, then nobody will have a problem with adding this entry back to Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is OR. As Nsk92 said, if it becomes notable, we'll be glad to add it then. Things that might become notable, but aren't right now, don't belong here. Merenta (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bili Sarny detention centre[edit]

Fails verifiability utterly; no reliable source given even for its existence. Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even the quoted source admits it doesn't have any data. Xx236 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy, per my comments on talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't verify references, barely speak Russian, no Ukrainian, but the subject maybe notable. There are only traces of proof left concerning Soviet made concentration camps at times in question. Someone who read Igor Newerly's book A boy from the Salski Steppes (Chłopiec z Salskich Stepów) would understand I guess. greg park avenue (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not about a Soviet or communist camp.--Kotniski (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then what this story is about, your another friendly neighborhood Polish concentration camps? In such case someone must come up with better references than that. If he/she does not - delete. greg park avenue (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --greg park avenue (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the lack of reputable and verifiable sources about the subject. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not favor deleting of articles, but this one is about a camp whose existence is dubious. Tymek (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above users. - Darwinek (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~no opinion~~ I deprodded it, so the discussion could get some more visibility, but I have no comment on the article itself, except that it does seem to need some better references. But can someone summarize what the Ukrainian sources say. DGG (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can still decrypt Cyrillic the story in question deals mostly with Chief Piłsudski's regime in the years 1934 - 1935. About the years 1938 - 1939 there is nothing but one sentence meaning that the count of prisoners in the camp Bereza Kartuzka (not Bili Sarny) rose from few hundreds to 7112. And that's all I have decoded for now. Hardly a basis for the Wikipedia article - one sentence in an obviously loaded with POV article simply won't do as per WP:N. Independent sources needed. Choir member statements supplied by author not acceptable either - these are confusing - maybe there was a camp like that, maybe there wasn't - since they can't place it precisely in time and space and even get consensus who had run it - communsts, Pilsudski's goons or others? greg park avenue (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changed to Delete on the basis of what you find.'DGG (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Maguire[edit]

Suspected hoax Grahame (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate the notability or even the existence of the subject. The article's claims seem to be completely unsourcable. If the subject was starring in a notable production of Oz, then I would imagine there would be a cast list or something somewhere. Even ignoring that, there's nothing at all I can find that asserts the subject even exists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This and Sam J Maguire, also the subject of a deletion discussion, would seem to be about a couple of young brothers in London. They may well exist, but there's no evidence that they meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Deor (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as in this related AfD, I'm having trouble verifying any of the claims made in this article. I suspect a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom totally non-verifiable. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the Oz thing is a notable production I can't find it. Nothing else qualifies. --Ka renjc 22:32, 6 May 2008
Don't Delete This article is true, I have worked with Nick on a number of Productions. The Wizard of Oz was an in house production not a large scale one.
- ... which tends to further confirm the lack of notability generally. Delete Murtoa (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and not notable. Sarah 07:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scene (fashion)[edit]

While the subject matter of this article may be somewhat notable as it represents a neologism that has become widely recognized in pop culture over the past decade or so, this article consists of nothing more than original research based on ridiculously unreliable sources (such as yahoo answers). Also, since this article is basically centered around a neologism, may I refer to WP:NEO. I feel like a tourist (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how many times has this been junked already? JuJube (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a "scenester" article that was scrapped a few days ago. I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Youth subculture which sources the term. The term 'scene' does not refer any particular style as suggested but the adherence to a style. --neonwhite user page talk 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to youth subculture article per Neon white. I say weak because I was under the impression the term "Scene", with regards to fashion, dates back many decades and isn't a recent neologism, but the article content as it currently stands appears to not recognize any such history. 23skidoo (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "scene" in this article actually pertains to music "scenes" rather than fashion itself. Their use of the word "fashion" is merely stating that this article is attempting to describe the fashion of so-called "scene kids" (that's the neologism). One of the many things that makes this article so bad is the fact that they say " 'scene' is a teen fashion style" whereas 'scene' is more aptly described as a sort of subculture or lifestyle. A distinctive choice in fashion is only one aspect of "scene" as it is used here. I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt much of that could be sourced. The ridiculousness of this article is that it tries to define a current fashion as the only fashion ever! It's high school newspaper recentism done to perfection. The utter misunderstanding of the term amuses me. --neonwhite user page talk 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, put it in a taxi, and take it to the disco scene. Seems to be passing ( and annoying ) fad on social networking sites. P.S. Double points if anybody gets the pop-culture reference. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to nominate it myself because the AfD tag has been deleted. This was my nomination: "No references to substantial coverage by reliable third party sources, fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:N. Judging from the history, the article is a teenager playground. Search engine results are unhelpful due to the generic name of the subject. Compare also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scenesters." Sandstein (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam J Maguire[edit]

This seems to be a hoax, no ghits Grahame (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Sam Maguire" doesn't seem to return any dance-related anything on any of common or scholastic databases. There's some myspace stuff about a trombone-playing high school student, a football player, and something to do with an Irish pub, but it doesn't seem like there's anything about a subject with a background similar to the one described in the article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This and Nick Maguire, also the subject of a deletion discussion, would seem to be about a couple of young brothers in London. They may well exist, but there's no evidence that they meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Deor (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm having trouble verifying any of the claims made in the article. Concur that it may be a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Looks like hoax. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This is a true article. Sam and Nick are cousins and both pages are accurate, just because they aren't on MySpace doesn't mean they're not real or that these stories are fakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmck18 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate telling us they're real people is not enough. If you want these articles kept, you are going to have to find reliable sources to verify the content is true and establish these subjects are notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we only have articles on notable subjects. Sarah 07:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I can find a MySpace that says this it makes it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmck18 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as an unverifiable and not notable bio. Sarah 07:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Hannah Montana. A sentence in that article is sufficient. Being shown on TV, even internationally, does not make everything inherently notable. If this was true, then (for example) about half the sets from every Glastonbury Festival would be independently notable. Black Kite 18:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana: Live in London[edit]

Notability: This is one concert only! Also, there are no references therefore no reliability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant material with Hannah Montana Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not just an ordinary concert, it was broadcast internationally on television. Everyking (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable concert. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail both WP:N and WP:RS. Wizardman 15:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One concert in Squidbilly, Georgia is not notable. One concert broadcast live globally is notable. Miami33139 (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to do anything (default to Keep). No consensus either to Keep or Merge, or if Merged, what the target should be. This is best taken to the talkpage for the time being. Black Kite 18:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemological nihilism[edit]

Unnotable dictionary definition that at best deserves a mention in nihilism. Failed Prod. Collectonian (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable. [26] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Crapload of print sources with chapters discussing the subject. Saying that this should be merged to Nihilism is like saying Chemistry should be merged to Natural sciences, or that Buddhism should be merged to Religion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Epistemology. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nihilism. Mention might fit best in the section Self-consistency and paradox. Deor (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This seems to mostly be an epithet used to describe positions that the writer is arguing against. It is a fairly well known term, though, and as such this minimal stub has possibility for expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I'd gladly use this term to describe my position: It seems to fit better and carry less baggage than the alternatives "agnosticism" (suggesting lack of religion) and "skepticism" (so abused). But I honestly don't know (hah!) if the term is notable. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We already have a section on this: Philosophical skepticism#Epistemology and skepticism --S.dedalus (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Lang[edit]

Article on a radio presenter that doesn't meet the criteria for notability, likely created as a promotional piece, possibly by an editor with a conflict of interest.Ha! (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ha! (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable disc jockey. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that a variety of Google searches essentially gives 3 results for him after the digitalspy forums and his blogspot page are removed. Ha! (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert started and maintained by User:Jerbilang. Coincidence? I highly doubt it. Article is dead end and orphaned (only links to it are those associated with the AfD and both the user and talk pages of the author). What little information I can find on him is strictly local in nature, not enough to sustain WP:BIO. B.Wind (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to List of Jericho characters. The previous multi-AfD (always a bad idea) didn't have consensus to do anything because there were too many simultaneously nominated articles of varying notablility. Nowhere in that AfD, however, was this article mentioned as one of those that should be kept. Meanwhile, it's mostly unsourced plot summary and fails WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N, but more to the point, practically all of this article is already in the main article. If and when there are reliable sources discussing the real-world impact and notability of this character, it can be reconstructed into a separate article. Black Kite 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Sullivan[edit]

An article for a Tv series character. Nominated some days ago in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnston Green and all editors suggested deletion or merging/converting to redirect. The result was no consensus. Mainly after I requested to merge the article. I performed merging by copy-pasting all content to List of Jericho characters. It seems that User:Oakshade is contesting my edits, so a new discussion is needed to ensure a new consensus. Magioladitis (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Actually, I would say Keep and Rename. I don't think it is outrageous for her to have her own page, but I do agree that it would be silly to give her the naming rights over other "real" biographies. Just rename her Emily Sullivan (Jericho character) and be done with it.Transcendentalstate (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: Actually, I would argue that "redirect" is a bad idea, given the commonness of the name "Emily Sullivan," but there is no such thing as "merge and delete." Jericho had some pop currency, but it will soon join Carnivale in the pop cultural graveyard of "cool shows that have fans but which were cancelled." In other words, while there is currently enough fan interest to create "biographies" of each character, that will soon drop. The show will always have fans, but an article per character is outrageous and occupies naming rights over any real biographies that may be needed. Utgard Loki (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the content has been merged, this can be deleted since, as Loki notes, the name is generic. Fail that, slap up a protected redirect. Note that my comment applies to all the characters referenced at the original AfD. That was, to my mind, closed incorrectly. There was clear consensus for a merge. Eusebeus (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If redirected, a redirect can be from Emily Sullivan (fictional character -- as in similar cases. I dont see why common names pose a problem here. In fact, I think the title should be changed if kept. DGG (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think, we have to apply the same things for Heather Lisinski. An article I tried to merge and my merge was reverted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not the right venue for a merge discussion. Catchpole (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to make clear that my opinion, since all the valuable information (and more than the valuable) already exists in Wikipedia, is that this article should be "deleted". -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a expert on the series, but from the description clearly a major character in a notable work and thus appropriate for an article. There's enough secondary sources on this work by now that some criticism discussing her specifically should be findable. The title of course needs to be changed to Emily Sullivan (fictional character) or some variant of that -- and that would be true of a redirect as well. we certainly dont avoid redirects just because of a need to disambiguate. DGG (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but if the merge has taken place, the name is common, the substance of the name is trivial, and the discussion is trivial, it would sure be a factor. We shouldn't be making redirects at George W. Bush because of Lil Bush. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there was no consensus to delete this article just 18 days ago. AFD is not for merge discussions. If you merged this article without discussion on Talk:List of Jericho characters, I can understand why you were reverted. But AFDing this article again is not the solution. "An article for a TV series character" is not a valid reason for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason is that all the content (almost all unsourced) is already in another article which another user gave better instructions how to improve it. Besides, that there was no consensus between delete and merge and this is the reason I merged it after suggesting it there and after opposing deletion (in order to have time to transfer all the information from the one article to the other). Just stating that there was no consensus is not accurate. --Magioladitis (talk)
Keep - Agree with the others. You need to gain consensus for a merge in the article's talk pages, not in AfD it. Major character in popular national TV series. --Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since as noted above AfD is not the place for merge discussions. However, after a quick look at Emily Sullivan and List of Jericho characters#Emily Sullivan, it seems to me that both articles have (almost) the same content. It would probably be best to merge, but that should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editors who are willing to help are kindly requested to vote in Talk:List of Jericho characters as well in order we have a clear consensus for merging. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LoC. The article is nothing but a plot summary mixed with original research. Until this changes significantly, the LoC does the job just fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Jericho Characters per sgeureka. -- Nips (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous discussion was not too long ago. Acceptable spinout, subarticle for memorable character from a notable show. I'm not opposed to a rename with (fictional character) or something in the title. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
C Once again, the last consensus was not keep!!! It was between Merge and Delete. I voted merge since the name may be a searchable item. They are concerns about that, because it's a generic name. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced in-universe plot summaries. If the article is to be kept or redirected, the name Emily Sullivan-Prowse, the full name of the character, should be used instead. B.Wind (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.

The article is about a Guantanamo Bay detainee who, judging from the article, is notable only for being a Guantanamo Bay detainee ("generic detainee"). It is mostly a compilation of content from US government documents concerning his detention. To determine consensus, I am also looking to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam, which concerned another generic detainee and resulted in "delete", the recent DRV that endorsed the deletion, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (2nd nomination), also about a generic detainee, which in retrospect I probably should have closed differently. (GeoSwan asserts that several similar AfDs have resulted in "keep", but he provides no links, and I can't find such AfDs on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp/archive.)

The primary arguments for deletion made by the majority of participating editors (here and in the other cited discussions) are that the generic detainee is covered in any detail only in documents produced by the government detaining him, which (according to the editors holding this opinion) leads to WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:BLP issues because of the lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. On the whole, the arguments put forth by the substantial minority of "keep" advocates do not conclusively rebut this position:

Leaving aside the question whether or not the US government documents are reliable sources (I've seen little that suggests that they are not, insofar as they are concerned with the facts of the man's detention), the crucial issue here is the lack of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Everybody who is detained under a modern legal system has a lot of government paperwork generated about him, but our consensus (both as reflected in WP:BIO and in these deletion discussions) is that such paperwork is a primary source and does not suffice for notability, or else all prisoners would be notable just for having a government file.

This means that Guantanamo Bay detainees need to have substantial secondary coverage (specifically about them, not about the detention issue as a whole), and that's where this individual falls short. As far as I can see, all we have are these articles in which he is named as belonging to a group of six released Yemeni detainees. This would possibly qualify as sufficient sourcing for an article about this group of detainees, but it's far from the level of coverage that would enable us to write an article about the individual detainee.

After weighing the strength of the arguments that have been made here in the light of the community's wider consensus as established in WP:BIO, and in the light of the recent deletion discussions about generic detainees, I find that we have consensus to delete this article. This does not preclude well-sourced coverage of this man in a list of detainees or in any other appropriate form except for a dedicated article. Sandstein (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i[edit]

Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. Either that or list all inmates. JerryVanF (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom JerryVanF (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am studying the matter but it may take more time than the AFD is running. Not only that but I have to run to the toilet now. JerryVanF (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fixed AfD listing (please use ((afd2)); see the detailed directions at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion). cab (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concensus from previous Guantanomo Bay detainee Afd's has been that the detainess are no differnet then any other people and must meet the notabiliy standard of WP:BIO. Therefore, as the article does show that this person has recieved "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" the article must be deleted. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying "Consensus dictates...", that's bullshit and you know it - out of every hundred identical AfDs on Gitmo detainees, a third are "keep", a third are "delete" and a third are "no consensus" depending who's online which week. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, a longer discussion is needed. RFC? Something else? Got to run. JerryVanF (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're itching for another barnstar. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see at least three instances of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and Google yields even more. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.

Several dozen articles on Guantanamo captives have been nominated for deletion. Contrary to assertions made above considerably more of them survived their ((afd)) than resulted in deletion.
What I have found is that many participants concerns over these articles have been based on misconceptions. --that the Guantanamo captives were convicts. Nominator calls Al Marwa’i an "inmate". If this reflects a belief on the nominator's part that Al Marwa'i is a convict -- if this reflects a lack of awareness on the nominator's part that Al Marwa'i not only has not been been convicted of any crimes, he was detained, for years, without being charged with any crimes. Yes, the Geneva Conventions allow holding Prisoners of War until hostilities are over. But, it is the official position of the Bush Presidency that al Marwa'i was not a Prisoner of War.
The assertion was made, above, that other articles related to Guantanamo have been nominated for deletion. Several dozen have been nominated for deletion. The assertion goes on to imply that most of them resulted in delete outcomes. First, I think that the policy is that every ((afd)) discussion should stand on its own. Second, this is highly misleading. Several times as many of those discussions resulted in keep or no consensus outcomes.
Regarding the assertion, above, that the article fails to measure up to WP:BIO ... I wonder whether any participants who believe this to be the case would show the courtesy of being specific as to which clause(s) they think it fails to measure up to? Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp has about 640 articles, and it's subcats have another 150 or so, and the cat page says there's been about 800 detainees, which seems to imply nearly every detainee does have an article. Shawisland (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 778 known detainees at Guantanamo, though as I wrote below, those that do not have independent, reliable sources of which they are the focus have been deleted. BWH76 (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure exactly what respondent is trying to say above. I am concerned that the preceding statement implies that 140 articles have been deleted. Several dozen articles related to Guantanamo have been challenged. Less than a dozen have been deleted. Several times as many discussions resulted in keep or no consensus. Geo Swan (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was in response to the nominator's "Either that or list all inmates." comment, pointing out that currently Wikipedia seems to have done the latter. I was not trying to say a large number had been deleted--if you add the ~150 articles in the Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees missing from the official list and sub-cats, to the ~640 in the main cat, it seems WP has articles on darn near all detainees. Shawisland (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be interesting to note that the vast majority of these articles was started by one editor: the creator of this entry that is currently up for AfD. Although I can't speak on behalf of other editors, I believe that this may be a contributing factor to the recurring concerns of WP:COAT. BWH76 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if other participants here confined themselves to content, not personalities.
I would appreciate it if those who claim some portion of the coatrack essay applies here would state which clause(s) those would be. I take others concerns seriously. But, I can't do that when those who have a concern can't or won't explain what the concern is. Geo Swan (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet standards of WP:BLP. The majority of the sources listed are not independent, reliable sources (as they are US military documents), and there are no independent reliable sources for which Al Marwa’i is the subject. After doing some research on this individual, the sources I've found only mention Al Marwa’i's name (aside from the primary sources listed) is in the context of lists of detainees (which falls under trivial coverage); nothing focuses on him. This AfD is similar to this one and this one, both of which were deleted for the same reasons: no independent, reliable sources. BWH76 (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Yemen Times, the Gulf News and the Yemen Observer all have an article about him...how exactly are they not independent media outlets? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless you've found something I've not, each of these articles only mention his name. Simply a mention of one's name in an article does not constitute significant coverage. He is not the focus of these or any other articles. If you have found sources in which he is the subject of the coverage (or any other significant independent coverage), please add them to the Wikipedia entry and I would be happy to reconsider! Until then, based upon the research I've done on him, this entry does not meet WP:BLP. BWH76 (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you discount the value of the US documents and assert they fail to measure up to the requirements of WP:BLP? You assert that they are "military documents". The Designated Civilian Official has described the staff of his Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants as a mixture of civlilans and military. The Summaries of Evidence memos are based on other documents from a mixture of civilan and military agencies. The CIA, FBI and State Department are civilian agencies -- not military agencies. Geo Swan (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OARDEC files do not constitute independent, reliable sources as was discussed ad nauseum in this AfD which resulted in delete. They are primary sources. BWH76 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no offense, but summaries of other sources, are, by definition, secondary sources, not primary sources.
BLP requires us to be responsible about what we say about living people. Unreferenced allegations are out. But I believe it is a misinterpretation of the policy to argue that allegations have to be verified before they can be repeated in an article. May I remind everyone that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". That the allegations have been made is verifiable.
Yes, the earlier ((afd)) records challengers claiming US documents were not reliable, or were not independent. It records those challengers being asked to explain how they arrived at that opinion. It seems to me that some of those challengers were quoting the wikipolicy documents whose authority they called on from memory, because, the wikipolicy documents didn't actually say what some challengers said they said. Geo Swan (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that you may still have a fundamental misunderstanding of OARDEC and the administrative documents they produced. These documents were produced with the explicit purpose of judging detainees to determine whether they remain at Guantanamo or may be released. Were OARDEC members present to witness the actions for which detainees have been accused? Of course not. Do these documents have a specific, direct bearing on the detainees on whom they focus? Unquestionably - this is the explicit reason for which they were produced. In other words, these OARDEC documents, in fact, are part of the origin of the subject. They are not part of the origin of the accusations which led to the detention, they are part of the origin of the subject's continued detention.

Additionally, for more explanation on why these documents cannot be considered independent, third-party sources, I again recommend reading this AfD.BWH76 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are agreed that the "Summary of Evidence" memos were summarized, from multiple source documents, prepared by civilian and military intelligence analysts, for the officers who were to make a recommendation as to whether the captives should continue to be detained. So what? In what way does this demonstrate that they are fail to measure up the requirements for reliability, or independence?
Are you trying to suggest that the contents of the "Summary of Evidence" memos are unreliable because they weren't written by eye-witnesses?
You use the phrase "are part of the origin" three times above. I'd really like to try to understand what point you are trying to make here. Is it possible you could replace this phrase? In the context in which you used it I find it opaque. Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is exactly the sourcing we need for these articles--the newspapers of the person's area. The documents, are reliable for the allegations against him. They are of course not reliable for what he actually may have done, but they are not being used that way. DGG (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, as I wrote above, please include these sources in the article. I have tried to find these articles, but I've not found any significant coverage. Until there are any independent, reliable sources which focus on Al Marwa’i, this Wiki entry should be deleted. BWH76 (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more than another arbitrary article about an arbitrary Gitmo detainee. I'm assuming good faith that this string of articles is not being created as a coatrack, but the assumption's being stretched. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment confuses me. I would appreciate an explanation of how this article is "arbitrary". I would appreciate a dialog as to which clause(s) of the coatrack essay respondent thinks is being ignored. I just took another look at the coatrack essay. And I don't see how it lapses from the advice of the author of that essay.
- People read these articles. People cite these articles, as in this recent example:
  - "U.S. military says ex-Gitmo prisoner carried out suicide attack in Iraq". USA Today. May 5, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-05.
- Thanks for being able to exercise good faith, and engage in dialog. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel that this growing series of articles is being used to draw attention to the plight of those who are detained, unjustly or otherwise, in GTMO, rather than to document their life and actions, which is what their article should (only) do. Now, don't get me wrong, I think that if GTMO was closed down in the morning and everyone sent home it would improve the world drastically, but I feel that Wikipedia is not the place for that information. Stifle (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to be clear -- your concern then, with this particular article, is not based on a perception it lapses from compliance with any official wikipolicies or guidelines?
    - You and I seem to be in complete agreement that this article should not take a stand on whether Towfiq's Guantanamo detention was just or unjust. To do so, in article space, would be editorializing, and a lapse from compliance with WP:NPOV. But, for the record, this article does not lapse from compliance with WP:NPOV. For the record, if someone had a concern that one or more passage(s) lapsed from compliance with WP:NPOV the deletion policy recommend that correct response would be to raise the concern on the talk page -- not article deletion.
    - You wrote: "...rather than to document their life and actions, which is what their article should (only) do...." Well, it seems to me that this article does document what we know of Towfiq's life and actions -- and thus it not only complies with policy, but with your extra-policy concern.
    - Originally, most captives in Guantanamao were Afghans, then Saudis. Almost half the captives were from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. But most Afghans and Saudis have been repatriated. Only about ten percent of the Saudis remain. Now Yemenis comprise more than a third of the remaining captive. Only a dozen or so Yemenis have been repatriated.
    - Towfiq is one of those few Yemenis who was repatriated. There are reports of a former Guantanamo captive named Tawfiq standing trial. I haven't added that information to the article (yet). And I won't do so unless I can confirm it is the same guy. However, it almost certainly is the same guy. Geo Swan (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tawfiyq is how I'd spell it, but I'm nonstandard! (That's pretty much how it is written in Arabic, the consonants and semivowels written are TaWFiYQ, and I added the two vowel marks a and i.) It's a very common name. All the spellings given have been the same name in Arabic: Taufiq, Tawfiq, Towfiq, Toufiq. The most standard transliteration is Tawfiq. Don't ask me why the standard doesn't write the "Y" which makes the pronunciation clear. (It rhymes with "eek," not with "ick.") The last name, I would write al-Marwa'iy, which means "the person from Marwa," the terminal -iy, (meaning "person from") usually written in transliteration as just "i," if preceded by a vowel, will have a preceding glottal stop before, i.e., the apostrophe, which some sources seem to omit. That title could be a family name, i.e., an ancestor came from Marwa. (I don't speak Arabic, I just read Qur'anic Arabic, so ... I may easily err, I'm just letting you know that the names are the same.)--Abd (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (This one with similar) These articles, as they are, do seem like Coatracks to me. Much of each article is repetitive. However, this distracts the core issue: Is the specific subject notable? If so, there are sufficient sources, of sufficient reliability, to justify some article, properly done. It might be brief. It seems that the available sources are already listed, but a problem is that the article seems to be a complete compilation of what is in the sources, whereas it might be more appropriate to link to the sources and give only bare highlights; and, if this is the case, many of these articles might be merged. Presently, many details only peripherally related to the subject of the article are in each article. (For example, all the detainees from Yemen might be merged, and only specially notable ones would have their own article. The Yemen detainee article would include the details about negotiations with the Yemen. Those with independent articles would be ones where there are other sources that discuss the specific subject in depth, independently from the military documents and lists or brief mentions in news reports. The conclusion I came to is that all the detainees are notable, by virtue of being a very famous set of detainees, though not necessarily sufficiently notable to have each his own article, and, especially the individual detainee articles shouldn't belabor the overall issue, each one repeating at length the same redundant information. These issues are far too complex to resolve in an AfD, rather, consensus should be sought among interested editors or through RfC etc. I actually started this with a Delete !vote.... To bring these articles to standards, to remove the coatrack aspect, will take quite a bit of work. I'm not willing to invest it and then see the article deleted, been there, done that. If this article survives AfD, I intend to work with other editors involved to clean them up. I'm not interested in coatracking, but I am interested in Wikipedia having clear and clean coverage of the topic.--Abd (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what I find they need in this regard is to decrease or eliminate the more or less constant sections at the top, along with the image of the hearing room--a valid editing question. But some of this was done to show the great importance of the subjects here, in that the people were involved as individual objects in extremely noteworthy events of world wide significance, and that therefore onevent did not apply. If this could be accepted, there should be no problem in shortening he articles appropriately, but it seems to be argued afresh every single time. DGG (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I like to take on what seem to me to be easy questions and issues, even if to others it seems I'm baying at the moon.... I found this, though, uncommonly difficult. Here is the problem. Without independent review of the situation of each prisoner, extracting what is particularly notable is a form of synthesis, unless we go all the way down to a bare stub, in which case we are better off with a merge. On the other hand, we do it all the time through selection of sources and facts to present in articles, when sources aplenty exist, and the defacto standard is that the editors come to consensus. I'm surprised to find no independent *discussion* except for a few of the prisoners; my guess is that there *are* sources. In Yemen for this guy, for example, or elsewhere in the Arabic media. If I could read Arabic well, that's where I'd look! On the other hand, it seems he may still be in custody, last report, 2007, he was one of two not yet cleared and released) and the Yemeni government may simply not be talking about it. But where was he from? Where is his family? I *think* al-Marwa'i is a family name. But it might have been a nom de guerre, Marwa is a very special place in Islam. I'm uncomfortable with Wikipedia simply being a repeater for a source of official information, given how Wikipedia is structured. (I'm a radical inclusionist, but, to me, radical inclusion requires far better sysems of categorization according to notability than we have; simply making Wikipedia into an echo isn't doing much encyclopedic work. But the official documents aren't searchable, they seem to be scans, and by converting them to text, we do make the knowledge (of the accusations and reports) more accessible. The more I looked, the more complicated it got.) --Abd (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect to Cthulhu. Yes, Cthulhu is popular in Russian memes, but so far nothing particulary notable, except for one question to Putin. No source indicate that it is something everlasting. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhianism[edit]

Parody religion. Google has never heard of the term and only has about an hundred hits for "cthulhuism". Conveniently for the author, all the refs are to sites in Russian. Probably an hoax, at best non-notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

probably delete possibly keep need a russian to tell us. shouldn't delete non-hoaxes. JerryVanF (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing concrete to indicate this actually exists. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. We don't even know if this actually exists, and frankly having had a look at the article I'd be extremely surprised if it does. In any case the present article is really awful and full of semi-nonsense like: "What if Cthulhu is gluttonized by someone else, even before he wakes up?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."

No language restrictions, as you can see.

Cthulhianism has got coverage in Russian.

And if one doesn't know the language - it's not a reason for deletion.

User:Sirartemcamelot

Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cthulhu so he can eat it. Cthulhianism is a semi-regular formation in English, but this appears to be mostly original research. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not an original research... Honestly this is just a translation of [27] and a little of [28] - about emoticons.

But first source is for registrated users only.

User:Sirartemcamelot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.43.224.157 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Could someone who can translate Russian let us know if the Russian sources are actually reliable sources talking about this? Until I here otherwise I'm inclined to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Changing to weak redirect per Smerdis's comment below. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of the Russian sites seem to be about Cthulhu, but my impression is that they are mainly fansites. Пх’нглуи мглв’нафх Ктулху Р’льех вгах’нагл фхтагн. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either a hoax or non-notable. Although I can't read Russian, it is quite apparent from the site structure that few, if any, of the external links could be used as reliable sources (most seem to be blogs). Also, if the subject was real, I would rather expect that at least a few English-language sources would confirm this. Jakew (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lenta.Ru is a reasonably reliable source, and the link given in the article does cover (sort of) the topic for about one paragraph. Strongly disagree with comments like that "if the subject was real, I would rather expect that at least a few English-language sources would confirm this"; try finding any information about Korea's first fighter pilot in English (he has whole books written about him in Korean). cab (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge salvageable content to Cthulhu Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is fine but... it would kill the idea... And the idea is to tell about a parody religion, not to tell some more about Cthulhu. And for someone studing parody religion or modern culture (anyway, or just interested in) Cthulhianism is quite noteable.

I personally see a few interesting ideas (though my fields of studies are modern business culture and city culture), Cthulhianism Criticism and Exercising Cthulhianism are most awesome. In Criticism we see that mock religions actually compete and simulate the style of traditional theological disputes. And Exercising tells us that mock religions are getting, well, pluged into routine activities. IMHO P.S. after all, Wikipedia has got an article on Campus Crusade for Cthulhu. And most references on CCC ar also blogs, social networks and private web-sites. Cthulhianism is at least as important as CCC. Has President Bush spoken on Cthulhu? Well, Putin and Medvedev - both did speak on the issue.User:Sirartemcamelot —Preceding comment was added at 11:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I do agree with the suggestion that Campus Crusade for Cthulhu is poorly referenced and probably should be deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, sorry, shouldn't have refered to CCC. But then again - when references are enough and significant? To my mind if a country leader is speaking on the topic (even though he was asked to do so) and media are telling about that - the topic might be noteable. User:Sirartemcamelot —Preceding comment was added at 14:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources to indicate notability or to even verify anything in the article don't appear to exist. I think this is some mix of WP:OR and WP:MADEUP. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS Acapulco[edit]

~~Unreferenced, single sentence stub whose details I can't confirm anywhere. I'm not even sure this ship even existed; I can't find any Google results and searches elsewhere didn't help at all.~~ Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found a reference in Google Books, and there's more if you search on Natumex. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like your Google-fu beats mine; I didn't find anything at all, in Books or anywhere else, or in an academic library search. Thanks; I'll withdraw the nomination, then. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Prakashanand Saraswati[edit]

Non notable person. Claim to be the foremost disciple of a guru who has been deleted as a non notable. Please see, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non notable with questionable sources. I have found a few articles accusing him of child molestation, but I dont feel these establishes him as notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to be all that notable. The references either seem to be local newspapers or blogs, which are pretty flimsy given that most of the article concentrates on accusing him of some pretty horrid things. WP:BLP and all that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Even if notable, the article should be deleted under speedy deletion of BLP where contemptuous claims are not sourced. Wikidās ॐ 09:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject doesn't seem particularly notable. Between that and the status of the subject as a BLP and the fact that the subject has poor sourcing available and makes contemptuous claims, I think this is an instance where it is safest to err on the side of caution, and that's not something I say very often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celarnor (talk • contribs) 20:19, May 6, 2008

The result was Delete Marasmusine (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stage 3-1[edit]

I speedy deleted this article previously but since there are some minor claims of notability I have brought the recreated article here. Article about a band most notable for having the number one rated song on newgrounds. Other claims of notability, such as being the first NES cover band in North America, are unsupported by sources and considering the creator there is a conflict of interest in regard to this claim. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be not very notable, since none of the members seem to be notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, and it has no in-text citations to back up its notability. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 05:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It just doesn't seem to be notable. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete if it was already speedied (which I believe was the right idea), prodding might have been more appropriate - this couldn't survive a reasonable AfD without canvassing —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 09:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, thus defaulting to keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian repeated town names[edit]

Redundant with Category:Double-named places in Australia. — Hex (❝?!❞) 04:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I generally defend lists as complementing categories, but in this case I see no added value. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. lists complement categories in ways that categories can't operate. This could conceivably be expanded into a table to include town statistics or a short summary of information available in the town. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. I can't possibly see any way the list could be made any more useful than the category. Statistics such as population etc. are not relevant to the factor linking these towns together, the double-name. Perhaps, if the Aboriginal language the town name derives from was known... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (redundant) and per Dhartung (no added value on category).--VS ^talk 21:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per Celarnor. The Category and the list are synergistic and no conflict. Explained nicely at WP:CLS. The list article could do with expanding but no reason to delete.--Sting au Buzz Me... 21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per Celarnor. JRG (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep, lists can complement categories, but this one does not at the present time. However, there is the possibility of expansion if the origin of these towns names can be verified and included. If this cannot be done, then delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete to avoid List of Spanish repeated town names and so. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good read (:D) but unfortunately redundant with category; does not offer any info that category doesn't. —97198 talk 11:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per reasoning at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_17#Category:Double-named_places_in_Australia I don't think the category is a sufficient substitute but rather a useful tool to develop the list with some meaningful commentary. Repeating words is linguistic phenomenon of indigenous Australian languages. Topics related to indigenous Australian languages are currently underrepresented. This list and associated category are in my view encyclopaedic. AfD is not an appropriate tool for calling for clean-up. That the list offers no more than the category at the moment is in my view not a valid reason for deletion rather the list needs improving. I note also the list inclusdes red links - ie for places where an article is yet to be written (though these places would need to be verified - redlinks cannot be incorporated into a category, another reason for a list to supplement.--Matilda ^talk 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete; yes, lists complement categories, but in this case I can't possibly imagine why someone would need a list for such information, and I can't see how adding relevant list information would make the list more useful (am I making sense?). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yet oh so easy to say whack with a nulla nulla, but this does have potential not only are town names interesting as a subset but the use of repeated words is a notable section of Indigenous Australian languages particularly within the Pama-Nyungan languages. Gnan garra 04:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per Celarnor and Matilda and Gnangarra's comments Satu Suro 06:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per consensus that notability is not (yet) established. No prejudice against recreaton if/when reliable sources are found/cited to establish notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orr Dunkelman[edit]

Insufficient Notability Herrmunchausen (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Most academics at this stage in their career are non-notable and I'm not convinced that he should be an exception. He has several pretty well cited papers in Google scholar already [29], and a little media attention for discovering some vulnerabilities in digital car keys [30], but it's hard to tell at this point how much is due to him and how much to his much more famous coauthor Eli Biham. Could well be notable some day but better to wait a while I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable academic and open source activist. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein's comments. The subject's academic contributions are not yet sufficiently significant at this stage (not surprisingly since he is currently a postdoc). Open source activism by itself does not seem to be sufficiently notable at this stage. GoogleNews only gives 3 hits for his name[31], one of them is the Inquirer article that David Eppstein mentioned. Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlFrei (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. We are not here to evaluate contributors' reasons for creating articles, but rather to evaluate the articles themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep A paper with a citation count of 48 in a peer-reviewed conference is enough to show some degree of notability. And notice by the public press is enough to demonstrate it.DGG (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per David Eppstein's reasoning. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate electricity[edit]

See WP:CRUFT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This article falls under "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons (real or fictional)." This particular collection seems unencyclopedic. See [32] for a very similar past deletion discussion. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they contain essentially the same type of content:[reply]

comment These arent really directory entries. The lists seem to have clear criteria. I dont think they are great lists but I just can't see how this is against Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. --neonwhite user page talk 04:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

clarification Each of these lists does have a clear, well-defined criterium for inclusion of entries: ability to manipulate elemental force X. I'm not convinced that only one such criterium warrants a list on WP. "List of electric-type Pokemon" I'd be fine with; "List of Mortal Kombat characters by ability" is marginally acceptable to me. These lists seem excessively broad. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i would agree but i'm not sure which policy or guideline suggests they are not valid. --neonwhite user page talk 11:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All These lists seem to meet with the criteria.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - If this stays, we should have "characters who like chocolate" as well. Listcruft, and completely pointless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be wrong with List of fictional characters who like candy? Dumbledore and a few Discworld characters immediately come to mind. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - If the lists need to be fixed or cleaned up, then we should focus on that, instead of just deleting them all because there are a few entries we feel that dont belong. --Piemanmoo (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Nomination is CRUFTCRUFT. Perfectly in line with LIST, and in my opinion, an ideal topic for one. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Mostly blue links in nice format. Good for navigation. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Just pointing out there were once similar categories for this that were brought up here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 7 « ₣M₣ » 13:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Personally, I think that many of the reasons given for removing those categories apply equally well to these articles. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: Are discriminate, with precisely defined criteria for inclusion, and otherwise seems to fulfil WP:LIST. Given the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be useful, I can see this being handy for someone who wishes to study how notable characters with these abilities have been depicted by their creators. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above. These lists are discriminate, with clear definitions of what should go into them, per WP:LIST. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore all Four essentially uninformative and uninteresting lists cut from the same pattern. However, WP:IDONTLIKEIT says that "boring", "waste of space" and "useless" are not reasons for deletion. Mandsford (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all see WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:LIST. The nominator seems to have misinterpreted WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Pixelface (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all It would be ideal to have specific reference links, but the documentation is in the main articles from which this is compiled. The arguements above , that we should have a category rather than a list, and vice versa, could be used to remove all lists, & shouldbe disregarded. .
Keep. Cross-referencing of existing content is good for navigation purposes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete. These all have the shared problem of, for me, being a bit too broad (as defined by WP:LIST). There are also issues raised in the CfD linked to above that could be seen as POV/verifiability problems (e.g, what constititues "manipulation", whose standard do we use, what of characters who have the ability for only a brief time, etc. See the close of that CfD for a good summary). Those couple little things (and borderline at that), however, are the only real issues with these articles. Admittedly, they don't tickle my fancy, but that is not a reason for deletion. Pastordavid (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. DS (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leif Skillrud[edit]

The article is a hoax. No one named "Leif Skillrud" has played professional baseball with any of the teams the article mentions. It claims he played in the Milwaukee Brewers organization, both in the majors and minors, however, no record of anyone named "Skillrud" exists at The Baseball Cube or Baseball-Reference, two top baseball stats/info websites. Furthermore the original version of the article included what was probably intended to be a photo of "Lief Skillrud". The picture was actually of Jamey Wright (compare with image here) NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. IvoShandor (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparent hoax. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear hoax. WilliamH (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet-another-hoax discovered on Wikipedia. Sigh. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adding to the pile. ArcAngel (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was WP:SNOW DELETE. Nakon 00:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granging[edit]

(contested prod) Per WP:DICT. It provides an origion section, definitions, and tenses section. Also an unferenced command saying how it is one of the most popular words in recent years. (probably a neo/protologism) Soxred93 (u t) 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT, and, after vainly trying to find references, probably WP:HOAX. Top Google result? This newly created Wikipedia page. CiTrusD ^{Talk here!} 03:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN neologism with no sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Icewedge (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN neologism, dictionary definition. The "important message" in the article also looks strange. JIP | Talk 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've never really heard this neologism, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Don't get me started on how it's written and how much clean up it would need. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this word is truly not a hoax, then perhaps someone can trans-wiki it to Wiktionary. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 05:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply not notable, no sources. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 10:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Oblique attack page directed at someone named Granger, perhaps? Deor (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I look at it as a slang term, but WP:DICT applies here. ArcAngel (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as unsourced neologism and probably hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dict def of unknown word. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per lack of reliable sources and the fact that the principal author had a history of self-promotion. Blueboy 96 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.adoption[edit]

Newsgroups fall under the realm of web content. There is no clear assertion of notability made in the article. There are no reliable sources cited in the article. The article alleges that the group was mentioned in a Rolling Stone article, which would not meet the significant coverage hurdle. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There is nothing in the article currently which is a clear assertion of notability. Even the comment about the Rolling Stone article says it's only mentioned in the article—i.e., it didn't get significant coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable newsgroup in Usenet culture although I remember it being quite busy at times. If it played any notable role in adoption culture that would have to be sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we only have artiles on the most notable newsgroups. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usenet newsgroups are neither encyclopedic nor particularly notable with only a few exceptions. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KleenupKrew. In this case, the article doesn't even assert notability, and probably could have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of coverage in reliable sources found by Google Books, Scholar and News searches. I'd like to be able to say that I'm surprised that none of the contributors above spotted that, but actually I'm not, because it seems to be quite a regular thing to get these unresearched pile-on delete comments at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have yet to see any non-trivial coverage of it. (You can find tons of G-hits for many alt.* groups; that doesn't make them notable). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, you can find tons of hits from a Google Web search for just about anything, which is why I didn't use that in my argument. The searches I linked to found 38 books, 18 schloarly articles and 12 news items. I doubt very much that you would find that much for many alt.* groups. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree there may just be enough sources there, but notability is still marginal, and the current article is hardly worth saving. --Dhartung | Talk 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but check out what those Google hits actually are, just stuff like (from a book on computer security) "This category includes things ranging from alt.hacking to alt .adoption". Others are just lists of nearly every newsgroup. Trivial mentions don't work when actually trying to source an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a directory. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ keep by the plethoria of sources pointed at by Phil, which are certainly indepent, reliable sources, which seem to provide significant coverage in many cases. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing the sources, I still find that there certainly is coverage in independent reliable sources, but that the coverage is not all that significant. The amount of coverage, even if brief, in books and papers, still makes me believe this is notable enough for inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep almost full keep per Phil and Martjin. There appear to be enough coverage that is passes the bar. However, none of the sources seem to really focus on alt.adoption which gives me some concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --I created it because it has been a widely recognized and salient contritution to the field which spured a great deal of social interest, countless media reports and changes in laws. There are numerous alt.groups listed. I see no reason for the omission. I will be happy to add some of the needed changes. [Timothy Sheridan] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Sheridan (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user has now been banned permanently for consistent disregard for WP:COI, and will not be adding any of the needed changes to his article. --McGeddon (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Anna Lincoln --CapitalR (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Le Blanc[edit]

Non-notable artist. Fails WP:BIO Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity article for non-notable artist. JIP | Talk 05:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaststocoasts (talk • contribs) 06:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable artist. Promo. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAN. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was userfy to User:Wojci028/downward mobility. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downward Mobility[edit]

Dictionary definition. Prod was removed without any improvement made, but with a promise to finish the article by May 8. A promise to finish the article at some future date does not warrant an article now Mr Adequate (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with it being a redirect.-Mr Adequate (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made it into a redirect for Social mobility. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Social mobility as it's a sub-concept and probably not notable in its own right. Social mobility could do with some serious work though, it's a notable subject but the content appears poorly written and poorly referenced. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social mobility, as it's just a dictionary definition, but assume good faith and wait until May 8.— Insanity Incarnat e 04:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this useless framework of an article and the silly illustration, then redirect; I think I prefer economic mobility as a target, but I will accept the other. --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a better target for the redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article is notable. Assume WP:GF and wait for expansion on May 8th. Although the image is silly IMO!! Nk.sheridan Talk 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always convert the redirect into a full article, but it is best to delete empty articles until they are full. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can do whatever you want with the article in a day or so, but I have to make a wikipedia addition for an assignment in one of my classes. My prof just needs to see that I have made the page, so after a couple of days, feel free to delete my article or edit the crap out of it as you see fit. Also, I agree that the image is dumb, but at least with it being self produced I don't have to worry about copyright infringement. (An image is a required part of the assignment) Thanks for putting up with such a newbie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.21.203 (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will your professor accept the article if it's in the user namespace instead of the article namespace? If so, you could move or copy the page to a subpage of your user page (a procedure known as userfication). If you are Wojci028, recreate the page at User:Wojci028/Downward Mobility. There won't be any problem with the page if you do that, and the original page can be deleted or redirected as we see fit.— Insanity Incarnat e 06:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have recreated the page under my userpage as requested. You guys can delete this page if you want I guess. Will there be any way to search for my article under my user page without including my username in the search? ie: Will I be able to search "downward mobility" and be redirected to the page that I created? --Wojci028 (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia is not a free host. Why does it have to be on Wikipedia? Your professor should be prepared to accept it on your school's computer? Why do you need to search for the article - you know its URL, you can go to it directly. It can be found via your contributions. In fact it can already be found in Wikipedia search via this AfD and Google will probably pick it up in a day or two. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted as copyvio by Orangemike, non-admin close _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Myers[edit]

Article is recreation of deleted material.[33] It was originally speedily deleted as copyright violation of http://www.myers2008.org/about. It was recreated and is obviously almost identical to his campaign site except that it has been changed to third person. This therefore violates speedy deletion criteria G12 and is close to G4, but someone removed my G12 tag claiming it was not a violation. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete copyvio. So tagged. By the way, G4 only applies to pages that have been deleted via deletion discussion (unlike this article). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I realized that when creating this that only AFD applies. That's why I used "close to". I just wanted to point that out. Reywas92 ^Talk 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for copyright violation. And even were it not so, Wikipedia is not facebook and this guy doesn't qualify notability. Trusilver 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The New York Times article is suggestive of notability, as are the various positions this guy has apparently held. I'm not much up to speed on how copyright violations are handled, but if notability is demonstrable couldn't the article just be stubbed back? No point throwing it away just because we disagree with the methods of the person who added it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Ryan and Kleenup, I would agree that he's notable. He's running for congress and had all the Ryan White stuff, so I'd disagree about salting it yet. But today's the priamary for the United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana, 2008, so we'll soon find out if he'll be the Democratic nominee and likely winner. Reywas92 ^Talk 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as apparent copyvio and salt as re-creation of deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge/redirect per standard practice with these articles. Done. Neıl ☎ 10:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldstone Primary School[edit]

unnotable primary school. brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems non-notable to me. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Hove#Education per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hove#Education. Notability is demonstrated by independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per consensus. Not there yet. No prejudice against recreation with sources that are about the subject, and not just by the subject or tangentially related to the subject (for example, a link to an engagement/event of Mr. Calcagni's does not infer notability necessarily). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Calcagni[edit]

Biography of public relations executive and author. Fails WP:BIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. news coverage seems to refer to other people with the same name. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following text is copied from the article's talk page. --Eastmain (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a published author with books sales through Amazon, Barnes and Noble etc. I wanted to add my bio to Wikipedia for individuals that are researching whether I, the author, am a viable resource for them to read. I had included and now removed any links for the book or media coaching references, even though I feel the media coaching references speak to the viability of the information in the book. As for waiting until someone else writes about me, I am not sure they would be the proper person to list my credentials. Can you please give me specific information as to why my biography is offensive. Thank you Thomas Calcagni —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcalcagni (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody else written about Calcagni? Have reviews of the book been published? Third-party references are needed to establish notability. Publishing a book is not sufficient by itself. --Eastmain (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it isn't that it's offensive; it's that it may fail to meet Wikipedia's minimum standards for inclusion. That's the only question. Suggested reading: WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:COI. JJL (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article in OCLC Eastern magazine and when I tried to enter it under references it was deleted. Take Control of How You Communicate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcalcagni (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

end of text copied from the talk page

Weak keep. I think that the article in Forward: The OCLC Eastern Magazine (pages 2 to 5 of the PDF) which quotes Calcagni is an adequate claim of notability.

It would be nice if there were a review or two of the book, though. --Eastmain (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book Review Would the references be improved if it was noted that the article from the Washington Post was a sidebar from a larger article named Hoping to Rise? Mastering the Elevator Talk. The article's author Gabe Goldberg actually reviewed the book and published what was printed in the Washington Post as part of his article appearing on page 1 of the Jobs section. Sunday, April 20th --Tcalcagni (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Speaker for Workshop After the article appeared in the Washington Post I was invited to run a workshop for the 40Plus organization. Is this helpful? 4oPlus of Greater Washington --Tcalcagni (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate broader importance; reads like a C.V. Wikipedia is not "Who's Who In America". KleenupKrew (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that it's good to know the people who make statements at Congressional hearings. Added ref to that. Novickas (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) ([34] from US Government Printing Office). Novickas (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderslice drinking game[edit]

A non-notable drinking/card game. Looks like a case of the "I made it up one day"s. Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is being prod'd and AfD'd at the same time, which probably shouldn't be the case. Do we close the AfD or remove the prod? -FrankTobia (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Close the AfD, I believe. Re-open it if the Prod is opposed. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep the AfD open and delete per Wikipedia is not for things that were just made up. (I removed my prod) Bfigura ^(talk) 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and something made up one day. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another rule of the game is that if its unnotable its Wikipedia article gets deleted. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable drinking game that was originally added to John Vanderslice [35] (by an IP that was also vandalising during that editing sequence [36] and that tried putting it back in a few times [37]) and removed [[38] because it was "bizarre, unreferenced, poorly written". The addition of the game to Drinking game was added at the same time and probably needs removing. Ha! (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Removed from Drinking game. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, probably made up. Google doesn't reveal anything convincing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up in school one day. JIP | Talk 05:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've played plenty of drinking games, but never this one. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this would appear to be canonical "made up in school one day". Back in my day, we had a better one called Bong 98, anyways, a Bartok (game) variant that also involved keeping a running count of cards played, and many, many baroque rules. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per consensus. No compelling reason for a merge or redirect given. Also, recommended closer examination of Donald Sanborn, the leader of this particular seminary, to determine notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Holy Trinity Seminary[edit]

Nonnotable subject; seminary for a small splinter sect from the Catholic Church. Fails Google Test and Google News Test. Contested prod; few reliable sources or evidence for notability available. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not notable, but a rewrite of the article could salvage it from obliteration. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sedeprivationism. Merge that Traditionalist Catholic. Not based on sufficent independent references to establish notability. Further work may fix this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wibsey Park Chapel Cricket Club[edit]

A cricket club which is confined to Bradford, England, and appears to fail WP:CRIN and also fails WP:N due to lack of secondary sources. None of the club's players meet WP:N and those with bluelinks all link to incorrect biographies. And the leagues they play in do not even have entries. Peanut4 (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources; a tiny amateur club, which appears to have no notability apart from to its own players. Wikipedia is not your club's web space. Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Stephen's comments. I like to give articles the benefit of the doubt, but there seems to be no doubt at all in this case. JH (talk page) 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure it's a perfectly lovely club, but there's no evidence of notability here. --Dweller (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnlp (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Blueboy 96 17:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ConQuest SF[edit]

NN convention. Nakon 00:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to be a notable convention along the lines of GenCon. I was not able to find any independent coverage of this event beyond directory listings and the like. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This convention keeps running while Gencon SoCal has foundered. It is quite well-established as a major convention on the West Coast. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my response under your comment below. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConQuest VEGAS, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConQuest SAC, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConQuest NW. These articles were deleted but have since been recreated as redirects to the ConQuest SF article. If result of this is delete, closing admin should be sure to delete ConQuest VEGAS, ConQuest NW, ConQuest RENO, ConQuest LA‎, and ConQuest SAC as well since all of these redirect here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. Searching for sources is bit confusing since there seem to be so many conventions with this name in different cities and the word conquest is widely used. See also Conquest Games Convention. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reliable third-party sources that demonstrate the notability of this event? I'm not saying that they out-and-out don't exist, but if they can't be found, they may as well not exist. Conquest Games Convention also appears to have similarly unclear notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the precedent set at prior AfDs. Some cons are notable and verifiable, but the lack of reliable sources indicates these particular ones are neither. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. Industry coverage here at http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=21575 and http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/1401517/. Notable inherently as one of the oldest game conventions on the West Coast. Spinning off a number of other gaming conventions adds to that notability. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoman (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure how reliable gamingreport.com is, so I won't pass judgement on that, but the mefeedia.com link takes me to what appears to be a Youtube clone. We don't accept Youtube as a reliable source normally, and I don't see why this would be accepted as such either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - Neither of those are reliable sources (the gaming report story is less about the convention and more about a person who was going to be there) and I'm not really finding any evidence of reliable sources. Also that source lists ConQuest SF (and its predecessor Pacificon, though we can't even be sure they are really the same thing) as "the second oldest gaming convention in the Bay Area," not "the West Coast." I'm not sure the latter is even notable, but being "second oldest in the Bay Area" doesn't seem notable at all. In any case we need significant coverage in reliable, third party sources to establish notability and so far I don't see any.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here is another report establishing ConQuest's notability and it's link to Pacificon. http://gamingoutpost.com/article/conquest_report/ ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoman (talk • contribs) 06:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's basically the equivalent of a blog post by an unnamed person (all we have is a user name) that describes their experience at one of the conventions and talks about some of the games, people there, etc. It just isn't a reliable source and it does not establish the notability of this convention. Re: Pacificon, the only mention of it in the article seems to suggest that it is/was a distinct event and ConQuest was merely created by the same people: "He and a few other volunteers from Pacificon got together to form a convention in the Bay Area, and voila, ConQuest!" So far if anything the sources being mentioned hurt the case for keeping this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jargon nomination. Catchpole (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, could you explain what the above means? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - The nomination is incoherent. Deletion discussions should not be conducted in "wiki-jargon" as a courtesy to new editors or other parties for who this may be their introduction to the encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It could be phrased better so it does not use jargon, but obviously the rationale provided by the nom is that it is not notable (and links to WP:N). It is definitely not "incoherent." Your keep rationale, however, does not address the issue of notability which is what is at stake.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per all of the other ConQuest conventions which were recently deleted and have since been recreated as sections of this article, which has no reliable sources as to its notability. Corvus cornix_talk 21:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is Gaming Report an unreliable source? ˜˜˜˜
- Is the ConQuest SF article notability being challenged because of the addition of the information of the other conventions it has successfully spun-off...a fact that seems to add to its notability. ˜˜˜˜
- Is the remedy to eliminate the information in the article about the other sister conventions? ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.15.216 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know whether Gaming Report is reliable or not, but the article cited from that source is primarily about "Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Dave Arneson" who was going to be at ConQuest SF. The convention itself is only discussed in a trivial fashion so this is not "significant coverage." I don't think it really matters whether the other spin-off conventions are there or not. The notability is being challenged because there is not significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore ConQuest SF is not notable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability guidelines. The external links presented above do not satisfy WP:Reliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Valentine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unreferenced article fails to establish why this person is notable. Simply being an author is not enough. Fails WP:BIO, lacks coverage in reliable secondary source material. Rtphokie (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails WP:BIO section on authors, but may be notable as broadcaster with improved refs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He kind of passes WP: BIO when you look at everything he has done. But then again, nothing he has done has been very notable. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, An impressive looking article, but there's nothing in there to suggest that he was more than a garden-variety broadcaster. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Little-known former talk show host, lacks sufficient coverage to be notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears to be a borderline case. I'd have to see sources added to this article before I could vote for a weak keep. Also, some portions appear to be a WP:COPYVIO from here [39], so that problem would have to be cleared up as well. If these issues aren't resolved within the next few days, I'll be back to vote weak delete. The books alone, however, since most of them are from legitimate publishers, should be enough to establish notability if their existence can be substantiated. Qworty (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Portions of article are copyvios; there are no independent citations from reliable sources supporting the assertions presented in this article. Two books printed by rather well-known publishing houses get him close to the notability bar, but perhaps any yet-to-be-found citations might be enough for a new, non-copyvio, non-promotional article can be kept. The best move here is to scrape clean. B.Wind (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Unequivocally clear consensus that the subject is notable, through coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Viscott[edit]

lacks 3rd party sources, fails to establish why this person is notable. Rtphokie (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a New York Times obit, for starters. He was a nationally syndicated radio psychiatrist. Zagalejo^^^ 02:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the Times, his radio show was syndicated nationally. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Host of nationally syndicated talk show, coverage in the Times. Nominator may want to review searching methods. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the "Times" says you are nationally syndicated, you're probably nationally syndicated. Therefore, he meets WP: BIO. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an NYT obit certainly speaks to notability, verifiability. Article could use improved sourcing but that's best handled with tags, not an AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable given coverage in multiple sources and the fact he was syndicated nationally. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notable enough just for the book The Making of a Psychiatrist, a significant bestseller in its day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:BIO based on the comments above. Also, here is a GoogleNews search with 351 hits and plenty of in-depth coverage of him[40]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Goldstein[edit]

article fails to establish why this person is notable. Lacks 3rd party sources Rtphokie (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems to be semi-well known. -Icewedge (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A few sources, indicating notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article now has properly formatted references, additional references, and notability is now properly established. - Dravecky (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears notable, given sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Non-notable blogger and sponsor of a failed joke ballot initiative. WP:BLP1E applies. The only possible notability he has is in direct relation to Tim Eyman, and a single sentence mention of his joke initiative in the Tim Eyman article is more than sufficient. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep met WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 - Band « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ascendance (band)[edit]

No evidence for encyclopedic notability (cf. WP:MUSIC). High on a tree (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability per WP:MUSIC -- no chart singles, no major label albums, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This band is why ((db-band)) exists. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Critelli[edit]

Non-notable Chairman. Reads like a resume. Malinaccier (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Aren't heads of major corporations considered notable? His company, Pitney Bowes, sounds like a major corporation: it earned $5.8 billion in 2006, and has been listed on the S&P500 for over fifty years. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A powerful and influential businessman as evidenced by the hits in a google search of the NYT alone[41] but in need of sources. I have added a couple from the NYT, which ought be sufficient to retain the article as a stub. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CEO of major corporation.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notable enough for me, but the article needs to be rewritten. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable given NYT coverage. Could use a rewrite though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. NYT coverage, CEO of an S&P 500 company ... what isn't notable about the subject? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete. No ghits, and not verifiable (A7); also it is recreation of deleted material (G4).

Josiah Manteit[edit]

Contested Prod, that verges on an attack page and possibly a speedy is actually applicable. There are no verifiable sources for this young man or his reported career. [42] In addition the life of the so-called injured party Samuel Watson nor his fatal injury are also not verifiable based on google searches. I have prodded it. Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate i dunno where else to put this but Josiah Manteit and Samuel Watson are both real people! I don't care what you say, they were on the internet until recently when controversial reports where made. the NRL board decided to remove all references to these two legends to avoid this controversy. I, in honour of them, am trying to rectify their reputations by giving them a little credit for what they have done for my country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-sand-monkey (talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete (merging, per consensus, is not appropriate either). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of D.Gray-man anime-only characters[edit]

List of anime-only characters, all of whom are one-shot characters that appear in one or two episodes, and should not belong in a character list in any case. The D.Gray-man filler is only about ten or so episodes, and this lists practically every single character from it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:FICT and WP:NOT. None of these are significant enough characters to even warrant mention as "minor" characters, being one-shot episode characters from the filler episodes of a secondary adaptation of the series. Collectonian (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to List of D.Gray-man characters, although most of these appear to be exceedingly minor characters who could probably be trimmed out during the merge. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I agree, a merge would be appropriate if these characters had any lasting significance to the anime, but, as it stands they fail the guidelines for fictional characters. Xymmax (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge into the list adds excessive minor characters. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]