< September 7	September 9 >

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

The result was merge to Montreal Expos. BJ^Talk 02:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labatt Park (Montreal)[edit]

An unnotable planned ballpark that never got past the proposal stage. The majority of the article discusses about how its name got to be, ect. Tavix (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful content into the Montreal Expos article? Then the link on the list of venues can perhaps point to that part of the Expos article? MadScot666 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montreal Expos. I agree with the comments of MadScot666. Mind matrix 13:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Expos article as a notable and interesting part of the team's history, but not viable as an independent article. Also suggest merging the bit about the model into the article on the hall of fame, if not already incldued. 23skidoo (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Expos article for reasons already well stated above by others. Hardnfast (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The proposed Labatt Park is hardly "unnotable", but it can be mentioned as part of the Expos article. Reso lute 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Coto García[edit]

~~This article exists on the Spanish Wikipedia (link), and all the content seems to be translated from Spanish to English. SchfiftyThree 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am now considering this AfD to be closed, due to making a false nomination, and agreeing that the person is notable enough to have an article. SchfiftyThree 00:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "copied from another Wikipedia" is not reason to delete. The article can be fixed to remove the copied material, and the person in question seems to be indeed notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (CSD G6). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Xinjiang/Sandbox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/History of Xinjiang/Sandbox

Unused article space sandbox created in February 2008 for reasons that no longer exist. Suntag (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sandbox in article space, no longer needed. G6 perhaps? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G6. Tavix (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Villages are inherantly notable, and this now has a reference to back up its claim of existence. Non-admin closure. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 19:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruley[edit]

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because not only is it devoid of any reliabe sources or other external links, it is more than questionable for notability. Quid Pro Quo²³ 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's an actual verified town and the French Wikipedia article has extensive information which can be used as a basis for this version. --Oakshade (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may need improvement, but real places such as this are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All French communes are notable. They just need expanding. Hi I;m having serious computer difficulties which is preventing me from editing and expanding this. Could somebody or somebody ask User:Editorofthewiki if he can help the bald guy out by copying the infobox form french wiki and adding some basic details and references. Cheers The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (CSD G6) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan/Sandbox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan/Sandbox

Redundant of Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan#Fatalities. -- Suntag (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sandbox in article space, not needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabesque (gay film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Arabesque (gay film)

Unsourced article that, if you remove a blatantly POV statement ("It set new standards?"), consists of just two sentences; does not mention why it is notable as an adult film IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 01:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~IRK! indeed. Delete as nn.~~ Spec ial K 14:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has changed since I last commented. Asserts sufficient notability. Spec ial K 15:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Notability is asserted via the two GayVN Awards won by the film in 2006 (for which I found a reference and added). There also seem to be a number of reviews of the film by independent sources linked to from the film's official site that could easily be incorporated into the article if it is expanded. LaMenta3 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notability is well established. Clearly well sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testmasterflex (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notability seems established by the two AVN awards. __meco (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The awards mentioned only establish enough notability to decline a speedy deletion on the basis of no notability asserted. This film meets no criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (films), the assertions of notability in the article do not contribute much proof that encyclopedic notability of the subject does indeed exist. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the article now does address the criteria of WP:NF, as assertions of notability have well sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not my cup of tea, but notability is established by the receipt of major awards within the genre. Needs to be expanded. Is the use of the disambiguation "gay film"" in the title appropriate, or is it more per MOS to just go with (year film)? 23skidoo (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NF being met by reference 1 and reference 2. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ[edit]

This organization is almost certainly a hoax. The only references used for the article that mention the church are internet websites from geocities and the like. Brooke Adams, who covers polygamy and polygamous groups for the Salt Lake Tribune has stated on her blog that she's pretty sure it is a hoax because she's only really seen it on Wikipedia and none of her contacts in the world of Mormon fundamentalism have heard of it either. I'm relatively familiar with the sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, and honestly, the only time I have ever heard of this group is on Wikipedia. I don't think it's even a notable hoax, as Adams's blog comment is the only real discussion I can find about it. All google hits seem to be self-published promotion or mirrors of WP information. I note also that it has been a select few editors who have added most the material about this church in various WP articles, like Mormon fundamentalism, etc. Even if it is not a hoax, it may not meet the notability threshold anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Likely hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is probably the worst kind of hoax as it's sneaky and easy to miss. Extrude all info from other articles as well. JuJube (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes: and if the delete is successful there are some follow-up articles that I will nominate. I believe there's an article for every past leader of the group and possibly a few others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with the above. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete vandalism (deliberate misinformation). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vandalism. At first glance it looks pretty slick, but all references are self-published. Good detective work by nom. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above. Quid Pro Quo²³ 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sandefer[edit]

This is an autobiographical article that the author has admitted, in a discussion with another editor, is intended as a vehicle for self-promotion. It is the latest in a series of such articles that he has created (see the AfD discussion for "My Perfect Apathy"), and it has been very difficult to convince him both that he does not presently meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and that he does not have a "right" to an article on Wikipedia. – SJL 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meeting notable people does not make you notable and the only 'sources' are myspace and youtube. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Boldly added an identical article created by by the same person. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am trying to educate this user on wiki-principles. Not sure he meets notability guidelines, but I'd ask for at least a couple of days for him to try and prove notability before the article is deleted. I have found him very WP:CIVIL in his discussions with me. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's turned over a new leaf, then. I tried to help him in the past, and it did not go over well (see his talk page for my efforts, and my archive for his responses). He has taken a similar approach with others users as well. – SJL 01:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice or malice; the editor just seems to not be aware of Wikipedia policy, which is fine. I have no problem with Acdixon's proposed waiting period, but the lowercase article should be redirected to the valid capitalized one. JuJube (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot to check before I nominated the article, but it turns out that it has already been deleted twice in the past. – SJL 01:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously fails both the notability and verifiability policies. Get the user to contribute contructively on other articles before attempting to write an autobiography from a neutral point of view. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be speedied under A7 or G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Perfect Apathy) but I'm happy for this to be a regular deletion discussion per Acdixon's comments above. AndyJones (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spooning (croquet)[edit]

I think there are several reasons why this article is inappropriate:

The article gives two completely unrelated meanings for the term it is describing.
Neither of these terms is in current use in the game (but the article does not make this clear). The references are to pre-1900 literature on the game.
There are no similar articles for many other technical terms used in croquet, whether in current use or obsolete, and I don't think it would be appropriate to create them, except perhaps in a few cases of terms that are really important - which this one isn't.

Appropriate treatment might be to change the entry on the main Croquet#terms page to note "Spooning" as an obsolete term for pushing, or for a vigorous swing.

Mhkay (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The facts that the terms are obsolete and that there are no similar articles for other croquet terms ae not valid reasons for deletion. What is more, if you claim the terms are unknown now, it is even more important to have wikipedia article on them, which is strength of wikipedia compared to other encyclopedias. There is such a thing called history, including history of sports. `'Míkka >t 23:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should this be edited down and sent to wiktionary via transwiki? Jeremiah (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And "editing down" would be a NPOV euphemism for "deletion of correct and well-referenced encyclopedic information someone thinks useless", eh? `'Míkka >t 15:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like the article and is just as valid as say Hooking (ice hockey); I do a lot of work on the rugby union pages and the terminology and rules shift so much that unless you knew the correct terminology of the day, it would be difficult to understand historical outcomes, especially pre-1915. It could be added to the croquet page, but if that happened to all the terminology listed, would it not become too large an article? FruitMonkey (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satifies notability criteria. Major (some people call it unfair) way to move the ball(from what I can understand.) --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Light (novel)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for this. Schuym1 (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Me neither. It's listed under the fiction section of Andrew Greeley's page, and that seems to be the most appropriate. Jeremiah (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the 5 pillars Testmasterflex (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand as this is a work by a very notable author, Andrew Greeley. Plenty of Ghits which establish the novel exists. 23skidoo (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author is notable, but not the book. It doesn't matter if it exists. It matters if it's notable. Schuym1 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this book fails the notable book criteria:

it has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself; in fact, I haven't been able to find any sources to establish its notability.

it has not won a major literary award.

it has not been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.

it is not the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.

its author is not so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards, rather that the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.

~~I checked Netlibrary and a few other reputable literary databases and could find nothing related to this novel. María (habla conmigo) 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Captain-tucker's provided sources are adequate in proving notability. María (habla conmigo) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 2 minutes work and I have added three - come on guys they might not be the best references in the work but 2 minutes gave me these. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that fanfasticfiction.org constitutes a reliable reference. The NYT article is nothing more than a brief plot summary, but it's not listed under "References", so I won't harp on that. I'm not sure that a link to Greeley's official website counts as an independent source, especially when the page linked is just a list of his works...? All these added "sources" prove is that the novel exists, not that it is notable. María (habla conmigo) 17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here are several more non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, this book passes WP:BK, it certainly could use expansion but it should not be deleted:

Beauregard, Sue Ellen. "Upfront advance reviews: Adult fiction." Booklist 92, no. 6 (November 15, 1995): 515., Abstract: Reviews the book `Angel Light: An Old-Fashioned Love Story,' by Andrew M. Greeley.
Steinberg, Sybil S. "Forecasts: Fiction." Publishers Weekly 242, no. 46 (November 13, 1995): 50., Abstract: Reviews the book `Angel Light,' by Andrew M. Greeley.
Becker, Allienne R. (2000). The divine and human comedy of Andrew M. Greeley. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. p. 142. ISBN 0-313-31564-7.--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Friends (social network)[edit]

This article is apparently part of a series of articles written to puff the resume of Jonathan Bishop (See discussion here). Bishop did indeed develop a website in 1999 that contained a feature called Circle of Friends, but there is no source indicating that he was the first to develop such a feature, nor is there a source suggesting that websites such as Friendster copied his technique (a claim made in the Friendster article), nor is there any evidence that the technique was not obvious and available to all. The two sources given in this article are both written after the claims first appeared in Wikipedia, suggesting that WP is probably the source for the sources. It seems that the technique is non-notable, that attribution to Bishop is questionable, and the article has been written to promote his career. Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete unverified/verifiable self-promotion.--Buridan (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified.--Troikoalogo (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable subject self promotion. Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not going to vote in this debate. But it may be worth pointing out that the proposer Anthon.Eff and seconder Buridan (real name Jeremy Hunsinger) are both associates of Barry Wellman, who though the account Bellagio99 has sought to bolster his position in online communities and weaken mine. --Jonathan Bishop(talk) 09:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user may have a conflict of interest in this discussion, as they have mostly edited articles in relation to Jonathan Bishop (ColonelBuendia99 (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Dear User:Jonathan Bishop: You can rest assured that I do not consider you to be my peer or my competitor. I don't have competitors: I have colleagues. I collaborate with many of them happily.

My initial interest stemmed from my lack of awareness of major claims for the Circle of Friends that User:WelshAspie put on the Virtual Community and I think another WP page. Primarily, I wanted to understand more, in the interests of scholarship. Secondarily, I didn't want to misled readers of WP in case the claims were exaggerated or unfounded.

Please, do try to take the role of the other (George Herbert Mead) and stop violating WP:Defame and WP:Outing. You keep misconstruing my motives. I feel very sorry for you, but your actions keep inflicting hurt upon yourself. But you also persist in Defamation and Outing attempts, making it hard for me to feel sorry for you. You also are demanding a huge amount of attention. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to appreciate that as you are a sociologist at the University of Toronto you are far removed from the realities of a researcher and businessman who is also an elected representative. I can see why Richard Branson doesn't want to be a politician belonging to a political party - He would go from being universally respected by the public to being universally despised by his opponents. If your intention wasn't as I suggested then I apologise, as I should have assumed good faith. But you must understand that it is hard for me to do so in the climate I find myself in, where the media I consume, in my local media in the newspaper and on the Web, is full of people from opposition parties constantly attacking my colleagues and myself to make themselves look better. Unfortunately I tarred you with the same brush, though this was only after reading material posted by yourself and others --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**whilst that may be true, it would be useful if you could comment on what he's claiming, and provide some verification that/if he's wrong.--Troikoalogo (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I have posted this article on my blog. You will find my reflections there. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not part of a plot against you Jonathan. It's part of the normal process of protecting the integrity of WP. Barry Wellman is one of the most notable sociologists alive today, so I know who he is. But I have never met him, and it is very much stretching the facts to call me his "associate".--Anthon.Eff (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

i do know barry and i value him as a colleague, but alas i don't edit wikipedia in any way because he tells me to. I edit wikipedia to improve it and make it more reliable for my students and other students. as for 'circle of friends' as a technique, my first public use of the technique was 1998 when i used it as part of the circular encyclopedia project. I'm pretty sure at that point in time it was common usage and non-novel.--Buridan (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming in 1998 you used a multi-user system that has the customisability and manageability of a instant messaging buddy list, with the interactivity of a hypertext application, so that it was possible to click on your buddies' name and see their buddies' names, like what I developed in 1999? If it wasn't a novel step, by combining two separate technologies, then how come Friendster recently got a patent for making a 'novel step' by combining two significantly related technologies? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep, pretty much, web-based friend system with chat in hypertext, used an esoteric little language for mac ip server, fun stuff. people get patents all the time, sometimes they stand, sometimes they don't. the patent system is not made to certify anything other than x party has made claim to this as novel, and unless there is reason to believe otherwise, the claim is considered valid'. I've not read their specific patent, i can't speculate about its validity. i can say that we don't have verification of your claims, as indicated above and i likely tossed the last dvd-rom copy of our system seeing as the software has be obsolete for 7 years or so. --Buridan (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More non-notable self-promotion involving a user with a history of COI contributions. (ColonelBuendia99 (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The above user may have a conflict of interest in this discussion, as they have mostly edited articles in relation to Jonathan Bishop --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced and poorly referenced Pontyboy (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user may have a conflict of interest in this discussion, as they have mostly edited articles in relation to Jonathan Bishop --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject does not appear notable enough for its own page. I also have some concerns about the conflict of interest issues highlighted above. (222.130.179.91 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Does not seem notable or extensive enough for its own page. There is very little info. In addition, it is terribly written and hard to understand.Armoire (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user may be a sock puppet, as this was their first edit --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query: It occurs to me that Circle of Friends is claimed to be open source software. My understanding of open source is that it is published and available to others to peruse and modify. It would be useful if [[Jonathan Bishop, the creator of this putative software point readers (and not just on WP) to the code -- and the description -- of Circle of Friends. Perhaps this has been done, and I may have missed it. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current version of the article does not seem credible. It seems to be asserting a claim to have invented a whole technology, that would require much more data to believe. Lack of sufficient reliable sources is why I would delete it. The only source provided, a 2007 article by Christine Rosen in New Atlantis, suggests that she considers Jonathan Bishop to be the inventor of the 'Circle of Friends' technology. (She does not explain how she arrived at that conclusion, and his name only appears once in the article). I think we would need more. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have emailed Christine Rosen several times, neutrally asking for the source of her information, and haven't received a reply. New Atlantis is not a specialized computer magazine, but a feature magazine written for intelligent lay readers that is (in the words of its Google blurb): "A quarterly journal devoted to science and technology issues and their relation to social and political affairs." I hadn't heard of it before, altho there is lots that I don't know. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jonathan Bishop -Politicool (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus - this AfD is a true mess. I'm afraid that this is almost evenly split, with strong opinions on either side, and not a lot of agreement or strongly convincing force from either divide either. There was also much mis-application of policy; many of the keeps basically cited USEFUL, while the deletes cited policies such as OR as grounds for deletion, which is strictly not valid grounds for deletion by itself, considering that many of tehse articles did have some referencing. This is pretty much the archetype of a lack of any consensus. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan British[edit]

Violate Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:No original research. Many of the articles also include population estimates that are either unsourced or are referenced with a source that does not support the figure given. User:Stevvvv4444 seems to be creating articles for every conceivable group in the UK regardless of notabilty and has been warned many times but ignores advice. Better covered at articles such as British Asian, Latin American Britons, etc. Sorry for nominating so many articles in one go but this is the only way I could see to sort this mess out. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: per rationale in nomination and policied cited therein. --Jza84 | Talk 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need thousands of articles for every combination of people groups. I feel sorry that you had to go through all that nominating. =( Tavix (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly these are only what I saw as the clear-cut cases. See User:Cordless Larry/Ethnic groups for some more! Cordless Larry (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was mystified by the titles of the articles I was not sure that either the English Indonesians that I know about would identify themselves with that name - and I was wondering why and how the actual term fits with anything else, I could be very wrong - but if it is not self identification then what the xxxx is it all about? Satu Suro 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The titles are neologisms, which is part of the reason I have nominated them. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in that case, wikipedia is not a sandbox for funny ideas that do not relate to the real world (whatever that is) Satu Suro 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all junk. And I have a sneaking suspicion the editor is aware that this is inappropriate. A preventative block might get the message through. JuJube (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will warn User:Stevvvv4444 that creating any more of these articles without establishing their notability will result in their being nominated for a block. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess of articles! Most should be aggregated to a higher level - Baltic British, Latin American British,Caribbean British - as some of these articles already exist, effectively probably a merge. The only one that might survive is Brazilian British - appears to be reasonably well-referenced and refers to a sizeable population of 200,000, and appears not to fall foul of WP:OR, as much of it's material is taken from a BBC article. Paulbrock (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although something like Baltic British would be a neologism too, I think. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian British coul probably be salvaged. Zagalejo^^^ 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but would need a reference or two first! Paulbrock (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's one to start you off. Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Clear keep due to extensive notability. Also, no neoglogisms and NOR are not good reasons for deletion. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think they are all notable? I can't see how articles such as Georgian British can be, when it states that there are only 551 Georgian-born people in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. I see your point. I reviewed all the articles listed here and determined that this garbage should be deleted. My new opinion is Delete all this crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testmasterflex (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest keep but rename to Bolivians in the United Kingdom, New Zealanders in the United Kingdom, etc. This would remove the neologism problem. The other issues - original research, inadequate sources etc - are not reasons for deletion, they're reasons to fix the articles. In a country the size of Britain I think most migrant groups are notable, and demonstrably so. Aggregation might be appropriate in some cases, but it won't be in others - not every nationality can be lumped into a convenient geographical grouping. --Helenalex (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they would still be based on very little if any source material. Most of these are pure original research. It's also worth pointing out that no other nationality has these en masse double-barrelled articles about every group. If we remove the unsourced material, we're left, in most cases, with a single sentence. --Jza84 | Talk 11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I haven't looked at every article, but those I have checked seem useful information about distinct groups (and there is worthwhile difference between people from St Kitts & Nevis and people from Antigua, etc). Need for some copyediting, sure (too much "who's" for "whose", etc), and maybe checking sources (found a ref in Israeli_British which didn't seem to support statement), but these articles should not be deleted. PamD (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Most of the groups mentioned have populations fast approachiing the 20-30,000 mark with the likelihood of more immigration of the aforementioned countries. In London alone, there are many boroughs with over 100 different languages spoken and these groups are all contributing in an important way, towards British society, so it is only right that their voice gets heard and they get the recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.63.209 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with recognising groups or denying that they make a contribution - it's to do with whether they are all notable enough to have their own articles. Surely it would be better to have a number of well-written, comprehensive articles such as Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, British African-Caribbean community, Latin American Britons, etc. rather than many poorly sourced articles on individual groups? Furthermore, that these groups might grow over time is not relevant, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with anon. A lot of them are certainly notable, and the ones Cordless Larry mentioned appear to be the less notable ones. There are several stub and start articles that are related to ethnicity, and we don't see them all being tagged and listed as articles for deletion, do we? A lot of them are still in their early stages, and to be fair, they can't suddenly become featured articles the day they are created—it takes time. Now, don't take this personally, but I really don't see why we need to AFD list every single damn article that is related to British dual ethnicity. ~ Troy (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I really can't believe so many of my articles I have created have been nominated for deletion, I agree that many of them are not fully sourced, but many are. before I go any further, I believe that you nominating Brazilian British, Filipino British, Nigerian British, Pacific Islanders in the United Kingdom amongst a few others is a complete joke, these ethnic groups number in their hundreds of thousands, and contribute a huge deal to British society. It think the fact that you want to create one page to represent many ethnic groups is a completely unnecessary idea, Latin Americans and Caribbeans vary with religion, ethnicity and many other factors and placing them under one title is extremely controversial, I totally agree with you that many articles will need expanding, but I can help and work on that and ensure that all my future edits will be sourced. These really could become great articles and if one naming convention was agreed on, this could make the articles even better. It is extremely important to distinguish each individual ethnic group in a diverse nation like the UK. There are countless numbers of articles about ethnic groups in other countries that are even less significant than these and contain even less information (Paraguayan American being a good example). I really believe it would be a good idea to give these articles another chance, and I will ensure that the integrity of Wikipedia is kept, and that all articles contain enough information to make them worth while, at present there is no harm in keeping them, some need to be a lot better cited, and others don't. The only one I really agree with you nominating is Georgian British. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is variation within broad groups, but such variation can be noted in more general articles. For instance, British people vary in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. but there is still an article called British people which explains these variations. I disagree that there is not harm in keeping the articles as they stand. Not only do most of them lack adequate references, many contain misleading "estimates" of population sizes which are attributed to sources that in no way support the claims being made. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said that I would ensure that all figures where put right, and there is plenty of sourced information, and honestly for example, what is wrong with the article Moroccan British, every single thing in the article is sourced, and it gives plenty of information on the ethnic groups history and population distribution. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To take that example, the 74,000 population estimate comes from a forum post, which fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are also lots of unreferenced assertions such as "Moroccan migration to the UK began substantially in the 1960s with many arrivals being a mixture of the professional and unskilled, all coming in search of employment and a new life". Can I also ask that you sign in when you post comments? At the moment, while you're using your signature you are appearing in the page history as User:90.207.84.89. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't remove AfD templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, like I said these articles can either have the information deleted or better sourced, they really do deserve a chance, and I know that you know that many of the articles are extremely important, and that you would just prefer to see them go than stay short and unsourced. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per rationals mentioned above. Specific articles for every such group is not required. Most of these articles are not informative and poorly sourced. I am amazed to see the articles like Saint Kitts and Nevisian British, Montserratian British, Grenadian British. British Nepali, etc. I would not surprise if they would have been nominated for CSD-A7 group (because of notability rational within article). Apart from that these article fails to maintain Encyclopedic nature. Hitro 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only reason you mentioned the Saint Kitts and Nevisian British article is because of the strange name, it is deifnately worth keeping, as there clearly is enough information about the ethnic group, as well as it listing the many famous British people of Saint Kitts and Nevis descent.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is referenced, I note. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have just sourced the actual figure of Saint Kitts and Nevis born people in the UK, when you are clearly going to go ahead and delete all the articles listed above.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced it, yes, and it's the only sourced statement in the whole article. A single population figure does not make a whole article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not amazed of strange name. This article as well as most of the others do not explain why these group are significant. 6519 people, I doubt whether the term "Saint Kitts and Nevisian British" exists or not. FYI, Google throws total of 12 pages all on wiki mirror when you search for Saint Kitts and Nevisian British within quotes (which means exact words or phrase).Hitro 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-British African-Caribbean community is enough for all countries in Caribbean islands. Information about many of the articles nominated here are covered within that article. No need for separate article for every country. Hitro 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Agree 100% with nom. I would also agree that we do not need a Category:People of Nigerian descent and a Category:Nigerian people, and a Nigerian British, much less an article that provides nothing but filler. I propose, if these are deleted, to do the same with [[1]], leave categories and articles to do the work of ethnic background identification for Americans and British. Bulldog123 (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (additional to my "Keep" above): note that there are many articles (not just subcategories) at Category:Ethnic groups in the United States and Category:Ethnic groups in Australia. The wording of the article titles here may be "neologisms", but their subject matter is not a set of neologisms but a set of well-established groups of real people, with distinct identities (try telling a Canadian that they should be lumped in with a "North American" article... that's the same as saying that people from St Kitts and Nevis are just part of the Caribbean population). PamD (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm not saying that they should be "lumped together". Being in the same article doesn't mean that the differences between groups can't be outlined. There simply isn't enough notable information on these groups for them all to have individual articles. Being distinct doesn't in itself constitute notability. I'm distinct from my next-door neighbour, but I don't have my own article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a case for replacing some of these articles with broader ones which have sections on the seperate countries - for example all the Caribbean countries could be grouped together as Caribbean British, with subheads for Jamaican British, St Lucian British or whatever (I have no idea how appropriate this would be, this is just a random example). Many of the criticisms made here are either reasons to fix rather than to delete, or reasons to delete some but not all of these articles. Why should a well sourced article be deleted because a similar article isn't? For that matter, why should a badly sourced article be deleted if the sources are out there? --Helenalex (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have loved to have nominated all of these articles individually so that we could debate each on its merits. However, that would have caused chaos at AfD so I nominated those articles which I thought weren't notable together. This isn't just about referencing, it's also about notability. Note that I haven't nominated British Indian, for example, which is clearly notable. Saint Kitts and Nevisian British, not so much... Cordless Larry (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but in any case, the articles need to have time and patience if you're ever going to give them a chance. I'm entirely sure that the articles' creators never intended for this. ~ Troy (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of correlation between referencing and notability. Indeed the WP definition of notability is related to the available references. Whilst the AFD was made in good faith, I do feel that too many articles are included here which should be judged on their own merit. Paulbrock (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but delete articles with little or no results of pages with the same title on Google e.g. Bolivian British and keep those with more result returned like Brazilian, Colombian and Nigerian British especially where there are more results on Google that accredit the potential noteworthiness of the groups. The latter, especially are notable in that they are the largest of the diaspora outside Nigeria and there are enough famous people with worthy contributions to the UK of Nigerian descent, for a decent well referenced article to be put together. Much harder with Bulgarian, Basque, Maltese Georgian and Salvadorean British (WTF?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.249.215 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said above, which ones should definately stay, but I am clueless to why the absolutely diabolical article Baltic people in the United Kingdom is not up for nomination, it has about two words in the entire article, neither of which are sourced. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only nominated the ones that are neologisms here, and I was going to deal with articles such as that one later. Actually, I put a proposed deletion template on it but it was removed because apparently it's controversial enough to need to go to AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There appears to be no rationale for deleting all of the articles. If "many" of the articles are unreferenced, that does not make it legitimate to delete all of them as a lot of these articles are simply in their early stages (as in you can't suddenly create a featured article). Also, considering the depth of how many articles are involved, there is simply no way to delete them all on the same basis. There needs to be a way to assess the worst articles first in a way that can be humanely kept track of. The article titles should be sorted and, as Helenalex said, grouped under less titles to allow for more composition. I agree that they need to be worked on and properly organized—or else there really wouldn't be much point in us being here. However, simply deleting them all will not solve the problem, and quite frankly, makes it harder to properly assess or deal with. ~ Troy (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, these are the worst offenders, picked from an even broader selection of articles. There is a list here detailing the good, the bad, and the ugly (so to speak) of this list. Also, I appreciate your comment, but these are, quite simply, original research no matter how we present these for deletion. --Jza84 | Talk 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jza84, I know what you mean, but I'm still pretty sure that they can be worked on. However, what perplexes me is simply that I can't see how they should all be deleted just like that. I still think that there needs to be time to give them a chance, or else it will be harder to re-create the more notable ones (ie: ones that don't lack notability but just happen to need better sourcing or were recently started). While we obviously can't nominate each one that needs to be looked at, we still need to properly assess each and every one before doing away with these articles. Also, I'm sure that we could find sources for ones that have any significance at all. ~ Troy (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all in agreement that one solution does not fit all of these. It will be helpful if we group them all according to what should be done with them, as in:

KEEP: Article is basically okay and subject group is notable.
FIX: Subject group is notable but article needs to be rewritten and/or properly sourced.
RENAME: Article is basically okay and subject group is notable but title is a neologism.
FIX AND RENAME: Both of above issues.
MERGE into broader article, generally covering the whole area/continent.
DELETE: Subject group is not notable.

The vast majority, along with quite a few on Larry's 'not sure' list can probably be merged into larger articles dealing with people from a particular geographical area - Eastern Europe, South East Asia, etc. In some cases these articles don't yet exist, but I think they should. There will probably be problems with the middle east - currently there is a page on British Arabs which it would not be appropriate to put Kurds, Armenians, Israelis and probably other groups into. Creating Middle Eastern Britons with the British Arabs page forking off from this should work, I hope.

The other issue is Oceania (a term which no one from that region actually uses). Lumping Australians and New Zealanders in with Pacific Islanders in the United Kingdom is misleading; Australians in Britain (not nfd even though it's awful) should be fixed and New Zealander Briton renamed to New Zealanders in Britain and have more references added. The other option is merging them into Immigrants from the white Commonwealth in Britain along with Canadians and white South Africans, but this would be problematic because plenty of NZers and Aussies are not white.

There are other articles which are good enough to be kept, like Brazilian British - this should stay as an article, forked from Latin American Britons. --Helenalex (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, I could settle for that. The issue is that there are so many articles to deal with that there simply isn't a way to treat them all in the same manner. ~ Troy (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody have an argument that isn't WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Bulldog123 (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep - Notable intersections of nationality. This proposal is highly disruptive to our project. Badagnani (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note The above user seems to have found his way here by stalking my contribs. It's likely he voted "strongest possible keep" because I voted delete. Perhaps if you provide a more legitimate reasoning, people can take your !vote seriously. Bulldog123 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I ask, in all good faith, that the above editor moderate his/her tone. I voted "keep" because I believe these articles to be notable and valuable to our project, and, hence, our readers, who will come to our encyclopedia wishing to find this information--this reason, and no other. Badagnani (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you came to this article by chance? By the way, "not notable" isn't the reason for deletion. So "notable" doesn't seem to conflict with the deletion rationale. Bulldog123 (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, it was not by chance, but by the simple fact that I had had some of them on my watchlist from the last time you had attempted to delete many of them. Badagnani (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; given the above discussion, it seems many of these are neologisms. Aggregation would be much better than the existing situation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (after edit conflict): the nominator's reference to WP:NEO is a red herring: the topic of each article is an existing group of people, not a newly-coined word or phrase. See Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms. We need "a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English", and it might be that "Foo-ians in the United Kingdom" or "Foo-ian people in the United Kingdom" or similar would be better titles for some of these articles (with redirects from current titles and anything else plausible). Bad choice of title is not a reason for deletion. As for WP:NOR, some of it is sourced and some needs better sources, but the existence of the people is not OR. PamD (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These are neologisms which are rarely, if ever, used and hence not notable. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename or alter content as needed to comply with neologisms and WP:OR requirements. The subject of "British citizens of Japanese ancestry" or "Ethnic Japanese with British citizenship" or whatever we want to call it is a valid topic and one of interest. It should not be upmerged to "East Asians in Britain" or "British Asians" or whatever the term is, because not all Asians are the same - they came to Britain at different times, for different reasons, and play different roles in society today. The key focus here should not be on the titles of the pages, whether they are neologisms or not, because the topics they describe are still perfectly valid. And as for the question of it being Original Research, there are sources out there on these topics, and many of these articles do cite sources. So it's not original research, it's using sources already out there; old research. LordAmeth (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If sources exist, they need to be cited, and cited now. "Unverifiable material may be removed at any time". Indeed, as I've said futher up, if we remove the uncited stuff, we're left with (in most cases) a single sentence, one which is based on a source that doesn't even mention these neologisms by name anyway. In that capacity these are also breaches of WP:SYNTH. --Jza84 | Talk 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not contributed to any of these articles, and so cannot comment on the extent to which they may be original research. However, I think there is no need to be hung-up on the notion that it's a neologism. What's important is not the term we use (Japanese-British, Japanese Brits, UK Citizens of Japanese ancestry), but the fact that the topic is a valid one; regardless of what we call it, we are not inventing, creating a topic, we are discussing something very real. You're misinterpreting what the rules against neologisms are aimed at. LordAmeth (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Re-read my point. I'm saying these should go because they are either a) unverifiable, or b) a synthesis of a single statistic woven out into bogus articles. I'm not coming into this from the neologism angle, but that this breach fundamental editorial guidelines - they're bad for the project with little scope of expansion. --Jza84 | Talk 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. or nominate French American, Armenian American, etc. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- French American is not a neologism, and is based on real world practice. The ones listed above are not, so your reasons to keep are not clear. --Jza84 | Talk 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. --Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~- in my thinking all similar articles are example of nationalism and they need to be deleted (and I will vote for that deleting). Because this is discussion about deleting of only 1 article I must vote keep.--Rjecina (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the entire list is up for deletion, not just a single article as you had assumed. Badagnani (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I believe that all similar articles must be deleted. We are not having only articles about British, but about many other nations/states. In my thinking all this articles must be deleted--Rjecina (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be consistency across Wikipedia, but with all due respect it was enough of an effort to nominate this group of articles without trying to add all similar ones! The logic of opposing this nomination because you want similar articles deleted is lost on me. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is OK. I am changing vote to neutral.--Rjecina (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP OR MERGE also Naming Conventions - A large percentage of people in this debate seem to be focused only on the name of the article and not its actual content, many of the articles may not be named to peoples likings, but the truth is the terms above can be justified through the use of Asian British, Black, British, Chinese British, White British etc in the actual United Kingdom census, many people say the other way round is more common in the UK, others think a title such as Asians in the United Kingdom would be better, this is an argument in itself, and in this case it is actually more important to be deciding whether to improve, merge or delete the articles listed above. Each has their negatives, but I believe it would be in Wikipedias best interests to keep them or possibly merge them into subtitles of larger groups....deleting is not an option, and each subgroup has its own distinct culture etc (even within the Caribbean countries, ethnic makeup etc are considerably varied), and although there is an article of the overall British African Caribbean community, the sub articles should be kept, and improved as well as being better sourced (there are many articles across Wikipedia which are more or less identical to these apart from they are representing ethnic groups in the USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil.....) Also I believe that the following articles should definately stay due to their notability and the large populations they represent, I am sure many will agree:

Afghan, Burmese, Brazilian, Colombian, Ecuadorian, Nigerian, Egyptian, Filipino, Japanese, Lebanese, New Zealander, Somali, Yemeni (which is probably the best citied out of all the articles), amongst possible others

Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I've striken part of your comment with this signature, rationale being that you've already "voted" above once already. --Jza84 | Talk 19:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The truth is the terms above can be justified through the use of Asian British, Black, British, Chinese British, White British etc." - those are all recognised terms and I'm not proposing that any of those articles be deleted. But terms such as "Georgian British", "Croatian British" etc. are pure neologisms. As for the content of the articles, the vast majority of it is unsourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Articles about Ethnic Groups, these help show the diversity of the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.157.107 (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a valid reason for keeping these articles. The ethnic diversity of the UK should be reflected at United Kingdom and Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, but it's no reason for these articles to exist per se. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also point out that the opinions of anonymous editors are liable to be disregarded per this. You should log in if you wish your view to be taken into account. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Already we have three IPs with strangely similar IPs voting "Keep." 71.241.157.107, 82.45.249.215, and 86.53.63.209. Bulldog123 (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- not related. They are 3 different internet providers from 2 different states (UK and US). If they are somebody puppet you must ask checkuser.--Rjecina (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Rjecina.
    It doesn't look like they match ([2] [3] [4] WHOIS queries for those IPs, respectively—Verizon Internet Services Inc. for the first one in Reston, Virginia; the other two might have just happened to come across). I have noticed that a LOT of the vandals I revert over recent weeks are based on that first ISP in Reston, Virginia (most recently as 71.241.157.81), so that should be checked over. ~ Troy (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- As per my unofficial check, I can confirm this is not a case of Sockpuppetry. First IP originates from Massapequa, NY, second originates from London and third from Hawick, Scotland. We should get on with main discussion. Hitro 06:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok. How does 71 (and 82, for that matter) not count as single purpose accounts? They don't have to be the same person - they were still WP:CANVASSed over here. If you're all confident this isn't someone's IP here, then you should realize IPs don't have watchpages. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not accounts. This is not a vote. Please focus on content not contributors. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I feel you would have a different opinion on that if all the IPs said to "delete?" Bulldog123 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I think these (from what ive seen) have some quite useful information and shouldn't be deleted. Maybe a few obscure ones. But the majority is rather informative. Taifarious1 07:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing the argument. It shouldn't matter whether this has useful information. The information is still on their article. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and merge - This AfD is really too big. Neology is a valid concern with some of these articles, when there have been previous debates over for example whether Chinese British or British Chinese is the right title for an article, we have nothing to go on with some of these because there are no references that they are considered a group. Apparently the term 'Bolivian British' appears on only two blogs, but is there evidence that 'British Bolivian' is more common or even more correct? If it was more notable we would probably know. Some of these articles do not have the references to support them. Saint Kitts and Nevisian British is a prime example. It should probably be merged to an article about Caribbean immigration to the UK. The previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_13#Renaming_of_articles_on_minor_ethnic_groups_in_Britain showed what a mess all these article titles are, but the discussion ultimately proved to be not that effective, and I think this AfD is going the same way. There are probably some valid articles here, if the names can be got right, and the level of aggregation can be supported by content and references. I understand completely why this AfD was raised but I think these articles need to be looked at individually. I do not see any titles above that can't be fixed through merging or renaming. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rush to delete the lot. This is an extraordinary nomination. I don't have the time or stamina to look through all the articles and I don't suppose many other people do either. This being so, I don't think they should all be deleted. On the other hand I don't want either to suggest keeping the lot (more or less ruling out future deletion) or to criticize the good faith of the nominator. /// Let's look again at the nomination. It's some way above, so I hope nobody minds this repetition: Violate Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:No original research. Many of the articles also include population estimates that are either unsourced or are referenced with a source that does not support the figure given. User:Stevvvv4444 seems to be creating articles for every conceivable group in the UK regardless of notabilty and has been warned many times but ignores advice. Better covered at articles such as British Asian, Latin American Britons, etc. Sorry for nominating so many articles in one go but this is the only way I could see to sort this mess out. /// First, "avoid neologisms". I'd never heard of (say) "Montserratian British" and am willing to believe that it's a neologism. I could check this question at google but let's suppose for a minute that yes, it is a neologism. Yet the article is not about the neologism; it's about an understandable and arguably significant subject matter that has been described with a neologism. The solution to this is retitling. /// Secondly, "Wikipedia:No original research". This is important, but it's a matter for ((fact)) and if that has no effect then partial deletion. /// Thirdly, "articles for every conceivable group in the UK regardless of notabilty". Like it or (if you're a reincarnation of Enoch Powell) loathe it, Britain is (and has long been) multiethnic. There aren't that many nations in the world (or transnational ethnic groups), so the notion that Bhutanese British or Saami British were to get articles leaves me unfazed. (I'd draw the line at Parisian British, etc, or any division into Bolivian English, Bolivian Welsh, etc.; and yes, I know that Paris is more populous than Bhutan.) I mean, are groups of people -- often in the tens of thousands -- so much less significant than this lot? /// Fourthly, "Better covered at articles such as British Asian, Latin American Britons, etc" One problem is that these do indeed have established meanings. The former has at least a strong suggestion of the Indian subcontinent and while I think it should cover Lebanon and Japan I don't know if it does. Meanwhile, does "Latin America" cover US citizens who speak Spanish as a first language? Tama1988 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate your point about the titles, and if the articles are kept then they should be renamed in my opinion. They would also need a lot of editing to remove unsourced content - particularly the unreferenced estimates of population sizes which, as far as I can tell, are purely guesses on the part of editors. Hopefully, if nothing else, this nomination will spur people into action so that we can get these type of articles in a much better state. However, a few points: firstly, you say that there aren't many nations in the world, but there are potentially thousands depending on you definition of a nation. Perhaps you meant nation state rather than nation? Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that there should be articles about these groups simply because the groups exist, but this doesn't equate with notability. I exist, but I make no claim that there should be an article about myself. Finally, I would like to point out (again) that this nomination has nothing to do with not wanting recognising the multiethnic nature of the UK, as should be clear from my strong line against racism on Wikipedia demonstrated here, here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have attempted to improve the article Antiguan British (see British people of Antiguan descent), I have sourced all information, and deleted information that doesn't have one. i would like to see what other people think of this article, I know some of the information links strongly to other Caribbean groups, but it is important to distinguish each one. It is definatley worth keeping the article, as it inlcludes information on the actual population of Antigua and Barbuda born people in the UK, as well as an important list of British people of Antigua and Barbuda descent. Also notice the name change.....I think it will be accepted my most people. Thanks, and I know this article could be improved further. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better but there are still unsourced statements. I don't see how "109th most common out of all nations" is supported by the reference given that not all countries of birth are listed in that spreadsheet, for instance, plus none of the notable people are referenced. I'm also not convinced about the title since not all people born in Antigua and living in the UK are likely to consider themselves British or be British nationals. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nigerian British article could be improved quite easily: here are a few sources: [5], [6], [7]. I'd start cleaning up that article myself, but I already have my hands full with another AFD. Still, the sources are out there for anyone who is interested. Zagalejo^^^ 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was disappointed at the process here when I noticed that someone advocating deletion of these articles said that we already have a good comprehensive article on the subject called Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom, because that article is for the most part merely a list of these articles nominated for deletion here. I actually spent quite a bit of time using some VBA code to create a merge of these articles, and then went to add it to the above article, only to realize that it was a list of these articles, and would be way to long if the content was merged in. Surely the ethnic makeup of a huge nation could not be argued to be non-notable, and surely none of the terms are neologisms. So then we get to unsourced material. Any contentious or POV material can be edited out and any material lacking proper referencing could be marked by the appropriate maintenance template. This deletion nomination is simply fooey. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Drive by tagging" with appropriate maintenance notices isn't going to help a produce a great encyclopedia. Like I've said before, some of these articles are based on a single statistic, which doesn't mention the title of the article by name, and is never likely to be expanded with verifiable material. Futhermore, I think there is some misunderstanding as to what is an ethnic group - anybody can choose to be any ethnic group they desire. That is to say, one could identify as being ethnically Mancunian. The problem is, as an encyclopedia, we should be writing about officially recognised ethnic groups, not inventing ones for every nationality in the world (which I should add, nationalities are not coterminate with ethnic groups - China has many ethnic groups). Therefore, I'm not sure your comment that this "is fooey" is entirely helpful. --Jza84 | Talk 00:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In any case, there are too many ethnic groups in the UK for them to be properly covered in that article. I think Jerry is trying to say that deleting all of these articles is not the best way to deal with them, and also, it seems as though proper referencing can be easily dealt with for many of the more notable ethnic groups. ~ Troy (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep. This article has already survived six other afds, I can't fathom it getting deleted. The rationales listed below for keeping are very legitimate. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_films_considered_the_worst[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Please understand this is not a bad faith nomination. I am requesting deletion of this page since the very fact that a film is considered the worst by anoyone, amounts to personal opinion, and is entirely subjective,. What one person hates, another may enjoy immensely. This article should be removed since despite sources and references, this is essentially a totally subjective list which people may strongly agree or disagree about the content of. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it were the personal opinion of the author, the complaint might be valid. However, this is a well-sourced list of films that are prerennially included in publications and polls of critics. Certainly, describing a film as "bad" is subjective, as is the case for a film that is described as "good" or "great". There are no objective measures for films. Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps the point is not made sufficiently clear in the lead of the article, but the article is not about films you, I or the next person consider very very bad. It is about films that have been considered the worst by some reputable critic, or in some significant poll, and so on. In itself, saying, "Film XYZ is bad" is indeed highly subjective, but saying that such and such critic, or board of critics, or poll of moviegoers defined film XYZ the worst is an objective fact. More or less the same difference as saying "That girl is quite nice" or saying "That girl won Miss Whatever in 2005": the second fact might deserve a mention in WP, the first certainly does not. Goochelaar (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fact that it's subjective to say "X film is the worst" does not mean the article should be deleted. Wikipedia is about Verifiability, and these films have been described as "the worst" in reliable sources. Although it does need some work (sourcing, worldwide view) but that can be fixed with some good old-fashioned editing! I've been keeping an eye on this page for a few months now, and it's been improved. It's strictly for films that have been called the worst, and entries that just say a movie is "bad" are removed. However, I do think that it should be tightened up more. I wouldn't mind if it was moved to Films considered the worst ever, so that only films that have been considered the worst ever should be included. This would be the flip side of the Films considered the greatest ever article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the nom's reasoning, but I agree with the above statements. It is not a list of films that are the worst ever, as we could not objectively compile such a list; rather, it is a list of films that are considered the worst ever by certain authorities. The title may mislead on the "authorities" part, which is elaborated in the lead. (As an aside, I find this list so useful in finding amusing movies and reviews that I'll save a copy locally for my own use if it looks like consensus is leaning toward deletion.) AnturiaethwrTalk 23:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. These are the sourced opnions of critics. Edward321 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clumsy title, but this is simply not a "totally subjective list" as the nomination claims. Townlake (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely <! Don't call me Shirley --> there's room for improvment, but there are a lot of good sources and such, as well as it being well kept and in order. I see no reason for it to be deleted. QuidProQuo²³ 23:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. A list that is a non-neutral as something can get... How about a name change to "List of films considered the worst by some but not all", and include those opposing points of view? For everytime someone says "brrrrrrr.... it's cold", someone else may say. "No, it's only a bit brisk". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone but the nominator. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone plus I think this is a WP:SNOW--Mike Cline (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't doubt the good faith intentions of the nom, and also agree with Goochelaar that the objective criteria might not be clear. As such, perhaps we could consider renaming the article to something that might convey that purpose better? Perhaps List of films critically considered the worst ever (just a random sugestion)... JuJube (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), it seems the consensus has reached a good keep. Deleting because it needs improving is not appropriate. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 05:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC) deleted by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as the article has absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever and no reliable sources to provide it with said assertions. Without prejudice to recreation which meets the notability and referencing standards from the getgo. Daniel (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Girls Learn (lifetime movie)[edit]

TV adaptation of a novel. A few ghits, and some award nominations according to the IMDB page. Otherwise, doesn't appear to meet WP:MOVIE. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A movie made for a national network that is nominated for an Emmy? I don't see how this can't be considered notable. However the article need to be renamed to address the capitalization issue in the disambiguation. 23skidoo (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing worth keeping here. No objection to a proper article being created though. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominated for awards which includes an Emmy. Schuym1 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Only nominated for awards so Delete. Schuym1 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources given, and no claim to notability --T-rex 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominated for an Emmy = notable. Corvus cornix_talk 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question where in the apparent plot summary does this article mention an Emmy? As it stands I'd say speedy delete for lack of context. Not saying an article can't exist but, this one paragraph isn't remotely it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See [8]. Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So not in the article itself. And since IMDB isn't reliable (it doesn't for instance say this particular movie was nominated but, that the writer was (but, doesn't say whether for this or something else she wrote). If the claim is included in the article and referenced to a reliable source for verification than so be it but, it wasn't when I asked the question. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The weight of argument favors deletion, particularly since there doesn't appear to be certainty that this is even the correct name.--Kubigula (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dedative case[edit]

The article is about an apparantly speculative case that appears in Quenya, a fictional Tolkien language. In the main article on Quenya, the word "dedative" occurs only in the description of an external link to an article that describes an "s-case". The article has been tagged as unreferenced since December 2007, and no . Even if a source would be found, I question the usefulness of having a separate article about a speculative, obscure case that supposedely exists in only one constructed language. A redirect to Quenya might be more useful. Peter ^Isotalo 14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional element. It also appears to be a neologism of dubious source. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I just added a source that explains this fictional case, but there is indeed no other use than a speculative appearance in Tolkien's Quenya. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to quote what the source you added has to say about this particular case.
Tolkien did not identify this case by any name, nor have we ever seen it used in a text. Its function is therefore wholly unknown; it has indeed been called the Mystery Case. Some writers have used it simply as an alternative locative ending. They have had no nightly visits by Tolkien afterwards, so perhaps this is acceptable to him.

It basically amounts to an obscure piece of conjecture among die-hard Quenya aficionados. How is that worthy of a separate article? Peter ^Isotalo 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I only suggested a "weak" keep. On a second thought this might as well be merged into the main Quenya article as a sidenote. De728631 (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible candidate for a merge with comitative case or adessive case, which seems to be much the same thing. As far as I can see, this seems to be a neologism invented by deep Tolkien language fans, who unsurprisingly did not know the semi-established terminology for the phenomenon. Whether it's notable enough to actually appear there may be debatable, but not an AfD matter. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a strong Tolkien fan: how is this source a reliable source for this kind of thing? If Tolkien himself didn't use this name (or any other for such a case), how can we know whether this is the correct name, or if there is a correct name? This is like Victoire Weasley in that part of the name (in this situation the name of the case, in Victoire's case her last name) is speculation. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fauskanger is one of the few reliable Tolkien linguists, and a professional linguist at that. Read more on his motivation. De728631 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability isn't the main concern here; it's the rather obvious triviality and lack of real-world relevance of the topic.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merge into Quenya and with comitative case and/or adessive case as Smerdis suggested above. De728631 (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —An gr 12:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple delete without merging anything. No merge to Quenya since there's no indication Tolkien intended the case to be called by this name. No merge to real-life cases like comitative and adessive because they're not fictional and this is. (At least there's no Category:Fictional grammatical cases that needs to be deleted too.) —An gr 12:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ningauble. No real-world notability. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non Admin Closure. Schuym1 (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering problem[edit]

We've got a problem. It's called Magic: The Gathering problem. The only prescription is more cowbell. And by more cowbell, I mean a fast deletion. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any references in a brief Google search. It's also unlikely that "This problem awaits a rigorous, general solution" as it's fairly trivial. Also, there's one comment on the article's talk page, which asks for the solution--I suspect this is from the same person who created the page, even though the article itself is from a registered user and the comment from an anon. I've posted my solution to the question to both user talk pages and recommended that future questions in that vein be posted to the reference desk. Chuck (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete On the talk page there is the following comment, "Someone help solve this problem...it's driving me crazy!". This comment leads me to suspect that the article was created because the creator wants the Wikipedia community to solve the problem. That is not what Wikipedia does. I have found no reliable sources that present the problem on the article, and thus I do not believe the article can be improved. In its current state, I believe the article should be speedily deleted. I believe this because of the lack of reliable sources to support it, and because the purpose of the article does not fit in with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks for reading. Interesting problem, though. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, CSD A3 - as noted, this isn't an article, it's a solicitation for some help with simple combinatorics. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I posted enough of a hint for the homework assignment on the talk page. Richard Pinch (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination doesn't state any rationale for deletion. I agree A3 is appropriate here, just a procedural note. Townlake (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the everything test. The problem here is less "what are the mathematical chances I'll get the card I need" and more "why am I applying mathematical principles to a children's card game". JuJube (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 02:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factualize[edit]

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If it is a notable word then it should be transcribed to Wiktionary. Woland (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletualize per nominator. I doubt Wiktionary wants this either. JBsupreme (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also note that Wiktionary and Dictionary.com do not have definitions about this word. SchfiftyThree 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Cliff smith ^talk 22:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:DICT. Schuym1 (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. seicer | talk | contribs 02:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Parry[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications, while highly dependent upon primary sources and Usenet message boards. JBsupreme (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's fscking Kibo! You don't get much more notable than that, for a person notable within the remit of cyberspace (as it was, before these intaweb things).

Besides which, the coverage by Wired should be sufficient for any rational purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is eponymous and mentioned as such in wiktionary (which is based on FOLDOC, so should incorporate direct FOLDOC ref in the article as that is direct support for his notability). DMacks (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — Either way. But if the article is deleted, whatever of value from it should remain in the corresponding entry at Notable Usenet personalities (Kibo), without making the entry too big. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep C'mon - this is Kibo you're talking about. I concur with Andy Dingley. And that's not just because Kibo once sent me an email. (The highlight of my year).Xrobau (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even I've heard of Kibo, and I never actually used Usenet back then. He's a Usenet celebrity, back from when it was small enough that you could be one. Looks like there were some actual news articles on him, too, in addition to the Wired one (plus various mentions of him and Kibology. Trouble is, this is all from before the Web really took off, so they're not available online. - makomk (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you should do a Google books search before nominating something like this. WillOakland (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio hawk[edit]

This was tagged for speedy, but there's at least a claim of notability here, winning a contest for an appearance at a festival that seems notable. I'm being cautious here, somewhat. Problem: the "Biography" section is a copyvio of a press release, and it contains the claims of notability. I'll be blanking that part momentarily, so check the history for details on that. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Fails WP:MUSIC and probably at the moment WP:ONEVENT. Nuttah (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability, referencing, and not to mention half of the entire article is improperly cited wuotes from band members. Quid Pro Quo²³ 03:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was actually a cut and paste from an article, and has been removed as a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The cut and paste bio was from here, but isn't really a reliable source. Google News also shows a couple of articles from the Bexley times that cover the contest. But that's it. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 02:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional messiahs[edit]

For starters, this thing doesn't define what counts as a "messiah". It's basically unmaintainable. What about fictional representations of actual messiah-figures? What about Aslan? What about characters who've been described in literary analysis as "messianic"? Consider that even Superman was (to quote Alan Moore) "a perfect man who came from the sky and did only good". What about Brian, who wasn't a messiah but was treated as one? What about Neo, or D'joan? Bleh. DS (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC) ))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Up for almost a month, and I'm not sure why it wasn't nominated, other than perhaps some hope was seen (as is the case for a messiah). I agree, there's no definition, no criteria, no content-- more messy than a messiah-related. Mandsford (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. There is no limit to such lists you could devise. List of fictional astronauts, fictional presidents, fictional doctors... Cott12 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not including the "broken messiah"... I mean, per nom. JuJube (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no way to keep this one from getting out of hand. Quid Pro Quo²³ 01:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm already resisting the urge to put up Jesus... so it's likely not maintainable, and completely absurd to attempt to define. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. Eklipse (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No RS seicer | talk | contribs 04:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate pong[edit]

Non-notable offshoot of Beer pong, no reliable sources found for verification. GlassCobra 19:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need every permutation of every drinking game on the planet. – iride scent 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODer, for the exact reason expressed by the nominator. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If this should have its own page, why not every small variation of every game imaginable? Quid Pro Quo²³ 03:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turk (rapper)[edit]

Contested prod. Fails WP:MUSIC with no evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C2 for 3 charting albums [9], [10], [11], [12]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shouldn't these details be added to the article to make it pass WP:N. There are many articles that would pass WP:N if certain facts were added with citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply The first one already is and the subsequent ones branch of that. The first references was already on the article before the Nominator put it up for AfD, but I just assumed that they'd made an honest mistake and missed it. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Couldn't find a lot from a Google search, but clearly notable via hit albums, which must have generated coverage somewhere.--Michig (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional info discovered. GlassCobra 08:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and possibly WP:NPOV. Has been tagged appropriately for six months. Some parts read like an essay. Seems to be less encyclopedic than it was during it's first nomination for deletion, which was three years ago, when it was given a chance to expand and possibly become a good article, but in those three years, that never happened. The keep and cleanup option proved to be a complete failure during the last deletion discussion. An article that goes for years without verifibility and that is made up of original research has no place whatsoever in an encyclopedia. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", a phrase under every edit box. In fact, this article is utterly unencyclopedic. Removing the unverifiable content would result in barely a stub. Heck, this article fails all of Wikipedia's core content policies. Abusing (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I see the neutrality issues, but on the whole, the article is a valid topic, and therefore requires cleanup, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Umbralcorax has got it right. The topic's encyclopaedic and appropriate. Some of the content isn't up to snuff, so delete unverifiable content and tag for expert attention.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:SOAPBOX. If a complete rewrite is necessary to get rid of the NPOV issues, then maybe deletion is the right way to go. But I do say weak because it is also different and specialized, per the Five Pillars, not to mention the keep arguments are in a way moot. MuZemike (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Red Square demonstration[edit]

WP is not a newswire, nor a soapbox, nor a blog, nor an avenue for advocacy of ones political goals. The article is overdependent on blogs for sources, is written in an overtly WP:NPOV way (aftermath? 7 people hold up a sign, they get told to move on, there is no aftermath). There is no correspondent article in .ru wiki, so I really have to question WP:NOTADVOCATE here. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted from the Russian version for the political reasons. The subject is significant, because this is the only orotest against suppression of freedom of neighbours that took place at the central place in Russian Federation during the Russian–Georgian war. Therefore, the article should not be deleted. dima (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political reasons? Or the same reasons as presented here? And your reason is not true. First off, there was a protest outside the Georgian embassy against Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia are neighbours whose freedom is being suppressed) and there was an anti-war protest of 300-400 people in Moscow. Even if it was the only protest, there is policy which clearly needs to be looked at which overrides the desires of 7 people holding up a banner. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare the Georgians suppress their freedoms? Don't worry, mother Russia will ~~annex them and suppress the citizens itself~~ protect them and ~~ethnically cleanse~~ deal with those annoying Georgians. Seriously, your comment is so politically biased, I don't even know where to start. - makomk (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anti-Georgian rallies are completely in line with the policies of the current Russian regime and they don't meet any resistance from the authorities. On the other hand, political dissent has become so rare in modern Russia that I consider the 2008 Red Square demonstration to be a notable one. Hence, my vote Keep. I would not also object to the merger with 1968 Red Square demonstration as a last resort.--Kober^Talk 05:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, trim down, improve. Political dissent is not rare, what is rare is rather harmless outcome to the detainees. Not accused of extremism, not shot in the head in police car - sort of christmas tale in August. NVO (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. If it was just seven people waving a banner on its own, it wouldn't be notable. Considering the symbolism - and more importantly the police reaction and political climate - and it becomes obvious that this is far more than that. - makomk (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any notable event described in news qualifies for inclusion. The event is clearly notable, as follows from publications in multiple reliable sources. It is also notable in the historical context of a similar demonstration in 1968. No evidence of soapboxing. The sources are not blogs. NPOV problems if any should be fixed without deleting the article.Biophys (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree fully with Kober on this. Närking (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article about this demonstration in Russian Wikipedia had been already deleted as non-notable. Wikipedia is not a collection of current news events or backup copy of personal political blogs.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. There does not seem to be any enduring impact beyond the flurry of initial news coverage. RayAYang (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#NEWS, not notable, a measly 7 protesters, obviously a soapboxing article for anti-Russia/Russian government users. No enduring impact beyond initial minor news coverage. That it was "covered in multiple reliable sources" is neither here nor there, all news both big and minor is covered by multiple sources, that's how "news" works.--Miyokan (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, neutral, objective, nobody cares about the Russian wikipedia. Ostap 15:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I said before, the described event is nothing more that a disorderly conduct incident (what they call мелкое хулиганство in Russia) and not some notable demonstration worth paying attention to (unlike a Dissenters March, for instance). Moreover, I tend to think that this whole event was a pre-paid provocation, but that's my personal opinion. KNewman (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting comment of yours. The 1968 Red Square demonstration was also described by the Soviet authorities as a disorderly conduct ("hooliganism"), and participants declared "insane". Perhaps this demonstration is also the beginning of a new dissident era in Russia. Highly notable!Biophys (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a reliable source for this being a new era? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor do we allow original research. A short (and very limited at that) burst of news does not create notability. Additionally, when the photographer who took these photos just happens to be the very same person who's very blog where this has created a sensation and all this talk, can indicate there is advocacy going on here. At the very most, it deserves a passing mention at 1968 Red Square demonstration, not its own article. Can I ask Biophys, which one are you in the photos? ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Biophys is Georgian:) DonaldDuck (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Although this is hardly relevant, do you think I am a Georgian "ethnically" or I am a Georia citizen? No, I am none of that. But perhaps "we are all Georgians" - people who object aggression and occupation, as one Russian observer said.Biophys (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Look Biophys, if you're going to lie about this, then I will show people the proof.--Miyokan (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What proof? My Georgian passport? I do not have one and never had. My old Soviet passport with printed "ethnic origin"? That was not "Georgian". My DNA sample or Genealogy tree? You would be very disappointed.Biophys (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ("What proof?") So you consent to me showing my proof?--Miyokan (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know ;) Hence why I asked...just a friendly dig is all. I think Kober is in there too. ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi there, Biophys! Be it known that if a group of people wants to organize a demonstration of any kind on the Red Square, they have to obtain a permission from the authorities. I'm pretty sure that we mortals can't obtain this permission in 99.9% of the cases, it's the same as asking for a permission to have a barbeque on the White House lawn or sit down for a beer on a stoop at Downing Street, 10. Red Square is really a sacred place, it's that simple. This is why people get pushed around or arrested by the militia on the Red Square, so whenever things like this demonstration happen on the Red Square, there's no need for the freedom-of-speech hysteria. It's absolutely groundless. KNewman (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That is precisely why Soviet authorities called this a "hooliganism" in 1968. There is absolutely nothing "sacred" in Red Square or White House lawn. These are not shrines. Biophys (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't mean it in the religious sense of the word, silly! As always, any discussion regarding freedom of speech in Russia is useless here in Wikipedia, anyway. Do what you wish with this article. So long. KNewman (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I notice that the Russian article after being deleted has been moved to Wikinews. That is obviously a much more suitable location for it, is this able to be transwikied also? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable events Grey Fox (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well-sourced. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for current and historic relevance; if need be, at least merge relevant content into the 1968 article. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as article. This event is directly related to the Russian-Georgian war. This relation was immediately recognized by the journalists, who begun to make pictures and audio and video records, and especially, by the police officers, who tried to destroy all the documental records of the event. (In a case of hooliganizm, the police, contrary, would have to keep all the records as evidence for the court.) Perhaps, the demonstration would be just a "news", if the protesters could simply show their banner, cry about freedom, distribute their statement, talk to the people, answer their questions, and then peacefully pack back their banner and go to their homes (if necessary, with moderate protection from the police against the extremist supporters of war). But the brutal actions of the police officers made it historical EVENT. dima (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So these journos just happened to be walking at that area at the exact right time? You are attempting to engage in advocacy here. If this is related to the war, then merge it here. this group of 8 Ossetians also made the news (in multiple sources) standing in the Hague holding up signs accusing Saakashvili of genocide; is 2008 Ossetian protest in The Hague in need of creation? No, because it doesn't long-term notability and to do so is to engage in advocacy, and that clearly is not allowed on WP. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, you made several unsupported statements. Now I comment only your "So": it does not matter. 40 years ago, all the eyevithness of the Demonstraiton of August, 25, "occasionally" happen to be from the same military uint. While they were not judged for false eyewithness, then, why you see anything strange if journalists happened in time? Journalists are supposed to be interested in events more, than just Soviet soldiers; and the journalists were not from the same newspaper. Also note that journalists did not pretend to visit the "GUM" shop while it was closed, as one of those soldiers claimed. So, the analogy with the 40 year old event is deeper than you think. dima (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No RS, no opinion on transwiki seicer | talk | contribs 04:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-tarian[edit]

Prod template removed. Simply WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing there but a definition. Can be transwikied to Wiktionary. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not transwiki to Wiktionary. No reliable sources and the few Ghits imply it's more of a one-off joke than even rating as a neologism--borderline WP:MADEUP. Shawisland (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like a dicdef, and smells like a dicdef (and possibly a neo). No opinion on the transwiki to wiktionary. I suppose they can deal with it when it lands there. Synergy 05:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upon searching, it appears that this is a slang term or something. I don't think it should be transwiki'd. 74.56.36.34 (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep 2009 and delete 2010. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Florida Atlantic Owls football team[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a future team season:

Future sports team season. The text in the article could very easily change before the next season. There are no dates associated with the schedule and the article has no references. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. X96lee15 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included at Wikipedia:CFB#Articles & Pages being considered for deletion. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2009 -- As per my comments on the recent discussion on the 2009-11 Kansas State season articles, I believe that there is usually enough information in the present season to discuss factors in the following season. For example: recruits for the class of 2009 are making verbals, there are storylines forming for future match-ups ("revenge", etc), etc. I would hold the line on only the immediate next season, with the transition happening after the BCS Title Game, thus advocate Delete 2010. --Bobak (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2009 and Delete 2010. Information can be added to 2009 at this point, 2010 is still too far off. KnightLago (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2009, delete 2010 for the reasons Bobak stated. We've had this discussion before. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XBRL International[edit]

The subject does not appear to be fit for an encyclopaedia article and seems to serve advertising purposes.Lancet (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Lancet (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel so, I suggest you point out the lack of notability or other criteria that are lacking, in your opinion. I remind you that in the discussion of the XBRL page, you agreed with me that the creation of an XBRL International page would solve some of your objections with the content of that page. In creating this page, I've tried to create content that meets Wikipedia guidelines (which I read prior to starting the page). For example, if we compare HL7 and XBRL, there are many parallels in terms of the organisations and their scope of standards making, their size, and their impact on the lives of non-members through the subject of their standards making. As a general guide to notability, I think they are both notable. At least as notable as the Knights of the Southern Cross (New Zealand). I have nothing against any member organisation of the International Alliance of Catholic Knights, but if you have objections to this page under the guidelines of Wikipedia, please show how they apply to XII and not to KSCNZ.

Please also point out what specifically you think is "advertising". This page is patterned directly on the page for the W3C, which I thought was the most relevant starting point. I noticed that the W3C page does not mention its regular conferences, and I would also be leery of adding mentions of conferences to the XII page.

I think the most telling criticism of this page is that it is a stub, and needs expanding. If you want to add Criticisms - go for it! Want to add content about fees (a subject you feel strongly about), just add it! Unhappy about the dominance of large organisations like PricewaterhouseCoopers? Find a good reference that supports your prejudice and add it! Just keep to the same NPOV you like to apply to everyone else... Dvunkannon (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter. I'm looking forward to what other editors may contribute. Lancet (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs to be kept. The subject is definitely relevant, especially since the SEC has released the roadmap to its mandatory use by 2014. I think an important thing to know about XBRL is who is responsible for the standard. The article itself needs work for sure, but the subject definitely belongs. --Glennfcowan (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up with proper evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with XBRL. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Vrefron (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable, promotional article. Any useful content should be merged in with XBRL, but as far as I can tell only minimal content would need to be added. Themfromspace (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the recently improved (current) version? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did Jerry, it's improved. Though the Mission section's content still seems promotional. Cheers, Lancet (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the recent work has made it less biased. I think the problem with business articles is that telling what they do is kind of like advertising, so they need to be written carefully. I agree that the mission section seems a little overdone and seems to be covered in the history section. I think the two areas could be merged and that one or more of the quotes should be dropped. Glennfcowan (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I have with dropping the quotes is if you then drop the reference sources as well. Somebody can then come along and say "there's no sources...blah blah blah...". As it is, the quotes are referenced by solid reliable third-party sources. If you delete the quotes while this is still at AFD, please find a way to keep the sources. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs some cleanup but that's not grounds for deletion -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important subject matter.Can be cleaned up, but keep. Good info.(69.231.71.13 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep notable subject, encyclopedic content, neutral point of view, verifiable content, sourced to independent reliable third party sources. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Clique (film)[edit]

Non-notable forthcoming direct-to-DVD movie. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete twice deleted prod for an extremely non-notable, direct to DVD film that has not even been released or even confirmed that it is still being released. An old, no longer updated website does not confirm it will really be released and it has no significant coverage. Fails WP:NFF and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Consensus holds that a film in production doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL, and IMDB reports a November 11th release. RGTraynor 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A film confirmable to be in production is still not notable without significant coverage, and IMDB is not a reliable source. It is also still not a notable film, even if it were completed. Again, no significant coverage on it at all and it does not meet the general film notability guidelines.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is the industry-wide accepted source; it doesn't become unreliable as to release date on our sayso. RGTraynor 17:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, as far as Wikipedia goes it fails WP:RS and our say so is really all that matters. It is user-edited and therefore not a reliable source for encyclopedic work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users can contribute, and those contributions have to pass IMDB's editorial fact checkers. RGTraynor 19:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well... there is Warner Bros... which is not edited by the filmakers, Flixter... also not edited by the filmakers (but only a blurb), Media.www.ramcigar.com discusses the filming last February and Pawtuckettimes.com speaks toward filming last March, Videobusiness.com speaks of how production wrapped last March and tells the interest producers had in making this a series, Celebcards.com is another pre-release blurb, and there are others (some much longer)... depending on one's search parameters. Does one of them meet your interpretation of RS? It has significant covergaqe and principle filming has ended. Release is the next step. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Warner Brothers IS the filmmaker, so how is that not edited by the film makers? :P Flixr is nothing more than another directory style listing and is not any sign of notability. Its no different than the many many other such sites. The rest are all pre-release blurbs, not significant coverage and not significant enough beyond the usual press release stuff to make it very notable at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I thought one of your issues was "An old, no longer updated website..." and wanted to show a newer often updated one from the distributer. Disregard it as not being neutral. And please disregard Flixter if you wish, as it was only included to show that WP:GNG is being address. Per significant coverage in reliable sources Videobussines, PawtucketTimes, and Media.www.ramcigar are not mere blurbs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per significant coverage in reliable sources [13], [14], [15], and [16]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just for the record, we have discussed imdb before and decided it isn't a reliable source. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]
- Comment, yes... IMDb is not 'generally' reliable except as a tertiary source for materials verified by other sources. That aside, my own search, and list of found sources do not include IMDb, and showed a notabilty per WP:GNG, which is the backbone of WP:NF. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable forthcoming direct-to-DVD movie! very notable indeed! --Kaaveh (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the new references just added to article. Film has notability because it is based on a New York Times best-selling series of books and Tyra Banks first time as a movie executive producer, and for those reasons it has been written about in a number of sources. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep movies based on insanely popular books. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Tyra Banks source tells me that it is getting coverage, and will likely get more as release date approaches. If the movie fizzles, we can revisit this in December or January, but for now, it's getting enough coverage to be notable. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in secondary sources to show it is notable. RMHED (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. henrik•talk 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promenade Pictures[edit]

Lacks Notability and Reliable Sources 2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Advocate70 neglected to notify me of this nomination, as the initial creator and major editor of the article. Notability is clear in the studio's relationship with Frank Yablans, and the Hollywood Reporter is a notable and reliable source. The association with Salem Radio Network also makes the studio notable. Note that I have no association with the studio and only created the article because I ran across a red link on some other page, I don't even remember which one. Corvus cornix_talk 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: Films with Christian Slater, Elle Fanning, Michael Keaton, Jason Lee, Jason Mewes, Rob Schneider, Ben Kingsley, Marcia Gay Harden, Patrick Muldoon, Elliott Gould, Nicollette Sheridan, Miguel Ferrer, Eliza Dushku and Howie Mandel are being made by this company. I think that makes it notable. Corvus cornix_talk 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sorry, didn't see that as part of the three-step process outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion, it is in the notes under the instructions, not part of them. It seems Corvus found out about it in about an hour of its listing, however, so I see no harm done. The Hollywood Reporter reference is just a link to the Wikipedia entry for the Hollywood Reporter, not anything about Promenade. Nor is there any reliable source for the Salem Radio Network reference. As it stands, the article has no reliable sources giving it notability, and everything on it is original research from their website. I'm just looking at the entry as is.--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 00:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you bother to look at the inline references, such as this and [17]? And even if there were no sources, which is not the case here, that is not grounds for deletion. I will admit that the link I provided initially to the Creator Kids site has changed from what it was at the time. Corvus cornix_talk 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How would the article get notability without any reliable sources? See WP:N--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You haven't answered as to why you think the Hollywood Reporter is not a reliable source. Corvus cornix_talk 22:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My last comment referred to the statement "even if there were no sources, which is not the case here, that is not grounds for deletion." I addressed the Hollywood Reporter in the comment before that one. Let's see if we can get some other comments on the entry.--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 03:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe I'm dense, but I still don't see why the Hollywood Reporter link is not a reliable source. And I'm not going to stop discussing this just because nobody else has. I'm not stopping other people from commenting, in fact I welcome them, but if you keep making unsupported contentions, I'm going to call you on them. Corvus cornix_talk 18:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "The Hollywood Reporter reference is just a link to the Wikipedia entry for the Hollywood Reporter, not anything about Promenade." It's not unsupported, go down to the link and click on it and see what happens. As for unsupported statements, you still haven't explained your statement that, "even if there were no sources, which is not the case here, that is not grounds for deletion." How would an article get notability without any reliable sources? It would be more useful to see if we can get some other user comments on the entry.--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-unindent Please look at the link. Corvus cornix_talk 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the coverage already noted in the article, a quick google news search shows this Fox news article amongst others. -- Whpq (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spec ial K 16:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So far, their one major release was a critical and commercial flop, but it got mainstream press and had big names attached. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 02:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Best[edit]

No evidence that this is a notable blog. A search is problematic because it returns a lot of things that The Age refers to as "Third Best" of something but I've been unable to find any evidence of notability. It's an Age-hosted blog but the blog doesn't inherit notability from its host. I don't believe a merge is appropriate since The Age doesn't cover its blogs and I think covering this would lead to undue featuring of this blog. TravellingCari 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note in the event this is deleted, Third best blog is re-direct to the article. TravellingCari 16:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). WWGB (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely non-notable--Lester 01:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability. Quid Pro Quo²³ 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gimje, merge left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 15:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimje Airport[edit]

Canceled airport. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Completely unsourced. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be much more to say about it other than it didn't happen. No evidence that it was a major scandal or anything. Communities plan and cancel stuff all the time. If a source can be found, maybe this would add a sentence worth of flavour to our mostly-empty Gimje article, but definitely not an article of its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources and thus WP:OR. Article is about an airport that was never built - the article states that it was recently cancelled, but Google News has nothing on it. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the city article seems fair. With regard to the previous comment, it does exist (or did). There's an item about it part way down this page dated July 24, 2008. this page on the Gunsan Free Trade Zone still refers to it as if it were an active project (but I suspect it's just a stale page) MadScot666 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. Keep the information on Wikipedia. A major public-works project is significant, and the article asserts that construction actually began on this one. Fg2 (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the creator can expand the article with reliable sources during the discussion. If not, merge is suitable for the stub.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The city article would be a good place to merge in a note about the aborted plans to build the Gimje Airport. I did a Google search. Of course one wouldn't expect much to be in English about a non-English-speaking country. Even so, the search found various terse mentions on construction company sites about significant airport construction about to begin and some blog posts in June and July 2008 saying it was cancelled. It's enough info to conclude that the story is over and there won't be more sources. (If I had found reliable sources, I'd have added them.) It isn't enough to qualify for WP:RS as it is. So it must go. Ikluft (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, planned, land bought and contractor chosen is bound to have created sufficient media attention to generate amble sources (probably in Korean though). I would like to see some sources in the article to verify the claims—on the other hand being unsourced is not a criteria for deletion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being unsourced is enough grounds for deletion. No sources confirms non notability. The creator of the article even notified me that he doesn't think it's notable. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author is the only one who has added any content. (One other editor added a category and an unref tag. And a bot dated the tag.) So the article would qualify for speedy deletion if the author requests it. A ((db-author)) tag in the article by the author or a deletion request posted here is all it would take. Ikluft (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it already does qualify for speedy deletion under G7. I see that the creator of the article gave permission to delete it on Undead warrior's talk page. That's a step beyond saying it's not notable. Ikluft (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's a newspaper article from 2004: http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=050000&biid=2004061555758 --Eastmain (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This article still contain little sourced information. There is now only one reliable source, which still fails WP:RS. The other keep votes are based off of personal opinions and not off of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Gimje, it would be better suited there as it really isn't notable enough to stand alone. RMHED (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gimje. An airport that is not to be built with one source is not enough doktorb _words^deeds 10:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gimje as it doesn't meet notability policy and would not be able to stand on its own. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 14:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Living[edit]

Non-notable magazine - fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SOURCES by having none (and, as there are no sources, the rest must be WP:OR). Does not assert notability. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ummm. There's a San Francisco Chronicle piece about the magazine in the article; that and the company's website wouldn't strike me as "no" sources. "International Living" + magazine returns over 82,000 hits, and not soft ones, either ... I gave up once I passed six hundred unique hits. The magazine itself is listed in the top 750 of Amazon's best selling mags, and in the top fifty of travel mags. There are 314 Google News hits, turning up articles in the Miami Herald, the Dallas Morning News, the Toronto Star and many others. All this took me about three minutes. RGTraynor 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (And by the bye, as of yesterday evening, a copy was for sale in the main newsstand in Harvard Square.) RGTraynor 18:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per RGTraynor.John Z (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability evidence cited by RGTraynor above. I created this as a stub and admittedly the article has not really improved since then but articles needing improvement is listed at the top of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion as not a reason for deletion. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick Google news archive search shows that this magazine is almost certainly notable. RMHED (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Changes in page title and to page render most deletion issues moot. lifebaka++ 15:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trialeti Ossetia[edit]

It is most probably a good faith translation of the homonymous entry from Russian Wikipedia, but the original article as well as the translation is not sourced. The only cited reference is groups.yahoo which does not qualify as a reliable source.

Trialeti Ossetia seems to be an irredentist concept invented at certain web forums. There are no scholarly sources which would prove the existence of this entity/concept, however. I did a search through Google Books in both English and Russian, but got no results. Google Search yields no results as well. Although Googling in Russian does produce 37 or so hits, nearly all of them are web forums and there’s not a single academic resource among them. Kober^Talk 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nom.--Kober^Talk 05:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have noticed this fact. However, the Ossetian enclave, surely, exist and allegedly even was proposed to be autonomized. I think that this fact should be reflected in Georgian or at least Ossetian historical books or articles. So, Kober, some facts from the late history could be removed, but I think that concept of an article about Ossetian enclave could be backed by census data or something else.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion someone says about Tsutsiev's historical atlas, where territories claimed by South Ossetian Revkom are represented. A map, cited in article, possibly is from this atlas, so at least one publication (Tsutsiev, 2004) was done to designate this enclave.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ossetian villages surely exist in the area, but the title and content of the article are problematic. I've never met the term "Trialeti Ossetia" in any scholarly account of the region's history. The website you are citing is just a web forum. It cannot be considered a reliable source.--Kober^Talk 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But may be the map they refer can Tsutsiev, 2004? It has something like date-line. And possibly this is an only source of such term.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm strongly oppose deletion, but I will not object if some facts from yahoo groops will be removed and article will be renamed to something like Ossetian enclave in Trialeti.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsutsiev, Artur (2007). Atlas etnopoliticheskoy istorii Kavkaza (1774-2004). Evropa. ISBN 978-5-9739-0123-3. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we cannot construct an encyclopedic article and the entire story about a supposed "enclave" based on a single map. That would be WP:OR. And I'm not sure about the authencity of Tsutsiev's work. Is not it dubious that the concept "Trialeti Ossetia" appears only in a single 2007 publication by an Ossetian PhD? --Kober^Talk 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, something should be about this area with other name at least in Georgian. In English I've found very few sources: [18].--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This paragraph says Ossetians in Trialeti "...century, when Georgia was under the Russian influence, Russian Empire, new ethnic groups came to Georgia: - Germans in south Kartli (southeast Georgia), Armenians (from Turkey) in Samtskhe-Javakheti (southwest Georgia) and Greeks and north Caucasian Ossetians in Trialeti (South Georgia). Russians (from Russia and Ukraine) also settled in Georgia at the time..."

That not means "Trialeti Ossetia". I never herd about it. It seems to be consequence of the attempt to rewright the history after the Russian invation to Georgia. Strong Delete. Geagea (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 13:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC) As for me, article may be renamed, but the fact from the article about Ossetian enclave and attempt to autonomize it is evident. You may also remove all facts you do not found appreciate, but at least census datas and information about re-settling from not OR sources should be kept at least as Ossetians in Trialeti. For example, the same could be found in Armenians in Abkhazia.[reply]

Also, one can label me pro-Russian history re-writer, but I'm sure, that if the source isn't found on www, it doesn't means that it is not reliable. For example, the most of Oxford paper publishings are not available for me, however no one object to usage of them. No one can label Tsutsiev tendentious only because he is Ossetian himself, without reading of his book. Possibly, in his book he referenced some documents of SO AO Revkom or something else, used this term prior he. Of course, I'm not sure, as this book also is not available for me. But labelling this publishing tendentious a priori is not right, yeah? My offer is to change the title to something like Ossetians in Trialeti, if Trialeti Ossetia is not appreciate for you ))--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 13:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, again Russian propaganda and bias on Wikipedia is unacceptable. This is clearly a Original Research based on bias. Iberieli (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after the re-name, since it no longer claims "between the lines" that any part of it has an Ossetian majority - the original name was unsourced and POV. As Üñţïf̣ļëŗ already mentioned, there are more articles like that, so deleting this one would be POV. The link to the 1921 map itself is OK, but the title in the article is not: "claimed"? Er, by whom? The yahoo group link is unacceptable - if nothing else can be found (in this case a blog by an association of refugees may actually be OK, but forum discussions clearly do not constitute verifiability) the assertion it "sources" must be deleted. I do think that the language of the article needs fixing as well. However, deletion requests should not be used to correct articles, and neither should they be used in propaganda drives. One of the "Russian" (actually meaning Russian language) googles (was on a Georgian site, for goodness' sake ([19] -for those who do not understand Russian, the Georgian writer pointing out the map claims that Russia will use the existence of Trialeti Ossetia to keep its troups there and annex the territory to Southern Ossetia). One obviously non-pro-Ossetian source I found ([20])does not specifically say Trialeti, but refers to Gori, so taking in the Georgian forum above, we know what they are talking about. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, did not include any reason why the Tsutsiev book is OK in my view (it would have been better to quote the 2006 ISBN number, since the 2007 one is not readily found at serious libraries outside Russia yet), but I suppose this will do: a 2008 opinion. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that so we are missing the articles Ossetian in Moscow, Ossetians in Sukhumi, Ossetians in Gaza ect. It is not encyclopedic article and the origin reason issuing this article, as it seen from the original name, is political. The Ossetians was wecome guests in all part of Georgia until the involvement of the Russians in the caucasus. Geagea (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Geagea, left the reasons of my edits to me. Nobody have right to label me pro-Russian, or ever Russian patriot. Especially after this edits: [21], [22]. So, do not draw hasty conclusions, even if they are evident for you.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 17:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your mistake is from the Russian wikipedia. I did not point you as pro-Russian. Geagea (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I think we all are assuming good faith of Untifler. The source of this bias and OR is the article in ru which he used as a source. Untifler, please don't take the issue personally.

Now that Untifler has already renamed the article, I see creating the article Ossetians in Georgia as the only reasonable solution. It would deal with all regions of Georgia with significant Ossetian population; and Ossetians in Trialeti would redirect to it. This would prevent us from having the articles lacking context and content. Any thoughts? --Kober^Talk 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to object =) However, some problems, leading to long discussions may occur because of one obvious reason: there is nod world-wide decision, which Ossetians are in Georgia, and which are not. However, this article would be a great deal anyway, as the same for Armenians and Greeks. As for the attempt of autonomization, in case of this fact will be proved, it could be represented at least in South-Ossetian AO, Trialeti and Ossetians in Georgia articles.

As for my oppinion, if the "larger" article will be created, Ossetians in Trialeti would be an expansion for corresponding section in this larger article, to cover more aspects. For example, as Volga Tatars are separated from the Tatars article. Another example could be Green Ukraine. However, I don't insist, and if it is rationale to write a larger article, i will support you.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I will not explaine why I vote this way because I wouldn't say anything that wasn't said above me. More eplanations should be made about this weird nomination though. God of Sins (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Very well explained vote.--Kober^Talk 17:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is perfectly reasonable under the new title. The fact that there are Ossetians in that region is well know and described on the CIA sourced map in the article. With the growth of scholarly interest in the Caucasian cultures and the remarkable ethnic diversity of this region, this article is a welcome addition to Wikipedia. I'm also surprised that there's an article about the Greeks in Georgia and Assyrians in Georgia, but no article about Ossetians in Georgia proper. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existance of the article is perfectly fine. There are articles Russians in Georgia, Armenians in Georgia, and Jews in Georgia. The latter says that there are 13,000 Jews in Georgia. I would think that there are (or were, I don't know) more than 13,000 Ossetians in Georgia (outside of South Ossetia). So, I'm not sure why our respected Georgia affiliated WP editors User:Kober, User:Geagea, and User:Iberieli has opposed the article. I would understand disputing factual accuracy of the article itself but I don't understand the argument that the article should not exist. Speaking fish 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaking fish (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. A POV content fork of Free-radical theory, oxidative stress and antioxidant. This is clearly advertising masquerading as an encyclopedia article. The arguments of the single-purpose accounts created for this AfD are very unconvincing and I have blocked both User:Manifolda, User:Vichyu2 and User:Padiist for abuse of multiple accounts. The consensus seems to be to keep platinum nanoparticles, since this is a genuine and notable topic. However, it does require a serious re-write and this keep decision does not preclude a rapid re-nomination for deletion if it is not radically re-written. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username))

Also nominated: Platinum nanoparticles

POV articles on fringe science. These are a promotional effort to make the supposed anti-aging benefits of Platinum nanoparticles better known, and the fact that you can easily achieve this by eating Platinum Gum (already deleted). Article is very scarce on scientific facts and big on unsourced and uncertain common knowledge. These are two spam articles disguised as a "comprehensive study". Fram (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion of the offending articles. They are clearly promotional and could lead to naive lay people reading these wikipedia articles and then trying to buy potentially dangerous items in the belief that they are "scientifically proven" the way the article is written.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clear POV essay. The very fact that it's titled "Comprehensive study" suggests that this is an original synthesis of information and violates WP:OR. (Wow, talk about an unnecessarily overly wikilinked article, too.) The platinum nanoparticle article is a bit more difficult, but on the balance, I think it should be deleted. The article is definitely fringe-oriented. None of the more outlandish claims are sourced. In fact, it looks to me like only the trivial claims in that article have sources. There are decent nanoparticle articles out there, like gold nanoparticles, but there isn't much in this article worth salvaging. eaolson (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals. It is unencyclopedic and the topic is best covered at aging and free radicals. The style of writing is also hopelessly irretrievable as a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Platinum nanoparticles. It has some authoritative refs and will be a subject that is increasingly notable. It is already sufficiently notable to keep. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: just fringe theories completely unsourced.--Garrondo (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we need an article on platinum nanoparticles--a notable, mainstream topic with thousands of scholarly references. But the current version of the article is not it. I'm not sure if it can be cleaned up or if it's just easier to delete and start from scratch. --Itub (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Platinum Nanoparticles & Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals as it has a reliable academic and scientific background, supported by laboratory examines, tests and researches. The correlation between aging, antioxidants, free oxygen radicals and the role played by Platinum Nanopartciles has been proved by a team of Japanese scientists and this is a patented research.

To attest the above mentioned, you can check out the link to the official site of the widely respected Scientific Journal : http://www.elsevier.com which provides its readers with the patented scientific articles after thorough research and scientific proof and publishes only the scientifically accepted articles.

Patented Article: "Effects of a potent antioxidant, platinum nanoparticle, on the lifespan of Caenorhabditis elegans"

Section where you can be able to download the patented article : MECHANISMS OF AGEING AND DEVELOPMENT

patent rights reserved with: Juewon Kim , Mayumi Takahashi , Takahiko Shimizu , Takuji Shirasawa , Masashi Kajita - a,, Atsuhiro Kanayama - a,2, Yusei Miyamoto- ,

( All the above mentioned authors are the active team members and reputed Scientists at the Department of Integrated Biosciences, University of Tokyo, Chiba, Japan b Research Team for Molecular Biomarkers, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan).

The access to the article is restricted, so if needed, I can provide you with the content of the full article which confirms the information, given by the author of the Wikipedia article.

Here you can study the abstract:

A B S T R A C T We have shown that platinum nanoparticles (nano-Pt) are a superoxide dismutase (SOD)/catalase mimetic. Various data have shown extension of the Caenorhabditis elegans lifespan by antioxidant treatment. The present study was designed to elucidate the survival benefit conferred by nano-Pt, as compared to the well-known SOD/catalase mimetic EUK-8. At 0.5 mM, nano-Pt significantly extended the lifespan of wild-type N2 nematodes and at 0.25 and 0.5 mM, nano-Pt recovered the shortened lifespan of the mev-1(kn1)mutant, which is due to excessive oxidative stress. In both instances, EUK-8 at 0.05, 0.5, and 5 mM did not extend nematode lifespan. Even when 0.4 M paraquat was loaded exogenously, nano-Pt (0.1 and 0.5 mM) and EUK-8 (0.5 and 5 mM) were effective in rescuing worms.

Moreover, 0.5 mM nano-Pt significantly reduced the accumulation of lipofuscin and ROS induced by paraquat. We measured the in vitro dose-dependent quenching of O2_ and H2O2, indicating that nano-Pt is a more potent SOD/catalase mimetic than EUK-8. Nano-Pt prolonged the worm lifespan, regardless of thermotolerance or dietary restriction. Taken together, nano-Pt has interesting anti-ageing properties. _ 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Reason for keeping the Wikipedia articles: the information given is correct as it has a reliable scientific background (patented article, given on the mentioned website, approved by the competent editorial committee ), so it can be edited later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manifolda (talk • contribs) 12:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just wanted to make a couple of comments:

Scientific journals are not patented. Perhaps you meant copyrighted.
Elsevier is not a scientific journal, it is a publisher.
The correct link to the journal article in question is [23]
The article is a single study on the lifespan of a particular species of roundworm. The claims of near-miraculous anti-aging properties of Pt nanoparticles in humans are completely unsupported by this article. eaolson (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the comprehensive assessment article as impossibly original research (essentially an essay) and a unecessary content fork. The platinum nanoparticles article, I would lean toward deletion, but keep and rewrite from scratch would also be an option. It will require a near-complete rewrite to comply with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, appropriate sourcing, original research, and undue weight. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or rewrite) Platinum nanoparticles after cutting out all the ageing references and any controversial parts, as the basis for a scientific article. --Vendeka (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Platinum nanoparticles and Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals, because both articles are based on the scientific researches, which have particular results. These experimental results were achieved after various tests and can be used as an argument to consider the infirmation given here as unbiassed, impartial and reliable. Both articles should be kept, although hey can be marked as articles which can be edited / completed. - Padiist (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: both editors wanting to keep the "comprehensive study" article are single purpose accounts, where one even created the other's user page. For all clarity, the other editors arguing to keep "platinum nanoparticles" ins ome form are not spa's at all, so this note is solely about the "comprehensive study" part. Fram (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the articles

The author of the article over-enthusiastically did mention a few commercial products like chewing gum (Platinum chewing gum — Russian chewing gum, Nanogum-Japanese chewing gum , cosmetics (anti-wrinkle cream— a Paris based cosmetic manufacturer Loreal ,is the only one product that is presently in market) , sunscreen lotions etc.

It would be naive of us to think and delete the articles thinking that a single person could be in charge of so called propaganda or advertising for all these international brands. I think this is untrue.

I sincerely believe that this issue has popped up due to the over enthusiasm to provide maximum information by the author.

But realizing his / her genuine mistake, the author has sincerely edited and deleted that part of the article.

In Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals the aging and actions of reactive oxygen species is linked , there is a huge amount of credible data regarding anti-oxidants, scientifically proven causes of free radicals (that is not present even in the wikipedia) and so on and so forth. This article is very informative and is attested with credible references and links.

Platinum nanoparticles Though a lot of research is still being carried out on this subject, the article is informative, scientific and is supported by scientific references and external links. - Vichyu2 (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive study... is a great title for a dissertation, but it's the wrong approach for an encyclopedia article. And we already have articles on aging and on free radicals, as someone pointed out. --Itub (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close. Why are we still discussing this? This page was redirected to steel back on the 31st. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unwrapped steel[edit]

I believe there is no type of steel known as "unwrapped steel". The article may be referring to wire-wrapped cabling. I think this may originate from a bad news release. They might mean "placed one after another, the steel would be x long". A search of google scholar reveals no information on this "type" of steel. User A1 (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This had already been made into a redirect, not an article. It is useful as a redirect because the term "unwrapped steel" is in use on the Internet. The purpose of the redirect is two-fold: (1) to get readers to the right article, and (2) to prevent accidental re-creation of the article that was formerly at this title. Fg2 (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Steel and keep redirect]] - Before the redirect, there are several article links that would benefit the steel page when merged to the appropriate section. Turlo Lomon (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect. And can someone give an authoritative statement about what it means - please? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This might prove tricky, as I believe it is trying to find a definition for a term that may not have a technical meaning. For example the term "unwrapped" does not occur anywhere in the book "Bainite in steels"^[1] . I can find more *examples* of it not occurring in the coming days, but I don't think I can find an example of it occurring, thus making the request for an authoritative statement difficult to satisfy from a logic perspective (It can only be proved to exist, not to not exist, without an exhaustive search of every reference work ever ;) ). As for preventing recreation an admin could "salt" the page to prevent recreation. I don't like the idea of keeping the redirect, 'cause like it or not people use Wiki as a semi-authoritative, informal reference in and of itself, thus this page lends credence to the term, which as the term is not defined it becomes a form of unverifiable information. User A1 (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additionally I propose that the references that were in the page, (1) and ~~(3)~~ (edit: 4) are about another topic all together (wire-wound steel cabling, not unwrapped steel) and are thus invalid. The only reference that, in my opinion, stands valid after scrutiny is the design page, which seems has no technical content. 08:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit -- struck out (3) and replaced with 4. Also the building article seems to be quite generic. User A1 (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article references - from the history of the article so we have everything for discussion in one place. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A CURSORY OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROJECTS ACCOMPLISHED IN RECENT PAST and ONGOING University of Akron Retrieved August 30, 2008
The ambitious design has called for 45,000t of unwrapped steel knitted in an intricate open-weave structure to form the gentle curving basis of the stadium. The final building will house 91,000 spectators, alongside shops, restaurants, cafes, bars and meeting spaces. - Design Build Network Retrieved August 30, 2008
The last straws: Herzog & de Meuron's Beijing Olympic building - Building Retrieved August 30, 2008
Filtering of NDT signals obtained from wrapped steel cables Retrieved August 30, 2008

Delete It looks to me like a term thrown out casually by the Beijing National Stadium promoters, but which is not actually a term of art, or in common use, in any field of engineering. It's just a weird use of the adjective "unwrapped", not a type of steel or a recognizable type of architecture. 18.4.2.3 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some reason this has not been processed. Personally I would prefer if the comments from before my statement about the quality of the referencing confirm their stance on this AfD, on the chance that the presented case has altered their stance. I will post this to the AfD discussion, in case I haven't used the system properly. User A1 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-occurrences[edit]

Google scholar - not here. Only in reference to wire-wound (wrapped) steel cables or piano strings.
Bainite in steels (reference below)

References[edit]

^ Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H. Bainite in steels, transformations, mircostructure and properties. The institute of metals. ISBN 1-86125-112-2.

Comment this AFD was not transcluded on a daily log and the above comments were made before it was transcluded. I have now added it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 8 and the discussion will close five days from now. Hut 8.5 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spectacular fail. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of German-speaking photographers in the Americas[edit]

I'm no linguist, but if i had to define indiscriminate, this article would probably be the best example i could come up with. It's only a few similar article ideas away from stipulating the hair colour and body mass of the individuals mentioned. Completely unnecesary list that provides nothing to wikipedia. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm sure I'm missing something, here, but I'm just not seeing it. Is there a German Photojornalism article of which this would be a component? I'm sure there's a purpose to this list, but it is currently unsourced and, quite possibly, unsourceable for some of the names listed; it cannot remain in this state. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom, pure listcruft ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I can't imagine any rationale for such a segregated list. It's unverifiable and while the introduction narrows things down a bit, the title of the list would require the inclusion of any photographer located in North or South America who happens to speak German. Impossible to maintain. 23skidoo (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete about a half-step away from List of mandarin-speaking pastry chefs in Uruguay on the article goofiness scale. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A joke, right? Bulldog123 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's as bizarre a title as I've seen for a serious article; there apparently is an art exhibit called "The German Eye in America", and there were photographers who were inspired by others to preserve the record of indigenous tribes, similar to those linguists who document a rarely spoken language before it goes extinct. The article's point seems to be that Germans took a lead in that type of historical preservation. I suggest that the author might want to take this down (since it's on its way down anyway) and retool this to be more about photographers of indigenous tribes in the Americas, and less about their nation of origin. It may well be that they were mostly Germans, but this is a strange way to present it. Mandsford (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen per nom. JuJube (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), improvements made to article consensus reached as keep. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 06:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence[edit]

POV-fork of International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, indiscriminate collection of personal opinions of questionable notability. Colchicum (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and numerous arguments presented at Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.--Kober^Talk 15:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This doesn't seem to have anything we couldn't have in the parent article, but there could be something in there worth merging, and it's a potential search term. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia has made some good improvements to the article and I like the new direction it has taken. Changing my opinion to keep. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kosovo has a similar article. There is controversy about this subject. The article has plenty of sources. Besides, the international recognition article would be too crowded if we merged and added all of these opinions to that article. --Tocino 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Colchicum (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea! But as it is now the article is nothing more then WP:FORK and WP:NPOV, I tried to delete the opinions sector since it had the most WP:FORK and WP:NPOV but some keep bringin it back, then I lost my temper..., but at least I didn't invade the article using military force... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be reinforcing with the involved editors then that no-one owns the articles, without WP:BITE. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Controversy is there, and while it needs improvement, NPOV is not a deletion criteria. Vrefron (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is not a deletion criterion, content forking is. Colchicum (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, in the sense that the hypocrisy and double standards of both sides of the recognition divide has been widely reported in the media and by political analysts. There are several avenues the article can take includingt he obvious comparison of A & SO to Kosovo, the legality of A & SO declaration of independence in the 1990s, the legality of recognition under international law. International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is already quite long due to the long list in that article, but somewhere is going to be needed to place scholarly analysis. I do join with most others in the sense of being unbalanced, but I can give you examples of many articles on WP which have an extremely anti-Russian (some bordering on outright hatred) flavour to them, but the solution to this is to provide balance. And yes the embedded lists do need to go and to be standardised as per WP standards, but all it needs is for editors to be WP:BOLD and make the changes, and remember that no-one owns articles on WP, so it will not be hard to balance the views out and build an encyclopaedic article, because this is one topic which will be debated for many years to come, and it needs a presence on WP. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork of International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and indeed an "indiscriminate collection of personal opinions of questionable notability". This article could be OK if its subject was defined differently. This article should explain first what the controversy is about. For example, Russia did not recognize independence of Chechnya but recognized Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Or, for example, Russian military forces occupied these territories and then declared them independent, even though they are currently occupied. This article should also explain why other countries did not recognize their independence. One of the answers: that was a purely unilateral occupation by a single country (Russia), unlike operations by NATO in Kosovo (an operation by all NATO countries), invasion of Iraq (a "coalition of willing"), and the Hitler's occupation of Chechozlovakia (Munich agreement). Hence the "recognition" also remains unilateral.Biophys (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP --Explodicle (T/C) 14:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly what the nominator said. Ostap 20:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia per WP:CFORK. DonaldDuck (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean WP:CFORK? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. DonaldDuck (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the opinions section and placed a notice on the article talk page. And have introduced information on Kosovo, and whether it does or doesn't create a precedent for A & SO. This is not my own POV, but based upon the POV of 1,000,000 web results, 7,500 news results, 700 book results and several hundred scholar results. This topic is controversial and as I have noted in the lead, both sides have been accused of hypocrisy, double standards and breaking international law, and this is one topic which already has been the result of much analysis, and will continue to be the result of analysis in international law in the future, and is clearly encyclopaedic in nature and should not be deleted, but worked upon. Now, of course, the pro-Georgian, anti-Russian crowd above (they know who they are) will totally disagree because put simply they do not want such a topic on WP because they want to portray Russia as an evil monster and want as much condemnation on here as possible, but their desires have to be overridden by 1,000,000 web results, 7,500 news results, 700 book results and several hundred scholar results --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how many times you repeat them, Google hits are not a reliable source on their own, nor a replacement for consensus. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus thus far is based upon the embedded list of quotes which has now been removed, so for all intents and purposes, the consensus surely now has to start yet again. International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is already too long approaching the 100kb mark, and can no longer be regarded as WP:CFORK but must be regarded as WP:SPLIT. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that there was already a consensus here, I just don't think we should let Google searches alone override our editors. That being said, I like what you've done with the article; both the international recognition article and the 2008 South Ossetia war article are too long and this looks like a good place to elaborate. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know you weren't implying there was consensus already, I was just pointing out that due to major change in subject content, that the major problem that people seem to had with the article is gone...of course, it can come back if wikified and written as prose, not just simply as a quotefarm. Additionally, the Google hits was done as a head them off at the pass manouevre with a presumption that editors could use the same excuse at International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in trying to rid the Kosovo precedent claiming it's not notable and has nothing to do with the subject at hand (with one also claiming I have to prove a precedent...of course that's not my position to do, I simply have to work with what WP:RS state, and the Google test was to show there is plenty of those to use and that it is a notable subject. And thanks for changing your position also, there's still a lot of work to go yet though. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The POV concerns seem to be misplaced now and calling it a fork is weak given the large amount of content in the other article. If this information was put in that article it would probably be split.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well-sourced.--Miyokan (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The topic seems to be either a fork from International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia or an ORish compilation of unrelated events, which are presented to prove the author's opinion. I haven't found any scholarly sources per WP:V to justify this topic and the article. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which events would you say are unrelated? --Explodicle (T/C) 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source entitled "Kosovo Precedent Prevails" which has further information and is going to be used as a source for information. Just as I have taken info from the Heritage Foundation and will be taking information from a whole range of sources to expand on what the controversy is. And its not all pro-Russian, a good half of it is anti-Russian. As time goes on, there will be more and more sources which will delve into the legal aspects, and at that stage they can and will added. Refer to the correspondent Kosovo article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all, no consensus for a transwiki. I am amiable to undeletion to transwiki, however. lifebaka++ 15:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Story of Jatila[edit]

Hindu parables, primary source text, nothing else, no secondary sources. Unsuitable for Wikipedia, at best transwiki to Wikisource. Huon (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep — There are similar articles in wikipedia, for ex: List of parables told by Jesus (few of these parables are based on Primary source text), The Rooster Prince, Blind men and an elephant, so I see no harm in having them., but if the consensus is to delete these articles, we can definitely move them to wikiversity / wikisource. But yes, the quality of the articles needs to be improved, by adding citation templates, removing "Sri" according to the wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. -- vineeth (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — After reading Huon's comment, I am changing my vote, I strongly feel that the parables should be moved to wikisource, And there are several parables of Ramakrishna which are very interesting, but not notable to be included in wikipedia. Thanks Huon! -- vineeth (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Millions of the stories like that are made up. Wikidās ॐ 12:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the articles are a repository of text. Maybe useful for wikisource, but these aren't encyclopedia articles. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Per List of parables told by Jesus. The following two are among many of those Parables of Jesus that are entirely text from the New Testament: The Birds of Heaven and The Test of a Good Person. And then read Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The lead of that WikiProject is directly addressing this type of situation. So rather than delete, articles should be kept and allowed to be expanded. ~ priyanath ^talk 04:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason to keep an article. I have already informed the Wikiproject Christianity of the horrible state of some of the parable articles. If they don't take action soon, I'll nominate Jesus' parables for deletion, too. Judging from some of the better Jesus parable articles, secondary sources are likely to exist for them, though - I'm not convinced secondary sources exist for these stories. Huon (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added Parables of Ramakrishna to the list above. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, Huon - the fact that the Jesus parables existed for 2 1/2 years without any challenge does indicate a certain bias on Wikipedia (though I'm not at all implying a bias on your part, and never intended it that way). Having seen some other notable India-related articles nominated recently, even though there were reliable sources to support their inclusion, I can be a bit touchy about the systemic (and unintentional) bias. Moving the individual parables to Wikisource is a good idea. ~ priyanath ^talk 05:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Flores[edit]

No major notability established. Lead claims that his company, Matrin Records and Films, has "no major projects." His other claims of notability are weak or non-existent. seicer | talk | contribs 13:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability established. Mrh30 (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be established per WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources and thus fails to meet WP:N, WP:BIO. dissolve ^talk 05:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawing.. seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Schwartz House[edit]

Possibly notable with the query of the residence in question, but the article makes no allusion to this or much else. Declined speedy previously. seicer | talk | contribs 13:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Frank Lloyd Wright house up for deletion. Wow. Just a few seconds of browsing google books brings up many non-trivial sources [24] [25], as does google news [26]. I've inserted a couple of the sources into the article. Question: Why was this article nominated for deletion within only seven hours of its creation?--Oakshade (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frank Lloyd Wright is one of America's most notable architects, so we should have an article on this house. The house isn't on the National Register of Historic Places, but I'm sure it would be listed if someone wrote up a nomination. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would normally comment to delete a non-registered house, but a Frank Lloyd Wright design is certain to become a registered historic place because of his strong notability. Every structure he designed is notable and ample reliable sources should easily be found. Royal broil 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), consensus is obviously a keep. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 06:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Battleship Yamato planets[edit]

This article fails having reliable sources to support information it fails Wikipedia's criteria WP:reliable

Dwanyewest (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original listing was messed up; nom forgot to add a header just like with the other two AfD noms he made on the same day, so if I did this right (not positive on that since it's my first time doing it and I just copied the header from another AfD and changed it appropriately) then the five-days timing should start today. Also, weak keep - the article is a mess, but AfD is not cleanup. Gelmax (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extremely excessive WP:PLOT detail about an unnotable fictional aspect of the series. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganize and then keep/merge It should be renamed to "Setting of Space Battleship Yamato" instead of trying to pass off as a list. That said, after it's de-listified and competently reduced to a few paragraphs I'm sure there's a place for it. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganize and Keep as per Norse Am Legend. Edward321 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for cleanup per Norse Am Legend's excellent suggestion; once this is trimmed down (and other articles in the series are cleaned up) it'll be easier to see where the remaining information should be merged. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. Merging may not be a bad idea for some of these articles into a larger, more comprehensive (and of course, sourced) league article. Don't need AFD for that though. Keeper ǀ 76 18:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tallangatta & District Football League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tallangatta & District Football League

This is an amateur Australian Rules football league. It presents no evidence on why it or its member clubs are notable. Grahame (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because none of then show why they are notable:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is ample coverage in The Border Mail, these local football clubs are often the biggest and most prominent organisations in these towns and these clubs are often over 100 years old. If they need improving, then let them be improved rather than delete them. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment" I've no doubt that the The Border Mail regularly reports on their activities, I suspect that evidence of things that they have done are notable would be harder to find.--Grahame (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All amateur football clubs well below AFL standard in a provincial and non-notable league. It's hard to envisage genuine notability of any of these clubs, apart from their longevity. If they have indeed made a substantial impact on their home towns, then such detail could be included in their home town's article. Murtoa (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is nothing in WP:ORG requiring that sports clubs be either professional or at national standard, and indeed there are hundreds of articles on minor and amateur teams and leagues. Is there amateur play in Australian football at a higher level? RGTraynor 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: yes, non-commercial organizations can be included if notable, but "organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found".--Grahame (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. The article was tagged, and reliable references were requested 5 months ago. Nobody has been able to provide any. Nothing in the article can be verified. Delete! --Lester 03:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. Of course it would be featured in the Border Mail but apart from that theres nothing, no one can provide reliable references to improve the pages as Lester said and all of it would just be original research. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the league (Tallangatta now has the external references added and templates as do most other country leagues). If a country town is notable then its footy team and league is (particularly for those who live there). Anything about the individual teams can be included in the town article, but an article on the league is required for navigation if nothing else. Delete the individual clubs, not well-written, never will be and not much to say. (Epistemos (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep for all articles for which verifiable secondary sources can be found after some effort has been made to find relevant sources. After this search, individual non-notable clubs can either be merged to the League article, or with their own town article. However, I would be very surprised if there were not many secondary references for each club, especially some of the older clubs that date back more than 100 years. I am poorly versed in sports history, but I suspect there are secondary references in published historical sources for many of the club articles. As said before, most clubs would also be substantively reported on by local papers, so would be very surprised if they are deleted because no verifiable secondary sources could be found. Amateur Footie clubs are often locally important, even notable, social organisations and football league games are important social events in country Australia. This is reflected by the coverage in the sports journalism in country newspapers. I am keenly aware we need to take into account from WP:Notability the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources.--Takver (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Secondary Sources; I suggest that More Than a Game: An Unauthorized History of Australian Rules Football By Rob Hess, Bob Stewart, Contributor Martin Flanagan, Published by Melbourne University Press, 1998 ISBN 0522847722, ISBN 9780522847727, 304 pages might be useful as a secondary source if it details the country leagues and clubs. I also did a check for sources for one of the above clubs picked at random - Rutherglen Football club - Google News found 3 news articles, the Border Mail had an additional two articles. I am sure there are other local papers which would also provide secondary sources. It just needs someone to add some of these related secondary sources to each article to satisfy the WP:N guideline.--Takver (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent and non-local sources. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Survivor: The Australian Outback. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Bingham[edit]

Unnotable Survivor contestant, only claim to fame is that he placed fifth in the show, which really isn't notable at all. He fails WP:1E as well. Tavix (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor: The Australian Outback -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as copyvio. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs of 2005[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs of 2005

Reproducing a magazine's "top 100" list is a copyright violation. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:COPYVIO. Should really be a speedy delete. Mrh30 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a speedy tag was placed on the article after I posted it here, but was declined because no URL was provided. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 14:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for copyvio, re-tagged with URL ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as Copyvio. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs of 2007[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs of 2007

Reproducing a magazine's "top 100" list is a copyright violation. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:COPYVIO I think says it all. Mrh30 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for copyvio per G12, retagged with URL ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I have merged all of the information formerly here to Coconut#Non-culinary, and accordingly redirected this page. (The nominator could have done this all by himself, too, and it appears to be what was really wanted.) Closing this as moot. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narikela[edit]

Narikela is just the Sanskrit name of coconut. An article on coconut already exists, this info can copied there. Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC) References:[reply]

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I sense a deletion coming... seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dive[edit]

Declined prod. Article states "possible upcoming movie that James Cameron says that he will do after his big movies". The cited reference says "James Cameron told the Hollywood Reporter that he wants “to do something a lot smaller” after Avatar. It is possible that Cameron’s next project could be The Dive". These are two different things (i.e. Cameron doesn't mention this film by name). Fails WP:CRYSTAL and the notability requirements for future films WP:NFF as principal photography has not been confirmed to have started. Tassedethe (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:Crystal and WP:NFF. Bring it back when principle filming ever begins. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this speculation on a "possible upcoming movie". Cliff smith ^talk 22:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dog_health#Heart_disease. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The QUEST study[edit]

Article about a somewhat generically named clinical trial recently (Sep 08) published in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. It is already quoted in Pimobendan and the reported results are reflected in press clippings, but that doesn't mean that the study itself is notable as being itself the subject of independent coverage and already had a lasting impact . Tikiwont (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To address specifically the points you raise:
- The study is the largest undertaken in the history of veterinary cardiology. I respectfully suggest that in terms of impact, this study will have a profound and extremely long-lasting effect on the way heart disease is treated in dogs.
- Heart disease affects 1 in 10 dogs, and with a US dog population of 68 million (USA today, Sept 6th, 2002), that means that this information is going to be relevant to a lot of people.
- On the issue of notability, the topic is sufficiently noteworthy to have achieved coverage in at least one quality national paper in the UK - The Daily Telegraph. [27]
- In regard to the comment on the naming of the study, QUEST stands for "QUality of life and Extension of Survival Time" according to the publication. Johnjamesbarrowman (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. Let me just clarify that

(i) you may opr may not be right about it's possible long term impact, but it seems to be too early to be sure;
(ii) I sympathize with the plight of the dogs and their owners, but surely hope they get good advice elsewhere
(iii) clinical trials are part of the life cycle of a drug as are confirming or contradicting studies as well as meta studies, official approbations and later controversies; in fact the aptly named Telegraph article "New drug to treat dogs with heart disease" mostly demonstrates that mainstream media are beginning to take notice of the drug and it is not a question that we can have an article on the drug itslef.
(iv) The full title still applies somewhat generally to the scope of many medications and other studies have the same name which apart from making searching for refs more difficult, is indeed not really relevant here.

In short, there need to be very good reasons to have a separate article on a clinical trial, and I don't think this is the case here. But there will now be five days for other wikipedians to weigh in.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tikiwont (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dog_health#Heart_disease. I'd also support a new article on Cardiology (veterinary) or Cardiology (dogs). This study is not notable enough to justify its own article. There isn't enough information to reach even a B-class article. It's just too small of a topic. However, Wikipedia should certainly mention this study, in the context of a larger topic area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Completely lacks context; reader is much better served with a good article on MMVD and its treatments than one short article about one trial comparing some of its treatments. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the feedback. I have made a small edit to the Dog_health#Heart_disease entry, which I hope is in the spirit of the feedback.Johnjamesbarrowman (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well the study can be mentioned where relevant, as usual pending editorial consent. Given that this is done by the article's creator I don't think that amounts to a merge with the need to keep the edit history, though.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 02:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation of pilots of KLM 4805 and Pan-Am 1736[edit]

I proposed this for deletion on the 7th, with the following rationale: This is not an encyclopedia article. It's a transcript of a conversation. Not too sure where this belongs, but it's not on Wikipedia. The prod was contested, so here we are. Reyk _YO! 08:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete wow, this is as unencyclopedic as it gets. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Irrelevant - Skysmith (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or add reference to Tenerife Disaster item on accident itself. I don't see a reference in THAT article to the transcript, perhaps one should be added. It *is* an important part of the Tenerife Story, but doesn't merit its own article I agree. MadScot666 (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, the transcript is an important part of the Tenerife Disaster story, but this is not an encyclopedia article and is unlikely to become one. I found an annotated version of the trancript online here, and added it as an external link in the main article under the title "The last eight minutes". Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the complete text of the transcript is of value, as it may well be at Tenerife Disaster, then perhaps something might be placed at Wikisource, which exists for stuff such as this? The added complication is that having the transcript on a wikipedia article inherently means that it can be edited, and thus loses all integrity as a reliable source (ignoring its being on wikipedia). So using this article as a source to document the incident defeats the purpose. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from encyclopaedia -- It is conceivable this could be retained elsewhere (wikisource?), provided there are no copyright issues. Furthermore I am not sure that "Ternerife Disaster" should exist even as a redirect - possibly "Tenerife Aviation Disaster". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Add a source that features the transcript as a source in the Tenerife Disaster article, if it isn't already there. This article itself is merely a transcript and a possible cut-and-paste from somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every single piece of information on the planet. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I have it all wrong, but you have to laugh when you see comments like 'irrelevant' about a transcript of the cockpit-tower communications of a major air disaster where the chief cause was attributed to mis-communication. I mean honeslty, h-l-l-o !! . As for WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I have to wonder if people ever look at what they are linking too. I mean, at a push I suppose you could put it to a tune, but it certainly isn't a list of song-lyrics. We must delete it because it could be edited and become unreliable? Well, that's the whole of en.wiki up for deletion then. It's not an article? Well it clearly could be with proper accompanying text, and for length reasons alone it merits a fork from the main article. I'm no expert on copyright, but the only even plausible delete opinion made here is potential copyright (i.e. is it copyrightable? - nobody produces cockpit voice for commercial gain, it has to be recorded in multiple places, any media reproducer is not the original copyright holder etc etc), but even so, that argument isn't even made for 6 whole votes!. Realy, honestly. MickMacNee (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Hm, I'm hoping I can clarify a bit for you here. First off, WP:IINFO states merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Additionally, WP:NOTREPOSITORY states Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents', letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording (emph. mine); this transcript is source material, only useful in its unmodified state. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is quite clearly not comparable in context or relevance to an article to a text dump of source code or text of a law. MickMacNee (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply True, it's not the same as a text dump of source code or of legal documents, but it does qualify as original historical documents that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. It's not the place of Wikipedia to store this sort of information. Maybe Wikisource, but not Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable: blogger who was fired from Google in early 2005 for disclosing corporate secrets on his blog (without thinking about the consequences of what he was doing). People get fired for doing dumb things all the time: not much that's special about this one. No media exposure whatsoever outside the context of this minor event. Flagboy (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- subject not notable beyond this one event. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blog. This is indeed a WP:BLP1E case. Despite a search (and there's a certain irony about Googling for "Mark Jen") it appears to me that the subject is not notable outside of this incident. A brief mention is at Blog#Employment; it could be expanded with this information. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added to Blog wht seems to be relevant, namely the circumstances of his firing, but not most of the biographical information. Flagboy (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please note that the "Mark Jensen" article listed in the previous AFDs is not connected to this article. 23skidoo (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a BLP1E case if there ever was one. No evidence of any lasting long-term impact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message of the Sphinx[edit]

Unnotable fringe book by pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock. No sources and violates WP:UNDUE. We66er (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm not sure how exactly to establish whether this passes WP:BK, but there are at least two mentions in the New York Times, though they are somewhat cursory. Amazon points to some reviews of the book. But otherwise it isn't clear-cut to me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It received some mainstream coverage, is in at least 746 libraries, and is a best-seller of some sort. So, I think the book has some legitimate claims to notability. At the very least, we should convert the article into a Redirect for Graham Hancock (though with some cleanup, it can be a Keeper). Zagalejo^^^ 06:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the links others have found, it appears to be a notable fringe book by a pseudoarchaeologist. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here are a few reliable sources to show that this book passes WP:BK:

Scott, Whitney. "Media: Audiobooks." Booklist 96, no. 2 (September 15, 1999): 277., Abstract: Reviews several audiobooks on history. ......`The Message of the Sphinx: The Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind,' by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval;
Stuttaford, Genevieve. "Forecasts: Nonfiction." Publishers Weekly 243, no. 25 (June 17, 1996): 56., Abstract: Reviews the book `The Message of the Sphinx: A Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind,' by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval.
Macdonald, Sally (2003). Consuming Ancient Egypt (Encounters with Ancient Egypt). London: UCL Press. p. 185. ISBN 1-84472-003-9.
LaViolette, Paul A. (2005). Earth Under Fire: Humanity's Survival of the Ice Age. Bear & Company. p. 107. ISBN 1-59143-052-6.

There are more, a simple search on google books shows this book is notable. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the book has two reviews and was mentioned in two other books. Can you improve the quality of the article and demonstrate notablity? We66er (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reliable sources provided in the AfD discussion are to show that the article subject meets the notability requirements of WP:BK. We are trying to determine if the article topic is notable not necessarily re-writing the article during the AfD discussion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually improving the aricle with things claimed in the sources would do a better job than just a list of, in some cases inaccessible without purchase, of sources. We66er (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make is that the main purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine if the article passes the relevant notability requirements. It's great if someone has the knowledge of the topic, access to the sources and the time to improve the article. Determining notability of the article and improving the article are two separate tasks and our main task at an AfD discussion is to determine notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I took your point. My point, on the other hand, is despite the two reviews and two books that you say mention it, the article is still without sources and still has not asserted notablity after a year and a half. If its notable then spend 5 minutes and show us. Just saying its been reviewed in two publications isn't convincing of notablity. We66er (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Passing the notability guidelines for books is rather convincing of notability. As bad as books like these may be, the fact that their content is pseudoscientific is essentially irrelevant. Ardric47 (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sign and the Seal[edit]

Unnotable fringe book by pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock. No sources and violates WP:UNDUE. We66er (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article needs sourcing, there seems to be plenty of material in reliable sources (see e.g. [28]) to demonstrate notability. Scog (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to have received a decent amount of media coverage - much more than the Sphinx book. It's also in at least 1000 libraries. With some sourcing and cleanup, it's a solid Keep. At the very least, we should make it a redirect to Graham Hancock. Zagalejo^^^ 07:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few refs. Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As fringe as The Da Vinci Code, so what? Fringe sells. NVO (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book achieved significant sales and media attention. —12.72.73.68 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not assert any of the criteria for notability. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources, it appears to be a notable fringe book by a pseudoarchaeologist. Edward321 (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are some reliable sources that show that the book passes WP:BK:

Killheffer, Robert K.J. "Finder of the lost ark?." Omni 17, no. 1 (October 1994): 29., Abstract: Discusses the book `The Sign and the Seal: A Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant,' by British journalist Graham Hancock.
Clapham, C. "A far-fetched treasure." TLS (May 15, 1992): 23., Abstract: Reviews `The Sign and the Seal: A quest for the lost Ark of the Covenant,' by Graham Hancock
Stanford, P. "Grail travels." New Statesman & Society 5, no. 196 (April 03, 1992): 46., Abstract: Reviews the book `The Sign and the Seal: A Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant,' by Graham Hancock.
Stuttaford, G. "Forecasts: Nonfiction." Publishers Weekly 239, no. 13 (March 09, 1992): 45., Abstract: Reviews the book `The Sign and the Seal: A Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant,` by Graham Hancock. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add some of those to the article and improve it to keepable quality? As of now, the article doesn't insert importance. We66er (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added three refs to the article. I can't immediately access any of the above, but maybe someone else can. In any case, it should be clear that the topic passes WP:N, even if the article hasn't reached its full potential. Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reliable sources provided in the AfD discussion are to show that the article subject meets the notability requirements of WP:BK. We are trying to determine if the article topic is notable not necessarily re-writing the article during the AfD discussion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and Zagalejo can't access some of the "sources." Thus, actually improving the article with things claimed in the sources would do a better job than just a list of, in some cases inaccessible without purchase, of sources. We66er (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you can not access the sources, I obtained them via the EBSCO database available through my local public libraries web site. As I mentioned in a similar thread in another AfD we are trying to establish notability of this book in the AfD discussion not necessarily improving the article to include all of the proofs of notability. They are two very different tasks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (A3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Richardson (disambiguation)[edit]

Disambiguation page with a grand total of 1 disambiguated link. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unneeded dab page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if we had two articles to disambiguate, we could do so with ((otheruses)) or similar templates. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A1, so nominated with comment ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no consensus, I'm going to restore all revisions, contact me if any need deletion--Salix alba (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Baxter[edit]

I had deleted this article via CSD due to 1/ Non notable with no indication of importance, 2/ speedy deleted due to relevance in an "outing" case; it was subsequently nominated at WP:DRV. I have restored a slight modification of the last, non-BLP version of the article with unverifiable/nonfactual information removed; details of the removed information have been noted on the talk page of the article. I believe that this article falls far below the requirements for WP:PROF; the only verifiable remotely notable fact about him is that, following his demise, his faculty named an annual half-day lecture, held on campus, in his honour. Risker (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Laurence A. Baxter of the State University of New York at Stony Brook is a published professor, see [29], therefore meeting WP:PROF. Neıl ☄ 08:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to argue, but I do want to point out - 22 results. Result two is as an editor. There is a memorial in there. The last is not him also. That is less than one article per year, and most weren't that important. I think the rest need to be thoroughly checked and compared to other academics every day that come under attack for not being notable enough for PROF. To use your words "by existing standards, applied evenly." By these words, we would have deleted the page without second thought based on how we apply PROF standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was also editor of the International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management and Naval Research Logistics, which is a further push in the right direction, I think. I'll keep digging. Neıl ☄ 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you are digging, it would be important to identify whether or not these journals are of sufficient significance for his editorship to be considered noteworthy. Are they considered important within their field? Did they have a significant circulation at the time he was editing them? When did he edit them? By whom were they published? Does all of the information about them come from reliable third party sources? (The latter is a serious concern because of the amount of mirroring and the extracts from the original article found on various websites.) Risker (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he is sole editor, then the journals aren't notable enough to mention. If he is not, chances are his job as an editor isn't notable enough to mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep per Neil. Needs to be carefully watched for obvious reasons. George and FTs points make perfect sense.Minkythecat (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the risk of an "elephant in the room" moment, may I point out that the only thing sourced in the article at the present time is the memorial lecture. The rest of the information appears to be added by someone who we cannot rely on to add accurate information, following recent revelations. However, there do appear to be sources out there. May I suggest - and I know this is out of the norm, but so is the situation - the article is deleted and then recreated so there is no link to the original creator of the article. Sadly, I think this may be the first of quite a few items that appear at AFD, throughout the Wikimedia George The Dragon (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I did not check the history or talk page and now I can see the article has been deleted and recreated prior to the AFD. I applaud the decision to do so George The Dragon (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on WP:PROF - Academics routinely get published. WP:PROF #1 is that The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed. This is what would need evidencing, not merely "has been published". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment on the content, not the contributor". FT2, a record of numerous publications (such as those of Baxter) would meet "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". Whilst Poetlister may have been behind the creation of the article, Laurence Baxter is almost certainly notable by existing standards, applied evenly. Neıl ☄ 10:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant. It would need discussion and evidence whether he made "significant impact" in his academic field (as opposed to marginal or low impact). That's not something to deduce from "had a lecture named after him" or "was published" or "who wrote the article". One needs to consider the effect of his work on his field of study. Was it "significant"? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would strike me that a sign of "significant impact" would be evidence that his work continued to be referred to by other professionals in the field over the 12 years after his death. I am not seeing any evidence of that in my searches; however, others may find something, and I won't discount the possibility. As to the lecture, I myself have attended many "memorial" lectures that are little more than lectures that would have happened anyway, but someone decided to name it in honour of a particular departed colleague. The lecture might be noteworthy if there is indication in independent, third party references that it is considered a significant lecture; for example, a report in a large-circulation specialty journal. Risker (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Risker. Very little in the original article was verifiable and read like a resume for obvious reasons. Though the article has been substantially cut down it still suffers from the same problems regarding assertion of notability and verifiability per George above. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the deletion it does not meet current notability guidelines and verifiability guidelines and that is all this AfD really needs to consider. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given evidence above that the article can be improved; I will do so over the next day or two. Neıl ☄ 10:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My !votes are rarely set in stone so if that happens then fine but work on it from where it is now rather than restoring the old revisions as suggested by Anthony below. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't have verifiable sources to go off of to claim this person is the person that some have thought may have published enough to fit. When it comes to identities that may or may not be true, this one seems to fall under that. I have worked on many academics when trying to deal with PROF, and I feel this does not fit the case if the identity is true. If someone at Stony Brook later comes by and remakes the page with reliable and well sourced information, then sure. I couldn't find anything in notable newspapers to suggest that he was big enough to warrant even a mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and undelete history. Clearly notable as there are a lot of people looking at this article. History should be restored both to show the historical development of the article and to comply with the GFDL. Anthony (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did multiple people looking at an article = notability? Lets be more scientific: this shows that there aren't any worth while articles linking to it to really say that there is much of connection to anything on Wikipedia. If he was notable within a subject or a topic, there would have to be something at least. You'll need a lot more than a vague "lot of people looking at this article", which could easily be dismissed as them looking at it because of the recent scandal that is not real worldly notable. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"When did multiple people looking at an article = notability?" IMO, this has always been the key factor in notability. It is certainly more objective than trying to figure out whether or not people should be looking at an article. Anthony (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article traffic statistics: From Henrik's Tool(incomplete data for June/July 2008)

August 2008 - 216 views, average 7.2/day, peak 23/day

May 2008 - 259 views, average 8.3/day, peak 16/day

April 2008 - 177 views, average 5.9/day, peak 12/day

September 2008 -Sept 1-5, 41 views, average 8.2/day. Sept 6 had 17 views. Sept 7 had 97 views. The increase was directly related to the linking of this article with the Poetlister matter. This is not even close to being a frequently viewed article.

--Risker (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 97 views in a single day clearly qualifies as notable (your featured article Jacques Plante barely got more than that yesterday), and Sept 8 is probably going to be even higher. And as I've said above, I don't think it's appropriate or objective to try to tell people what articles they should be looking for, especially since we're not dealing with a BLP. As far as I'm concerned, 2 or 3 views a month is notable enough. Hard drive space is cheap. Anthony (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"this has always been the key factor in notability" Honestly, I am very bothered by your definition of notability and I do not think it conforms to any of Wikipedia's policies, especially when these "views" are directly linked to the poetlister scandal and nothing else. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concurr with Ottava Rima, that Wikipedia pagehits seem a highly ideosyncratic criterion for establishing notability, one I've never seen used before. I've never seen anything like it in any of the notability guidelines. It runs completely against the spirit of WP:N. Substituting WP pagehits for extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject also bypasses all notions of verifyability etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone ought to fix WP:N, then. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The whole point of this project is to provide people with information they're looking for, no? Use common sense. ("verifyability" is a separate issue, and I see no one even challenging the fact that a verifiable article can be written. If "verifyability" -> "notability", then this is a slam dunk and you don't need my opinion.) Anthony (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~DeleteWeak deleteDelete~~Keep. Fails WP:PROF. All professors publish. I checked Web of Science and (being rather liberal to err on the side of caution, meaning some of these publicaitons may have been by another "LA Baxter") found 24 publications. These have been cited a grand total of 174 times. The most-cited article was cited 31 times. The h-index is 8. In the last 5 years (2008 only partly, of course), all articles together were cited 4, 4, 6, 2, and 1 times. (For those not used to these kind of figures, this is all rather marginal and far from notable). Naval Research Logistics is listed in the Journal Citation Reports and has a 2007 impact factor of 0.548 (its highest IF in the last 5 years, my access does not go back farther). That ranks it 40 out of 60 journals in the category "OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE". The International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management is not included in the JCR and according to its website started in 1995, so Baxter cannot have been an editor of this journal for very long. I cannot find out from their website whether Baxter was editor in chief, regional editor, or just member of the editorial board. In any case, the journal itself is not really notable. The same goes for the other journal. The only possible claim to notability left is the "memorial lecture", Risker has commented upon that above. Unless something more substantial is found, this is a clear delete to me. --Crusio (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak delete~~keep whups I see Crusio has beat me here with the WoS search results, I was going to add that those papers in journals like BIOMETRIKA, AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, APPLIED STATISTICS-JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES C, tended to have low citation counts (under a handfull each). The paper in COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS PART B-SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION 10:281-288 (1981) has ten hits... I agree with Crusio that the claim to notability seems to rest mostly on the memorial lecture, which I don't think moves it over the bar. I'm not convinced that there isn't something out there that could sway my opinion, but on the basis of what I've seen, I don't think he's had a notable academic impact greater than typical for someone in his line of work. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC) changed to "(weakish) keep" per Nsk92 below. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, edit conflict with Pete... Here is a reliable source, an obituary in the journal Naval Research Logistics. I still think this does not establish notability conclusively, but change my vote to "weak delete". I would like to know what it means that Baxter "was a member of the Royal Statistical Society, the American Statistical Society, and the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences." Are these societies where one can become a member just by paying dues and by being a scientist working in that particular field or is there something more? --Crusio (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Statistical Society, note that American Statistical Society != American Statistical Association (?), Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, and I'm also interested whether Baxter as a member in the sense of "pay your annual dues and get the journal", or whether this is to be taken as an honour akin to being a member of Category:Fellows_of_the_American_Statistical_Association (from the wording I assume the former, but I would not think that would belong in an obit...) Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking as a journal editor myself, if (God forbid) one of my Associate Editors would pass away, I would certainly publish an obit and do my darnedest to make it look as impressive as possible. So I think that I would certainly list memberships in learned societies if there were nothing else, even if that was no particular honor. All this still doesn't say much about Baxter, though. In any case, I think it is evident that he was "up and coming" and most probably would have been notable by now, if he had lived.... --Crusio (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The evidence in terms of citability is certainly weak and I am fairly sure that memberships in various societies mentioned were just ordinary memberships rather than elected ones. However, in addition to the memorial article in Naval Research Logistics[30] mentioned by Crusio, MathSciNet also gave another memorial article about him: Leitmann, George. In memoriam: Laurence Alan Baxter [1954--1996]. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 210 (1997), no. 2, pp. 417--418. It should be noted, however, that Baxter was an editor for both of these journals. I downloaded the memorial article from Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. It does say the follwing regarding his work:"Dr. Baxter was internationally renowned for his work in applied probability and reliability theory. He published over 45 papers and did extensive consulting in this area. The results of his work on separately maintained components have been incorporated into a widely used AT& T Bell Laboratories software package for calculating various characteristics of system availability. Dr. Baxter also extended several classic theorems of reliability theory for discrete structures to continuous structures, using functions that he named continuum structure functions." The article does not list any particularly impressive acolades but it does say that he was an editor of several journals and other publications: that he "conceived of and was Editor-in-Chief of Stochastic Modeling, a series of books published by Chapman and Hall of London from 1993 to the present". Other journals where he was an editor that are listed in that article are: Applied Probability Newsletter, Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Naval Research Logistics, and International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management." WP:PROF does mention journal editorships as valid contributing factors towards satisfying criterion 1 of WP:PROF (item 3 in Notes and Examples). According to this[31], there was a one-day memorial conference in his honor at Stony Brook in 1997. Together with the two memorial articles and a lecture series named after him, I think this does pass WP:PROF, albeit weakly. Nsk92 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article says in its LAST line that this person has a memorial lecture named after him. That seems to presuppose that he's notable for some reason. If the eponymous lecture is the reason, it should say so in the first sentence. If there is some other reason, it should say so in the first sentence. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unsourced claims of notability that I was unable to find any non-mirror-site support for (they are noted on the talk page of the article, in case someone can find a reliable third party source for them), but the lede is as I found it. Of course, I don't consider him to be notable, and won't until the article has independent sourcing given the history of the primary editor and the fact that there was false information in the article when it came to my attention. I still don't find the memorial lecture to be notable, as I attend many similar lectures every year , often named in honour of non-notable people who were well-liked or whose death had an impact on the sponsoring organisation. Some places plant trees in honour of their deceased colleagues; universities name lectures after them. Risker (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience named lectures are named either for people who are quite notable or sometimes for people whose family members/friends have set up an endowment for a lecture series in their honor. In the latter case there is always a mention of the endowment in the series announcements. In this case there is no mention of any private endowment[32] On the countrary, in the series announcement the university is actually asking for money and donations to sustain the series. This seems to indicate to me that the lecture series was established by the department itself. Having said that, the lecture series was not a particularly major factor in my !vote, although I still view it as a plus. Nsk92 (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why it was named after him, should be tracable, and would attest to notability or otherwise. Can we find that out? Anyone able to check for a reason? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the obituary published in IMS Bulletin. It says the following about the lecture series:"A memorial fund has been established at the university to accept contributions to endow a lecture series in Dr Baxter's honor". I don't think it is easy to get much more information than that. Based on similar practices at our university, when something like that happens, there is an e-mail to the faculty, an article in the departmental newsletter and maybe an article in a college-level newsletter. These kinds of publications are not held by other libraries and given the fact that it was back in 1997, they would not be available electronically now. Nsk92 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a fundraising ploy. The boathouse at my undergrad had a floor named after my roommate after a car accident to try and raise money for its renovations. It didn't work. If you want to see the gush about it Laurence and why Stony Brook needs money, look here. "Your contribution will help ensure that each year the Fund will be able to present the Laurence Baxter Memorial Lecture. " I think based on that, we can remove any mention of the Laurence Baxter Memorial Lecture as fundraising SOAP. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. If we actually posted their fundraising pitch in the article, that would be a WP:SOAP violation. Merely mentioning that the lecture series has been established is not. Nsk92 (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lecture series = a fundraiser only under another name. The two are the same. If his notability is related to a fundraiser, this is a clear case of SOAP and needs to be burned as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To equate an established academic lecture series with just a fundraiser under another name that "needs to be burned" is rather a stretch. Nsk92 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the page needs to be burned, not the lecture series. Response - You can through academic infront of whatever you want, but I've been part of academia my whole life and not once have I attended a "lecture series" (especially one held only once a year with limited response) as anything worth being "notable" for. This one is used to raise money. Just like every other group, they use a dead man in order to try and connect to the emotions of the school and raise money. I can name many people who have died and have memorial fundraisers connected to them, and I would hate if that became a source of notability. My roommate had a boathouse named after him, this guy only has an annual low attendance lecture. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an academic myself and in my own field, mathematics, named lectures are a fairly traditional and well established format of colloquia-type lectures. Most respectable departments have one or two of these named lecture series. My own department has three of them, funded by a combination of private endowment and additional fundraising. There is nothing untoward about this. I don't think the department gets or can get much else for this other than to have this named lecture itself and be able to invite some particularly prominent scientists to deliver such a lecture. The endowed funds that finance such lectures cannot be used for any purpose purpose than the lecture itself, so the department can't hire anyone else with this money or do any repairs or by any equipment or anything else of the sort. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia is the proper forum for any kind of fund raising, even if it is only insignificant or isolated. The lecture series is not notable, and it only operates as a fundraiser and then a once a year lecture. It is named after the individual in question to raise money. I don't think it is right for Wikipedia to promote such things and it would be an awful standard to allow. Even if there was no money involved, the promotion of the lecture series seems highly questionable to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The lecture series is not a fundraiser. Attendees will not be asked for contributions. There may be other fundraisers where the department will try to raise money to keep this lecture series going, but those are not mentioned in the article. In addition, I do not see how the inclusion of this lecture series in the article would constitute "promoting" it. And finally, even if it were, what does "promoting" in this context mean? People can attend, they don't have to pay anything, it's a freebie.... Anyway, I cannot imagine anybody being interested in "promoting" such a departmental lecture series on the Internet, even less Wikipedia. --Crusio (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say what you want, but I already provided direct evidence that contradicts that claim. The name and the rest is there to collect funds. Otherwise, they wouldn't have it in honor of him. Read the link above. Also, read WP:SOAP. This is a clear violation, especially with the obvious conflict of interest. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's bring this back to how one determines if an event is notable. It strikes me that the criterion should be whether or not independent third parties consider it notable and comment on it. Are there any reviews of this lecture series in any of the relevant journals? Is it mentioned in published commentary by other professionals in the field? Are the lectures published? Is there any information to demonstrate that new research has been presented there first? These things would make the lecture series notable. I think we've quite exhausted the discussion about whether or not a subject's notability should be dependent in part on having a lecture series named after the subject posthumously. Strikes me, given the different experiences of the participants in this thread, that it depends more on the notability of the lecture series, and to assess the notability of the lecture series requires independent third party references to the lectures. Risker (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Named lectures like this are never reviewed as such in academic journals (not even the ones at top places like Harvard or Princeton). It is just something that a person who gave a lecture like that puts on their CV under "honors". The department who hosts a named lecture of this type gets to invite some particularly prominent people and is able to pay them a better honorarium than for a typical colloquium talk. That is usually it. As I said above, the named lecture is not a very big deal but id does confer some degree of honor on the person it is named after. I based my !vote primarily on other factors, such as three published memorial articles in academic journals and extensive journal editorships. The named lecture is a plus, but not a very big one, in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the lines of lectures such as those included in Category:Lecture series, all of which meet most of the above criteria. I concur, though, that if notability is to be found here, it will be from something other than the lecture series. Risker (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Neil. Giggy (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and you noticed that Neil said "published professor [...] therefore meeting WP:PROF" while WP:PROF is pretty explicit that merely publishing as a professor doesn't amount to notability? Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of WP:PROF may differ from mine. Perhaps I should have said "well-published professor". Neıl ☄ 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pete. This is the first time I see somebody interpreting WP:PROF in the sense that many publications amounts to notability. It doesn't and is rather irrelevant for notability. Somebody with many insignificant publications can be completely ignored in his field, whereas someone with only a few, but highly-cited publications can be quite notable. WP:PROF clearly stipulates that for notability "either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" is necessary. Evidently, just having a lot of articles is not enough. --Crusio (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Small number of papers. Editor of a...specialist journal. That his work has been cited (and it isn't very much, as far as I can see) doesn't mean he meets WP:PROF. It's not a slam dunk, but I think that he's shy of inclusion. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just one journal, it's five journals and a book series. Plus there are three published obituaries/memorial articles about him. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have changed my vote yet again, this time back to delete. The reasons are the following. 1/ Editorships. WP:PROF criterium 8 states "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area." Baxter was associate editor, not editor in chief, of lower-tier journals. 2/ Although I strongly disagree with classifying a named lecture series as a fundraiser, the evidence brought forward up till now does not indicate notability. If a high-profile lecture at a major meeting in his field had been named after him, that would be something else. As pointed out above, many departments have such named lectures and although we all list this in our CVs as an "honor", I don't think that this bestows notability (either for the lecturer or for the person that the series was named after). 3/ The published obituaries would have swayed the balance to "keep" for me, if Baxter had not been an associate editor of these journals. Any journal will publish an obit for an AE that passes away during his tenure (or shortly therefafter). If being an AE is not notable, then such an obit does not confer notability either. This is reinforced by the fact that those obits seem to put in an effort to say something nice abotu Baxter. In short, my conclusion remains that this was a very promising person, who very probably would have satisfied WP:PROF by now if only he had lived. Sadly, he didn't. --Crusio (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was an editor-in-chief of a book series and an editor for 5 journals. I think that is quite impressive and an idication of substantial stature in the field. Regarding the three memorial articles, I think the key consideration is that they exist at all. One could argue that he was an editorial board member for these three journals because he was a prominent scientist and that is ultimately why those three memorial articles were published. In fact, if one sbtracts everything else and takes just those three memorial articles, there is arguably a case for weakly passing WP:BIO here. The articles do describe him personally in substantial biographical detail etc. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92 has swayed me, changing my !vote above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92 is right, I'm swayed too. --Crusio (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor in chief of a non notable series and non notable journals. If you are impressed, then feel free. However, it does not meet the standards. If he really was notable, there would be independent news stories on him. I failed to come up with anything in the US on him. There are no reliable sources on his history that are not part of a fundraiser. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF is pretty clear about the rationale for not requiring things like "independent news stories". If that's what you require, then I think you're quite at odds with WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you misinterpreted me. What I stated was that he clearly fails PROF. PROF allows for professors notable outside academia, i.e. through independent news stories, to stay. Thus, he fails normal notability. I hope that clears this up. 01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

keep, unequivocally. All the requirements are present. First, if one thinks the General criterion supersedes or is an alternate for prof, there is substantial independent discussion of him in reliable sources. That alone should be enough to settle it. That's nt a weak reason for keep, its as full a keep as anyone else using the general criterion. (weak might be if there were only one such source). Second, by the criteria for PROF, editor in chief of a major book series from an established publisher is analogous, though waker, than a major journal. The editorial board memberships add a little. If that were all, it would be borderline. As for the lecture, yes, many departments have lecture series, and the lecturers in them usually don't acquire much notability by that except for some really distinguished series, but despite what Crusio says, the lecture is usually named after someone important enough for the lectureship to be an honor or there would be no point to it at all. That comes to weak notability also. A memorial conference for someone, on the other hand, is a clear and unmistakable indicator of significance, and I think by itself would establish notability. Now, weak notability in different fields does not add up to make one notable in any of them. But having many less than fully certain indicators in the same field is another matter. And in any case there are two certain ones: the publications about him, and the memorial symposium. Either is enough beyond any reasonable cavil. If it wasnt for who wrote the article, we wouldnt even be discussing this. It is of course completely wrong that either US sources are needed or that news stories are. Absurd criteria. And the standard for an article is notable, not "really notable." And perhaps it shows a certain animus when one editor tries to refute everyone's comment. DGG (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of Prof does he meet? He does not meet one. He does not meet two. He does not meet three. He does not meet four. He does not meet five. He does not meet six. He does not meet seven. He does not meet eight (not a well-established journal). He does not meet nine. Now, where is "there is substantial independent discussion of him in reliable sources" this? I haven't seen one reliable source discussing him. A "memorial symposium" does not make one notable, especially when less than 40 people attend and they don't have any notable lecturers. Also, if we gave a wikipedia page to every subject of a named lecture, there is going to be thousands of more unnotable people being given pages. This is a very bad precendent. This guy has done absolutely nothing in his field and PROF was made to make sure people like him didn't get a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, The Institute of Mathematical Statistics Bulletin, and Naval Research Logistics: an International Journal would all run obituaries suggests that he meets criterion 1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most journals tend to put obits for those who have published in their journal. I don't believe an obit is a source of notability. Obits are short and give little detail, and tend to be based on emotion and not substance. If this was a front page type obit on the NYT, WSJ, London Times, etc, then maybe. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Most journals tend to put obits for those who have published in their journal" you must be joking. This is bears absolutely no resemblance to my experience. I've had a fair number of different journals accumulating on my bookshelves, and none have published obits any but the most historically relevant figures. I'm not saying that this is true of The Institute of Mathematical Statistics Bulletin, but your claim bears no resemblance to any reality I'm familiar with. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this guy was not a "historically relevant figure", and would be barely notable to be in Wikipedia if so. Thus, I think your point is contradicted by your previous evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a journal editor for 7 years now. In those years, we only just now published our 2nd obit, although unfortunately more then 2 colleagues passed away. The two obits concerned one person who was one of the founders of our field in the late 1950s, the other somebody who made important contributions to the field in recent years. Some other colleagues that passed away were probably notable in Wikipedia's sense (WP is rather inclusionist to my taste, including all kinds of minor sports figures and artists); they just weren't notable enough to merit an obit. AS I remarked above, I would publish an obit for an AE, even though according to WP:PROF an AE does not make one notable. As Nsk92 has pointed out, Baxter was an AE of multiple journals, not just one. And as DGG rightly pointed out, there are threee obits in reliable sources, that satisfies WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my point, and here is notability - an obit does not make you notable. Being notable justifies having an obit. If you want to prove his notability, find out the notability that justified him having an obit. My experience with obits and journals is that there are many for those I would not consider notable on Wikipedia. Now, according to PROF, being an lead editor for a journal is not notable, unless the journal is one of the leading journals. None of these can be considered as such. He wasn't ground breaking. He only published 19 times so far as we know, and "ground breaking" rarely happens in such a situation. It took him a long time to make tenure, this should tip people off. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Nsk92's and DGG's careful and convincing arguments. There are quite enough sources on him, for the GNG - and I don't think one can practically construe the GNG as not being able to "supersede or be an alternate." (or augment). I am reminded of a murdered Indian academic I deprodded a while ago. While I dug up other clear indicators of notability then, I was only able to find one memorial article, while this guy has three. And however weak they are understood to be individually, there are just too many PROF indicators enumerated above to definitively say this is a person with insignificant impact on his profession.John Z (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I have been following this discussion, and frankly have found myself moving back and forth on this one. In arriving at my delete !vote, although it's close, I consider the subject, to fail each criterion of WP:PROF as pointed out by Ottava Rima above. I also consider the subject fail the general notability guideline, and I don't think this one is particularly close. The real difficulty is that none of the memorial publications are independent of the subject. The essence of the notability that is that a subject's accomplishments have been sufficient to force outsiders to take notice of them. The fact that these memorials all appeared in associated journals dillutes their impact considerably. The memorial lecture series is certainly an indication of notability, but it is essentially an unquantifiable one. This is bit more of a mechanical application of the letter of the guidelines than I prefer, but given my lack of familiarity in the area, I think it's the most appropriate approach. I know that a number of commentors here are themselves in academia, and they are, perhaps, better qualified than I determine whether the various indicators mentioned, when combined, equate to the type of notability envisioned in PROF. I only wish all of our Afds saw this level of participation. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My attitude has always been, "if it's this borderline, go with retention". Neıl ☄ 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Westfield, Indiana#Schools. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori School of Westfield[edit]

No evidence that this school is notable, and no secondary sources available to verify the information. Serves only as a vandal magnet. Kevin (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Westfield, Indiana#Schools per accepted practice. I recall looking for support for notability for this school in February and tagged it for notability then having failed to find decent sources. I agree that it has had long enough so a merge to the locality is now appropriate. I don't see a verifiability problem since the core information can be verified by the government site here. TerriersFan (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFan. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFan. Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 03:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kubigula (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bruce Lindsay Party Machine[edit]

Unless being Raver of the year and Grand Marshal of Rio Carnival are valid notability sources I nom this for deletion mboverload @ 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever, no citations, appears to be a vanity page. Google News has nothing, and Google has only two pages of results--none of which looks independent. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable, borderline speedy but I am feeling generous today. ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing worth keeping here. If the person (is a party machine a person?) is significant and someone writes a real article on the subject, that's another matter. Fg2 (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight Origins Society[edit]

Obscure creationist organisation that does not meet WP:ORG. Sourced almost-solely been to their own webpage, with the sole exception being brief tangential mention by the National Center for Science Education (which, given its focus, routinely mentions very minor creationists and creationist organisations). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a number of related-party and bare-mention sources have since been added to the article. A breakdown of them can be found at Talk:Daylight Origins Society#Breakdown of refs. Additionally one of these new sources states of this Society that "it isn't very active"[33] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update2: Daylight Origins Society is merely the "English branch" of Circle Scientifique et Historique (CESHE)[34] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update3:Due to ambiguous wording, i believe that the author Sennot could well be stating that the Daylight Origins Society is a branch of the Morning Star Society. See talk page. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely: Sennot's "this society" is clearly refering to the immediately-previously-mentioned CESHE. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Giertych is a member of both, and that Berthault, a member of CESHE publishes in Daylight, but that no cross-membership/cross-authorship with MSS is recorded. I would further point out that DOS predates Morning Star. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update4:I'd like to note that on September 12, hrafn, the editor who tried to Speedy Delete this article and then AfD'd it, retired from Wikipedia. Details are on his user talk page. His retirement does not change the fact that this AfD will proceed, but it may explain why there will be no further comments signed by User:hrafn here. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are uncivil and quite irrelevant to this process. All of the three things mentioned lacked support from the general community, and again, irrelevant to this deletion. I'd delete your comments, but I have no time to deal with the drama that would ensue. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so it's noted that my role in establishing the RfC was entirely technical in nature and I am neither for nor against the points being raised. All text in the RfC, other than some standard formatting I copied from another user RfC, was exactly as was posted by Catherine to AN/I and edited by at least two others. The consensus there was that AN/I was the wrong place, but it was sufficiently well formatted that I (as an admin with some familiarity with process) was able to verbatim copy it to an RFC/U page, which as yet has not been certified. Orderinchaos 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the sentence that was offensive and i apologize for it; it had no place in this simple statement of facts. Again, my apologies for overstepping the bounds of propriety. cat yronwode not logged in a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin wrote (to Catherineyronwode): "I'd delete your comments, but I have no time to deal with the drama that would ensue." I want to point out that accusations of uncivil editing are more convincing when the accusations do not contain their own uncivil comments. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about footnotes. When the AfD was posted on Sept 8, the article had 2 footnotes. People have done a lot of work on it since then and now it has 15 footnotes (at the time when I'm writing this note).--Linda (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just added two more third-party refs, the Kolbe Center and Nature (UK) science magazine. This may not be the most notable organization in the whole world, but it has been publishing a quarterly journal since 1991, has drawn noisy fire from anti-Creationist journals, and is peopled with Creationists who have biographies online at Wikipedia.

Comment: The Kolbe Center ref merely mentions that Nevard is the secretary of DOS, and given that both he and Giertych are on the KC's advisory council, the independence of this source is questionable. The Nature ref is merely "correspondence", in response to earlier correspondence from Giertych ~~and (if Google Scholar is to be believed) makes no direct mention of DOS. Therefore neither source adds any notability.~~ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Kolbe Center page was used to source Nevard's role as the editor of the Daylight magazine -- information that had not previously been in the article, and which i believed did need a source. Questioning the "independence" of that source is disingenuous as there is no mention of a connection or a relationship betwen Giertych and the DOS on the Kolbe page -- just the fact of Nevard being the journal editor, which is hardly controversial! The Nature ref does indeed mention the DOS, and if you don't subscribe to Nature, a regular google-snippet will still reveal the mention, as i demontrated on the DOS talk page and will copy here:

Nature A timely wake-up call as anti-evolutionists publicize their views ... a seminar held in Brussels at the European Parliament on ... the Daylight Origins Society, ... www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/444679a.html - Similar pages

Cheers, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The non-notable secretary of this non-notable organisation is also the editor of its non-notable magazine -- trivial coverage.

Google Scholar clearly was in error -- however, on tracking down a full-text copy of this correspondence, I see that the only mention it makes of DOS is that Giertych is an honorary member of it -- again trivial coverage.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'd like to see this kept just to keep tabs on these organisations, but the article clearly fails WP:ORG as it does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. On that basis I must support deletion unless good sources can be found. . . dave souza, talk 12:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This AFD has no foundation and has been motivated by a sense of retaliation for [[35]]. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firefly322's personal attack is false. As anybody who bothered to read this article's history can tell, I WP:PRODed this article before the author of the WP:ATTACKPAGE (s)he cites became involved. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Not sure what I said that was a personal attack here. The link between this AFD and the ANI are fairly clear. It would be surprising to find a religion and science article that Hrafn did not prod. Furthermore, Hrafn likes to time his or her actions so that those involved are made to feel a sense of retaliation. Hrafn has only taken this to afd so as to make himself feel powerful and show others not to mess with him. The ANI provides documentation and is making this kind of behavior clear. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly, you're not a mind-reader. This page is about considering whether this article meets the minimum requirements of notability, not for you to make assertions about editors. If you want the article kept, find sources that meet WP:ORG. . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using basic confirmation holism, the article itself asserts that it meets WP:ORG. This AFD should be closed as speedy keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly, is this last possibly a serious argument? That it asserts importance is enough to prevent a speedy delete, but not a delete at AfD. DGG (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(interposting) DGG, the material does have coherency, but per WP:Truth, methods of determining what is or is not True are somewhat out of place here. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 157 hits? Too fringe for WP. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

classic irrelevant argument, especially for something much of which was pre-internet. DGG (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DOS definitely exists, but I am not finding coverage that is both nontrivial and independent. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing any decent indications of notability here. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, per notability, per Jim. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an interesting article on an interesting subject, and I look forward to seeing it expanded. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this is not a very prominent organization, it is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. There is a value to documenting as carefully as reasonable the full range of similar organizations.--Filll (talk | wpc) 02:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

(1) I have moved the off-topic Giertych material to the Giertych page. (Side-note: i also substantially reorganized the paragraph order on the Giertych page, too, because some items were in topic order while others were in chronological order; i added topical sub-heads and asserted chronological order within the sections.)

(2) That text-move makes the D.O.S. page shorter, but it is now better focussed, i believe. It still contains 3rd party sources, so i fail to see why hrafn, the AfD nominator, keeps re-tagging it for lack of sources. Therefore i am removing that template.

(3) I truly think that the only viable argument for deletion is non-notability, not lack of sourcing.

Comment: Should we merge Anthony Nevard into D.O.S. rather than delete both? I noticed today that the article on Anthony Nevard, the chairman of the D.O.S., was prodded on September 6th as well, also by hrafn. I improved that article too, and removed the prod, which, knowing hrafn's history here as an editor, means that the Nevard article will soon be nominated as an AfD by hrafn, if it isn't already. I would like those who are interested in the retention in Wikipedia of material about relious topics to consider proposing a merge instead of utter deletion and effacement of both articles. If i were to chose only ONE of these two to keep, it would be the D.O.S. page, with the Nevard mini-biography folded into the D.O.S. "History and current structure" sub-section. Thanks for reading this and for voting. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe, insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources. Nothing in GoogleNews[36], nothing in GoogleBooks[37], nothing in GoogleScholar[38]. Does not pass WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep given that the bulk of activity is before the internet era, and that catholic traditionalist organizations tend not to use the internet much, as compared with Fundamentalist protestant groups, and are from my experience very difficult but not impossible to document, the sources given are sufficient to show then notability. The mention in Nature is sufficiently mainstream to show at least that it's recognized, though the ref is certainly not substantial. I really do wish, however, that at least some other printed Catholic traditionalist sources could be found. Most creationist sources I am familiar with are from groups also showing sem degree of anti-Catholic prejudice, and therefore not likely to mention this one. If deleted here, the relevant material could certainly be added to the article on Nevard, which I think is solid enough to hold. Contrary to what Nsk932 thinks, "Fringe" is not a reason for deletion. Contrary to what Jim62 thinks, "Too fringe for WP" is IDONTLIKEIT, not a reason for deletion either. DGG (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer merging the weaker Nevard article into this stronger and more focussed D.O.S. article. Please compare them and see if you might not agree. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think that being fringe is a reason for deletion per se. However, for a fringe organization I would like to see sufficient coverage in mainstream media (as opposed to other fringe sources). The article in Nature is good, but not enough, in my opinion, in the absence of wider coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while I agree that Traditionalist Catholic creationism is a topic worthy of an article, I don't think that this organisation can serve as its basis. The UK has a small Catholic population (9% compared to the US's 26% and Poland's 95%), and Traditionalist Catholics are only a tiny (less than 1% and considerably less by some estimates) proportion of all Catholics. This means that Traditionalist Catholicism will tend to have an imperceptible public impact in the UK, and that we should look elsewhere (particularly to Catholic-majority countries) for notable examples of Traditionalist Catholic creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding Catholic demographical statistics: Note that Daylight magazine claims to distributed into a number of non-Anglophone and predominently Catholic nations, including Poland, France, the Phillipines, etc. I cannot check this distribution pattern, of course, but the point is that they are obviously targeting an audience outside of the U.K. Note also that Nevard is on the advisory board of the Kolbe Center of Virginia, USA, as is Giertych -- that is, we have some internationist outreach here. Again, i would prefer to merge Nevard into the D.O.S. and keep the D.O.S., not keep both. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Daylight is not "distributed" to these countries (which would imply significant penetration), but merely has a "circulation"[39] that extends to them (which could be no more than a handful of subscribers, or even a single one, in each). It is not 'obvious' that this 'not very active' "English branch" of CESHE is "targeting an audience outside of the U.K." -- or doing anything much at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too thinly sourced to enable a reliable article to exist. I don't mind that they are fringe, they just don't strike me as a notable participant in the fringe. The well-documented and clearly notable Maciej Giertych is said to be an honorary member of this group, but no source is provided for that statement. (Do we know for sure he is even aware that he is an honorary member?). The Daylight magazine is said to publish (among others) the work of G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis. I don't think this group inherits any notability from any of those worthy individuals. I don't perceive that any of References 1 through 5 is a reliable source. Can't any small group of people claim to be an important participant in the anti-evolution movement? How can we know that for sure? EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ed Johnston, seeing as how Giertych was referred to as an "honourary member" of the D.O.S. in both cited magazine sources (Nature and the NCSE journal) as well as in articles in La Prensa of Panama, and other newspapers logged at google's newpaper archive in non-English languages, it would appear Giertych knows that he is an honourary member of the D.O.S. and that we need supply no further references. :-) Perhaps i should bring those non-English language newspaper sources into the article. Maybe that would help establish international notability. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also nominated the article on this Society's secretary, Anthony Nevard for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Nevard. You may wish to comment on that discussion as well. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep per DGG. If not could we maybe userfy this to me? I suspect that there are sources out there and digging them up may take time. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The sources simply do not have a sufficient depth of coverage of the article subject. Narrowly fails WP:N. Brilliantine (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A small organization, but verifiable with enough references to allow time to find more. Also, as per DGG, sufficient based on the added challenge of sourcing Catholic organizations' pre-internet activity and the notability of the mention in Nature, a fully mainstream journal. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the whole points of the notability guidleline is that a mention does not confer it. Brilliantine (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the wording of the guideline. My recommendation to keep the article is based on a combination of factors; the mention in the journal Nature is only one of them. That mention though, carries significantly more weight than a mention in a local newspaper. With that and the other references, the topic-organization and the magazine they publish satisfy the notability inclusion criteria in various ways, in my view. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Nature citation carries very little weight -- as it was explicitly "correspondence" (effectively a letter to the editor), in response to a letter from Giertych previously published. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts on this, but I did not enter my comment here with the intention of debating. I read the article, reviewed the sources, and stated my recommendation that the topic is notable enough to keep the article. For purposes of determining consensus with regard to this AfD, my entry stands as I wrote it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: added New York Times Syndicate -- in Spanish -- I just added another ref, in which the Daylight Origins Society is mentioned. It is from La Prensa, Panama, New York Times Syndicate, by Beatriz Navarro. They claim their material is distributed in other countries (that is, where English is not the language spoken, and where many people are Catholics). So i will add this ref. I have no idea whether it will change any minds -- but i will add it. cat yronwode, not logged in, sorry 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a two sentence mention rather than any sort of non-trivial coverage. Brilliantine (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a description and it is not from the site's own page. Hrafn had previusly noted the fact that the only description came from their own site. I'm just trying to help here. See below for two more references from 3rd partis. How many do you think would be optimal? --cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think to convince me of notability you would need, in addition to what is already here, one article in a not-too-obscure newspaper or journal that offers substantial coverage of the organisation, or discussion (rather than just a mention) of the organisation in a scholarly work. Alternatively two or three articles in not-too-obscure publications (WP:RS) where there is at least a medium-sized paragraph that actually offers more than a sentence or two of information on the organisation. Brilliantine (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: added British Centre for Science Education -- I just added another 3rd party ref, because this one notes that the D.O.S., being Catholic, "doesn't appear to cooperate at all with mainstream creationist groups which are all basically Protestant, calvinistic and evangelical." That's a new information, not found in other sources. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context: the BCSE state "although, as far as we can make out, it isn't very active."[40] The entry is short (trivial coverage) and does not even warrant a mention in the page's TOC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: added Christians in Science Young Earth creationsism link -- I have added a mention that the D.O.S. promotes not just any form of creationism, but specifically Young Earth creationsim. This appears on the British Christians in Science web directory as such. I thought the information was significant enough to include in the D.O.S. article, especially since there is already a Wiki page on the Christians in Science organization. I think that these refs about YEC beliefs and abstainance from linkage with Protestant creationist groups begin to paint a clearer and more well-referenced picture of the D.O.S. than we had when the nimination for AfD was made. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, that's another page which seems to be entirely based on selfpublished Christians in Science website pages which are giving me 404 not found messages. Verification is needed from reliable secondary sources, and current links to these primary sources would also be a good idea. Carry on, dave souza, talk 13:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the same problem of lack of secondary sources applies to Christian Order, another non-notable organisation being used as a reference to assert the notability of this organisation. . . dave souza, talk 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Creationism is spurious but deletion is a bad idea. Busker49 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there does not appear to be enough evidence of notability. Guettarda (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization is notable enough to have an article. There are enough references in the page. They've published a print magazine since 1977. They're involved with several other similar Catholic creationist groups. A Member of the European Parliament is an honorary member of the group. I don't believe in creationism at all, but just looking at this by the Wikirules, the article should not be deleted. --Linda (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there seems not to be enough evidence of notability per WP:ORG. Verbal chat 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with ~~Wikipedia~~ ~~the world~~ myself that we have this article and not one about, say, the Oxonian Society? WP:OTHERSTUFF, I know. Nevertheless, delete. user:Everyme 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with Eldereft and nom that it exists but sufficient non-trivial, independent, third-party coverage which would give perspective on its operations is lacking. Note that many organisations exist, have members and publish but are not notable - I belong to one personally (it's a professional society, but a small one). Orderinchaos 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just scrapes through the notability guidelines IMO. Better to keep bordeline notable articles than delete, after all that is what makes Wikipedia a uniquely useful resource. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , fails ORG completely. The sources are about other groups/subjects mentioned in the article or very pathetic sources indeed which merely acknowledge the group exists. Sorry, but this group is not notable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Per DGG and Filll. It seems to me that offline references might be found. The organization was founded in 1977. There ought to be something, so give it time. I also think the NYT ref might be good, though I can't tell. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is there such a desire to eliminate subjects from Wikipedia that someone happens to dislike for whatever reason. I dislike a number of subjects. Should I be trying to eliminate mention of them from Wikipedia? Of course not! There are external references to them, such as the mention in the New York Times Syndicate and the British Centre for Science Education - which is more weight than a mere mention in a local newspaper. Along with the other references, and the fact that they have been publishing their own magazine since 1977, this organization definitely should be referenced in Wikipedia. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 02:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogopoly[edit]

Not notable. As near as I can tell, from a little research, there are two games under this name. One is straight up Monopoly, with the same rules and board layout, but with a canine theme (hence, no need for a separate article, as there are literally dozens of variations of that sort). The other is the one with the different board and rules described in this entry, but the latter seems to be of very minor commercial import. bd2412 T 04:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Agree to delete. The page is nothing but an echo chamber for the paleodogs and has no objective information. Dog IS-LM Model (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — Dog IS-LM Model (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

At least as important is this article's role in proliferating outmoded paleodog views. Strong and immediate delete. HighSteaks (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — HighSteaks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Paleodogs are the shit, man, how can we not fucking love them? Jesusdawg (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — Jesusdawg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Definitely delete. The neodog nonsense is unbearable, and a page filled with neodog talking points is far worse than no page at all. --BarkPlace (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — BarkPlace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Excuse me, the term is normal (attack removed). Jesusdawg (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fucking neodogs fucking ruin fucking everything. Whostolemambalticave (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those users new to this please go and read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has become dogged (cue the rimshot) by a bunch of bored SPA's looking to create headaches for admins and anyone actually trying to create an NPOV article about this game. Looking away from all the stuff above and contained on the talk pages, this is just another cheap and dog-revolving version of Monopoly which hasn't found much notability outside a few buyers and this group of SPA/sockpuppets bored on a weekend. Nate • (chatter) 07:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Created and "discussed" as a big joke by what appears to be one person. KieferFL (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of licensed Monopoly game boards (and add to list). No independent notability for yet another variant of Monopoly. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Blackmetalbaz; it's apparently the name for a real Monopoly variant, so it ought to be redirected to the list thereof. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn subject. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant vandalism and what appears to be sockpuppetry aside. I cannot find any verifiable sources for this establishing any notability. Almost G3 for turning into a vandalism-show. MuZemike (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If the neodogs dare to come out in the open field and defend the 25th anniversary edition as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the gaming interests and the paleodog interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their neodog demands by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of dogopoly this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of bones. Pareto Dogtimality (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC) — Pareto Dogtimality (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 02:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invader wars[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL, possibly WP:MADEUP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After doing some googling, most of sites that I have found are about either an arcade game or ports of that game to computers and nothing about what the text describes. - Dlrohrer 2003 05:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obvious hoax, creator's only other substantial contribution was another obvious hoax, Airport day disaster. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches find absolutely no WP:RS that invader Wars even exists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G7). -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aprile Lanza Boettcher[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per mboverload (article was separately nominated at about the same time):

Although there is nothing wrong with the article itself, and I commend the writer for their work, this person does not seem to be notable. Has beeing a visual effect/model maker for 4 films, including Hellboy, Godzilla, Team America: World Police and Red Planet. Speedy was denied, which on second look I agree with. What are people's thoughts? I am willing to retract if I'm wrong here. mboverload @ 04:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Writer claims over 16 major films over 20 years are listed to Aprile Lanza Boettcher. Please wait while I get more information mboverload @ 04:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The complete list films is in process of being listed at IMDB, however if you click on resume on the Aprile Lanza Boettcher index page you will see the full resume of films. You can also check this page that references of founding the landmark for Garfield Heights: http://8.12.42.31/2000/dec/17/realestate/re-1019 Here is the link for the resume: http://us.imdb.com/name/nm3062881/resume —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprileb (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprileb (talk • contribs)

Delete until such time that subject is covered significantly in reliable 3rd party sources (not IMDB and similar editor driven places). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
Speedy Delete as author has blanked page Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millionaire Cupid[edit]

NN website/company. Although it claims 200,000 members I can't beleive that is really the case. Either way, the first 3 pages of Google results show nothing but self-promotion or mentions in 2-3 blogs. I propose delete because it lacks notability. mboverload @ 04:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:CSD#G11; spam seicer | talk | contribs 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Surf Mod[edit]

Non-notable plugin. Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete ~~WP:CSD#G11~~ ~~and so nominated; this article does nothing but advertise the plugin. Barring that,~~ it blatantly fails WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NFT and WP:PRODUCT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Vote changed as speedy was declined... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G11) — My lower intestine is full of Spam, Egg, Spam, Bacon, Spam, Tomatoes, Spam. MuZemike (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam ("amazing fun), and would still be hopelessly non-notable even if cleaned up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As ever, if someone wishes to merge this to a suitable target, I'll restore the content for them. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Carles[edit]

Unsuccessful Greens candidate for the Western Australian state election, 2008. She did well, but it is not clear that the normal practice of deleting unsuccesful candidates after elections, should not be followed. Grahame (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't appear she has yet done anything notable apart from just being a candidate.--Lester 05:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is notable as the face of a very popular campaign against a local development, which is explained in the article. Her (second) election attempt at this seat is notable in that it is the first time that the Greens have come anywhere near winning a lower house seat in a general election. Note: I did create this article, so I would like the work that I put into it to be spared, but I don't have any connection to her. I won't be offended if the community doesn't agree with me though ;-) Sumthingweird (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, a well-written article, and she does appear to be active in WA as an activist. That said, she came third in an election, and there doesn't seem to be any significant third-party coverage concerning her. Note to the article creator that if the article is deleted, I'll be happy to move a copy into your userspace so you can find further references and try resubmitting at a future date, if you wish. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:POLITICIAN. Some of the information may be mergeable. RayAYang (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest then that you change your vote to Merge?Sumthingweird (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a merge target? RayAYang (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep !votes mostly come down to "it exists" or "there are sources", while the delete !votes clearly establish the lack of verifiability and notability of the term. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Now theology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kingdom Now theology

Prod declined. As demonstrated by research on the talk page, this term has been applied to multiple, contradictory theologies by reliable sources. Because I see no effective way to repair this, and since it has been the subject of an attempted WP:COATRACKing of Sarah Palin I propose this be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It's a notable fringe belief.[41] The article was created 14 September 2004 and Sarah Palin became governor in November 2006. Thus, any mention of Palin is not related to creation of the article. Deleting does not equate to fixing. We66er (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. People attempting to coatrack on to it brought it to WP:AN attention, which is where I first noticed it. Several of us have been striving to improve it: put a good article together, and there's no room for coatracks. However, in the process of trying to clean up a pretty marginal article (see diffs in nom) it became clear that there is no good definition of this term--multiple reliable sources use it in multiple, contradictory ways. The inability to improve the article from its current sad state is the impetus for this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: the Southern Poverty Law Center source you cite deals exclusively with "Joel's Army", and I could not find any mention in the source of "Kingdom Now theology" with both a read-through and Ctrl-F. Maybe there's enough for a short article specifically dealing with "Joel's Army", but the SPLC source doesn't say anything about "Kingdom Now theology". MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most a reliably sourced article could say is "X is a pejorative term used by various people to label different things that they disagree with. Nobody uses it to describe their own theology. One use is A, one use is B, one use is C, ..." filled in with the various examples I found on the talk page.[42] The problem here is not a lack of use of the term, it is a lack of meaning of the term. This article fails to meet the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline, and I believe it cannot meet that guideline due to the lack of useful sources. And the article may have been created in 2004, but it has never been sourced, and it was first marked as needing sourcing back in 2006.[43][44] With over two years to find sourcing for it; we have as a community failed. GRBerry 13:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Given improvements in sourcing. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What improvements? It's been a single source article for some time now. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If by "some time" you mean a weak ago when I added it, then yeah. We66er (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "Some time" means "It had that source when I started looking at the article" :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (EC) Our failure does not make this term not notable, or the topic unencyclopedic. I agree that it is often used in a perjorative sense, but if reliable sources use the term, and provide enough to write an article, it is appropriate for us to keep it. Stephen J. Hunt has more or less made a career on observing these type of movements, he wrote a book referencing it here. Another scholarly treatment is here, and another here. All three of these books appear to me to be independently published works likely to qualify as reliable sources. The difficulty in writing articles of this nature is that most of the scholarly material online will be JSTOR-type articles that are harder to access, while there are many privately maintained websites that only deal with the material from a POV doctrinal perspective. These often make it into the article, and skew its balance. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So what article should we write, given that RS's conflict about what is meant by the term? I'm serious--if I knew, GRBerry and I would be writing it, rather than here. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- I'm unsure if this movement/concept is notable; do these sources confer notability? However it has some reliable sources. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --It is not argued that the subject is a neologism or a small minority view. Accordingly the term exists and WP should have an article to explain what it means. If there are contradictions in its usage by different theologians, this should be explained in the article, also if it is a term of abuse against its exponents (like puritan). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources cited point in different directions, suggesting this is a poorly defined term. We have a similar problem at, for instance, metabolic therapy - it means different things to different sources, and it makes it nearly impossible to write a good encyclopedia article. I would consider an article specifically dealing with "Joel's Army", on the basis of the SPLC coverage, but I don't see the source drawing a link between Joel's Army and "Kingdom Now theology" (am I missing something?) Articles can always be de-coatracked, but the bigger concern here is that there's not enough to go on to write an adequately-sourced, encyclopedic article. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a link, but the only evidence I found for it was in an unreliable (vanity press) source. It is that both phrases are, if that unreliable source is right, associated with the Latter Rain Movement. In that affiliation, if accurate, the more common terms would be Dominionist (for this phrase) and Manifest Sons of God (for the Joel's army phrasing). So there may indeed be reliable sourcing out there from the 1950s on, but I can't find it. GRBerry 21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism, fails per WP:NEO. Do not see multiple reliable sources primarily about the term. - Merzbow (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N pretty badly. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax. Mr.Z-man 20:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Dad[edit]

Almost certainly a hoax. No references, no Google hits, no article on German Wikipedia, probably fails WP:NOTE as well. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The plural of kartofel is kartofeln and does "give me your potatoes" sound a likely title? -- Sgroupace (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why you seem skeptical; it was a spin-off of Hier Kommt die Specke ("Here Comes the Bacon"). Postdlf (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax (WP:IAR if necessary!) -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), will merge to Sunni Dynasty Fr33kman^{talk APW} 06:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonni (ruler)[edit]

Appears to be redundant to the article Sonni Dynasty. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - this doesn't really need an AfD. Zocky | picture popups 15:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Funnel Liners[edit]

This article is completely redundant with Category:Ocean liners with four funnels, and derives the vast majority of its content from existing Wikipedia articles on these ships. All 14 four-stackers that existed have their own articles, and exist in the category. So ultimately, this article boils down to redundant listcruft. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubbify, getting rid of all the copy-pasted stuff from other ship articles. This appears to be a notable subject as a classification of ship, and merits definition and explanation independent of the individual ships that are of this classification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Also this article should be moved to Four funnel liner. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have brought it down to a stub per your suggestion, though I still don't believe it's particularly notable as a classification. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I worked on the article a little, including a mention that four funnel liners became popular around the turn of the century as a symbol of "size and safety". I think there may be more here than meets the eye historically; engineering-wise there's probably no real significance to this. According to the RMS Titanic article, the fourth funnel was added to make the ship look "impressive", which implies that this was an important design feature of the era. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there is some engineering advantage to four funnels, I don't think this is notable. (The fourth funnel on Titanic was a fake.) Besides, as the nominator noted, all of the ships have their own articles, so there's no need for a bare list. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple WP:Reliable sources can be found demonstrating that there is something to this subject more than the fact that a whole bunch of ships had four hollow cylinders sticking out the top, I might be persuaded otherwise, but at the moment, I'm inclined to suggest deletion of this article as redundant to the category. The ships listed all appear to be independantly notable both for being the largest ships in the world at their time and for other reasons percuilar to the operational history of each ship, but I don't think this individual notability is inherited by the subject. -- saberwyn 10:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is only a stub at present, following recent work on it. I would assume that a ship would only have four funnels if it had four boilers and the associated engines. I recall a reference to a British naval ship, possibly HMS Hardinge, which had four funnels and was taken to the Middle East during WWI, because unsophisticated natives would be impressed by such a ship. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (not an expert)[reply]
- Actually, most of the four-funnel ships were given four funnels for appearance only. In most cases, one or more funnels were "dummy" funnels, as in they served no functional purpose except for aesthetics. This, however, is not unique to four-funnel ships. Many ships with two and three funnels also contained dummy funnels. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of a category is irrelevant per WP:CLS. I have briefly browsed the sources available for this and consider them adequate to support a fine article. For example, I like the detail that visibility on the Acquitania was measured by the number of funnels you could see from the bridge. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Categories are not redundant to lists. MickMacNee (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love and War (album)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Requires substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. (Sources given are a press release and a blog.) Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/the-devil-and-daniel-merriweather. Besides which, the "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" criteria only applies to "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums", which this is not; it is a future relase album. Nathan86 (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as failing WP:CRYSTAL. The reference given above is cursory at best, and there appears to be little to no information in the article or that can be made part of the article which passes WP:V, which is suggested by WP:MUSIC ("Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage"). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article. Possibly the album can be mentioned on the artist's article. However, there is no confirmed release date (somewhere around spring is not a confirmed release date), as well as significant independent coverage. Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums states: "Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album." Out of 3 references provided, #1 mentions the album (though not an exact release date), #2 is a PR press release from the record company, #3 doesn't mention the album at all. That's not "significant coverage". Also, the list of included tracks has not been confirmed.--Lester 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daniel Merriweather. This is his only album (and it's not even out yet), so I see no need for a separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 23:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faded Love (Hank the Cowdog)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails WP:BK. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd say redirect to series article, but I'm not finding notability for the series, either.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and per nom. Possibly redirect to series (but I doubt that's necessary). Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vibroblade[edit]

Clearly fails WP:V (no sources cited) and also probably fails WP:NOR. In many cases, the source material never called the weapon in question a "vibroblade," and categorizing it as such without a reliable source is clearly original research. Remove the non-cited material and there would be nothing left. *** Crotalus *** 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete nn concept with a heavy overlay of WP:OR. I say "weak" only because Google turns up so very many hits for the term. It appears to be an idea common to many sci-fi RPGs. JJL (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. I just added a reference to real-life vibrating scalpels. Perhaps rename or merge/redir to an article on vibrating bladed instruments. jdb (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The J&J "harmonic scalpel" isn't specifically called a "vibroblade" in its page; the article doesn't seem like much more than original research and fancruft. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back up a bit? What's J&J, and by "page" do you mean its article? I also have to be anal about one thing: please do not resort to "fancruft" as a deletion reason. This is not a new issue. The word has no definition beyond "stuff that I dislike and/or want gone", and is widely considered to be insulting. Arguments don't need it. Thanks. --Kiz o r apparently now on behalf of the Invisible Nitpicking Council, 19:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment J&J would refer to "Johnson & Johnson", and there was a reference to a real-life vibroblade manufactured by Johnson & Johnson. There was a reference to a webpage on that implement- thus page is webpage. I used the term "fancruft" in the sense of "content [that] is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question", but if you don't consider that valid, I'm not sure how you can protest the WP:NOR argument. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, for the most part. Subject probably isn't notable (haven't done an exhaustive search yet). Not a helpful or appropriate navigational page--could be replaced by a two sentence string. UNLIKE lightsaber, vibroblades are often shown in movies as...knives, so there isn't a whole lot of production commentary and special effects discussion about how they might have put some LED's on a butter knife in Attack from the Martian Nunnery or whatever. Protonk (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Article is definitely OR. Also, I noticed a few non-"vibroblades" added to the list by the original author. This looks like a cursory glance at source material to compile there own conclusion, and if you actually read the material, quite a few don't match the definition created by the author. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article just needs to be improved and have citations added. The weapon is common in many areas of fiction. There are other articles on fictitious weapons like raygun or planet killer. Just improve the article, keep it as a stub for now. ScienceApe (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no distinct criteria for items' inclusion (at least those not called "vibroblade". Star Wars item (and any other universe's identically-named item) seems not to meet WP:GNG. --EEMIV (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have cited a work of the Oxford University Press which seems adequate notability. The rest is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does nothing of the sort. First, you haven't linked to a source at all, but rather a search result/preview. Second, even with this amalgamation of sci-fi vocabulary, there is no evidence of significant third-party coverage by sources. --EEMIV (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. This does appear in several dozen unrelated works, and it's not too much of a stretch to classify something as a vibroblade when the work it appears in describes it as a vibrating blade. In fact change the article name, apparently "vibroblade" is closer to a specific Star Wars term than a general one. I'm not ready to support a deletion, rather looking further into ways of improving this. If there are blades on the list that don't vibrate, that's a matter of cleanup and of improving the article lead. We should probably do the latter anyway. --Kiz o r 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once N's done, a good way to improve the lead would be to quote a couple of hard scifi works about the functioning and advantages of the vibroblade/vibrating blade/whatever as presented in those works. Perferably a couple of different ones. Hard scifi is that technically-minded fiction with plausible and often painstakingly explained premises. Doing this in the style of the glossary should work. --Kiz o r 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources added show notability. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mac (rapper)[edit]

Here lies another myspace musician who fails the basics of WP:MUSIC, and particularly lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article itself needs a lot of work, but the subject is notable. A quick google search shows that he had wide released albums long before Myspace was a glint in Tom Anderson's eye. ~ NossB (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches really don't play into whether or not we retain a WP:BLP article. Please show evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources as requested. JBsupreme (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you misunderstand. WP:BLP applies to the content of an article, not whether the article should exist. The article may need repair, but the question here is whether the musician in question is notable, and guidelines for that are set forth by WP:BAND. I will have to do some research to determine whether he passes by criteria 5 and 6, but my instinct tells me that, provided research is done and some major repair work is done, this article will survive. 67.187.45.161 (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No 67.187.45.161 I understand just fine. WP:BLP applies to the content and our general inclusion guidelines also state that without non-trivial publications about a subject there need not be an article, period. JBsupreme (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Although I was not previously familiar with this rapper, he clearly satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria. He had two albums reach the top 10 on the Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, one of which peaked at #11 on the main Billboard 200 album chart. Furthermore, his indictment on a second-degree murder charge received coverage in Rolling Stone [45], so we should be able to produce WP:BLP-compliant discussion of that aspect of his life. See also this mention in a book published by University of Chicago Press. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~contingent on sourcing~~ WP:MUSIC pretty clearly says, "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart". According to the article, he's charted on the Billboard 200 twice~~, it just needs to be referenced (and I don't know how to do it, else I'd be bold and do it myself).~~ —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've referenced that now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment changed to just plain "KEEP" now that it's sourced. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Metro 90 Vrefron (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Outsidaz. Black Kite 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Zee[edit]

Despite all the rumors and hype, this artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that Criterion #6 of WP:MUSIC says that since he was a member of Outsidaz, he's at least notable enough for a redir. As he's had solo work, he satisfies the criterion for individual band members. Unfortunately apart from that, he doesn't look like he's got much to his name. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), consesnsus is to redirect/merge, makes sense will do it Fr33kman^{talk APW} 06:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Evans (Box Tops)[edit]

Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC's standards for notability ("Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band") and a quick Google search revealed a brief profile on the band's site to be the only substantial, non-trivial coverage, which is not enough for a full, neutral biography of this individual. As far as I can tell, he has not been a member of any other notable band (he doesn't even associate with the Box Tops anymore) and thus a merge and redirect into Box Tops might be appropriate. Cheers, CP 02:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom's citing of WP:MUSIC. I don't think AfD is the correct process to accomplish this, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: Probably not, but a prod was removed with the somewhat sparse explanation "notable, also session musician" ... as if being a session musician is prima facie evidence of notability. RGTraynor 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peel the Seal[edit]

The citations here are inadequate for an encyclopedia entry. Not verifiable enough. Ink mathematics (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Although I remember the advert in question, it is absolutely non-notable. ~ NossB (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be entirely based on some reader's comments to a page on The Guardian website (search for "Peel the Seal"), thus failing WP:V. Googling "Peel the Seal" and "cuppa" or "cuppas" returns little or nothing. All we might be able to verify is that Kiran Shah might've voiced a character by this name. Considering there's nothing out there, it seems rather unlikely this character is notable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard sort[edit]

Unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability of this algorithm. Maralia (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially, it looks to me like the author is proposing a (very naive and really bad) version of a Hash Sort--something that might warrant its own article. Anyway, there's a reason you've not found any evidence of notability for this algorithm: it's really bad. The algorithm does not even run in O(n^2) time, where n is the number of elements in the list, but in O(k), where k is the largest element in the list. That means if you have a list with a two elements, say, 1 and MAX_INT, that means that it would take on the order of MAX_INT operations to sort the list. Furthermore, as described this algorithm has no way of dealing with multiple entries in the list. This is very, very bad.

Furthermore, lots of the stuff he has here is just wrong. To attempt to represent even a small double as a long could conceivably create a very, very large number--meaning that the Wizard sort would take a very long time to finish.

This article is pretty much entirely OR, and not even good OR. It badly needs to go. However, I am going to temporarily copy this to my namespace--I know some people who might be interested in seeing this. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree. I started smiling at the unique integer part. NVO (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't been able to find any references either - Google gives nothing but false positives, and there's nothing on the arXiv - and so I think we have to call this OR. Scog (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant original research; the article states it's by "Yevgeniy Dukhovny" and provides a link. The source code was produced by this person, AKA "Dj Wizard". The article was written by Djwizard (talk · contribs). But just in case this is honest, I googled for "Yevgeniy Dukhovny" "wizard sort", "Yevgeniy Dukhovny" wizardsort, "Jim Dukhovny" "wizard sort" and "Dj Wizard" "wizard sort". The first two gave this article, the next zero hits, and the last nothing related to this algorithm. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete

As mentioned in the first paragraph: this method is a synthesis of different concepts (as most of the sorting algorithms, by the way). It is using Hashing technique with F(x)=x, however this method involves more steps then just hashing and it is not listed on Sorting algorithm page, which states that best known practical case is a Radix Sort, which is slower then Wizard sort.

I think author of the remark also missed Wizard Sort (non-unique integers) part, which explains how Wizard sort deals with multiple entries.

Also, please describe how in a world this algorithm will be O(n^2) as stated and not O(n+j), where j is the largest element in a set, as stated in the article?

It is correct, for small array with large values, Wizard Sort will waste a lot of memory and time, but issue of speed in sorting comes up, usually, only in large arrays. As for the last remark: it is a blatant original research, but that does not reduce its validity. And my last point: You can say anything you want about it, but Benchmarks do not lie!

djwizard Yevgeniy Dukhovny, September 08, 2008. —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — djwizard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Response WP:NOR says "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source". That's policy. This algorithm is original thought, as you've stated yourself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Source code is a source. By not publishing original thought Wikipedia means a subjective opinion. In this case it is a fact, which you can verify by running code references in the article. 2+2=4 is a fact (in most cases), just because someone stated it, does not mean it is an original thought. Yevgeniy Dukhovny --Djwizard (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Actually, it's a self-published source, which isn't permitted, and it's also a primary source, which is frowned upon. My understanding of WP:NOR is that Wikipedia is not the place to put up something that can't be found in reliable, third-party sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please read whole article and try to understand it, before considering it for deletion. Thank you. Yevgeniy Dukhovny --Djwizard (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . As per TallNapoleon above who pretty much said it all. Equendil Talk 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete May be I am missing something, but arguments stated in TallNapoleon's message are simply incorrect, and I thought I showed how are they are incorrect. It is not that I agree or disagree with them: but they are just stating something about the article (like Wizard Sort not dealing with mulitple values) which are simply not true. Please someone explain this to me.--Djwizard (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if TallNapoleon is completely wrong and this is the best sorting algorithm ever, independent reliable sources need to be provided to establish notability. You needn't defend the algorithm's mechanics here; a deletion decision would not be based on a judgement of its value, but rather its notability. Maralia (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research with no reliable source. It's essentially counting sort while the extension to reals is essentially bucket sort. Dpmuk (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all, except for Maralia (who has a valid point, with which I disagree though), who are saying delete:

You might throw theory at it as much as you can, but I provided a Java code which you can run on you computers and use in your code (and some of you probably will use it in your code). If you run source code, it, almost certainly, will be faster then ANY sort you have available.

Show me a code which runs faster then this!

--Djwizard (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Response For any one of us to run the algorithm and benchmark it ourselves and then put information in the article based on those benchmarks would constitute original research; "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments". The algorithm doesn't matter for the sake of this debate, rather it's the failure of WP:RS; "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Response: as far as I can tell this is a rather clunky implementation of Counting sort. I'm afraid benchmarks are not considered "proof" when it comes to developing algorithms, because they have a tendency to miss pathological cases. In this case, one such case would be a small list containing MAX_LONG, which would cause your sort to literally run most modern computers out of memory. It is true that for large numbers of values with a small range, counting sort will sort more quickly than any other sorting algorithm. But a single large element breaks it horribly. DJ, it's nice to see that you've taken an interest in computer science, but I highly recommend that you take a university level algorithms course. As for the policy on original research, for an algorithm to be notable it can't just be something you came up with. Rather, it has to be something that has been recognized by the computer science community as a whole, by being frequently used in applications, published in a scholarly journal, or something of the sort. Oh, and if Wizard Sort does deal with multiple objects, you have my apologies for missing that. It appears to do so in a very strange manner, when frankly the best way to do it is to have your Wizard array store the number of times each element appears--as, indeed, counting sort does. Best of luck, but still delete. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable at this time. If this algorithm is the best thing since sliced bread, get it published in the Communications of the ACM or a similar journal, and then it may become notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. --Itub (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self admitted original research. It may one day, after peer review and independent coverage, become notable but it is nowhere near now.
Delete - as original research. Whether it's good, bad, indifferent, or the best thing since sliced bread, it's still clearly original research which is contrary to policy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per improvements made. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predrag Bambic[edit]

Non-notable producer, no outside refs, mostly self-published bios on google, nothing of note on google news, mostly just a list of his films. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons in the nom. No assertion of notability.Keep per the improvements made to the article. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.. Guess that's a keep now. Equendil Talk 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established per Rory Peck Trust Award 1999, New york Times review 1, Los Angeles Times review, Montage filmsite, cfsindia.org (entry #147), New York Times review 2, Croatia.org, etc. Notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can do to make it encyclopdic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Step 1: Began cleanup and wikification per MOS. Lots more to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- step 2 Sourced, tweaked, added reviews of man and his films. Further wikified. Anyone read Croatian? Gotta respect a guy trying to build a film career while his country is in turmoil... documenting that same turmoil. Woah. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- step 3 Added additional sources. Finished 99% of the sourcing. Added additional EL's. Found a picture of Bambic over at sh.wikipedia.org. Can we get a copy for this article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep Looks like there were some worthwhile sources. MBisanz ^talk 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), consensus is to merge, I've merged other way, from Viva (Canadian magazine) to Viva Magazine instead Fr33kman^{talk APW} 06:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Magazine[edit]

Contested prod. Article is a mixture of non-notability and advertising. References do not demonstrate in-depth independent coverage. TN‑X-Man 18:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Viva (Canadian magazine), which is about the same publication. Wikipedia already has articles about two other magazines named Viva. The one under discussion here is the Canadian health magazine. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB - given that there are multiple magazines named Viva, it would make more sense than a merge/redirect as somebody looking for Viva Magazine may actually be looking for one of teh other ones. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 23:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Stupid (Madonna Song)[edit]

Aside from improper article title formatting and misspellings throughout, this is a video interlude being used by Madonna on her latest tour. It's not a full song appearing on any album, nor is it a single. As the previous deletion tag states, this is not notable. Any controversies generated by this belong in the Sticky & Sweet Tour article. - eo (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content can be covered in Madonna's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article history and merge into the currently-protected article Sticky & Sweet Tour, assuming there are no objections raised in the merger discussion. If there are, then keep this article. This article was under WP:PROD for lack of notability. Recent controversy with the McCain campaign over this video made it notable. I reworded it heavily before I realized there was an article for the tour that already discussed this video. Before I saw this AfD, I opened the merger discussion, so clearly I have no objection to the article going away. However, the content should exist in Wikipedia and the edit history should remain. If nobody objects to the merger within a few days an administrator should merge the articles. However, the clock shouldn't start until a merger tag has been added to Sticky & Sweet Tour. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An announcement of this AfD has been placed on the talk page of Sticky & Sweet Tour. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't need it's own article, you can just put this infomation under a new heading or you can include it in the about me section, as it was before. --BatterWow (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information is already included in the "political controversy" section of the S&ST article, not worthy of having its own article. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally only for the tour article. Not a released song. 76.124.165.253 (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a real Madonna song, only an interlude on her current tour that mixes "Give It 2 Me" and "Beat Goes On". Moreover, the controversy stated on this page already appears on the Sticky & Sweet Tour page. This should be deleted.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this information is on the tour page. JWAD (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horton the Elephant[edit]

This article fails Wikipedia guidelines for notability in fiction, specifically under the elements of fiction section, which requires "significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources" and "real-world context and analysis". This article essentially contains only plot information, which should be merged into the appropriate books (Horton Hears a Who! and Horton Hatches the Egg), as should the "Other characters" section. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Please note that I am referring the article about the character, not the two books in which this character appears (Horton Hears a Who! and Horton Hatches the Egg). Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable [46], [47] and [48]. Horton's motto of A person's a person no matter how small also throws up some interesting news stories about abortion [49]. RMHED (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That quote/principle is associated with Horton Hears a Who, which has its own article. —SlamDiego_←T 04:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. RMHED, your references are about the books (which are obviously notable) and not about the character—any information about Horton belongs on the articles about the books: Horton Hears a Who! and Horton Hatches the Egg. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just don't see how the lead character of two famous books and one major movie isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see how you can get more clear than "significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources" and "real-world context and analysis". They simply don't exist. Anything to be said can be written in one or two paragraphs on Horton Hatches the Egg. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though the article needs to be split--one about Horton, and one about the other characters. Conceivable the other characters could go with the books speparately, but not the material on Horton. This is a major character in two of the most famous childrens' books ever, with a significant literature about both the book and cultural refs.I wonder if the nom even thought about looking for refs--the google scholar search in particular seems to have material to very considerably expand the article. . DGG (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not denying that there are possible references to add real-world perspective (though I think you may be overestimating; most of these are simply about the books, not the character), but any real-world information belongs on the main articles for the books, not the character article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. There's absolutely no real-world context to this outside of the books, nor anything that can be said that can't be a part of the articles on the books. RMHED's quotation above, as it's specifically tied to the plot and theme of a single book, is duplicative outside of its article. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs references (but often stubs do), but it's definitely a "notable" subject. I find it interesting to note that the inclusion of "pop culture" references might actually help indicate "notability", due to explaining this character's widespread appeal; and usage of both the character, and quotes of the character, outside the book's "universe", which indicate something more than just a fictional elephant. - jc37 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's definely notable. Why? I'm serious here—what significant coverage and real-world analysis have you found? Because if you haven't found any, your argument is effectively null and void. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're requesting (to put it in better terms) is references to support my statements? Fair enough:
To start. here's some quotes of the character.

toy, et al

Though this review mostly concerns the movie, the reviewer notes the book as well, including a spiritual allegory regarding the character.

Another review] which, if you scroll down, describes both the books and the character. And another.

The character also appears in The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss and Seussical (lyrics), among other places, and so isn't restricted to the two books or their adaptions. (Such asthis game.)

And here's a reference concerning abortion [50]. And another.

And the last paragraph here.

And check out this memorial (home page).

And two of the movie's characters (one of which is Horton), being used here

And a women's book site

Education uses

Estonian allegorical reference[51] [52]

Dylan hears a who homage of sorts.

According to answers.com, "Horton Hears a Who! (1954), an allegory for the situation of Japan after Hiroshima".

allegory of the plight of those after Katrina.

A community library discussion concerning the allegory of the books and the characters.

This notes allegorical issues, and even legal issues concerning the difference between use of characters and the books (The Cat in the Hat, for example).

A review about something else, in which the reviewer compares themself to Horton. (In other words, use of the character as an arcetype.)

Spirituality in children's literature[53]

Another reference to the character as an archetype.

Several of these apply both to the book and the titular character, for, presumably, obvious reasons.

I also have a vague recollection of Horton being used in literary criticism, political analysis, and even in song lyrics, but by limiting my searching (the film, merchandise, and reviews heavily clogged the results) I haven't yet found them as links in my initial search.

And finally, AfD isn't for cleanup, so perhaps next time you'll request references and help develop the page, than to merely propose deletion. - jc37 00:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the 5 pillars Testmasterflex (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lead character in two books and a movie is obviously notable and other editors have noted independant coverage of the character. Edward321 (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These refs are probably above, but...[54] [55] [56] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: jc37 has demonstrated the rather extensive cultural notability of the character as distinct from the books, movie, and other productions the character has appeared in. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not as ubiquitously referred to outside the specific works where he appears, as The Grinch; but that is simply a far too high bar to set. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep. Though it should be improved. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) WP:SNOW, no objection posted SunDragon34 (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmalls.com[edit]

Seems like it hardley passes WP:WEB and seems to be borderline for WP:N. Article has been nominated for CSD in the past. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources cited in the article are sufficient. (At least three of those sources are primarily about the mall, not just passing references.) There are other media mentions, of varying length, listed at the website. Zagalejo^^^ 01:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have paid its dues in reliable sources, therefore establishing notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies the Wikipedia notability guideline WP:N with substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sites. The story at National Public Radio, for one, says that the first place potential investors in a mall go is Deadmalls.com to see what it says about the mall. Google News Archive shows 64 hits over a span of several years [57]. Edison (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:WEB. Several instances of independent news coverage by reliable sources (National Public Radio, Columbus Dispatch, CNN and Sacramento Bee for example). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest WP:SNOW. The article clearly passes WP:WEB. Multiple, in-depth, reliable sources (and many more that have come out since the article was created as well). IronGargoyle (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigtec Private Limited[edit]

Non-Notable and the second section seems a little advert. N_efarious O_pus 06:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the Bigtec Pvt. Ltd. page- Can you help me with it, then? I just read it at the cited sources and i thought I'd try my hand at writing a company bio. User: Isaac.Hume I'm sure you'd do a better job. —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Needs a tidy up for tone, but in my opinion the reasonably lengthy articles about the company in The Times of India and Mint, both of which are probably considered newspapers of record, confers sufficient notability. Gr1st (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 01:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a biotech and informatics company offering "business solutions" - i.e. yet another tech business without a clear showing of notability, using Wikipedia for free publicity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable company. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied (A7). Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richon Tools[edit]

Non Notable and possible Advert N_efarious O_pus 09:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Qualifies for speedy CSD A7: "Article about a company that does not indicate the importance of the subject." ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. We66er (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above, should not have been relisted. Equendil Talk 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ty 07:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Damianakis[edit]

I do not believe this artist meets WP:CREATIVE. There is a local story on him (Pasco artist finds comfort in painting religious icons), but he is not widely-known. The references in the article are to general and historical references about the type of art (icons) that he makes, but not about the artist himself. Stomme (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 01:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that WP:ACADEMIC is another guideline that should be checked for this article, considering he practices iconography, which seems more like an academic discipline than a creative one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought, but in fact what he practises is the 2nd sense of the word (see the article), meaning icon-painting. He is not an academic. If the article stays all these should be changed. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, in light of that Delete per above, failing WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 08:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural influences on Superman[edit]

Appears to be essentially OR, lots of weasel words and speculations. Nsk92 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've read Up, Up, and Oy Vey, and it doesn't back any of the claims made here. The whole lot is unsourced guesswork, and even if it weren't, this is the core info that belongs in Superman. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge with Superman. After fixing POV issues and such, finding appropriate refs, and shortening it, it could work. La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of this if anyone could reference any of this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See comments below. Hiding T 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the two !voters above, I think this topic is more suited to be part of the main Superman article, but since nothing is sourced (and, in fact, rather reads like a speculative personal essay), there is nothing to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research following A Man In Black's discovery that the reference doesn't support the claims made. This would be an awesome article, but there's nothing here we can use. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the claims can be sourced, per my comment below. They already are, in the Superman article. Hiding T 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this is covered in the Superman article already, and referenced to boot. See Superman#Influences, fourth paragraph for coverage of Nietzsche, fifth para for John Carter and the pulps in general, which are also covered in para two alongside Gladiator. I may have left Doc Savage and The Shadow out for space considerations, but I can't recall if Doc Savage and The Shadow were covered in what I read, sorry. Gladiator and the pulps in general are usually thought of as formative influences. The sources I found on the costume didn't indicate Robin Hood or Hercules as inspirations, but I did find sources mentioning the peculiarities of the cape, which are covered in Superman#Creation_and_conception, third paragraph. Moses is discussed in the third para of Superman#Influences. The Jesus referencing is discussed in one sentence due to space considerations, since this is a Featured article, we went through a reciew of it a while ago and the consensus there was that the article needs to be kept trim. The Hebrew influence and possible meaning of Superman's Kryptonian name is also discussed here. The only thing not really covered is Superman's immigrant status. So I think, per GFDL, it is best to redirect to Superman, noting the information has been integrated over time rather than in one single instance. Hiding T 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can source some interesting pieces on the immigrant status, I'll try and work that in. Hiding T 10:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a section on the immigrant theme to Superman#Literary analysis, final para. Hiding T 13:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Superman. Or delete it. More information about the underpinning's of superman is welcome in the main article. Protonk (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to size issues, that's not technically true. The article is already growing again, up to 48k from the 41k at the FARC which was felt the high side of acceptable. It's certainly welcome, it just means a think about how to make it all work and fit in needs to happen. Hiding T 09:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a backwater place to ask such a question, but have we ever considered adding a "page two" to articles? Hiding T 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be covered at the main article. The fact that none of this is sourced argues against a merge, as above. Eusebeus (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 23:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spook's Sacrifice[edit]

Article was deleted as an expired PROD on 17 August and re-created. Old version of the article was all speculation. This version has less content but still no sources. Fails verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BK and WP:N. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book to be released in the future, Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. Equendil Talk 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BK--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 08:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Training Network for Animation[edit]

Loose network of European animation educators, lacking any independent coverage. -- Mark Chovain 05:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V and WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, plus WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:IINFO. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources are easy to find. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per WP:BURDEN, it is for those seeking to include content to provide sources, not for those seeking to remove it to show there aren't any. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment true but equally at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions we find In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion. In any case I have added several references to the article to support my assertion that they were easy to find. Richard Pinch (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), merging to main article as per consensus Fr33kman^{talk APW} 06:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Housing at Saint Joseph's University[edit]

Article about a non-notable group of buildings. My attempt to get it merged into the article on the University has been stymied by the initial creator of the article. Corvus cornix_talk 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable group of buildings? It's at a major university. Merging it with the main article would clutter up that main article and make it look very unprofessional and unorganized.Bus2Beezlebub (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint_Joseph's_University#Buildings doesn't look cluttered, unprofessional or unorganized. Corvus cornix_talk 04:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a detailed list of buildings. It just names certain notable buildings throughout the campus. I wanted to list the number of residents that each hall houses, the locations of those buildings, when they were built, and the types of housing available.

Go ahead and delete it. It's not worth arguing about.

If the article's creator is willing to merge the information into the University page, as I requested at the beginning of all of this drama, I will withdraw this nomination. Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main university article; not notable enough for its own article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Saint_Joseph's_University#Buildings - there are plenty of precedents of having separate omnibus pages on student accommodation, e.g. University of Exeter Halls of Residence. However, those cases are where the amount of material justifies it. In this case most of the material is already in the target section and merging a few facts and figures would cause no problem if done sympathetically i.e. keep as prose and avoid a list. TerriersFan (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability rationale; advert seicer | talk | contribs 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livecare Support[edit]

Non-notable and still a little ad-like (was deleted before for being too ad-like N_efarious O_pus 06:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 00:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam unless someone can produce a referenced encyclopaedia article on the subject. Nuttah (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 23:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Crossing[edit]

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS. Sources are a store directory, a press release, and a trivial mention from Guidebook America. Note that a page on the town's other mall got deleted ages ago for a similar lack of notability — and that mall's bigger than this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly for the record, that mall was listed at 400,000 square feet and this one claims to be 650,000 square feet which is quite a bit larger. - Dravecky (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in number of stores. Plus, Westwood has all the chain stores, Jackson Crossing's the junk mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever even been there? It's not "the junk mall" as you say, it has many large chain stores. -- American Eagle (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly big boxes, and lower end stuff like Dollar Tree. Westwood has most of the chains. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Best Buy, Target, Kohl's, Sears, Toys "R" Us and Bed Bath & Beyond - those are ones I can think of, chain stores. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn strip mall. JJL (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it's a mix of strip mall and enclosed. Still doesn't make it notable, tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though it's certainly large enough to be generally notable but there is a distinct lack of significant coverage (outside of the global coverage they got in 1997 when they fired their Mall Santa--funny, poignant, but not really about the mall itself) but if better sourcing can be found, I'm more than willing to change my view on this one. - Dravecky (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Charly[edit]

What at first seems to be an impressive article, is completely lacking in notability and sources. Google only comes up with 224 hits (half of which are wiki mirrors), 4 News hits for all dates, no Google books or scholar. The bulk of the material is from the Spanish language paper El Clarin. It appears to rely heavily on WP:NOR as none of the other sources mention "Operation Charly". Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and is not a newspaper. Delete. CENSEI (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks well sourced to me. Gamaliel (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You speak spanish? CENSEI (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit. Gamaliel (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are vouching that the sources do indeed agree with th content they cite? CENSEI (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I said what I said, nothing more or less. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How did you come to the conlcusion that it was "well sourced" if you never read the sources? CENSEI (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is referenced to a wide variety of reliable sources. A reasonable yardstick. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "wide variety of reliable sources" hmm ... lets see. Is RISAL, The Network of information and solidarity with Latin America, which stopped posting information to its website 9 months ago, a reliable source? Is "Algeria Watch" a reliable source? After looking at all the other sources, some arguably reliable in the context of Wikipedia, none with one exception mention anything about "Operation Charly". So far, the only "reliable source" that mentions an "Operation Charly" is one single 3000 word newspaper article. Can an entitre article be based off of one source? Now, I will ask you again, is this article and its subject "Operation Charly" supported by "multiple reliable sources", or is your "keep" vote based on something else? CENSEI (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses as sources major newspapers in three countries. That's good enough for me. Gamaliel (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of which you have/can read and only one that mentions "Operation Charly". The use of the others, which I have read, are used to argue a position not clearly advanced by the sources. I think thats textbook WP:OR. CENSEI (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In repsonse to the above exchange; someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Wikipedia Sourcing roles disciminate regarding the language of the source. There is a general prohibition on filling the External Links sections with non-English links (with some exceptions), but if the only sources on a topic are from non-English publications, that does not disqualify a topic from having a Wikipedia article. If someone believes that a source is a hoax or has been added in bad faith, and does not read the language, the onus is on the claimant to find someone who does and who can call B.S. if needs be. No vote per the article as I lack enough knowledge of the subject to cast an informed opinion. 23skidoo (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the issue of the non-English shorces, the issue is that only one of the sources is about "Operation Charly", the Clarin article, the rest of the non-english sources are used as WP:SYNTH the articles other portions. CENSEI (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No opinion on the article currently, but a paragraph in CIA activities in Argentina uses this article as a source.

According to Wikipedia, the Argentine military worked with the CIA in Operation Charly, in a program lasting until 1983. According to the Wikipedia article on Operation Charly, while the invasion of the Falkland Islands and the subsequent return to civilian rule in 1983 put an end to Argentine operations in Central America, the "dirty war" continued well into the 1990s, with hundreds of thousands being "disappeared." The Reagan administration took over the covert operations.

If this article is kept, the paragraph should be re-sourced. If this article is deleted then the paragraph should be as well. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only English source, the Noam Chomsky article, is now a dead link. This is an English encyclopedia. If all of the sources are in other languages, how can editors evaluate them? Until there is some English sources, I would have to voto to keep them out. How can someone who is researching this subject verify that what is in the article is accurate? --2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not having sources in English is, by no means, an impediment. Very valuable information would be lost otherwise. We have contributors from all over the world, and Spanish is one of the most important languages in use. Mariano(t/c) 05:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think the main problem with the article is the title. Operación Charly is not a widely used name for what it's being described. The Clarín (the most importante Argentine newspaper) article uses "Operación Charlie", while La Nacion (probably second) doesn't use a particular expression. Others use "Death Squads", which could refer to other similar operations. In short, while Operation Cóndor was a cooperation between several Latin American dictatorships, Charly/Charlie was about the cooperation between the Argentine military government and the CIA, and the spread of the anti-guerrilla technics to Central America. Have this in mind when serching for referencies, but I think the hole thing is quite documented. Mariano(t/c) 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or move the contents to Operation Condor or a neutral title. I agree with Mariano that the main problem seems to be the title Operation Charly, it's unclear where it has come from. As far as I can see Clarin cites it from the book R. Cardoso, R. Kirschbaum, and E. van der Kooy: Malvinas, la trama secreta and the Spanish term is Operación Charlie. The State Department document concerning Raúl Héctor Castro's meeting with Viola in 1979 cited by Clarin is available online, the document concerning a meeting with Argentine Intelligence can be found here. The Argentine operations in Central America are well sourced (in English too), e.g. Bob Woodward: Veil pp. 184 ff. or the Interview with Duane Clarridge.--zaphodia (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two databases of scholarly work return no result for "Operation Charly." A books.google search has one hit unrelated to the subject of this article and a news.google search has one hit unrelated to this. Agree with the nom: At first glance it looks like a good article. However, without WP:RS there is no reason to have an article. And for the record, websites like www.algeria-watch.org are not reliable and the reliable sources in there cite background knowledge indirectly related. This may indeed be real, but we don't have the sources. We66er (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is based on a text attributed to Maria Seoane. She is definitely a biased source, but a competent one. In a civil war, all sources are biased. Can anybody check the content/tone of the wiki article to her printed texts, to verify that at least this source is correctly narrates? NVO (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see the name of Maria Seoane in the article? The only journalist sources are citing information that is about commonly known history of killings in South America. Not a single WP:RS is about "Operation Charly." It's looking more like this article is a hoax. We66er (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well-sourced article that may suffer from having the wrong phonetic for 'c' being used. Possibly should be moved to Operacion Charlie. How many times do people have to be told that it's valid, but at 'Operacion Charlie'? More sources in English, ie Bob Woodward, are listed above.
- Comment: 1) The Woodward quote is about CIA operations in the country. NOT, I repeat, NOT about this particular one (Operation Charly/Charlie) in English or Spanish. 2) http://www.desclasificados.com.ar/index.php?ref=http://www.desclasificados.com.ar/i.php?i=1478 does not contain the word Operation Charly or Operation Charlie in English or Spanish. 3) desclasificados.com.ar isn't a WP:RS. There is nothing about the title or claims in the article in the article. Offer a few WP:RS that mentions Operation Charlie or Operation Charly. I don't see any. We66er (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Merge (non-admin closure), closing in spite of advice at WP:NAC (I participated in discussion) but full time period has expired and consensus was to merge, which I have done and I have asked for closure, see below; cleaning up to get out of backlog, undo if disagree :-). Fr33kman^{talk APW} 13:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Hazelgrove[edit]

~~Delete~~ Merge (changed vote) - The fact that she is a candidate politician fails WP:POLITICIAN, as does her age as she's not the youngest person to be a candidate. The fact that she's on Yeardot, by itself, is not enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NN. Three failures added together do not generate a pass of WP:Notability. Therefore, unless additional third-party references can be found, her page should be deleted. So, I'm adding a AfD tag and we can let the consensus decide. fr33kman (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I've changed article around to enable pass for WP:NN and to keep it now :-) fr33kman (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant non-local press coverage, merely a candidate for a election. If she was elected she would be notable, perhaps doubly so as this would involve a significant swing in the vote to her party. Tassedethe (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yeardot and redirect. I originally nominated this for speedy deletion as a clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. However, participation in Yeardot means there may be grounds for inclusion - but, per WP:BIO1E, as part of the Yeardot article, not as an article in its own right. Ros0709 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, probably agree. Yeardot is notable because it has been referenced by others enough^[1]^[2]^[3] and because it has a person staring in it Gilly Flaherty who notable in her own right as a premier league female football player^[4] for champions Arsenal^[5]. It would probably do to have a section there to deal with each person staring in it, but leave Gilly with an article on her own, and put in redirects for the stars names pointing to Yeardot (except Gilly, of course) :-) fr33kman (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or failing that Merge as above (personally I don't think Yeardot itself is that notable, hence the preference for delete. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sorry folks, I've done quite a bit of work on the article regarding sources and a bit more info. Please take a new look at it now. Thanks! (sorry, idle hands...) :-) fr33kman (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know, the problem is she's a young candidate; she's not even the youngest candidate ever as the mirror link shows; saying she could be the youngest MP ever would rely on an election falling within the next few months/under a year before she skips past Ms Devlin; indeed she'd also have to hope the Benn lass doesn't get elected either as she would be 2 years younger; so really it needs a by election. It's just too much WP:Crystal for my liking, second youngster and possibilities? No; my delete still stands I'm afraid. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Yes, I'm having the same problems. Good for you, sticking to your vote! :-) fr33kman (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My Merge !vote also stands. Ros0709 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yeardot per Ros0709. This is a BIO1E. RS attention from just standing for office does not establish notability per WP:POLITICIAN. A stand-alone article is premature at best. • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would have thought that being a propsective candidate for Parliament for one of the main parties did provide notability. I assume that she has been gone through the foraml adoption process. HOWEVER this nomination looks as if it has been withdrawn. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not; see WP:POLITICIAN. It does look like the nominator has had a change of mind but this cannot be procedurally closed by a non-admin because there are Delete !votes. Note also that despite the nominator's change of mind my own !vote (Merge) stands, one other editor has expressly stated that his Delete !vote stands and another editor has since !voted Merge. Ros0709 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I've withdrawn nothing. Once a nomination has been made it MUST go through the process. :-) fr33kman (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment do we have a merge consensus then? I'll do it, ... fr33kman (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment So unless anyone else objects, should I just merge the page? _∞Fr33kman^{talk APW} 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment no objections here --Blowdart | ^talk 05:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged, and redirected. I've left the AfD tag as it would be a WP:Conflict of interest for me to remove it. Also I can't do a WP:NAC closure of this myself now, so can someone (who knows how) do it, or can an admin close as keep? Thanks Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. OR/No RS/WEB seicer | talk | contribs 02:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donkpedia[edit]

Procedural nomination due to the speedy deletion of this article under A7-web was contested at DRV, where it was determined that the speedy deletion criteria did not apply. See the DRV discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 3. I have no opinion on this article or discussion at this time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RS, no Google News hits or other reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An encyclopedia that covers poker is certainly appealing, just like an "encyclopedia" that avoids articles about naughty body parts, but Donkpedia does not yet seem to have the substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy the guideline for notability. Edison (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:WEB at this time. Also looks like a lot of original research and use of primary sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unnotable. 2005 (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly non-notable and fails WP:WEB by miles. I also dispute that simply claiming to be the biggest of something is not in itself a claim of notability... even if that's true, in this case it's still extremely tiny, less than one-tenth the size of the smallest wiki on meta's list of wikis. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm unable to locate any reliable sources about this project. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memoirs: 1939-1993[edit]

Relatively unknown book. Not worthy of an article IMO Chatmantoo (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could much of the information be merged into the main Brian Mulroney article - perhaps under the memoirs section - rather than being deleted A.C. Norman (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Merge info to appropriate section in Brian Mulroney. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is the autobiography of a Canadian prime minister. Lots of sources. Easily passes notability standard and Wikipedia:Notability (books). --maclean 01:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced autobiography of a notable figure — and given that nominating this for deletion is Chatmantoo's first-ever Wikipedia edit under this username, I strongly suspect a less neutral and more partisan Mulroney-bashing motivation than advertised here. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If autobiographies warrant articles unto themselves, then this one clearly meets the requirements, per maclean's comments. PK T 13:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. An autobiography of a former Canadian PM is clearly notable, and merits a WP article. I suggest this new user read the criteria for notability and inclusion on WP. Mind matrix 13:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Clearly noted, thus notable. This editor's sole contribution is this nomination and seems in bad-faith. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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