Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 5

< April 4	April 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 00:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key songs of the adult alternative scene

An inherently POV list, who decides what a 'key song' is? Polly (Parrot) 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is inherently POV indeed; just what is adult alternative, and what is key, in this context? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...not to mention that out of all of these, "Heaven" by Los Lonely Boys is the only one I know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with - and am a fan of - several of them and many aren't apart of the adult alternative genre. Most are either alternative rock bands that did one or two slower tempo songs or Adult Contemporary acts who have done faster tempo songs. The inclusion of several songs is really subjective and filled with either WP:OR or POV. (Carter USM for instance never radio play in America of any sort) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List is inherently POV. If the criteria were sourced to some kind of scholarly list from music ... scholars? ... then it might be different, but as it stands, it's not an objective list; i.e, the editors decide what songs are key, and that's not how Wikipedia operates. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term "key" in the title is POV. How does a song become "key" in this genre? i'm slightly familiar with adult alternative and all I see in here are songs somewhat fitting the genre that had some success (i mean really? Foo Fighters aren't "adult alternative". And the inclusion of trip-hop act Portishead is similarly silly), its like this list was created by someone who just looked at whatever songs hit the Billboard Modern Rock Charts that would fit the genre and just included in here willy-nilly. I actually came across this a few months ago (finding my way there looking through the "What Links Here" page for Portishead on a slow school day) but had no clue how to put an article up for AfD and didn't have Twinkle at the time. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 00:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ukexpat (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete will never not be POV. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure POV, and a lot of the songs on the list are the reason why other bands provide an 'alternative'. Totally worthless.--Michig (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to list your favorite songs. That's what an iPod is for. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV - perry much pn - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what is a "key song"? KleenupKrew (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aristoff

Unsourced, no claims of notability. I would have put a "notable" tag on it and ask for sources, but I've been accused of using "notable" tags in order to pump up my edit count, so I'll bring it here so that if it gets deleted, my edit count will be decrimented. Corvus cornix_talk 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the author of the article. This article is worthy of inclusion in the subject is a major international coroporation with sales in the millions. Perusing the wikipedia article List of cigar brands will turn up scores of articles on smaller manufacturers just like this one. This AFD will be a test case for the viability of all those articles and the poster above is to thank for the outcome, whatever it may be. JeanLatore (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is other stuff exists, which is something we try to avoid here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That sounds like a pretty weak rationale for an AfD nomination. If it is indeed impossible to establish notability of this company then fair enough, but don't nominate it just to avoid comments about 'padding your edit count'. Mazca (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have db-speedy nom'ed it if there were a speedy criterion for products. Corvus cornix_talk 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh .... G11? (Not suggesting it's eligible.) --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, what does "decrimented" (as used by the nominator) mean anyway? I agree with the last comment as well. JeanLatore (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Decriment" means "subtract by one". Corvus cornix_talk 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Numberwang!... Sorry, can't help myself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean decrement. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete. There are a few news items, but they're mostly business-related and/or in the form of "The company died and was bought by someone". I don't think that gives notability, but it verifies that they exist. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, these appear reliable enough as things go (the first two are both definitely print, but not independent of each other). With Celarnor's sources there's probably just enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my own and Dhartung's sources. I think it's sufficient for a stub. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above. Luk suh 00:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calin chi wong

Violatin of WP:BLP1E, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. We don't have an article on everybody ever arrested. Corvus cornix_talk 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As author of the article, I vote as such because the subject has been featured on both national and international news media, including the Miami Herald (who broke the story), New York Times, Reuters, Times of London, and ABC News. This article is also helpful in illustrating topics of debate in contemporary society, such as gun ownership, race, and class. JeanLatore (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't see any discussion of gun ownership, race and class in this article. Corvus cornix_talk 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of long-term notability. —C.Fred (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability, beyond a kind of ephemeral newsworthy subject, has not been demonstrated. Additionally, the keep reasons offered by the author do not seem to be all present in the article as it is written now (as stated by Corvus Corvix). DDStretch (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 00:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When a madman gets arrested before he can do any harm, he is usually soon forgotten. Let's wait before recreating this article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm glad the police caught him before he became "notable". Instead of an outright delete, perhaps a redirect and a merge to the article about the police in Homestead, Florida as an alternative for now. Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Chris! _ct 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the references in the article is from Canada, so this story is of more than local interest. --Eastmain (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability for one (alleged) bad act need not establish notability. News coverage is but a flash in the pan. Dloh cierekim 04:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Manufacturing

Non-notable, fails WP:CORP. Previous afd merging ruling not completed, almost a year has passed. Jobjörn (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 00:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the merger debate at the Menards talk page came to nought ukexpat (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tbe process has gone on long enough. Time to put it out of our misery. B.Wind (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; author requested deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Deathcore

Possible neologism, did a quick Google search for this term and didn't come up with anything mentioning it directly (the closest was something along the lines of Black/ Death/ Hardcore). The fact that no sources or examples are given makes me think this "musical genre" was actually coined by some band or is original research. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there seem to several bands who music is listed as "black/deathcore" but I find no references to a "black deathcore" genera. -Icewedge (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an extremely niche and hard-to-specify genre at the best of times and the article doesn't really make any mention of what distinguishes it from Deathcore in the first place. With no bands that really seem to classify themselves as specifically "black deathcore" it seems a most unnecessary page. Mazca (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America's Next Top Model, Cycle 8. Consensus is that she does not justify a separate article, but it's a plausible search term and redirects are cheap.--Kubigula (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Hatch

Disputed prod - prod notice was removed with the comment "Ms. Hatch is not alone in being a fifth place contestan on a reality show and having an article. I see no reason to remove hers." My opinion: Ms. Hatch finished fifth on a reality show and that's about it. No reliable secondary sources provided. The slim assertion of notability - that she appeared in a magazine and a print ad - wouldn't be enough to establish notability even if they were sourced. Delete as not notable. Dawn bard (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just being on America's Next Top Model isn't enough if you've done virtually nothing else. Fails WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Not enough to bring it above the bar of WP:BIO. --Pmedema (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate season of America's Next Top Model as a plausible search term. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 00:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per saberwyn ukexpat (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody ever remembers who won fifth place in Miss America either. Mandsford (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LOL Mandsford. Per Mandsford. THE KC (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per saberwyn. Redirects are cheap, and the series article has enough to scratch the surface.B.Wind (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non notable non album. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azriel/Eternal Lord Split

The article on the band Azriel has been deleted and this album makes it even less notable nor does it assert notability. It can be merged with Eternal Lord if necessary but otherwise, delete. JForget 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band isn't notable, so album isn't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I wish there was a db-album. Band is redlinked and so should this. --Pmedema (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I think it's possible for an album to be notable but one/all of the contributors not to be, this doesn't seem to be the case. There's nothing that suggests this is special or notable in any way. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bands. Isn't even an album.--Michig (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burn Illusionary Night EP

Article on the band itself has just been deleted per Afd as being failing WP:MUSIC, so this makes the album even less notable. JForget 22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band isn't notable, so neither is their album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Delete - this could reasonably have been deleted along with the band's article - it has no notability beyond that. Mazca (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. andy (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be anything special about this album to suggest notability. Also, out of curiosity, does anyone know what the 'EP' signifies at the end? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found of the band, including coverage of their releases, such as this. In answer to Celarnor, EP is Extended Play - denotes a single format with an extended playing time.--Michig (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Dukes (radio personality)

Relisting this AFD for this non notable DJ. This article lacks reliable sources. The seemingly reliable ones (Baltimore Sun and Washington Post) are about the show which replaced Dukes show when it left Baltimore, not Dukes or his show. The Big O and Dukes article was recently deleted due to copyright concerns and lack of notability, this article should be deleted as well. Rtphokie (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Rtphokie (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, my apologies for closing the last AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. I cant find any mention of this person in any news searches. The football player yes, but not this DJ.--66.0.46.122 (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A Google News search for '"Chad Dukes" radio' turns up several articles about the subject, including the very first one in the search. In addition, there are sources cited in the article (like this [1]) even if your personal search was inconclusive. - Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject has received direct in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources (like [2]), this is the 3rd AfD for this article in a month. Even ignoring the aborted 2nd AfD, there's no reason this should be up again so quickly. - Dravecky (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable --70.147.248.118 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for making this "vote" your first edit in almost three months, anonymous editor. - Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The purpose of the notability guidelines is to ensure we have enough verifiable information from reliable sources to write an article. The notability guideline for people states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." My search for truly independent sources found only the articles linked by Dravecky above, but I believe these do constitute sufficient source material to write an unbiased, verifiable article. Information from dependent sources, such as information from the radio stations' websites, then fill out the article even more. Dukes has worked at three different radio stations in two separate markets, and I suspect a search in local Washington, Baltimore, and Phoenix area libraries would turn up more independent sources. DHowell (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I haven't looked for any sources myself, and I don't need to. I find it extremely unlikely that the nominator couldn't find any, considering this is a host on WJFK, one of the largest FM radio stations in the United States. MrPrada (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well that adds a lot to the discussion, now doesn't it. Largest station how? Biggest building, widest coverage, largest audience? None of these are true. Sources have been found but they are from extremely small newspapers and I'm having problems with their reliability. If you've got some better sources, that would help this discussion.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject satisfies the criteria suggested by WP:BIO guidlines. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical elements in popular culture

This article consists almost entirely of trivia. Rather than discussing relevance in popular culture, this is simply a collection of random references of dubious value. Those few valuable tidbits that are important could simply be folded into the parent article. No serious academic discussion is present in this article. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn. There has been substantial improvement on this page in the past few days and while it is still in need of a very great deal of work if the improvements continue then this will be up to standards. I should note, however, that the page is still in need of very substantial improvements and probably some policing to prevent it from devolving, but this is a good start. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for being willing to reconsider it. I've contacted the Anime WikiProject to help rewrite the anime-related sections, which are still in need of work.--Father Goose (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site allows for comparisons of the uses of elements and the idea of elements plus their interconnected nature of such. An example of this would be the use of electricity with the air element in D&D compared to it's use with fire in Avatar. It provides an easy access for deeper research on the ideas behind this. It provides more information then some pages which are just lists or don't have a lot of content.HVulpes 18:47 EST, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It's a list of random references that provide insufficient information about any of these instances to permit any serious comparison or analysis. The page is a giant list lacking any critical analysis or discussion. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep: Since it does not fall under any of the most common reasons for deletion. Being trivia is not a deletable office since many things on Wikipedia could be seen as trivia. It's interesting no one has tried the alternatives to deletion, like editing. I admit I am not the greatest editor for the page, but no one seems to be trying anything else like it has been suggested on the deletion page before a deletion is to take place. I will try to fix this article if everyone has a problem with it. HVulpes 18:47 EST, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Actually it does fall under two reasons for deletion. First, it is content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Second, very, very little of the material here is actually notable--who cares if some random anime references the five elements? If you want to rewrite this article, feel free, but you need to start from scratch. Don't just make a list of references; explain the significance of the classical elements in different kinds of popular culture with maybe a few references. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is essentially WHOCARES. Anime fans will care if some random anime references the five elements. There are anime fans on Wikipedia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What TallNapoleon said -- this is just a random list, insufficient in context to provide any real analysis of the classical elements in popular culture; it's just a gathering of trivia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for inclusion here, plus the term "classic elements" casts a huge net. Something like this would need to be divided further into more specific elements for it to work. Incidentally the last AFD in August 2007 ended with no consensus/keep default. 23skidoo (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical elements is well defined here on Wikipedia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: just because A and B are notable does not make B's reference to A inherently deserving of a place in Wikipedia. Such connections deserve the same scrutiny as the notability of A and B themselves. Nevermind, of course, the completely uncyclopedic format of this article: filled with little more than lists of trivial references rather than actual content. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep. At first, I was thinking delete on the basis of 'classical elements isn't clearly defined', but we have an article on it. If it's clearly defined on this article as well, I think it could work, but at the moment, it's very ... iffy. While AfD isn't forced cleanup, I think this would be a likely "keep getting nominated until it gets deleted" article even if improved. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irony: I would like to mention that this article was created to make sure the Classical element page was not clutter by constant suggestions of elements in use pop culture. Even after I posted the article, people keep posting uses of elements in pop culture until they finally noticed the site. Now if this article is deleted, I am sure there will be post of elements in culture back on the classical element page till it takes up most of the page. Which will require an article for that. Which will be targeted for deletion due to just being 'Trivia' of uses of elements in culture. Then the Cycle will likely repeat. To prevent this, I have tried to redo the page so it hold more information and details for debate. I am not sure it will work, but I am now trying. HVulpes 20:39 EST, 5 April 2008

This is the general pattern of how "In Popular Culture" sections work on Wikipedia; I suspect there is already a Wikipedia-space page documenting this process.

Someone makes an "in popular culture" section containing one or two important and relevant references that are a useful contribution to the article.
The list is filled with dozens of useless and non-encyclopedic references.
It gets really long, so someone splits it out to a new article.
The article gets AfD'd.
Go to step 1.

—Dark•Shikari^[T] 00:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is of course correct, and well established. Since you realise it, why are you suggesting to delete the article? The point is to interrupt the cycle and keep the material. Where to put it then is an editorial decision, depending in my opinion principally on the amount of material available and the length of the comprehensive article. DGG (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the analysis is at best only half-correct: lately the result has been that the better In Popular Culture articles have been kept; borderline ones are commonly improved to the point where they are kept; and the remainder deleted.--Father Goose (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 02:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree needs a big cleanup, but obviously notable. The whole 4 elements thing is pop culture anyway, just ancient. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this may be a notable topic, in this case I think it would be better to kill it, and let someone recreate it at a later date with some sourced and notable entries. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per compelling arguments to keep in previous discussion, undeniable notability of topic, encyclopedic nature of the subject, plenty of interest among readers, good faith contributors, and donors as evidenced by those arguing for keep in this and the previous AfD. Moreover, "I don't like" is not a compelling reason to delete. Finally, the subject of the classical elements as they relate to art is indeed covered in secondary sources: [3]. In fact, just searching Amazon.com I am finding sufficient sources to begin a significant revision of the article and I hope that those who may have initially suggested delete will please take the revisions into account (I am going to take a break to watch SNL in a few minutes though). Anyway, check for example the product description here or the editorial review here. Finally, as the article is not a copy vio, libel, or hoax, and as a redirect ___location exists (Classical elements), even in the worst case scenario we would redirect without deletion so editors' contributions remain public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really like what you've done so far. I'd just like to point out that listing large numbers of references to the elements from fictional sources of varying significance does not an article make. Rather than how a bunch of individual media portray and reference the elements, it would be better to focus on general trends and patterns with a few very notable references for backup. Keep up the good work. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, since I am watching Saturday Night Live at the moment, for anyone looking for a discussion related laugh, check out here for the MacBook Earth, Water and Fire. Also, it is worth noting that the classical elements have served as significant plot (even titular) elements in various works of fiction. Blaze (Mortal Kombat) is a fire elemental with appearances in muliple Mortal Kombat games, including as the end boss in the most recent game. The whole premise of The Fifth Element concerns the four classical elements and a unique fifth element. Reviews of such characters and films could also be good for secondary information, i.e. any interviews or analysis of these characters and/or use of the elements in the games and films. Also, speaking of Mortal Kombat, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation featured Elder Gods based on the four elements, which are mentioned interestingly enough in such reviews as this. Anyway, please consider the nominated version versus the revised version. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's progress, but again: There is too much of "In movie/video game/anime X, character Y represents element Z." A list tells us very little about the elements in popular culture--they are so pervasive that no list will be complete or terribly useful. Rather the article should critically analyze patterns in their appearances. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ideally, it should provide both. But articles which document the influence of a given subject through a list of the subjects it influenced (detailing the manner of the influence) are still of value. Somebody researching the subject can see all the most relevant examples collected in one place, and perform their own critical analysis as they read.--Father Goose (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page needs some work, but there are plenty of other articles which are "trivial" which aren't deleted. This isn't paper, keep it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is not a random list, merely an insufficient one, as there is a great deal of material that could be added. The notable principal themes of notable works are significant content for an article. The title might need some touching up--I didnt realise from the title by itself what was goingt o be included. -possibly the article may need division. DGG (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a lot of work, particularly organization and sourcing, which I'm willing to help with. I came to the article with indifference but noticed the Fantastic Four entry, never having realized until now that they are representations of the elements. This has much untapped potential as an encyclopedic subject.--Father Goose (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Much improved, thanks to Le Grand Roi's and HVulpes' work. "Strong keep" now.--Father Goose (talk)
Changing to Strong keep per the improvements to the article. This is certainly an encyclopedic subject, and now that it has seen some significant improvements, I see no reason to delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another utterly encyclopedic topic unduly bagged as "cruft". Chubbles (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Reliable sources put forward, nominator withdrew nomination. WilliamH (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Foreigner (band)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:BAND. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite sure if this falls under A7 but it does fall way short of WP:BAND just the same. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be some blog coverage, and if this is true they are touring internationally. Heres a lengthy article about them and here's an article on the BBC about them. Oh the power of Google. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep That BBC article helps with notability as does the Drowned in Sound ref in the article and I got a few more sources from Google News. I'm still a bit on the fence about their notability tho Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per the sources provided above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks. Now it's time to improve the article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 21:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogbyte Computer

Delete: Non-notable company. Google search shows 11,100 ghits, [4] but not enough coverage in third party reliable source. Fails WP:CORP. No hint in google books [5]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would probably have called it an G11 spam. DGG (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy CSD G11. B.Wind (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sins of the State

Self-published book that fails WP:BK, WP:RS, and WP:N. "Coyotephoto," the "publisher," is actually the name of the website of the person who wrote the manuscript [6], and the article was also written by a user named "Coyotephoto," so we have major WP:COI going on here. Coyotephoto is a WP:single-purpose account that appears to serve no function on WP other than commercial promotion--a guy self-publishes a book and then comes here to write a promotional article about it. He also spammed the book into a number of categories here, but those edits have been reverted. Qworty (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious conflict of interest aside, this does not appear to be a notable book -- the author is also a red link and likely to stay a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 00:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 either a hoax or original research. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark emo

Procedural nom. I declined to speedily delete the article, as it is ineligible for SD, not meeting WP:CSD. However, the article does seem to be either a hoax or original research, or some combination of the two. faithless (^speak) 22:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No relevant ghit. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To me it looks like a bizarre hoax - many of the bands listed as examples of the genre are mainstream bands accepted as various other types of rock and metal. Considering the negative connotations of the word "emo" in many situations, it may just be a strangely-disguised way of disparaging them. Mazca (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete. With emo Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 23:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made-up. Most of these bands are totally dissimilar lyrically and musically. Is based on an incorrect stereotype and nothing more. Zazaban (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX. Several of these bands formed before emo's early bands (Rites of Spring, Sunny Day Real Estate) were even formed. And Dimmu Borgir, Type O Negative and Cradle of Filth are all metal acts, ditto Evanescence (who are closer to Goth Rock if anything). No sources given Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax, and article creator Marcosvil keeps trying to sweep deletion notices under the rug. --76.254.199.136 (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He did it only once, and has been warned accordingly. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a troll. 7Munkys (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is obviously made up. Most of the mentioned bands have nothing to do with emo. Bloodredchaos (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, term is at best a neologism, but regardless the bands listed do not form any sort of coherent genre; probable hoax. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact doesn't this now fall under WP:SNOW? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete really rather pointless isn't it? LukeTheSpook (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 00:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Wiltshire

I declined the A7 on this because of the awards she won. Editor who submitted the A7 asked me to do the AFD on it as he/she is unfamiliar with the process. As it stands, with no reliable sources, the notability that it "asserts" isn't enough to meet the notability requirements set forth by WP:BIO. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as well. I'm the guy who tagged this for the A7, especially after seeing the vanity press nanostub left by the same user. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a monster case of self-promotion. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe it would be prudent to re-examine this matter. The "Prince's Trust" is certainly a notable organization. If she has worn the cited award (as appears likely from the references cited in the article), that would be enough to establish notability. The author is not published by a vanity press, as one editor contends, but by a small publisher affiliated with Random House. [7]. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notability is asserted and backed up by references, and with some re-writing and tidy-up, I think the article could be acceptable to keep. However, the dangers of COI and POV need to be borne in mind, especially by the creator of the article if she is also its subject. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The related article Sneaky Parenting - Smart Shortcuts to Happy Families is probably not notable (except by association with the author) and ought to be deleted. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy gum trick

AfDs for this article:

In 1 1/2 years, no decent sources have been found for this article. The last nomination resulted in "no consensus", the article has not improved since. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Many pranks of this nature have been around ever since my mom was a child -- or at least, they look like they've been sitting on the shelf of the craft store that long. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer and nom. Luk suh 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's gotta be something out there about this prank. Maybe it is more commonly known by a different name - any ideas? Zagalejo^^^ 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There appear to be reliable and independent sources which cover the subject of this article, thus barely satisfying WP:N , WP:V , and WP:RS. Per a Google News Archive search, there is the Atlanta Journal Constitution Nov 24, 2005, which describes this as a "practical joke gift." There is the Roanoke Times of April 1, 1996, which says "Snappy Gum is another old trick that still makes people laugh." Right up there with the Rubber chicken , the Joy Buzzer , the Chinese finger trap , the Snake Nut Can , the Chewing Gum Bug , the Fake vomit , and the Flatulence humor#whoopee cushion. Edison (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep In doing searches to see whether this is considered notable in the world of practical jokes, I was reminded that this seems to be one of many pranks that are based on chewing gum. Besides this and the similar Chewing Gum Bug, and the trick where an empty foil wrapper is made to look like a treat, there are sticks of gum that are onion-flavored, or that turn one's teeth blue, and I'm sure people can think of others. Since practical jokes (and chewing gum) are still a part of popular culture among kids worldwide, and have been for years, the information should be kept somewhere. Merge to practical jokes as an alternative, with leave to reorganize as part of a specific cateogry of joke. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. erc ^{talk/contribs} 22:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge In an encyclopedic treatment of chewing gum, all these childish tricks would get the briefest of mentions down near the bottom of the article, with some kind of introductory statement. Comparing this with other AfD on this page suggests it has some content. --Wetman (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand, source, and keep - subject has been around for decades. I would have proposed a merge into either prank or practical joke, but looking at both of these articles, I wondered how long it would be before one or both of them would be brought here. Another alternative is to add more about prank novelty items in general and rename accordingly after proper sourcing. B.Wind (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practical joke device is an article about novelty items in general, although it could use some work. Zagalejo^^^ 07:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire. This pure own-research article belongs in a blog, not an encyclopedia. Zero content worth of merging, can not remain as an article. So delete it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:ab}]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 21:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Barrie

Violation of WP:COI and WP:AUTO. A jack of many trades who has failed to achieve notability in any one of them. He says he is a wedding DJ, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says he is a "safety consultant," whatever that is, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says he is a diving instructor, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says that he has done a lot of work in motorsports, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says he is a yachtsman, but he has not achieved notability in that field. We may have to create a new guideline for cases like these: "WP:Walter Mitty". Qworty (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many claims. No proof. One's own sites aren't acceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:AUTO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin close) —BradV 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kong (dog toy)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a lot of other info can be added. For example...what is it made of? Who makes it? Who designed it? Does it have any special sponsors? Nearly useless as it is. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was created 7 minutes ago. —BradV 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'm a firm believer that a stub should have a lot more basic information than this does. I'm all for a keep vote if notability can be established. That's up to the original user to start off with a good stub based on some good research. I get the impression that this is a good faith effort based on the fact that this individual just purchased one of these toys and decided to write an article. Done that sort of thing myself, in fact. BUT...I added the requisite links, references and history. In short, this needs some due diligence. Off the soapbox I go. :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Kong is a fairly popular dog toy. This article seems like it would be useful, and the toy is also discussed in plenty of books, one of which calls it "possibly the best known dog toy in the world. I'll try adding some refs and stuff sometime later this weekend (although others are welcome to help out). Zagalejo^^^ 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Zagalejo's sources, seems to be notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand per Zagalejo. Luk suh 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per the sources provided. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mitchell

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:BIO and WP:N. Article proclaims he played for the Buffalo Bills in 1924. The Buffalo Bills team didn't exist until 1960. He played for the multinamed 1920-1929 NFL franchise when they were called The Bisons. for - according to the source given in the article - a grand total of six games. ~~Yeah, that's totally NN~~ Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doc Strange's arguments. If he played six times in the NFL then he is notable six times over according to the criteria for athletes in WP:BIO. Factual errors are fixed by editing, not by deleting. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, agreed, I missed this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As did I, good work Phil Bridger. Had no clue that even playing one game in NFL made even an obscure player notable. The more you know. My vote's now Keep. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per the above argument. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not a grammar textbook. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense conjugations of ser

Delete: Not encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a grammar textbook. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suprimir Wikipedia no es un diccionario de español. (Delete Wikipedia is not a Spanish dictionary.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a grammar textbook -- it is a linguistics encyclopedia, which is not the same thing. Besides, if you're going to conjugate, be exhaustively encyclopedic about it: all the tenses in both indicative and subjunctive modes. Sheesh. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quasirandom. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I delete, you delete, (s)he deletes, we delete, you delete, they delete per everybody. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Que sera, sera! Whatever will be, will be! Looks like this was a test run that really won't make it as an independent article. No need for me to add my delete opinion. I suggest mentioning this info in the article about irregular verbs (in English "to be" is the classic example, and this is the Spanish counterpart). Or place it in Spanish grammar for illustration between regular and irregular conjugates. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Actually, this could've been speedied per A7. A group of 4 high school sprinters? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Limit Sprinters

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has appropriate and verifiable sources and was worthy of notice as proven by several references to publication in the Kansas City Star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmckay10 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Unwikified, orphaned, and demonstrating no significant notability beyond local activity. Orphaned articles are usually orphaned for a reason, and if this is to be kept, it's in dire need of a major rewrite.Delete. B.Wind (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though anyone who wants to merge the content is welcome to do so, the content can be found in the deletion logs. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Life & Freaky Times

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/My Life & Freaky Times

Singer seems to be semi notable but there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this album -- no reviews, no third party sources, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. I don't know enough about music to properly dig for sources, so I'll wait for someone else skilled in that area to give it a try. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an All Music Guide review but otherwise I'm turning up next to nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Registers 3,390 ghits, so it is semi-notable. Luk suh 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from the All Music Guide thing, I can't find anything that looks like reviews or coverage that would suggest notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Luther Campbell, the artist who recorded the CD. It's independently released; so it is unlikely to stand up on its own, but Luther Campbell (a.k.a. Luke) most certainly meets WP:MUSIC. B.Wind (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Luther Campbell. Non-notable, doesn't deserve to have an article. Reverend X (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fpsbanana

AfDs for this article:

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Someone must've deleted the page in mid nom. The only edit is the tagging for AfD. :) DarkAudit (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G6 as housekeeping, since page got nuked just as AfD tag was placed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

UKWDA

contested prod: "Glorified webring instead of prof standards org--despite their claims of 9000+ members, and the text below saying member have to link to it, Alexa only finds 1100 incoming links. Ghits indicate membership shrinking"; fails WP:ORG - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails to meet the WP:CORP criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The main failing of the article is the lack of coverage by independent sources. I didn't turn any with a Google search. If they've been written up in, say, the Guardian, then I'll reconsider. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's been mentioned, though not "written up" by the more common UK Web Design Association in the Guardian [8]. A weak case could be made under WP:CORP#Non-commercial organizations, based on a few mentions in secondary media which all seem to connote some authority to UKWDA: [9] and [10] – Zedla (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to UK Web Design Association. Appears notable enough to me. See [11] (page 16 - as mentioned by Zedla) [12] [13]. --Edcolins (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources are all of the most tangential, mentioning this organization only in passing. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Hockey Junior C League teams

(View AfD) I am nominating for deletion the articles linked from this infobox. Not one of them contains any assertion of notability beyond being a team which plays in the Junior C league of the Ontario Hockey Association. When I reviewed them, I found that not one of them cited a single non-trivial independent source. Speedy deletion was overturned by an admin in the Hockey project, which claims to WP:OWN these articles, and a member asserts that there is consensus that teams at this level are notable. Really? These are local youth teams, and the articles are sourced solely from the team websites. In fact, Wikipedia appears to be leading the world in documenting the history of these teams and their competitions. I think this belongs on a Wikia somewhere, I do not believe there is consensus that low-league youth teams are inherently notable or that self-soureced articles are acceptable anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have a strange way of doing things, Guy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, yes. Unorthodox is my middle name. Actually, no, my middle name is André after my famous forbear, but nearly :-) Guy (Help!) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Feeder system for National Hockey League and has provided hundreds of alumnus to the pro-ranks worldwide. The assertion that this is youth athletics is false, players are up to the age of 21 years old. The "C" stands for the third tier of hockey, not of skill or notability, but of size of centre played in. If the nominator could get off his soapbox for a minute, he may realize that we have templates that are good for putting on articles that require more sources. DMighton (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not youth hockey as the nominator seems to think. Youth hockey is below the junior level and is called Midget. All these articles can meet WP:N quite easily as they are in articles in various cities news papers. If they are not referenced strongly now they certainly can be cleaned up. Not a reason for deletion. THey should be tagged and improved. Smells very strongly of WP:POINT. I don't see where anyone in the project claimed they own them. I think someone just mentioned to you that you should discuss before speedying and deleting your own speedies. -Djsasso (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, bordering on speedy. While I always assume good faith, this does seem a little suspicious, especially since there haven't been any cite or notability tags placed on any of the articles that I looked at from the templates. That should always, always be done before nominating something for deletion due to lack of citations or notability concerns, speedy or otherwise. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to tag every single one with "no sources" because, what, the entire Hockey Wikiproject has forgotten about WP:RS and WP:N? Come on. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes. That's exactly what I advocate. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least the main one. And a lack of article cites isn't generally a reason for deletion, let alone mass deletion. It's the topic. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment: Regarding concerns on the talk page of the nominator, who seems to think everyone showed up to !vote based on liking the subject, I know nothing about hockey other than that it happens a lot in Canada and involves ice, sticks and a small rubber ball/cylinder/thing. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per others. Speedy was wrongful, especially since they were tagged and deleted by the same admin. Grsz 11 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can someone link to the discussion where the speedy was overturned? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per others. Speedy was improper and shows poor judgment and abuse of power by admin.Flibirigit (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per pretty much everyone above. Plenty of sources available in the form of newspapers. Definitely notable enough. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Unilateral mass speedy deletion of these articles was wrong, wrong, wrong. Why was it too hard for the nominator to add "no sources" tags to the articles that require them, but not a problem to add AfD tags to all of them? Come on! --Canley (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CSD#A7 - an assertion of notability is required. An unsourced article whose claim to notability is being a regional junior C league club has no assertion of notability. Where is the assertion of notability? Why are they all unsourced? Let's look at a randomly chosen example, Simcoe Storm. 124 unique Google hits, zero on Google News, zero on Google Scholar, zero in Google Books, zero on my Factiva subscription. And this is "obviously notable" in what way, please? Or how about Glanbrook Rangers: 114 unique Googles, including one scraped from test wiki, passing mention in some sports results pages. No sign of any non-trivial independent sources about the team. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe keep the leagues. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep If these articles do a poor job of demonstrating notability, they should be tagged as such and the community given a chance to improve them before they're deleted - this is particularly so since the articles are within the mandate of a Wikiproject. I'm not a member of that project, but I can do a Google search too, and I don't have any question that notability can be demonstrated in most, if not all, of these cases.

In addition, I think there are some serious process problems here. I can't see any evidence in the history of the articles or the template that they were tagged for speedy deletion, which I assume means that the nominator performed the deletion without a tag. Lack of demonstrated notability is not a valid criteria for using WP:CSD#A7 - in fact, the description of WP:CSD#A7 is explicit that it is distinct from questions of notability. Importance and significance are the criteria for WP:CSD#A7. The length of time some of these teams and leagues have been around, the fact that they've graduated players to the pro ranks - these are considerations that contribute to importance and significance, so the speedy was inappropriate. As I've also said, I believe that the Afd nomination is not the best approach either but, if it's going to be put through the process, it should be done properly. The articles are not currently tagged as having been nominated for deletion, and there is also no evidence in the history of the articles that they've ever been tagged as such, which is a crucial component of the Afd process. The template was tagged as having been nominated, but that tag was removed by the nominator, so it too is currently lacking this critical component. How is the community expected to weigh in on the discussion without proper notice being provided? Mlaffs (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hey, I'm nominating all articles that begin with the letter Q. Sorry, but most people would describe this as a lazy way to do a nomination for deletion. I'm willing to consider the nomination of the Clarence Schmalz Cup, made elsewhere on this page, but one has to do a little bit of work before tearing down someone else's house. Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the articles appear to have been marked for deletion. Reso lute 15:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the nominator seems to have skipped that critical step of notifying those working on the articles outside of the hockey wikiproject (no one owns articles, not even wikiprojects) that these articles are up for deletion. An administrator should know better. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And not to pile on after my earlier comments about the laziness of this particular nomination, but let's took at the original note from the nominator, which is the only guide we have to go on regarding what articles this nomination covers - "I am nominating for deletion the articles linked from this infobox.". That means that they're also asserting that the articles for the Ontario Hockey Association, Ontario Hockey Federation, and Hockey Canada don't demonstrate notability. Hockey Canada? Really? Obviously, I know that's not what's meant, but without proper tags ... Mlaffs (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would call for a WP:SNOW on this at this point. Especially since he hasn't gone through and tagged the articles with the afd tag. -Djsasso (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep. All the articles are notable. If the nominator is actually nominating articles like Hockey Canada and the Ontario Hockey Federation, then they are oversteping their bounds as an Admin by a huge margin. Patken4 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep due to improper process, fallacious reasoning. These are not "youth" teams. They are junior teams. Not just junior teams, they all fall under the governance of the OHA. This is the equivalent of deleting single-A minor league baseball teams as "youth" teams. More importantly, however, is the fact that this AfD is almost to the halfway point and these articles have not been tagged. Any deletion would be almost certainly overturned at DRV merely for that. --Smashville^BONK! 19:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 formed around the sources; that they satisfy notability, and also referenced a detrimental edit to the article previously made by the nominator. WilliamH (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Mousawi

biography of a non notable personage, weasel terms, propaganda for terrorist organization's member Elie plus (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — notability should be asserted better in the article; if this is not done, then it should be deleted. Being the spokesman for a notable organization may, as is, qualify for notability. If there's been some parliamentary debate about him specifically, then he might be notable. If Wikipedia had existed in 1928, would Joseph Goebbels been considered notable then? --Vuo (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references in the article are more than enough to establish notability, and I can't see where this is propaganda - the article is remarkably neutral in tone for such a controversial subject. Also please note that the nominator has previously vandalised this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moussawi`s visa has been questioned in both the House of Commons (David Cameron, Mr. Amess) and the House of Lords (Lord Strathclyde) (and in a Freedom of Information request, unsuccessfully). I will include that in the article. Additionally, I read that Mousawi was banned from France and the US too, but the sources did not seem reliable enough to me, it could be a confusion with the ban on Al Manar. Still, if Mousawi ever applied for a US visa, he probably would be denied, since he is a former senior editor of Al Manar, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity on the Terrorist Exclusion List. I think Mousawi qualifies for notability (and notoriety). The accusation of propaganda and weasel words is really surprising to me, could somebody point that out? --Shengyi (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are sufficient. (and, FWIW, a/c the Goebbels article, by '28 he'd become the leader of the Nazi party in Berlin. And elected to the Reichstag, which is automatic notability at WP.)DGG (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. John254 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talal El Khoury

autobiography written by a non notable personage, full on POV and it cites absolutely not one single reference. in short: not encyclopedia material Elie plus (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean full of POV, not full of NPOV. If it were full of NPOV it'd be neutral. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All this article says is that he got some diplomas, joined a professional association and had a couple of jobs with governments. Very worthy, I'm sure, but I can't see anything approaching notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability that I can see. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has been renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talal El Khoury (2nd nomination) before this discussion has closed--Nsevs • Talk 21:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seriously this looks like this guy put his own biography up here. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awe (emotion)

~~A dictionary definition. Already exists at Wiktionary. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thank you to everyone for their input. The consensus is clearly that this is a legitimate encyclopedic topic and that there is an article waiting to be written here. Accordingly, I withdraw my nomination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Definitely has expansion potential for psychology, neurology, etc, per sources such as this and this that deal with awe as an emotion and not merely as a word. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article is notable but requires sourcing. Luk suh 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Could certainly be expanded, but it needs a lot of work. As it stands right now, it's not even a good stub article. --clpo13_(talk) 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. Granted, it could potentially be turned into an encyclopedic treatment of the subject, but this article, as it stands now, has no encyclopedic content. No prejudice against someone recreating it later as encyclopedic content or to anyone who would care to add such material now to make the article suitable for inclusion.OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger makes a good point below. After further review of WP:DICDEF I am changing my opinion to neutral. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This article needs be expanded. Wrath is an example of good article about emotions. Zero Kitsune (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:DICDEF gives a very clear explanation of the difference between a dictionary definition and an enclopedic stub. This is clearly the latter. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can be expanded. ChessCreator (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinnerball

This is a disguised advertisement. The link takes you to www.spinnerball.com, where Fun Outdoor Games LLC would like to sell you the Spinnerball^TM game for $49.95, or 12 for $299.40 etc. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. No reliable, verifiable, or independent sources. DarkAudit (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe not that blatant, but still pretty obvious that it's advertising. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 21:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite a G11, but it's definitely spammy. Author is SPA whose only other contribution has been to put this article as a "see also" on Lawn game which suggests a posible COI though this is by no means proven. Oh, and did I mention that there are no independent sources, or suggestions of notability? No? Well, there aren't. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of this (including the "elusive" list) is copied from Ladder ball, which is probably in serious danger of being nominated next, unless it can clean up its own spammy nature. I'm afraid that the author of the Spinnerball article may have inadvertently betrayed that article as well. Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they have. DarkAudit (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable and advertisement. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a advertisement. (What's a scoring bar,anyway?) 99.230.152.143 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. As entioned above, this is just basically a (partial) repeat of Ladder ball. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise: Temporal Cold War

A yet-unreleased video game mod. References given point largely to blogs or the manufacturer's homepage. Removal seems to be controversial per the talk page. B. Wolterding (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Subject has been covered by Freeplay, a major gaming magazine. Other than that, though, there isn't much in the way of available sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 11:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Half-Life 2. Enough independent coverage for a mention there, but not for its own article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The free play article along with the various interviews seem to be well over the bar for notability (multiple reliable references). The Freeplay article, while short, looks significant. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 However, JFire, the citations you've provided here need to be added to the article. I expect some cleanup, or I'll renominate myself...---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Sealth

I actually work there, its real we have mashed potoates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.100.186 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nn summer camp, no reliable sources for the notabilty of this summer camp, Delete Secret 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. No sources provided to show independent coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Camp Fire USA-affiliated camp, this one has some notability. There seems to be enough sources available to support a verifiable article. This writeup in The Young Woman's Journal of 1929 looks promising for historical coverage, and there's more recent news coverage: [14] [15] [16] [17]. Jfire (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; well-known in the Seattle area as a local landmark; a search of a newspaper database turned up 100+ stories mentioning it. Notable for having been around so long, as well -- it must be one of the first Campfire camps. Article could use a bit of cleanup, though. -- phoebe / (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Seven Party Alliance, editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Party Alliance

This page doesn't seem to have a purpose beyond attacking the parties involved, and in any case, the term Eight Party Alliance is very rarely used - the term Seven Party Alliance is used even when including the Maoists BovineBeast (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm wary about deleting a page like this which isn't vanity... but the only Eight Party Alliance references I'm finding are in relation to Bangladesh. gren グレン`

The eight parties in question are the governing parties of Nepal, but the normal term is Seven Party Alliance, and the article prior to nomination was essentially simply an attack on the alliance BovineBeast (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the attack bit was easily fixed, then? It's still a decent stub. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since it's not the normal term, I doubt it can grow beyond that stub. Perhaps on reflection we should Merge it with Seven Party Alliance, since that page doesn't contain any note of the fact that it includes the Maoists these days. BovineBeast (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, "decent stub"—there's an oxymoron. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, less formal use than Seven Party Alliance but reliable sources do use the term. Economist The Hindu etc. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlses somebody decides to source this article. Yahel Guhan 05:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect If this term has been used in some sources, then the obvious thing to do is a redirect with an explanation DGG (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aqwis (talk – contributions) 07:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Anderson (radio)

This unreferenced article does not establish notability. Rtphokie (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been up for a long time and does establish notability. ~ Gmags2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmags2003 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither rationale is sufficient. Longevity of an article means nothing in determining the validity of the article. With millions of articles, and only so many eyes, it just means that the article may not have been properly vetted yet. An assertion of notability only prevents an article from being speedily deleted. Beyond that, it is the responsibility of the author to provide reliable. verifiable, and independent sources. The radio station web site may be reliable and verifiable, but it is not independent. The blog is none of these. There are thousands of radio personalities on local stations throughout the US and the world. Little here puts him above and beyond the rest. DarkAudit (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DarkAudit. Luk suh 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent notability, common name makes news searches difficult, perhaps article creator Gmags2003 can expand sourcing which would influence an inclusionist like me to change my view. - Dravecky (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local broadcast personalities, even if they have the greatest audience within a local market, generally fall short on WP:BIO, and this is no exception.B.Wind (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to being a radio personality, he is an established animation movie creator/digital artist. ~ Gmags2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmags2003 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Settlers of Catan. Editors are encouraged to seek consensus as the the extent and appropriateness of merging this content to that page. Pastordavid (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variations of Settlers of Catan

This page has been created as a home for fan-made unofficial non-notable variations. Wikipedia is not for things you made up; it's not a webhost and it's not a directory. Unofficial, non-notable variations on a game don't belong here, they belong on BoardGameGeek. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you didn't do your research. In America, games are not copyrighted by concept, but by name and artwork. So even if the a variation is not released by the copyright holder of the original game, doesn't mean that someone else cannot copyright and release their own variations. In fact, in the case of S3D Connector, that's exactly what they did. If being legally recognized doesn't make it notable, I don't know what does. Elliandr (talk) 01:54, April 1st 2008 (CST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete variations on a game are not notable in themselves imho. merge if anything. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Settlers_of_Catan. Not enough merit to stand on it's own as a spinoff.Gazimoff (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question what content do you think the article has, that should be merged? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not very much, essentially. The video game section of the main article needs some citations, which could be provided from this spinoff's inline links. There's one to an MS press release and another to a developer press release. That variants exist might be worth a sentence or two in the series section in the main article without really giving it undue weight, possibly with a single citation. I'm not going to advocate merging in the entire list as the individual variations themselves are not notable. I hope that clears it up. --Gazimoff (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that sounds sensible to me. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are actual official variations, some of which you can buy in the store (I just did buy the fisherman one). There are some reviews. I only looked for the fishermen of catan one:
- http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13257.phtml
- http://www.criticalgamers.com/archives/board-games/now_shipping_settlers_the_fish.php

Between all the variations, I'm fairly certain notability is over the bar. Hobit (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to be clear, the nom is incorrect that (any?) of these are either fan-made or unofficial. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't say that - I said the article was created as a home for unofficial ones. See Talk:Settlers of Catan#Variations article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I missed the difference, sorry. But just for the record, those unofficial ones don't seem to be there. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Depends when you look - Elliandr keeps adding them back in. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup, and improve like the Chess variant article or List of poker variants article. The Settlers of Catan article looks fairly long already, as does List of Settlers of Catan products — although I suppose much of this information could be condensed and merged into a paragraph in the Settlers of Catan article. Many of these variants were created by Klaus Teuber himself. --Pixelface (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not opinions. Mayfair Games, on their own website, presents variations of this game that they do not support but clearly do not have a problem with. The purpose of writing this article is not to be a "link farm" as Percy Snoodle puts it, but to present information for all kinds of variations physical and digital. To deny information from existing on Wikipedia therefore is an act of censorship. Articles exist for many games on Wikipedia, and many variations of many games. If you consider unofficial variations of a game, physical or digital, to be of the same game, then I feel this information should be merged into Settlers of Catan. If you consider this to be not of the same game, then they should be allowed to be talked about as it's own article. However, no matter what you consider it, this article complies with the rules. (the only reason I created it as a separate page was because I got tired of reading about people deleting the history files and felt that if so many people wanted it to be treated as a separate game, then I could live with it being on a separate page.) I looked at the conditions under which an article can be deleted, and none of them apply here. The information complies with a neutral point of view (displaying information from all sources without bias) no original research done, all information is true and not under copyright. References are listed and verifiable. No advertisements are being made. External links are not excessive nor do they dwarf information. Content listed is not copyright information.... on the contrary, it seems to me that some people are going out of there way to delete this kind of information, both from the history pages of [Settlers of Catan] and by trying to delete new articles in general. I strongly suspect foul play here. Especially since many of the variants, although "unofficial" were also created by the original creator of the game. I mean, just because the original creator of Tetris doesn't own the copyrights to his own creation because of socialism doesn't make his contribution to his own game any less important. So why would the contributions made to this game be any different? One way or another, one form or another, I strongly disagree with censorship of the facts and I won't sit by while someone makes a mockery of the facts. --Elliandr 00:05, April 1st 2008 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliandr (talk • P.S. I know it would look like I am a new user, but the truth is I just lost my password as Elliander and although I had an e-mail tied to it for some reason it's not showing up in the system. I just wanted to make sure people didn't think I am a new user who hasn't used Wikipedia much before.contribs)
Delete. Page seems an attempt to include so-called "Settlers" games in the list, which were removed by consensus from the Catan articles. Information on "Settlers of Catan" games can be merged into the Catan articles. Information on the unlicensed "settlers" games, if encyclopedic, should not mention "Catan" in the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs cleanup and improvement, but those can be solved by things other than deletion. Keep per the reviews that have been given higher in the discussion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge with Settlers of Catan. Luk suh 21:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs a cleanup but ought to be retained...--Cameron (t|p|c) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would think that any variations for which secondary sources exist could be included in the main Settlers page. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a merge then?Hobit (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify... Delete and redirect to Settlers of Catan, merging any "official" variations, i.e. those designed by Mayfair, to the main article. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hobit (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems unlikely that there will be any independent, reliable sources to cite: This is not a notable subject. Can be reduced to a single sentence on Settlers of Catan, linking to the offical mayfair games variants archive. Edit: Both Fishermen of Catan and the various video games have multiple independent references available but really need their own articles written from the ground up. Marasmusine (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that an organizational problem and not a reason to delete?Hobit (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. Love Line is now a redirect to Loveline. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Line

Also in nomination:

I am nominating these two pages because they are both non-notable shows limited to a college radio station. I also recommend redirecting Love Line to Loveline after deletion since Loveline is a well-known national radio program. Danski14}}^(talk) 20:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Drdisque (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was considering these for deletion as well: there's nothing notable about either subject. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom--Rtphokie (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both Unsourced, insufficiently notable for separate articles, merge to parent WRPI article. - Dravecky (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Love Line to Loveline as there's nothing worthwhile to move into the targe; delete The B Sides. No target here. B.Wind (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winner Productions

Not notable. Probable hoax. Reads like a ripoff of Survivor (TV series). No relevant ghits. No hits at all on Google news. No evidence provided of any coverage whatsoever, so fails WP:N and WP:CORP. DarkAudit (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be some sort of fantasy version of Survivor that people "play" by interacting on the Internet. No sources to establish notability, of course—this may qualify for a speedy per criterion A7, since I'm not seeing any indication of "why its subject is important or significant." Deor (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 20:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reasons given to keep are very weak. Popularity is not necessarily notability. WP:V not met and no evidence provided to suggest it could be. Neıl ☎ 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tater tot hotdish

No sources, one external link, no assertion of notability or popularity. No real context or potential of getting beyond a stub. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable, more than a dicdef. -Drdisque (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep. Topic is semi-semi-notable and somewhat interesting. Luk suh 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always wondered what that stuff was called, it seems to show up at every potluck I go to... Anyway, all I'm finding is recipes, so I'd say delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources (and because I hate cream of anything soup). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Damn. Now I'm hungry. As for notability: has this been discussed in newspapers, books or magazines? Edison (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook - no notability, only reference is a recipe on a website that describes itself as a weblog. Maybe mention it as an aside in another article, but doesn't deserve its own article AFAICT. Also, it sounds like it's the sort of thing that has all sorts of "unofficial", local names, so it's going to be a job just working out what name it gets transwikied under. FlagSteward (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It says it's "popular", so that's an assertation of notability. I google-searched it and came up with quite a number of hits, including an article on wikiHow "How to Make Tater Tot Hotdish". Notability enough. Herunar (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not actually an assertion of notability. Popularity != notability. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of recipes. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with hotdish page Whitebox (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo J. Meyer

DRV for this article:
* Result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3: Leo J. Meyer – Undeleted. There are certainly concerns with original research in this article, and the commenters below are correct that these policy concerns are paramount. However, removal of original research through editing is always preferable to removal through deletion. After a careful examination of the sources in the article (many of which do not seem to be relevant to the subject), I noted references that verify the three badges, some of the military history (treating the Green Barret article image as a reference), and the work as an artist. Consensus seems to exist that the three badges are important enough to satisfy notability requirements. Article should probably be turned into a stub unless footnoted references can be added to verify much of the detail in the article as a whole. – IronGargoyle (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:

Conflict of interest, subject of this biographical article is not of encyclopedic interest

meyerj is an SPA who created this article to memorialize his father. The subject is not encyclopedic (a routine military career), not widely noted, the article amounts to original research and its creation raises many COI worries. This article went to AfD in January and the result was delete. This was overturned at a deletion review. The closing admin recommended the article be stubbed. meyerj has also installed a copy of it (an older, much larger version with photographs and a detailed award list) as his user page. I trimmed the article down in an attempt to save it but after reading the previous AfD discussion and looking at the sources can find no reason to keep it in the article space. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF Comment. After re-reading this nom, I am not convinced the nominator is truly familiar with the military if he considers Meyer's case to be a routine military career. MrPrada (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Man is one of only 303 people to ever earn 3 combat infantry badges, a decorated military officer. The limited number of that category combined with "not a paper encyclopedia" leads me to say we should keep this. Furthermore, the deletion review debate overturned the deletion. There's obviously already community opinion against deletion, even in the article's current state. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this mean 303 more articles could/should be created, one for each of these people? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, would that overload the servers and make us have to delete 303 of the 490 articles about Pokemons? Edison (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I think it may be significant in the context of notability that you have brought up Pokemans twice in a conversation about Leo J. Meyer? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is implying that they should be deleted on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you are to Leo J. Meyer. MrPrada (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per SwatJester. Subject is at least semi-notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion. Luk suh 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note: Refs indicate he has been honored by the US Infantry Museum for his 3 CIBs, as well as being noted in stars and stripes, the Green Berets Magazine, and Veritas. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not significant coverage under WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. Stars and Stripes is a major newspaper. Multiple independent sources confirm this guy's notability. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a single mention in a military, government owned newspaper is significant coverage (only clarifying my thought here though, I understand your take on the source). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As was noted in the DRV, the Army has had many ceremonies, etc., to honor the recipients of the 3d award of the CIB, which have received significant coverage. Just because Meyer's name isn't mentioned in a specific by-name list does not make the 3d CIB insignificant. Also, calling Stars and Stripes (along with the other PAO sources) insigificant is a Style over substance fallacy, these are obviously verified, notable, independent sources within the military. MrPrada (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well below the military biography inclusion standard. Certainly an impressive achievement, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really? That link includes: In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. This article would appear to pass that, though I can't see the paper articles in question. Hobit (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All due respect, but the only source given that is independent of the subject (i.e. not published by the military) is the Army Times. --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

????? The subject of the article is Leo Meyer, not the military.Hobit (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does in fact, meet the military biography inclusion standard, as I have demonstrated elsewhere. The only other argument here then, is WP:MEMORIAL. However, the article as it stands, does not read as a memorial, nor is its purpose to memorialize the subject, so there is no actual argument for deletion presented here. MrPrada (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you haven't demonstrated that he meets the military history inclusion standard at all. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recreation of article deleted via AFD 2 months ago. If there is dispute over this decision, I recommend interested parties follow the Deletion Review process.Withdrawn - no opinion. At the time I placed my vote there was no indication by the nominator -- via the "previous nominations box" that any DRV had occurred. As this has been corrected and a DRV is indicated, I withdraw my delete "vote" and choose instead to abstain as I lack sufficient knowledge of the article itself to determine whether it is viable or not. 23skidoo (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AFD was overturned at deletion review, as Swatjester notes above, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Scog (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:N if the paper cites are accurate. Hobit (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the three badges are not enough to confer notability, there is no way to verify that the cited sources contain significant coverage, and even if they did, you could say it's akin to a locally-prominent but non-notable person having obituaries in multiple papers.--Michael White^T·C 02:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established by the U.S. infantry museum and several published articles for a very rare hero of three consecutive wars. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Many garage bands have articles, and many hundreds of Pokemons. We can do no less for a genuine hero, or even potentially 303 such heroes. Edison (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things to ponder: What establishes this individual as a hero or genuine hero? What definition, what sources? Are 303 individuals "very rare"? Does a military museum and some published articles (all but one of which are in military publications) establish significant coverage under WP:BIO? Wikipedia is not paper notes that notability requirements still apply to articles. The same project page notes Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Lastly, the notion Many garage bands have articles, and many hundreds of Pokemons does not apply. Some of those articles may cover notable topics, others may not, but we're discussing Leo J. Meyer here. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've just established that he has notability: A museum and multiple published articles from both military and non military articles. Are you opposing this just because he's dead? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for military bios. Also, the non-military-controlled coverage is scant. I don't know where your question about his being dead comes from, I haven't thought about that as having any sway on notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. He doesn't satisfy the military notability guidelines. Many soldiers with much much higher awards are excluded, so I don't see how this can be justified. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dhartung's assessment is disputed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung's assessment is also WP:NOT#Policy. MrPrada (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Dhartung's assessment is disputed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's be clear: Dhartung's assessment is disputed by you. And of course you have a perfect right to dispute it, as anyone has. He was a Colonel (an above averagely high rank, but not an outstandingly high one), and he clearly was mentioned in various places. He wasn't a nobody. His descendants may reasonably be proud of his accomplishments. But this doesn't make them, or him, encyclopedic. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, we should be clear. Dhartung's assessment is overwhelmingly disputed by the last DRV, and a clear majority of contributors (20+) dispute, and agree that the 3d award of the CIB is notable. The view that is is not encyclopedic is a minority opinion, and seems more to me like piling on then researching the award and evaluating its notability. MrPrada (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following the military notability guidelines cited by Dhartung and the sources provided by the article, Meyer was not a recipient of a country's highest military decoration, did not command a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat, never held a top-level command position (such as Chief of the General Staff) and has not been the primary topic of one or more published secondary works. Hence, notability cannot be established under Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was a special forces full-bird Colonel. By definition that is a command of a substantial body of troops. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a military expert but my understanding is that "special forces" commands are smaller. I haven't seen anything to indicate he commanded "an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one" (as outlined by the military bio guidelines). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information on User:meyerj's userpage about Meyer's promotion to colonel is not consistent. The table says he was promoted in March 1969 but the text says he was promoted to colonel in October 1969 and also transferred to Washington DC in 1969. If he was commanding battlefield troops as a colonel, it wasn't for long (if ever). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. Xdenizen (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dhartung's assessment is disputed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been transcluded to the List of people-related deletion discussions. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the basic award is for being present in the field during a war. Being present during three does not seem to add all that much; its doing something noteworthy once you're there that makes people notable.DGG (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The award is for being under direct fire in an infantry capacity. Since the scope of time for receiving the award is limited (i.e. if you received one in Iraq, you can't receive one in afghanistan), it severely limits how many of the awards a person can get, something that IS highly notable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being under direct fire in an infantry capacity (or getting an award for this thrice) is not one of the military notability guidelines. This said, getting three of these was clearly unusual but I can't see how it crosses the threshold of any notability guideline on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line four of the MILHIST guideline: "People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works." IE, Leo J. Meyer. Not sure how you couldn't see that. MrPrada (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Swatjester. No, we don't have to create 303 other articles, that's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, as is the argument that other people with more awards don't currently have articles. Notability is established by multiple reliable sources, which we have. Verifiability is also established by reliable sources. The article needs work, but deleting it would fly in the face of core policy. It was undeleted at DRV, now let's improve it.Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that the sources are reliable and show the subject isn't encyclopedic under core policy. I do understand that those who want to keep the article tend to interpret that policy more freely than others, which is ok with me and is why we're having this discussion. Hopefully the outcome will be unambiguous either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by multiple "significant" or "substantial" coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure we have that. To be honest, there seems to be enough to include this gentleman on a list of three-time CIB medal recipients but not for his own article. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the sad sack who started this whole kerfluffle with my AFD nomination in January. In my nom statement, I tried to address the article's problems without disparaging Meyer's honorable service, and it's tough to do that while at the same time arguing that the CIB does not alone make one notable. I don't think I was successful. When I nominated it, it wasn't so much an article as a glowing hagiography, complete with retirement vacation destinations, at least one family photo, and his hobbies. The 'Notes' section contained only wikilinks. The ELs to museums, with the exception of the National Infantry Museum, take publicly-submitted material – in Meyer's case, material submitted by his own well-intentioned family – and publish it, which is not exactly what WP:V has in mind. In the current version of the article, one of the seven refs is to the number of American military personnel, and five are for one fact: he earned his parachuting wings. Is that what we mean when we say an article should be 'well-referenced'? In addition to those problems, it seems the only unit he directed was a drum & bugle corps, and I don't think that counts as a 'substantial body of troops'. We have article upon article on military officers of equivalent or lesser rank who have met our standards for notability during their service and/or after their retirement. Some of their articles are well-written and some are not, but their subjects are notable. Yes, Meyer served with fidelity and integrity, but he does not meet the MILHIST notability standards. - KrakatoaKatie 06:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the assessment of the MILHIST notability guideline by KrakotoaKatie and Gwen Gale are misleading, and it is being misapplied.

Guidelines for inclusion that always qualify include the highest military decoration, commanding a substantial body of troops, holders of a top level command (I'll leave the 4th one out for this moment)
Conversely, any person who is only mentioned through OR or primary sources is probably not notable(not automatically).

Just because some are afforded automatic inclusion under the first guideline, does not mean others are automatically excluded under the second guideline. Also, there is a fourth sentence in the first guideline I left out: "People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works." Obviously, that includes Leo J. Meyer, so the argument that he does not meet the MILHIST inclusion standard is not only being misinterpreted, but is also patently incorrect. MrPrada (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your interpretation. "People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works" refers to people who are the subject of books. In any case, no one can seriously claim that Leo J. Meyer is the primary topic of for instance Stars & Stripes. Its primary topic is the various doings of the United States military. We also have yet to see what Stars & Stripes actually wrote though there has been a host of fanciful speculation. For the Stars & Stripes article to meet the criterion, it would need to be significant or substantial coverage of Meyer's life.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works may not be clear enough as a guideline. I don't think a smattering of mil articles qualify other than to note the non-notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABLE states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability." There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is established by the significant coverage that are independent of the subject of the article. (Stars and Stripes, btw, is funded by the DOD, but editorially independent.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that the coverage was significant? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3 for the DRV of this article, where there was overwhelming consensus that the 3d award of the Combat Infantryman's Badge is a notable achievement. There is an entire wing in the infantry museum, which is actually smaller then the Medal of Honor wing, since the 3d CIB is actually given out less frequently. Also, this nomination is flawed in that a COI/SPA are not grounds for deletion. Take the time to work with the author and improve it. MrPrada (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the military bio notability guidelines should be changed then. As it is, this article does not meet them. Something else to ponder in terms of article improvement: If all the remaining unsourced/original research were to be rm'd from the article, it would be a stub, only the 3 CIBs and parachute wings would remain. I don't think this would sway the notability question at all, since the 3 CIBs seem to be the only thing for which editors are truly claiming notability. As for SPA and COI, I put those in the nom only for context, as hints that a look at the sources and policy would show the article does not meet Wikipedia standards at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, since the 3 CIBs are notable, there is no need to remove the other information, as it is sourced, is there? I think you've just voted to keep in your own deletion discussion. Roger's argument that there has not been significant coverage of Meyer receiving the three awarrds and moving it to a list of three-time recipients is the only logical argument for deletion thus far. MrPrada (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather strongly support an article along the lines of what Roger suggests. Meyer's 3 CIBs are not notable under Wikipedia policy, but I think the 303 holders of CIBs are very likely notable as a group under current policy. Meanwhile, this article does not meet the guidelines for notability and most of the other information in this article is not sourced (though I glark some of it could be). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't get why people are so gung-ho to delete this article - perhaps because folks are offended that the primary author is a relative of the subject? Seriously, it has 9 references even after being stripped down and it is far better written and sourced than many, many articles that aren't being considered for deletion every few weeks. Take some of the time spent here and put it towards improving other articles, and in the mean time recall that WP:V doesn't require that every fact in an article be sourced - only that if its veracity is challenged, it should be removed until a source can be found to back it up. Avruch^T 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow on: I really don't understand the fact that some folks here are actually campaigning for this articles deletion, particularly when that is against the conclusion of a very well attended and quite recent DRV. Although it isn't the current trend at AfD, articles that are of marginal notability aren't automatically candidates for deletion. Even if he barely meets the notability guidelines of MILHIST (note that I said guidelines, and posit that he met them only because others in WP:MILHIST have said he does) then that should be enough to disqualify notability requirements in a deletion discussion. I think that irrelevant factors should be excluded from this discussion, those being: A) that the original author, Meyerj, is a relative and that B) the original article was, as Katie states, a "glowing hagiography." That makes for interesting writing in a discussion, but is absolutely irrelevant to an article that is being discussed on its own merits as it is currently written. Avruch^T 23:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article has been pruned, it is still very light on sources. What makes people notable is not what they did but what was written about it subsequently. The core principle of Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. The core principle of Wikipedia is NPOV. The phrase "verifiability, not truth" was added by a single editor, and its meaning is disputed. Does it mean we should include something that is verifiable, even if we don't think its true? Or do we say "verifiably true"? WP:N (and thus, WP:BIO) is a guideline and not a policy. Notability is debatable, and the lack of a large body of documentation about someone who has the sort of accomplishments that Meyer has should not lead directly to deletion. More importantly... Why does this particular article deserve multiple noms, despite the recent and well attended DRV that overturned the prior deletion? What is the basis for ignoring that consensus? Avruch^T 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, articles should be built on what is verifiable rather than what I or you believe is true. Perceptions of truth are POV, whereas accurate neutral reporting of reliable sources isn't. To apply this to Col Meyer, very little information is attributable to reliable published sources. There has been vast speculation about what Stars & Stripes wrote but we have yet to see the actual article. I did ask their research department for a copy but was deterred by the cost ($100); the difficulties of paying (personal check); and the time-scale (two months).

I'm sceptical about the much-vaunted consensus at the DRV simply because of the weight placed there on 16 new references. On close examination, these turned out to be about another Col Leo J. Meyer, who is beyond all shred of doubt notable. People have talked here about improving the Leo J. Meyer article but the search for sources has been exhaustive and nothing has turned up. Without these, the article cannot be expanded and should probably be cut to reflect what actually is verifiable (which is not much). For example, Meyer is not actually listed on the National Infantry Museum CIB page as a three-time winner so that's not much use as a source.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, well said. With seven keeps and six delets at this point, it is unlikely that were will be true consensus either way. In my view the keep arguments outweight the delete arguments. MrPrada (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this quote from you, MrPrada, to be particularly enlightening from the previous debate:

The CIB is not a trivial badge. Ask any soldier, including my self. Aside from the CIB, you have Meyer with a Distinguished Service Medal, Soldiers Medal, 3 Bronze Stars, 2 Purple Hearts, 1 MSM, 1 Joint Commendation, 3 ARCOMS with V, four Presidential Unit Citations, and a Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Bronze Star, no easy feat. I still do not see how this fails notability for WP:MILHIST, per Edison, and Tyrenius. MrPrada (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It demonstrates that this wasn't just a colonel in charge of the kitchen (or even... marching band) in the Army. He is a decorated and notable soldier and commander. Avruch^T 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the first AfD and the DRV this discussion is getting caught up with editors' personal views of this person's carreer. According to WP:BIO the relevant criteria for inclusion is that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This article does not demonstrate that this person recieved such coverage - and it seems pretty clear that every possible source has been consulted given that the article discusses his artistic hobbies. The references are unacceptably vauge (eg, to issues of newspapers and magazines rather than the actual articles) and the minor facts they're being used to prove suggests that none of them is anything like an in-depth profile of Meyer, which is needed for them to establish notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Swatjester and Edison. John254 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable to me. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, I do not mean to cast aspersions on the memory of this gentleman. However, he simply is not notable. He fails to meet the basic notability guideline, because he either is not the primary focus of the source's coverage, or such mention as may be made is trivial. He fails to meet the additional guidelines set forth for WP:MILHIST because 1. He wasn't a top medal winner (although the Distinguished Service Medal certainly is an outstanding achievement), 2. He didn't hold a top tier command, or command an army/fleet 3. He hasn't been the primary topic of a secondary work. The opinions that have engaged the specific basis for the subject's notability seem to point mainly to the fact that he earned 3 Combat Infantryman Badges. This is not a notable (in WP terms) accomplishment, because it is awarded pro forma to members of infantry combat units who perform as expected. No heroic or meritorious (using those terms in the sense of military awards; any action under hostile file is heroic in general sense) action is required. The fact that the subject obtained three awards is mostly a testament to longevity, and a williness to stay in infantry units. In addition, I note that according to this link the rules permitting multiple awards of the CIB only took effect in 1952, greatly reducing the number of eligible awardees. Xymmax (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning three CIBs does not seem to satisfy the MILHIST notability requirements. Captain panda 00:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep - It looks notable to me.Kitty53 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please explain why? --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likely because his 3d CIB, litany of other awards (including a Distinguished Service Medal, which is normally only for General Officers), parachutist wings in his fifties, and scrimshaw artistry, are inherently notable. MrPrada (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question People keep referring to "non-military publications" being needed or otherwise saying that military publications aren't useful here. I'm not seeing many of these documents as primary sources. Sure, an official site for all awards is primary. But Stars and Stripes or the Army Times can't be. So where in policy is this argument coming from? The best I've seen here is a crossways reference to the essay WP:LOCAL and even reaching out to that essay seems like a huge stretch. Can anyone clarify here? Hobit (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think military publications are reliable or objective, since they can have a conflict of interest in terms of recruitment, thanking past folks who have served and self justifying military solutions. However, if other editors do think military publications are reliable sources, I'd be ok with such a consensus for this kind of article. I'd like to say though, if this winds up as a keep, involved editors might want to think about clarifying the military notability guidelines, which this biographical topic does not meet. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the argument about objective (though as far as I know that's not an issue for sourcing non-controversial facts), but could you explain why you doubt reliable? Are either the Army Times or Stars and Stripes known for getting things wrong or otherwise less reliable than a local paper? In any case, I think the argument with respect to the military notability guidelines is that WP:N is the first thing to check. If that fails to show notability then you go to the localized guidelines (things like professional players at the highest level of a sport are notable). At least that's my understanding, and I think WP:BIO supports that. In all cases, thanks for the response! Hobit (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the Army Times and Stars and Stripes are unreliable and biased is simply wrong and should be withdrawn. The Army Times is a private newspaper, owned by Gannett, and if anything is known for being rather critical of the military. Stars and Stripes is an independent publication written by independent civilians (many of whom are extremely notable and write for other publications, such as Andy Rooney) and edited (marginally) by the DOD. I think the person making the comment (who is also the AfD nominator) is a unfamiliar with the subject matter and may have confused them with Public Affairs (PAO), however in my view PAO is also a reliable objective source. MrPrada (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a really nicely presented article with references and assertions of notability. I particularly convinced by Swatjester's points in the above discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G2, test page) by Jmlk17. Nonadmin close Xymmax (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Petree

Self-proclaimed "man of God" who was identified by the WP:COI bot as violating WP:AUTO by writing this vanity article about himself. Started a bible college that he named after himself, then wrote an article here about his college, which was immediately speedied. After his bible college was deleted, he replaced it with self-promotional spam [18]. Is the author of a self-published book on songwriting that fails WP:BK. No WP:RS whatsoever offered to establish WP:N. Google kicks up mostly self-generated promotional sites and fringe fundamentalist blogs that clearly fail WP:RS. Is a WP:single-purpose account that has shown up here with no apparent purpose other than to self-promote his self-named bible college and self-published songs and book. Qworty (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per conflict-of-interest. Larry needs a press agent. According to his autobiography, he's written 55 hit songs (but none of them are named) and he's won three "songwriter of the year" awards (but we don't know who bestowed them) and he's written a book (but we don't know who published it or when) and he earned a D.D. (but we don't know from where). The Bible college is online only. Mandsford (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mandsford -Drdisque (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 20:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus has already been reached. Direct concerns to here. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Schmalz Cup

This is the challenge trophy for the Junior C league of a Canadian provincial hockey league. Sorry, but I fail to see how that qualifies as notable. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - "JzG/Guy", I find myself a little bewildered at your actions as of late. Why did you bother posting an AfD for this article if you felt you could get away with just flat out deleting the entire series of leagues and their teams without notice? The Clarence Schmalz Cup is an article that has been on wikipedia without contention for almost two years. It is the grand championship of the third tier of Ontario hockey. This level is a part of the feeder system of the National Hockey League. The "C" or "third tier" is only determined by the size of the towns and cities involved -- not skill level or notability. It has been a part of hockey tradition for ... i don't know... 70 years. DMighton (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Luk suh 20:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please understand a sport before nominating its articles for deletion. -Drdisque (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is very much a notable trophy. -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – very historic and notable trophy. Flibirigit (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least this one's tagged properly ... Keep Championship that has been competed for since the 1930s. Plus, if the teams and leagues are notable, then the trophy that's awarded to their champion certainly is as well. Clearly notable but, if the article doesn't demonstrate it, tag it so that the community knows it needs improvement. Mlaffs (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a trophy that has been awarded for 70 years now. Its history alone asserts and establishes notability. Reso lute 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Bishzilla, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cold and heartless

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:BAND. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: There is nothing that even looks like an assertion of notability. Stuff like this does not need to trouble AfD. db-band would have been perfectly justified. Only if it made an assertion of notability and we had to decide whether it was true and sufficient would it need AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 speedy delete, tagged as such. By their own admission the band formed less than two weeks ago; article doesn't even pretend to be notable. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 forms that the subject is notable, and appropriate action is a rewrite. WilliamH (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Institutional memory

Original essay, offtopic. While institutional memory/ insitutional knowledge is a valid topic in organizational psychology, this article attempts to describe all of human culture. It's supposed to be about knowledge embedded in an organization. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work: it needs cleanup, it needs some rewriting, it needs much better referencing, but it does not need deletion. The many hits on Google news, Google books, and Google scholar show that this term is fairly widely used and the concept is being discussed in scholarly writings and should, therefore, be treated here in Wikipedia. I favour cleanup and expansion, not deletion, in this case. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 19:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look around you. Wikipedia is a good example. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that the rationale for keeping it? JFW | T@lk 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As might be expected, this is not the first article about the subject; note collective memory, cultural memory and (cited in this article) corporate memory. Like the nominator, I agree that this is a valid topic, and an unencyclopedic essay. It asks rhetorical questions like "Is institutional memory fading?". It could be cleaned up and rewritten beyond recognition, but the end product would be redundant to similar articles. It's been done, and it's been done better. Mandsford (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is not the answer for such articles; rewriting is. JFW | T@lk 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Does "weak delete" mean that when people go to look for the article, it'll be very faded and difficult to read? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article requires a lot of clean-up, but is still usable. Luk suh 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I considered cleaning it up but there wasn't anything about institutional memory to keep. Perhaps the "corporate memory" article could be cut/pasted to here, and then "corporate memory" redirected (an extreme merge). Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Corporate memory" pertains only to corporations; institutions can take many forms. I had an attempt at NPOVing this article after it was created and populated by Ombudsman (talk · contribs), but got no further than the intro because it's not quite my field. There is just a need for NPOV, sourcing etc. JFW | T@lk 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Institutional memory is a valid encyclopedic topic, but this article is largely unreferenced and unfocused. It needs to be improved, not deleted. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite: Valid topic, but needs a lot of work, rewriting and referencing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Valley High School

Delete: Non-notable local school. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If a source can be attributed and properly wikified.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article went to AfD all of 3 minutes after creation. I will check this one out. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. Made mistake, high schools are always notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadley Corner

This building fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL as it is not even built yet, and sources are not readily available. Prod removed by author after a brief discussion on my talk page. —BradV 18:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources were listed on the web page at creation time. The article was created with "underconstruction". I immediately pinged a person who has helped with this in the past to help flesh out the article, but they won't have had time to notice this yet. Given that the article existed for literally 5 minutes before it was PROD'd, I'd like not only for this AfD to be dismissed, I'd like a better understanding of what provokes people to do this to new articles. I've seen it several times, and all it seems aimed at doing is inhibiting editors. - Denimadept (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe have higher standards than others regarding what should be and what shouldn't be in the project, support the deletion of content that isn't extremely notable (Shakespeare, George Bush, etc) and spend time canvassing articles looking for ones that don't match those standards and nominate them for deletion. Then the people who have lower standards and support including content that isn't super-notable live at AfD and serve as a counterbalance. In most cases, it works out in the end. But yes, it's function is essentially to either do nothing or to inhibit editors from doing something that the consensus says isn't notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that AfD is useless, but I've seen too many new articles attacked that way when it was clear they were just a start. Recently, another person attacked a bunch of new articles about Slovinian bridges. All those articles were kept even though they're still stubs because that's how lots of articles start out. If something is clearly non-sense, I can see the speedy delete, but just about anything needs more consideration. - Denimadept (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, article is still under construction and has been tagged as such since it was created just ninety minutes ago. Let the author finish his article, then see if it meets policy. Much too soon to tag for AfD. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 19:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, calm down and wait before subjecting articles to the harshness of AfD. Besides, subject has been subject of multiple pieces of secondary coverage. 21:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep per OlenWhitaker. Luk suh 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because I like to see Articles be around for more days than I have fingers and toes before getting nominated for AfD, just as much as some people have "high standards". Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and I've moved David Cantor (actor) to this page. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Cantor

No need for this disambiguation page. Proposal to delete this page and move David Cantor (actor) into its place. Sam Staton (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for move I agree that it's not needed. The other item is a different spelling (Kantor); it would probably be a good idea for both articles to have a {{distinguish}} at the top. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, excessive disambiguation. This could probably have been done at WP:RM. --Dhartung | Talk 18:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 International Rules Series

An article about a sporting event which didn't happen, referenced only to a primary source. Should be deleted or merged to international rules football. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by BHG. The 2006 series was played in October, and it was shortly after that (December) that the decision was made to discontinue the event altogether. Thus, it's doubtful that there was much preparation for the 2007 series. Mandsford (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BHG and Mandsford. Luk suh 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.... but possibly the future of the series section of the International Rules Series article would a better place as it has got most of the article there already. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Verifiable? yes. Notable? no. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wheeldon

Contested prod (no explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The individual clearly exists. There is no need for a player to play in a professional league; we have articles on loads of American college athletes. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I clearly exist, yet there is no article on me. The highest level this guy has played at is the ninth level of English football, or the fourth division of Belgian football. Playing at that level is clearly not notable, and neither is the person given 46 Ghits. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that you exist means that an article about you is perfectly appropriate. "Notability" is irrelevant and wrong, as it is both totally arbitrary and utterly undefinable. Verifiable existence is the only relevant criterion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you disagree with policy, take it up somewhere else. As for your argument about the "loads of American college athletes" who have articles, I would say they should all be deleted too, as they have not competed at a professional level. – PeeJay 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your under the mistaken impression that WP:N is Policy, it is not! It is only a guidline. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why? What you fail to understand is that so-called "policy" is not descriptive or normative at all. We are not bound to abide by it. On Wikipedia, all "policy" is is a description of what has typically happened in the past. So you don't set out to "change policy"--you simply change what is actually being done, and then "policy" reflects that. What you are suggesting is backwards from the way it's supposed to work. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We are not bound to abide by it. "We"? And yet, somehow, you feel compelled to demand that people follow your own personal criteria as if it somehow was more valid than anyone else's. The logical underpinning of your argument is that the editors can collectively decide what goes here or doesn't -- wrong in various ways, but let's leave that aside -- yet somehow you refuse to accept the decisions they actually make as valid if they don't match up with your...unique...interpretations. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Kurt's got the wikipedia spirit. And not just because he clearly gets WP:UCS and WP:IAR, but also because the recent idea of a professional is far too narrow a criteria to use as a test for an athelete's inclusion on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That would be wrong on multiple levels: the project, as I recall, is for an encyclopedia, not an undifferentiated and standards-free data dump, and the last time I checked, making claims that 99.99999% of editors don't buy is the furthest thing from "common sense" as could possibly be imagined. Hint: adding a couple of wikilinks and waving your hands vigorously does not an actual argument make.
        
        also because the recent idea of a professional is far too narrow a criteria to use as a test for an athelete's inclusion on wikipedia - speaking of handwaving: was there an actual argument and/or evidence anywhere in there? --Calton | Talk 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Although I take exception with your choice of nomenclature ("undifferentiated and standards-free data dump") because it implies a simple list of facts rather than actual prose, I fail to see the difference between what you mean by that and an encyclopedia. It's the same damn thing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The player obviously fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played a match as a professional footballer, and he has done nothing that would make him otherwise notable. – Pee Jay 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE ukexpat (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seems to have reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a directory, it's an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wheeldon has been noticed by the BBC, at least twice. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not only does he fail WP:ATHLETE, he fails WP:BIO as we do not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article. Jfire (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. No significant coverage in reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note evidence [19] suggests that both Otolemur crassicaudatus and Jfire made their votes merely in response to my proding of the article on Corruption in India. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from a lack of WP:AGF, I don't see how a link to a page history is evidence. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus also !voted on another recent AfD at around the same time [20]. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otolemur crassicaudatus and Jfire have both made valid points in their !vote. I see no reason to assume bad faith !voting here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE, which is in itself a pretty generous set of notability criteria. --202.168.39.34 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i have been playing football everyday for three years now at Reading as a youth...Torquay as A Pro and now in belgium...isnt it nice that an english player is playing pro abroad...i dont see what the problem is i have links from the BBC sport and i can get some from sky sports also.... what else do i need??? —Preceding [[(Mockingbirdyeah (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC))]] comment added by Mockingbirdyeah talk • contribs) 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Above editor is the article's creator ChrisTheDude talk) 09:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ....and apparently its subject as well ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails notability criteria. Given the above comments, significant tidy-up and removal of POV and COI material may be required if the result does turn out to be "keep". -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satghare Ram Mandir

probably a hoax Warut (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Has zero ghits, is complete original research, or possibly WP:MADEUP, and very likely a WP:HOAX etc.... etc... etc... take your pick. --Pmedema (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 per above. Clearly a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't assert notability in any way, hoax or not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could someone explain just why it is certainly a hoax. I'm removing the speedy tag till then. DGG (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google is now turning up a wikimapia area. I added the coordinates to the article; it's not conclusive from the aerial photo what exactly is tagged. The WM tag is very new and hasn't been voted on as a "real place", making me think it's also hoax material. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably a real temple/shrine, just eminently unnotable. There are oodles of these all over India. Some Indian states have thousands of shrines to a single Hindu god. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Drdisque (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malinaccier (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World´s End

This film has not begun production. It is not even listed at IMDb as being in development. Per the notability guidelines for future films, this article should not exist until it is verified for filming to have begun. To put things in perspective about the projects of director Edgar Wright, he has been "making" Ant-Man (film) since summer of 2006. I would recommend placing a couple of sentences about this project, The World's End, at Edgar Wright's article. There is no certainty that this anticipated project will become reality. Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Crystal. Luk suh 17:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF: Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL and as per [21] explains that it is only speculation and a "Working Title" which does not satisfy having an article. --Pmedema (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. Many factors, such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. This film is merely in development; in accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 18:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "is the title, possibly working title"... definitely WP:CRYSTAL. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, I've created an "Upcoming projects" section at Edgar Wright, including mention of The World's End. This separates work he has actually done from work that he may do. Feel free to incorporate any details about his projects in development there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pn fails WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Arts

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in third party reliable source or anything. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, has no WP:RS, and was created by a WP:SPA with bad english.--Pmedema (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -Drdisque (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Fraser (footballer)

Disputed prod. Whilst James may have a glittering future ahead of him, and without prejudice to a future recreation of this article should he achieve success, at present he falls short of the generally accepted notability citeria for footballers in that he has not made any appearances for a fully professional team. nancy ^(talk) 13:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As of right now, per WP:FOOTYN. The reason? Plays for a professional team..but hasn't made any appearances. This is on the cusp, but just fails short. Also, [22] - WP:BIO. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 17:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The individual clearly exists. There is no need for a player to play in a professional league; we have articles on loads of American college athletes. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:Athlete at this time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moslova ep

prod removed by author. Album was never released and does not pass WP:MUSIC. Links are for the band and are not references. No pages link there. Reywas92 ^Talk 16:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 17:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as result of WP:HEY, there is clearly no consensus to delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Zoo (cheering section)

~~DELETE SPEEDY DELETE A7.~~ Non-notable school organization. Article does not establish notability as per WP:ORG. WP:V. An opinion letter in school paper and a t-shirt sale link do not count. Attempted to speedy-delete as per CSD A7 but user with history of vandalism kept removing tag.— NTAC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'd like to withdraw this AfD nomination. Article has been satisfactorily upgraded. NTAC (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That's fine, but once you make an AFD nomination it's in the hands of the community, and while you no longer wish to have the article deleted, this AFD must remain open until and unless all delete opinions are withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD nomination should be speedy keep and User:NTAC, the nominator, has clear bias in past edits. The total of his contributions to wikipedia include 1) Vandalization the Wikipedia entry on Walt Harris, former Pitt head football coach, by redirecting its page to Wlat Harris, the spelling of which was a popular insult for this coach[23] by referring to his childhood dyslexia. 2) In light of his Oakland Zoo nomination, an extremely hypocritical defense (and clear overstatements in doing so) of a similar student section article, Nittany Nation, the student section of a one-time rival school of the University of Pittsburgh, in discussions involving two previous nominations for that article's deletion. (Please note that that the Nittany Nation article is now of quality and notability sufficient for wikipedia, article at the time was [[24]]) 3) Through April 6, 2008, User NTAC had no other edits or contributions to wikipedia except for the series of deletion nominations for the Oakland Zoo article. 4) User: NTAC attempted to delete his own USER tag on the original deletion nomination line above and his tag was only restored later by User:Frank Anchor. This behavior boarders on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and I have concerns that User:Titelman (see below) could be his sockpuppet. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 17:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 as soon as an admin sees this. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absolutely notable and passes WP:V. I agree, the Oakland Zoo is definitely a real organization, it is mentioned in the first paragraph of this Post-Gazette article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07358/844102-175.stm. and an ESPN article: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=ncb&id=3216311 I'm sure there are many other examples. It is highly relevant to the University of Pittsburgh <Baseballfan789 (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sources you cite do not even have the organization as the subject of the articles. As per WP:ORG, "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Mere mentions do not suffice. NTAC (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those sources have more than "trivial and incedental coverage" as the policy puts it. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." You qualify a simple mention as in-depth coverage? NTAC (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please also see my list of references below. This is a highly notable student section within the subject matter of college basketball.CrazyPaco (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:ORG, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources," which the Oakland Zoo is, based on sources mentioned by Baseballfan789 above. It is also known on a national scale (at least to those who follow college basketball, especially big east basketball) Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Again, one tiny trivial mention per source does NOT satsify WP:N or WP:V. Also note that the above use is the creator of the article. NTAC (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be noted that the above user is the original nominator.NewYork483 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Fortunately, those articals are more than trivial mentions. In fact, they are reliable, independent secondary sources, that, in part, describe the cheering section Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. The Oakland Zoo is NOT the subject of the sourced articles! It is simply mentioned as an aside. You do not even cite the source in the Wikipedia article because it adds nothing notable. NTAC (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please see references added belowCrazyPaco (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could merit a mention at Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball. Zagalejo^^^ 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~A redirect to the above page would be approprite. NewYork483 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect and add a small section to Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball. The organization exists and passes WP:V, however its notability is not etablished with the sources in the article or on this page. Scooter3230 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If it truly passes WP:V, then the sources cited in the actual Wikipedia article should reflect that. An opinion letter in a school rag and a t-shirt sale link do not fit the criteria. As per WP:SOURCES, "questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Furthermore, the sources mentioned in this discussion are not cited in the Wikipedia article because they add no notable content. NTAC (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Yes, the lack of notability that you mention is exactly why there should be a redirect.Scooter3230 (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Redirect per Scooter3230; if it can be cited as existant a sentence or two would be appropriate. Somebody might also want to look at the "life" section of the U of P template (Template:University of Pittsburgh), as there are a few articles in this realm. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete clearly A7 ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sources given higher up in article. Failing that, the content should be moved to the article containing the University's sports teams and redirected. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage may be in major papers, but they are major local papers. (But the WVU fan in me says speedy, salt, and burn the section to the ground. Then take the ashes and scatter them to the four winds. I'm sure every loyal Mountaineer would agree.) :D DarkAudit (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral but edging towards keep. See concerns below. My WVU bias remains. That won't change. Ever. :) DarkAudit (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The preceeding comment should be ignored due to an obvious bias Scooter3230 (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- International notability is not a requirement. That would eliminate over half of wikipedia. Clearly the section is nationally notable within the context of major college basketball in the United States as per ESPN featuring the section January 16, 2007 with Dick Vitale describing it as one of the "finest" student cheering sections. It has also been ranked among the best cheering sections by other national media and publications (eg. Sports Illustrated, March 6, 2006).CrazyPaco (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same could be said to everyone here who has a connection to the UPitt or is a "major" contributor to the article. NTAC (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would include the above user, since about 75% of his/her edits are on either this AFD or the article itself. Scooter3230 (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball
- Expansion of the article now making merger unmanagableCrazyPaco (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a highly notable college basketball student section within the overall subject of college basketball. Despite the AFD nomination is not being applied equally, a primary sources tag or expand tag is more appropriate to apply before an AFD. For instance, see also Minnesota's The Barnyard, Ohio State's Buckeye NutHouse, Wisconsin's Grateful Red, Iowa's The Hawk's Nest, Michigan State's Izzone, Penn State's Nittany Nation, Illinois' Orange Krush, Purdue's Paint Crew, Northwestern's Wildside (Northwestern), Duke's Cameron Crazies and Krzyzewskiville, Arizona's Zona zoo. Some of these have passed AFD nominations by the very same editor who nominated the Oakland Zoo page. That said most of those listed are not as notable as the Okland Zoo with the exception of the Cameron Crazies and perhaps Izzone, and at least on the same level as the Orange Krush and bigger than the rest. The Peterson Events Center, thanks to the Oakland Zoo, has been ranked by a survey of the players as the most difficult facility to play in the Big East Conference for multiple years in a row (Sports Illustrated, March 6, 2006). In addition, it is the largest student organization at the University of Pittsburgh and participates in institution and revision of many policies, including seating and student ticket distribution and is mainly responsible for institution of the"Loyalty Points" program for students at the University. These can all be added with primary references given appropriate time to develop the article. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We're not talking about any of those. DarkAudit (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, precedence doesn't denote notability, the reasons I noted above do...national recognition, importance to the school, size, etc. But, I expect all of the student section articles will have AFD tags applied quickly by the original nominator since I'm sure the Oakland Zoo student section page was not singled out either for alternative reasons and I'm sure there was at least a little bit of research into the topic before the article was tagged for "speedy" deletion without first applying an expand tag or primary source tag. Tonight is the final four, so I don't have a large amount of time to research this topic. Here are some references of the section that I will add to the article when I get a chance. Clearly, these references along denote notability (along with the reasons I noted above). Dan Steinberg's Washington Post blog about the Zoo, Pittsburgh Trib-Review: Oakland Zoo has grown into Top Student section, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Pitt's home court advantage], PIttsburgh Post-Gazette:Pitt fans give boost, Post-Gazette: Pitt ticket madness, Post-Gazette: Pitt student ticket problems, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: And the Crowd Goes Wild, Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Oakland Zoo wild about the Panthers and there are others. There is also been controversy surrounding the Zoo logo, which went to US Federal Court: Pittsburgh Post-Gazete: Zoo shirt right dispute, Post-Gazette:Oakland Zoo trademark dispute, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Local vendor can keep selling shirts. I found these in about 10 minutes of online searching and, now, have to cut it short because the second game is starting. I didn't even get to search for all the lists in the national media (SI, ESPN, etc) that have listed it among the best sections in the nation. Now, is someone going to say it isn't notable? Clearly, just from this list, there is more than enough notability.CrazyPaco (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, the Oakland Zoo was featured on ESPN's Student Spirit Week on January 16, 2007.CrazyPaco (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Oakland Zoo was also featured in the the book, 100 Years of Pitt Basketball, Sam Sciullo, Sports Publishing LLC, 2005, pages 124-125, ISBN: 1-59670-081-5.
    - You've got a blog and the local papers. Of course the PG is going to cover them. Just as they should. That's not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The blog is from Dan Steinberg, a major professional sports journalist published on-line by the Washington Post who has his own wikipedia entry! The other references are local independent papers of a major American city have EVERYTHING to do with notability. These are two major American newspapers with articles specifically written about the student section. Did you even follow the links? The student section is notable by any standard of notability previous applied. Honestly, either you don't have any clue about college basketball as a subject matter or you are showing your inherent bias as a West Virginia fan (as so tagged on your User page) who is the major rival of the University of Pittsburgh.CrazyPaco (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It should be obvious my endorsement statement should not be taken too seriously. But as far as the sources are concerned, I do not believe blogs are reliable sources. I also think that the PG's and Trib's coverage are pretty much par for the course for local stories. Local stories. They may be major newspapers, but they're covering stories only a few miles away. By your standards every event that gets more than a couple of mentions in the New York Times or Chicago Tribune would deserve an article. It doesn't work that way. DarkAudit (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then please strike or reverse your endorsement due to your admitted bias. I disagree, blogs of a professional journalists like Dan Steinberg that are published on-line at one of the biggest papers in the world are not meaningless, especially when that blog is at the official site of the of the Washington Post (and is a clear example of notability outside the region, in addition to the noted Sports Illustrated and ESPN profiles). In addition my references provided from the Post-Gazette and Trib-Review are not simply brief mentions. There are full articles in the both specifically about the Oakland Zoo student section. There is no requirement or expectations for major metropolitan newspapers to cover student sections! These aren't small papers of college towns like Lawrence, Lincoln, or State College, PA, and space in these papers is prioritized to the professional sports teams (Steelers, Pirates, and Penguins) and leagues first and then they provide the largest newspaper coverage for West Virginia University and Penn State University in the state of Pennsylvania, not just Pitt alone. Multiple coverage in these papers denotes high notability for the region of Western Pennsylvania. I live in Philadelphia and I've never seen coverage of Temple's, Penn's, Villanova's, Drexel's, LaSalle's or St. Joe's student sections in the Philadelphia Inquirer....nor do they have the national recognition. There is clearly a difference here. There are also multiple articles in both Pittsburgh papers that have implicated important facets in university life directly attributable to policies initiated by the Zoo student section. This is the Zoo making news on its own even outside the sports sections (a clear indication of notability), not that the zoo is profiled just for its existence. For instance, there was widespread coverage of a federal legal case involving the section's logo in these papers. There would be exponential more articles in university associated papers like the "University Times" or the independent student-run "Pitt News" because it is clearly notable within the context of the particular major university for which they are based. But further, the Oakland Zoo has been profiled on national TV multiple times and has been sited by multiple national media sources as one of America's best student sections. There can be no doubt this is one of the major collegiate student section within the subject matter of college basketball. The fair question is whether the college basketball student sections deserve their own pages, however I don't see any other pages having been nominated for deletion so it makes me wonder what the intent was for this nomination. If they other student sections pass notability, certainly the Oakland Zoo does per the major referenced sources I noted above. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not rescinded, but amended. DarkAudit (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Yes but the local papers are not affiliated with the University itself, thus making them outside sources Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 01:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not only that, but most would say the Post-Gazette is outright hostile to the university. Regional notability is clearly sufficient.CrazyPaco (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of time and chances were given to improve the article. Article was proposed for deletion in February before being contested (in a rather non-civil manner), and later had the notability tag added (and removed) and very little was done to improve it. NTAC (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is true, I noticed in the history page the notability tags were inappropriately deleted too quickly. The poor referencing on this page do lend to the impression of a lack of notability were not addressed appropriately. Speaking for myself, I was not watching the article at the time and or never saw the tags due to their inappropriate quick removal. These tags need re-added until the problems with the article are addressedCrazyPaco (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom, clearly A7 Bardcom (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Keep. Why would anyone want to question the Zoo? It's one of the top student sections in the nation. Ask the opposing players and coaches. Ask Carmelo Anthony, he is one who said so. Dick Vitale, Jay Bilas, Dan Shulman, Bill Raftery, I can go on and on, they all love and have nothing but the highest respect and compliments for the Zoo. The Zoo has helped the team to the best ever stretch in Pitt basketball history since its inception. I could go on, but this is a moot point. This is a silly argument. The Zoo is massively relevant and very powerful. Craigketo (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — Craigketo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge to Pitt Basketball article. The article fails to present independent, non-opinion-piece reliable sources to verify notability. There's not enough said here that couldn't be said in the basketball article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that attention is drawn to it, the article will be expanded, and now is getting close to a size where it would be too large to merge. The references listed above provide multiple independent reliable sources verifying its notability.CrazyPaco (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (down here so it doesn't get buried in the mass of indents) There is nothing wrong with the article's primary author coming into an AfD to defend his or her work, especially when constructive arguments can be made. "Blog" is a dirty word when it comes to the WP:RS crowd. No matter how credible a blog may be, they see that word and their eyes glaze over. ESPN and SI citations would carry far more weight as references than Pittsburgh papers covering Pittsburgh stories. At least they would with me. DarkAudit (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - asserts notability. Other articles similar to this exist, with no more notability. Grsz 11 06:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. They are not up for discussion. Keep it to the merits of this article. DarkAudit (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oakland Zoo (cheering section) article has undergone major revisions since AFD nomination including the addition of reliable third party references indicating significance/notability. Please take time to reevaluate the article. Proof reading and additions are appreciated.CrazyPaco (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding WP:CANVASS: This AfD has had some off-wiki canvassing - see here: [25]. Just keep an eye on it. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 13:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as per article improvements. Clear notability established. And I'm a PENN STATER. BroadSt_Bully ^[tlak] 15:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still concerned that virtually every reference listed is either from the local Pittsburgh papers or affiliated with Pitt itself. if the ESPN or SI citations were linked more directly, it would go further than linking the local article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, the local papers in question are in no way associated with the university. Scooter3230 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think all he's saying is that NATIONAL sources ENHANCE notability - not that local sources don't matter, which is what you seem to be interpreting his statement as. BroadSt_Bully ^[tlak] 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. A local paper covering local events is what a newspaper is supposed to do. By some editors' standards, any subject covered more than once or twice in the Chicago Tribune or New York Times would be worth an article merely because of the notoriety of those papers. All these references to the PG and the Trib are local papers doing their job, covering events in their city. I would be more convinced if there were more references that weren't coming out of Pittsburgh. DarkAudit (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please actually read the local paper articles as they discuss the student section's relevance on a national level many with interviews from national sports commentators. Also noted are the national coverage by ESPN and Sports Illustrated, and there are very few references from the University itself. Your insistence that references citing multiple feature stories in two major metropolitan newspapers somehow is somehow diminished in notability because they are "local" has no previous precedent in wikipedia that I am aware of. Again, insisting on national notability (although there are multiple Zoo article references that suggest the section is nationally recognized within the realm of American College Basketball) is not a requirement or half of wikipedia would disappear instantly. I will repeat myself because you keep repeating yourself. There are NO requirement or expectations for major metropolitan newspapers to cover student sections! These are not small papers of college towns like Lawrence, Lincoln, or State College, PA, and space in these papers is prioritized to the professional sports teams (Steelers, Pirates, and Penguins) and leagues first. After this, they provide the largest newspaper coverage in Pennsylvania for West Virginia University, Penn State University, Duquesne University and Robert Morris University, not just Pitt alone. Multiple coverage in these papers denotes high notability for, at least, the region of Western Pennsylvania. By comparison, I live in Philadelphia and I've never seen coverage of Temple's, Penn's, Villanova's, Drexel's, LaSalle's or St. Joe's student sections in the Philadelphia Inquirer....nor do they have the national recognition. There is clearly a difference here between your typical student section and the Oakland Zoo. The is the Zoo also made news on its own, outside the sports sections (a clear indication of notability), when it received widespread media coverage in the area (including both Pittsburgh newspapers) of a federal legal case involving the section's logo.CrazyPaco (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to Keep per new modifications Scooter3230 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that the papers are covering events that are in the same town as the paper. If that's all you're going to cite, then yes, it does diminish notability. The ESPN citation isn't ESPN itself, it's a Pittsburgh paper citing ESPN. Local notability isn't the same as national or international notability. Cite ESPN. Cite SI. Cite something from Philadelphia. DarkAudit (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you site ESPN television broadcasts that features the cheering section? Do you want me to cite a YouTube video of it? The references site newspaper accounts of the broadcasts with quotes from the national ESPN analysts. You are being completely ridiculous. Again, despite the provided evidence, there is NO requirement for national notability. Definitively regional notability is more than provided. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sports Illustrated now directly cited.CrazyPaco (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:LOCALFAME "arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable." Local notability is still nonetheless notability. Most, not all, of the sources used are from the Post Gazette, which is from a major metropolitan area close to the University. The paper itself has nothing to do with the university, it is just printed in the city that the university is located in. The article also cites articles from Champaign, IL and the Washington Post. Frank Anchor ^Talk (R-OH) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, I would like to also note, that the Post-Gazette and Trib-Review both have individual beat writers covering the major university's sports teams listed above (considered in the district coverage area), but only one student section has been profiled, and profiled repeatedly.CrazyPaco (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's more than just printed in the same town. It's mission is to cover events in that town. Whether it has any affiliation with the university or not has no relevance. It is my opinion, and I am well within my rights to hold it, is that a local paper covering local events is just that. Local. If a subject aims to national or international significance, then I believe that the sources provided should reflect that. No there is no "requirement" to that end, Just as notability isn't "required" or reliable, verifiable, and independent sources are "required". They are guidelines. They're subject to interpretation. How I interpret the guidelines may or may not match up with how others interpret them. I never said the sources were invalid. I said that there were too few sources that were not either affiliated with the university or were local to Pittsburgh. DarkAudit (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, you are allowed your opinion, as am I. Its not the City of Pittsburgh Panthers, but rather the University of Pittsburgh Panthers. Theyre different and the lack of affiliation with the university is more than just relevant. it is crucial. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 21:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Obviously I completely disagree with your opinion, which you have every right to have, but the reason I keep responding is that you seem intent on diminishing the validity of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper citations. In regards to local papers, your quote: "too few sources that were not either affiliated with the university or were local to Pittsburgh" does not match WP:LOCALFAME. Your quote asserting "whether it has affiliation with the university or not has no relevance" also contradicts Wikipedia:Independent sources. On a somewhat different topic, I personally don't believe University affiliated newspapers should automatically be discounted as non-credible source, especially in light that they often have independent editorial boards. However, major professional independent metropolitan newspapers definitely increase verifiability for any topic as they determine the "newsworthiness" of a particular story for their region with as much non-bias as is possible for an editorial board comprised of humans beings. That clearly fits within WP:LOCALFAME and Wikipedia:Independent sources. There are now 10 different referenced news articles from the two major Pittsburgh area newspapers (not school papers) that are cited in the Oakland Zoo (cheering section) wikipedia article. These articles specifically discuss various aspects of the student section, including, and most pertinent to our discussion, it's national perception. How there could be a perceived lack of, at least, local notability per WP:LOCALFAME is beyond my understanding. One final point is both papers also have "missions to cover" everything in their districts as well as their "town" because they have wide circulation outside the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County limits. This is why there is local TV, radio and newspaper coverage of West Virginia University sports as well, as that school falls within the Pittsburgh DMA. I do not want to go down a school rival pathway, especially since you are a West Virginia fan, so with that said, WVU has a substantial reputation for its student section in the world of college athletics, and if it had a student section article on its own, I would wholeheartedly support its existence.CrazyPaco (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The affiliation (or not) with the university was not relevant to why I think there are too many local sources, to the exclusion of more national sources. I was not calling their independence into question. I do not take issue with the school's paper as a source, either. They run stories about the Zoo, but they aren't part of the zoo. DarkAudit (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        let me ask you this, given the 10 PG and TR newspaper citations and 2 book sources, do you still feel that the Oakland Zoo article fails the test of notability, at least according to WP:LOCALFAME?CrazyPaco (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fail, no. Still would like to see more from outside the city, though. DarkAudit (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 per nom Titelman (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — Titelman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment possible Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The user Titelman has no other wikipedia contributions other than the above comment. The user name suggests a deliberate misspelling of a well known University of Pittsburgh radio talk show call-in fan/message board handle indicative of a possible university rival using deception. In an interesting coincidence, the acronym NTAC is also the name of a group of well known Pitt sports fans at one time common to a specific Pitt sports message board. CrazyPaco (talk)

Strong Keep i still don't understand how this isn't notable or needs to be deleted. cameron crazies is an article, why can't this be? whoever nominated this is an idiot Superbowlbound (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are confused with sources- news articles: http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/basketball/p/panthers.htm http://pittsburghpanthers.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/012006aag.html

blog: http://pittoaklandzoo.blogspot.com/ facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2200205870

- I agree the article should be kept, but read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and especially WP:CIV. BroadSt_Bully ^[tlak] 22:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it civil. About.com and facebook are not considered reliable sources per WP:RS. DarkAudit (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Keep as rewritten NewYork483 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the citing of more national media (much as it pains me to do so... j/k :)). DarkAudit (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator has withdrawn Afd. SunCreator (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Pittsburgh. Non-notable club. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle fuel efficiency comparison

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is unencyclopedic; basically just a list of vehicles and their fuel efficiency. Fails WP:NOT#STATS. Seems like WP:OR and WP:SYN. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete. I want to say move to some kind of list like "List of cars by fuel efficiency", which I think is more appropriate, but I can't find any similar lists that subdivide the List of cars, so there really isn't much precedent. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are reliable, but this work is a clear synthesis. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unencylopedic and WP:SYN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 17:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really sure it's intended to advance any position, but it's clearly OR. -Drdisque (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to wikiversity perhaps --Emesee (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. I have no problem with a rename, as was suggested below, but the consensus is to keep this article intact. ----- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the future in forecasts

Delete: The entire article is a hodge podge which involves timeline of all field including nanotechnology to space. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of information. The information in this article should be merged into the individual year articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Since this AfD process started, a significant amount of work has been done on the article. It has been expanded, pruned, cleaned-up, re-formated and re-arranged. References have been checked, and a new lead section has been written. The article should now consist of credible, referenced near-future forecasts, with no fictional sources whatsoever. It simply presents a neutral sumnmary of these verifiable forecasts. There is no additional interpretation or analysis. No conclusions are drawn; no position is advanced; there is no speculation about the reliability of the forecasts. There is no attempt to synthesise the forecasts into a "future history". Please take the current state of the article into account when determining consensus. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find it easier to navigate as it currently is than merged into articles about individual years. Even though the list includes several technologies, it is a reasonable size. If the list gets too big, then I would support splitting the list into lists by individual technologies. Q0 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not indiscriminate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear inclusion criteria, well referenced, well organised and useful for navigation - in fact, completely the opposite of an indiscriminate collection of information. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first paragraph places everything in the correct context and most items are well sourced.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. We have articles on future events when we know for sure about them. Just because someone says "we will have XYZ by the year 123" or because a company promises "a self-driving car by 5432 in every home" doesn't mean it /will/ happen. This list is nothing more than a crystal ball. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please don't exaggerate. The article says nothing remotely resembling "a self-driving car by 5432 in every home". It is a timeline of credible extrapolations from known technologies by reliable sources, most of which are dated within the next 20 years. The most distant dates in the timeline are 2050 and 2095. The fact that government agencies and international companies have made these forecasts is clearly notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is that Wikipedia cannot say "Technology X will be available by 2050," but can say, "Person Y estimates that technology X will be available around 2050." Q0 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Hut 8.5 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, but it appears to me that nearly all of the predictions in this list are verifiable. I don't think this information should be merged into the individual year articles, and AFD is the wrong venue for that anyway. I would probably support a new name for the list though. --Pixelface (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future timeline of Earth. While verifibility is not the problem, Wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of information, and thus all the above votes are invalid. The concensus is currently to have year articles containing the information, even if it is not the most navigable. Editor of the wiki 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is the only argument that makes me think. Having read the debate for that previous article, it leaves me with the understanding that it was aindiscriminate information. That does NOT apply to the current article however and I'm unable to compare to the cited article because it's contents are deleted. SunCreator (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete an absolutely indiscriminate list that mentions various topics from various works of fiction (or some vague speculations) that somehow have something to do with the future. "Below is a comprehensive list of major future events..." no it's not. It's a completely indiscriminate list of fictional or semi-fictional future-trivia. And it's written entirely from in-universe perspective -- it describes fictional ("predicted") depictions of future as if they were somehow real. It's the ultimate crystalball to beat all crystalballs. The statements are sourced, but the sourcing is to primary sources, not to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Now give me some of these secondary sources that show that these "predictions" are notable; or if you can't find any, then delete this future-cruft. Indiscriminate collection of trivia, that's what it is. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Response to Henrik Ebeltoft - there are several flaws in your argument:
  1. The only references in the article to fictional or "in universe" timelines are the small number of forecasts attribuited to "Arthur C. Clarke, 2001" (8 out of 50 items). I have proposed in the article's talk page that these forecasts should be removed, as they detract from the quality of the article. The forecasts attributed to "Arthur C. Clarke, 2001" were not actually part of a fictional timeline, but were from an interview with Clarke in 2001. I have added a reference to the article.
  2. As far as I can tell, all ~~other~~ references are to factual forecasts from a wide variety of non-fiction sources. Some of these are primary sources, but WP:NOR allows use of primary sources as long as there is no additional interpretation or evaluation of their contents.
  3. You conflate "fictional" and "predicted". Not all predictions of future events are fictional - see for example Graphical timeline of our universe. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, not everything predicted is necessarily fictional; but in the case of this article, it comes so close as to make no difference. Surely, there can be very detailed, realistic scientific studies of how the future may look like, but this article seems to reference mainly some vague, pseudo-realistic musings by various thinkers, whether intended as fiction or as a true prediction of the future. (Nobody can really tell.) However, the main objection seems to be that the sources are mainly primary sources; there are no reliable secondary sources. You say that "use of primary sources as long as there is no additional interpretation or evaluation of their contents" is allowed; I disagree. The most essential criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is that there has been coverage in multiple, independent, reliable published secondary sources -- sources which really discuss the subject from an independent perspective. Primary sources are indeed allowed for verification of particular statements or facts; but secondary sources are essential. In other words, Wikipedia must only document things which have been discussed elsewhere -- "interpretation and evaluation of content" by independent secondary sources is really essential, and this is absent here. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the arricle include a United Nations report, a US Census Bureau database, economic models from Goldman Sachs and PWC, and reports of research from several universities and commercial companies. Hardly "vague, pseudo-realistic musings", and certainly not intended as fiction (yes, of course you can tell the difference !).
On primary sources WP:PSTS says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia" as long as an article "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source". This article conforms to that policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and almost everything is cited to Arthur C. Clarke, a science fiction writer. Grsz 11 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I ask any closing admin to ignore the statement by Grsz, it's false on both accounts, the article fully meets WP:CRYSTAL because it's verified and 'everything' is not by Arthur C. Clarke, just check the article! SunCreator (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please do not exaggerate. Out of about 50 forecasts in the article, I count only 8 that are attributed to Arthur C. Clarke. And of course Clarke wrote many non-fiction works. ~~Anyway, I have proposed on the article's talk page that these 8 Clarke forecasts should be removed unless a non-fiction reference can be found. Impact on article will be minimal.~~ These Clarke forecasts actually come from an interview with him in 2001 - I have added a reference to the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending a >5x expansion so that there are good sources and cleaned up and information under every heading especially environment, Keep if this is performed. ~AH 1^(TCU) 00:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as discriminate, fascinating, and referenced article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm.... "discriminate" -- where's that? The article mixes everything together, things both probable (can't seem to find any, if it comes to that) and improbable (everything else). "Fascinating" -- yes, to be sure, very fascinating -- and a very bad argument for keeping. "Referenced" -- yes, but to primary sources. Where's the independent interpretation and evaluation in secondary reliable sources? Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is an organized list that is far from unwieldly that deals specifically with verfiable predictions for the future, i.e. "discrminate." "Very" should be avoided. "Use this word sparingly. Where emphasis is necessary, use words strong in themselves." -William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 63. "Rather, very, little, pretty--these are the leeches that infest the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words. The constant use of the adjective little (except to indicate size) is particularly debilitating..." -William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 73. The topic of "future predictions" and "future timeline" are the subjects of published books. Moreover, the topic is consient with published specialized encyclopedias of the future per the First pillar. Finally, I improved the article's grammar and reference format. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable high profile subject with a few high-profile predictors which should be easy to source. Subject lends itself naturally to a list-like timeline. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future timeline of Earth. This is almost exactly the same thing. Editor of the wiki 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article cannot be "almost exactly the same thing" as "Future timeline of Earth", because the nominator of this AfD, User:Otolemur crassicaudatus, took a completely opposite position in the "Future timeline of the Earth" discussion, where he argued strongly for keeping that article. An editor would not take such oppositely polarised positions if the articles were similar. Otolemur has clarified the difference between the articles on my talk page. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Casliber. --McCormack (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must've obviously not read the debate linked above. Editor of the wiki 10:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid argue put forward for deletion. This is a highly referenced and verified document about possible future events. WP:Crystal don't apply because it's verified, IINFO#IINFO doesn't apply because it's not indiscriminate. SunCreator (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus seems to be that adequately sourced predictions should be allowed into the various future "year" articles - indeed, some contributors here are suggesting just that. Per WP:LISTS then, this list is a legitimate aid to navigation and browsing, it complements the individual articles, and as such it should be kept. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: User:Henrik Ebeltoft has been blocked for using an alternate account and IP as socks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of which were used here...I don't think. Grsz 11 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main account did participate here and once we determine someone is disrupting Wikipedia in any fashion, we usually disregard their comments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a model of WP:SYNTH. None of these sources say all these things will happen in this order. Even if this article used entirely non-fiction sources, it would still be a fictional (or WP:OR, your choice) future history with no place in an encyclopedia. Articles like this are why WP:CRYSTAL is a policy. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is consient with published specialized encyclopedias of the future per the First pillar and it is not original research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The existence of in-universe fictional encyclopedias does not mean Wikipedia should become one as well. The WP:5P you propose supports this article does not allow original research (which a WP:SYNTH is), and requires verifiability. These assorted sourced opinions when shaped into a future timeline become unverifiable speculation, / edg ☺ ☭ 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - An article that cites sources with speculation does not mean the article itself is speculation, it's merely citing predictions made in a variety of sources. WE'RE (Wikipedia, I mean) is not saying that this is the future, hence it's not "Timeline of the future," but "Timeline of the future in forecasts. Acknowledging some of Nostrodamus's notable predictions or the Book of Revelations with primary sourcing in a straightforward manner would not similarly equate to original research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Creating an article History as it would be in prophecy by combining Nostrodamus's predictions and the Book of Revelations would not be straighforward, and would indeed be WP:OR. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really; mentioning notable predictions is fine. Perhaps what you suggest is that the article just needs more context, i.e. like Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in Daniel 2, but in such a case we can have the timeline of predictions and then have a section on secondary sources that evaluate some of those predictions. Encyclopedias combine primary and secondary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment edg has misunderstood WP:SYNTH. Obviously this article does not breach WP:SYNTH as it is not synthesing material to advance a position or to support an editor's conclusions. It is simply summarising the source material without additional interpretation. As WP:SYNTH says: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing". Gandalf61 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but we don't /know/ any of this is going to happen. It's speculation. While it may be sourced and professional speculation, it is still just speculation. Unlike the Beijing Olympics happening this summer (which we know almost for 100% certain /will/ happen and merits and article in and of itself), these things tend to A) Be farther off, and B) Not be an event that we write about by itself. For example, when the world population hit 6 billion, we don't have an article called 6 billionth person. We make a mention on the appropriate date and year page. The same will happen with these events, when they occur. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think because of the 2008 Tibetan unrest a lot of uncertainty actually pertains to the planned Summer Olympics this year. We could always augment the regular prose of the article by explaining how predictions of the future is a common practice. Accoridng to one of those Page a Day Calendars, Lord Kelvin, One Heck of a Prognosticator, president of the Royal Society in the 1890s, and disbeliever in virtually every scientific discovery, claimed that “Radio has no future,” “I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning,” and “X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” Orville Wright, in 1908 claimed that “No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris.” And Irving Thalberg, MGM movie producer, asserted in 1927 that “Novelty is always welcome, but talking pictures are just a fad.” So, making forecasts of the future's timeline has a historic basis with which we can perhaps expand the article and then have the list section. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment edg and ^demon have misunderstood WP:CRYSTAL. This article does not breach WP:CRYSTAL because it does not contain speculation, editors' opinions or analysis. It simply presents a neutral summmary of verifiable forecasts - there is no speculation about the reliability of these forecasts. As WP:CRYSTAL says: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced". Gandalf61 (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would suggest you rephrase your comment from "misunderstanding" to "have a different interpretation of it than I do." Who is right is beyond me, but policy often is interpreted differently (for better or worse) by different people. This being said, saying someone "misunderstands it" attempts to put a label on us of being "wrong." I'm not wrong, you're not wrong. We just look at the issue differently. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay - let me say that I believe that you have misunderstood WP:CRYSTAL, in the sense that your interpretation of it is not the generally accepted interpretation. At least we can agree that the article does not contain editors' speculation, editors' opinions or analysis, and that it simply presents a neutral summmary of verifiable forecasts ? Those are objective facts - I do not see how there can be differences of interpretation there. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarface CLimax

Contested PROD. Plot summary and analysis of a portion of a movie. WP:NOT certainly applies here. Acroterion _(talk) 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DElete, original research and plot summary of a movie; the verifiable information already exists in the main Scarface article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there with the capitalization. I lol'd. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A much better place for this information would be the Scarface article, but that already seems to contain most of the usable information from this article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Luk suh
Delete per nom. Total plot summary. I guess someone really likes this movie... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a plot summary, and also a essay. Everything that can be said about this is already said better in the actual Scarface article Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is complete original research and is an essay with no WP:V or WP:N. --Pmedema (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an essay, no encyclopedic value. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is bad writen (CL in title? wrong), lacks resources (total original research). Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Keltic Dreams

Urefererenced stub on a borderline-notable musical troupe. A Google News search throws up one quite substantial article in the New YorK Times[26], but nothing else except for one reference in a tabloid sunday newspaper[27]. This seems to me to fall short of WP:MUSIC, which requires multiple non-trivial coverage, but the NYT article is substantial, which is why I am bringing the article here rather than PRODding it. I think it's a borderline case. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. More refs have been found and added, so notability now seems to be established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Other than the gnews hits, they've gotten some other coverage. Apart from that, they've also been involved in some charity. They have also participated in festivals and parades. You shouldn't be too quick to discount them simply because they didn't show up in a single search. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-read the nom: I didn't discount them. I did the research, assessed it as borderline, and brought the issue here for discussion.
  However, I'm not impressed with your most of your new references: the DogoNews story doesn't look to me like a reliable source, the International Herald Tribune story is a reprint of the New York Times story; only the 352-word Irish Times story looks substantial. The others are not significant sources; so the question is whether one NYT story plus 350 words in the Saturday Irish times meets WP:MUSIC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think performing on national television is quite significant. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They also received mention in the Boston Herald, where they were discussed as part of that edition's cover story. I think this more than passes our notability guidelines. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Celarnor (talk · contribs)'s sources, they seem to meet the criteria for coverage in multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added six references to the article; the nominator may want to take another look at it in it's current state. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Celarnor (talk · contribs). Luk suh
Keep. They were covered by the NYT, which is good enough for me. Celarnor's additions really helped out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems good enough to keep. ww2censor (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Azam Meo

The result was DELETE Toddst1 (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsourced BLP which is controversial in tone. Kelly ^hi! 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article borders on WP:CSD#G10. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were not for a notability assertion (online video seen by tens of thousands), I'd tag this one as an attack page (WP:CSD#G10). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, since it is unsourced... --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with no !voting for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cocacolonization

AfDs for this article:

~~I would like to reopen debate. This term is a clear neologism that no source has been shown to use. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.~~ Withdrawn. --Loodog (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and condemn lazy nomination. According to a Google Scholar search which took less than ten seconds to execute and interpret, 79 academic sources use the term. Afd is not for WP:PROBLEMS. Skomorokh 14:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, make that 1,070 academic sources once "coca-colonization", "coca-colonisation" and "cocacolonisation" are included. Skomorokh 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Schweizer Confession

delete – this is a document of a non-notable church. The church's page has already been deleted for not indicating significance. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiSource and delete. Wikipedia isn't a place to store documents, especially if the discussed subjects aren't of particular notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a source text. It is a short article about a religious text. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes. Transwiki the text of the document to WikiSource, as it is old enough to public ___domain, and delete the article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the document is presented as a 2008 revision of a 1977 translation, which would not be public ___domain. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if "transwiki" makes sense for content that is not now on Wikipedia, unless you're talking about the original Schleitheim Confession, there's nothing to indicate that this is a public ___domain document. --Dhartung | Talk 00:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, no idea what I was thinking there. Too early in the morning. I thought it WAS the original. Obviously not... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh

Delete, may be worth mentioning in an article on the Isaric Anabaptist sect, but that seems too tiny for more than a mention in Anabaptist, if that. That article has just had a section on "Neo-Anabaptism" removed for remaining unsourced. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a stub. The English version of the confession is a link not part of the article, so that there is no question of a copyright violation. Nt first reacion was that it seemed a harmless little article. However the church behind it seems to be a splinter group less than two months old, probably with one congregation that has seceded from the Southern Baptists and a minster who calls himslef a bishop. This is clearly a NN church. Hence their "confession" is also NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus between merge and delete is mixed but leaning towards delete. Since the day is already described and a website cited/referenced in the Tapir article for more info, there seems little else in the article needing to be merged. Pigman☿ 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Tapir Day

Contested prod. Non-notable holiday. The creator left a message on my talk page ~~in which he admitted that indeed it is not significant~~, (bad me, I misread the note) but that it should be included on the grounds of the cause's importance. Let's not confuse nobility with notability. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good cause, but not covered in any reliable sources -- no notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know where my responses keep going here. I do disagree with your interpretation of what I wrote (double negatives... my own fault, I guess) - it is significant for tapir conservation projects (whether you think tapir conservation is significant is another matter, of course). World Tapir Day is supported by the Tapir Specialist Group, the leading tapir conservation-related group worldwide. In my opinion, it is notable AND noble, hence the inclusion of this page. User talk:Captain Potato 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC) (I know, syntax errors, but it's late in Australia now...)[reply]
Merge to Tapir where World Tapir Day is already mentioned in the article. Paste (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable as a conservation effort to protect an endangered species. I would point out to Captain Potato that it's good that your page has been nominated for deletion, because the nomination has gained more attention to the problem. Otherwise, this might be overlooked in the 2,000,000+ articles on Wikipedia. That said, there is room to improve on the article by pointing out whatever feedback the effort has gotten. I suggest that you might want to rename the article "World Tapir Day, April 27". Mandsford (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; no, such a rename would be a bad thing. "World Tapir Day" is the name of the thing and is what the article should be called.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern.... Mandsford (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tapir Reywas92 ^Talk 16:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tapir. Luk suh
Merge into Tapir. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge or Delete. It gets 11 hits on Google, including two to Wikipedia and two to Google Groups. Just not notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Tapir. It's a cool idea, and I think we should mention it somewhere, but it's too obscure for its own article. If it picks up some media attention, then we can re-evaluate it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't even think this deserves a merge or redirect. In all appearances, This holiday was WP:MADEUP recently, a website was made and they started to promote it by going to any blog site they could find and soapboxing their idea. It is no where near having WP:N or WP:RS. Merging it to Tapir would make Tapir into a WP:COATRACK!. --Pmedema (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's already mentioned in the Tapir article! Paste (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - no independent, reliable sources discuss this, do they? No google news hits. special, random, Merkinsmum 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Zagalejo. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 22:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely all "x day" events are made up? Apart from ones that are the anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, or similar... and as a first instance of the day, particularly one that hasn't happened yet, there isn't much about it on the internet. I'd imagine there would be a lot more about it after the 27th April? Jerry Fodor (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Already added to Tapir by World Tapir Day creator so merge unnecessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete no notability. Not been mentioned in any reliable sources. special, random, Merkinsmum 12:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tapir's are cool. Sadly wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the first WTD has not yet happened, so we must delete and be content with it being briefly mentioned on the Tapir page. The poor not so fuzzy big snouted Tapirs will just have to wait to be in an encyclopedia until their big day makes the news. Earthdirt (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge with tapirs. King Pickle (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degrafa

Clearly non-notable, still in beta, no RS, should have been speedied (maybe if I had used db-web it would have been) ukexpat (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails nn. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh
Delete - Fails WP:N. Poof! --Pmedema (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 following improvements made over course of AFD. Neıl ☎ 00:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team

This is a sub-stub article on a non-notable sporting event referenced only to primary sources (thereby failing WP:N), with no meaningful content (which makes it a candidate for speedy deletion). This is a list entry mistakenly created as an article merely to remove a redlink in a template. I speedy-deleted a previous version after it was tagged as a copyvio, and it's only becuase it feels inappropriate for me to do a second speedy that I bring it to AFD rather than speedy-deleting it per WP:CSD#A3. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertation of notability but I don't think it falls under any speedy criterion. ~~I'm just curious, how is this "a list entry mistakenly created as an article merely to remove a red link"?~~ Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You were too quick in your response, I hadn't finished the nomination. :) It's speediable per WP:CSD#A3: "No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, and/or images." The redlink issue arises from the template, which would contain a redlink if this article didn't exist; an article which merely restates its title serves no other purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I get it now. It's too early for me to think... but I did make yet another unnecessary link to red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we think it belongs on the template? If so, then having a stub seems sensible. It might encourage people to expand it. If not, then it should be removed from there too. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that starting from the wrong end of the issue? Looking at the template first seems like the tail wagging the dog :( Surely the first question is whether the subject is notable enough for an article, and inclusuion on the template is a subsidiary question which arises only if notability is established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possible weak~~ keep: It is only a stub so reference deficiency may not be fatal. As for notability, it is a national team, so maybe it qualifies. I think most junior national sport teams have articles. There are loads of articles about US college football teams although that might be different as adults actually seem to follow college football in the US. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB The history of this article is not fully visible, so is worth summarising:

Created on 3 March 2008 by User:Alexsanderson83 with content "The Irish Schoolboys rugby union team is the national team for secondary school students in Ireland." plus stub tags and navigation template
27 March: tagged by me as unref and nn, and PRODded as "16-word unreferenced sub-stub article which neither asserts the notability of the subject nor offers any evidence of it; it just restates the title"
1 April: deleted by User:Jmlk17 as expired PROD
21:22 3 April: recreated by User:Alexsanderson83 with same content, and a references section referencing only primary sources
21:23 3 April: bot-tagged as a copyvio
21:24 3 April: Speedily deleted within 2 minutes by User:Cobaltbluetony
21:25 3 April: Recreated by User:Alexsanderson83
21:26 3 April: bot-tagged agian as a copyvio
21:26 3 April: Speedily deleted again by User:Cobaltbluetony
21:27 3 April: Recreated yet again by User:Alexsanderson83
21:27 3 April: bot-tagged yet agian as a copyvio
5 April 06:02, speedily deleted by BrownHairedGirl -- (Speedy deleted per (CSD A1), was a very short article providing little or no context. using TW)
06:54, 5 April 2008 recreated yet again by User:Alexsanderson83

At this point, it should probably be salted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't even work as a stub. The article doesn't add anything to the title, other than to tell us that "schoolboy" means high school boys rather than elementary school boys. "Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team" means the national team (of Ireland) for secondary school students (hence, "schoolboy") who play rugby union. No content, no sources, no assertion of notability. Even if it were sourced, would it be any more notable than, say, the Nevada all-state high school basketball team? Keep Okay, fifth time's the charm. Looks like Alexsanderson has made the changes that make the article work. The added content shows sufficient notability for me, and this is a different article now than what was nominated. Mandsford (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with most of what you say, but not the last bit: Nevada is a sub-unit of a country, but Ireland is a country. If this topic has a claim to notability, it's in the fact that it it is a national team. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and (in view of the history) salt. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at no point was it a copyright violation. Another website mirrors what wikipedia shows and that was the link.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had not added to the article as there was a bot mis-firing. I shall work this article up to decent standard.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: I was apparently in error in deleting this article as a copyvio. Had I looked more closely at the website listed as the copyright holder, I would have seen that it itself was a mirror of this article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That being said, I am uncertain as to how this team fits into the levels of pre-professional teams/leagues permitted by WP:FOOTYN, so I'm going to call on another user I know to be more well-versed in this area to comment. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it's not a football team, FOOTYN is not relevant.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the article about the England national under-16 football team is in the similar state as this article was. I believe the major issue was with the shortness of the article and the inherent problems that came of the article being so short.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the nomination; the major issue in this AFD nomination is the lack of notability. (The brevity also qualified it for speedy deletion, which has been fixed by expanding the article, but that doesn't affect notability). You have added lots of references, but they are all to primary sources (leinsterrugby.ie, connachtrugby.ie etc, all IRFU-related websites). To demonstrate notability, you need to find evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The English article is irrelevant to the notability of this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - added references from the bbc and the times.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and with those references, I've changed my vote. I urge people to revisit the article as improved. Mandsford (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I have just looked again, and see:

A ref to BBC story which reports on one of the players in his role for a school team, but which doesn't even mention the [Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team]]. So that's irrelevant to the notability of the team
A ref to Heavengame.com, which is a community site, and that's not a reliable source
A ref to an article in the Irish Independent about the "U-18 Six Nations" competitions. There is nothing in the article to confirm that the U18 team is the same thing as the Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team.

... so notability is not yet established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The u-18 side and Schoolboys is one and the same. There is one cited source that verifies that, I can trawl for others if necessary.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then salt Snappy56 (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been substantially improved. Not a copyvio, verified by independent sources (eg heavensgame) and is notable, a national representative sports team that plays against other national rep teams. - Shudde ^talk 10:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Added sources from The Times and The Irish Enquirer to satisfy those RS people. Clearly a notable topic, is insane that it needs to be asserted via all these references just to avoid deletion. No one is disputing the fact that the team represents Ireland and plays again other international sides, yet they'll happily delete someone's contributions anyway. Where is common sense? - Shudde ^talk 11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. If you disagree with the [[WP:|notability guidelines]], you can go to Wikipedia talk:Notability and try to seek consensus for their abolition. In the meantime, the extra references are one match report in the Irish Examiner (308 words plus team listings), and two references to stories in The Times from the 1990s, which I can find no trace of in Google or Google News.
    The article now includes a long list of references, but the vast majority are only brief mentions of individual players, not coverage of the team. Of the references which area actually about the team, I have so far been able to verify only two reports which look remotely substantial, and one of those doesn't use the same name, so may not refer to to the same team. There are plenty of village sports teams which receive much more coverage than has been offered so far for this one, so I don't think that notability has been established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Their matches are obviously covered by some major newspapers. I can assure you that there are many more newspaper articles on the team, but just because someone hasn't trawled through all the newspaper archives yet doesn't mean they don't exist. I quickly added those three to void this AfD turning into even more of a waste of people's time, so don't get the impression they are the only ones. For the record I used factiva to find the articles, it's much better then google news. - Shudde ^talk 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ireland are a test match playing rugby union nation. It has context and sources. I don't understand why it is still up for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fronsdorf (talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Notability per WP:RS. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a real solid article, strange that it is still up for deletion.Londo 06 06:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable. Just because it doesn't show up in US-centric news sources, doesn't mean it doesn't have notability. Is the BBC reliable enough for a source?? :[28], [29], [30], [31], [32] (a reference to the team), [33], [34]. Then we have other sources as well: [35], [36], [37] (even mentioned in the French media), [38] (Australian media - where they tour every 4 years), --Bob (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's this, a URL dump? From the BBC: 4 trivial articles ([39], [40], [41], [42]), another one [about the Ulster Cup, which doesn't even mention the Irish schoolboy team, a 200-word piece on the team coach, a 72-words plus team listing notice.
  Then a reference to an article on the IRFU website (not an independent source, so irrelevant to notability), and a few mentions on a specialist Irish rugby site. The rest are just more rugby-specific sites.
  So it looks like this team gets coverage in rugby circles, and the odd brief mentions on BBC N.Ireland website, and that's about it. This is at best marginal notability, but what concerns me is that if we accept this obscure team as notable, we'll then have the usual proliferation of stub articles on one-day-wonder players who featured briefly in this team. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and this team is a step too far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - 'this team is a step too far' - respectfully I believe that is POV. As an admin you have asked for further details which have been satisfied. I believe you may have become personally involved in this article, with editors illustrating the interest in the team through Australia, England, France, etc. I would request any further detail we may at this point require, although further details have been added at this point, so it may well be a moot point.Londo 06 17:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "a step too far" is my judgement on how this article measures up against the notability guidelines, and I don't have an admin role in this debate -- someone else will close it.
But, since you mentioned personal involvement, I took a look at your contribs list and notice that you have made a lot of Rugby-related edits recently, including creating a series of one-line sub-stub article referenced only to the same primary source ([43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]) which you listed in your list of article creations. I wasn't aware of this before I made my comment above, but it's an unexpectedly perfect illustration of my concern that notability guidelines need to be strictly enforced wrt to sports teams, because of the strong tendency of some sports-interested editors to splatter articles which amount to nothing more than glorified list entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply What other sources do you want?? How about the Irish Examiner?? [54], [55], the Belfast Telegraph?? [56] and there are more including loads of rugby sites such as this one. We don't see Beatritz de Dia in the news, so by your logic should we get rid of that article??

The team is notable, is referred to by reliable, secondary source, multinational news media which are not affiliated with the subject ie not presented by the IRFU, and is referenced to numerous times in biographies of current and past players and is one of the major stepping stones to test level rugby in Ireland. This is not your local pub team, like you are inferring. It is so much more. --Bob (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable enough IMO plenty of verifiable and reliable source.--BigDunc (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto - Keep PeterClarke 07:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say it is notable, referenced far better than a lot of 'stub' articles.PeemJim86 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a surprising claim that an international schoolboy team in a major sport is not notable, as any games played are surely widely reported. (The current U18 tournament is certainly widely reported - perhaps a rename to schoolboy and U18 level would remove some objections?) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National athletic teams are notable, regardless of level. B.Wind (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not Irish, but reckon this article asserts itself pretty well.No9shirt (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has now been up for deletion for over a week. It has clearly been improved beyond recognition, surely time to close the afd down.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is this an attack on the Irish, Rugby or Schoolboys? This articles stands up to be counted for me. Real quality sourced article. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Consensus is that this information belongs on Wikipedia, but that currently it does not have sufficient notability to merit a stand-alone article. It is being merged into International reaction to Fitna. It will also be mentioned, with a wikilink, in Arab European League. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mouftinoun

No third-party reliable sources in English about this film made in response to Fitna. A google news search for Mouftinoun (as opposed to a google web search) gets no hits in English. The only citations are from the Arab European League, the organisation that produced the film. No opposition to re-creation if reliable third-party sources come along. Andjam (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arab European League. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arab European League. Luk suh 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arab European League. -- Quartermaster (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this contra-film is relevant in the Fitna film soap. See also the Dutch Google News. --Jeroenvrp (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recommendation is probably more relevant to the Dutch language wikipedia than the English language wikipedia (which is the venue for the article in question). -- Quartermaster (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is false, because all Wikipedias are language editions and not country editions. In other words; all Wikipedias should be international oriented, whatever language they are in. Please read the rules and regulations. --Jeroenvrp (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how my comment could be construed as "false" when all it did was point out that using Dutch language sources for this article might be more relevant in the dutch language (Nederlands) wikipedia. Interestingly, when I search the Nederlands wikipedia for Al Mouftinoun there is no wikipedia article there on this film. I'm leery of independently mining of external (non-wikipedia) sources from different languages when there are no corresponding articles in the wikipedia of the source's language. I'm not against that, but think it should generally be avoided, mostly because if the primary users of a specific language wikipedia are the native speakers, it makes it hard for them to analyze sources they may not be capable of understanding. That being said, I have myself cited foreign language sources when relevant and applicable (e.g., see Francesco Bentivegna), but I would prefer english language sources for english language articles (and Nederlands language sources for Nederlands language articles) so that the majority of users can more readily join in the communal editing process. Don't construe my comment as being "against" your recommendation (note: I am in favor of Merge rather than Delete) or that I am an "English only" advocate - I am not. But if the ONLY sources for keeping this as an independent article are either from the producers themselves, or a single Dutch article, I don't see that as compelling support for an independent article. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything against articles on films from the country Holland. But it'd be preferable to have reliable sources that are written in the English language. Andjam (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of real reliable sources that are about this film (as opposed to mere news items which just mention it). Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reasons for doing otherwise. Randomly clicked Bombay_Flying_Club does not have any references, this one does. In my opinion censorship is biggest reason for deletion of this page. 116.206.24.47 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still plugging for Merge which appears to be the early consensus (that can change). Note that only one Delete has been proposed so far. We're not saying that mention of this film should be erased, just saying it's not notable enough (yet) for retaining as a stand alone article. - Quartermaster (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably Merge into Reaction to Fitna and/or Arab European League. Failing that, Weak Keep. This film does, just barely, seem to be notable (judging from the existence of the Dutch-language news reports), but I don't think it needs its own article, and should be merged into one or both of those articles. Terraxos (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this seems to be a footnote in the whole to-do of International reaction to Fitna, so a merge there (if there is anything really mergeable) would be acceptable. But on it's own it's hardly notable, I don't think. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Tone 14:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Morgan

I could not verify the claim in the article that this individual has appeared on Blue Peter and X Factor, upon which the topic's notability rests. Self-publishing albums does not contribute to notability per se, and having a family from Bedwas probably detracts from it (I kid, I kid).

Unless reliable sources can be found, I think this article should be deleted. Skomorokh 12:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 Just appearing on a couple TV shows isn't enough to assert notability per WP:MUSIC, especially when there's no proof that he appeared on said shows. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H. Paul Shuch

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines for inclusion, specifically does not meet notability for academics, which he is. He is also an engineer, and active in the SETI movement and it may be he meets notability there. If your opinion is keep, please give guidance as to which parts of the article to keep and what to trim, as this has WP:COI, autobiography, and other issues. It is currently listed at the COI noticeboard here. As EdJohnston wrote: Shuch tells a good story but it is hard to find articles that actually write about him. Suppose we had to build his entire article out of direct quotes about him from other publications, how large would it be? Thanks for your input. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very light on reliable sources. Weak delete due to probably not meeting WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shuch himself has recently added sources to improve the article Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article subject is notable enough to warrant an article and there are enough reliable sources. I'd suggest pruning the non-notable sections (e.g. Musical Influences) Luk suh 16:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The individual clearly exists. If you have problems with the manner in which the article is written, deletion is not the appropriate means to remedy those issues. Fix it yourself, or leave it alone so someone else can. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the individual in question does not exist. The issue is whether he is notable and on what grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue most certainly is not whether he is "notable", because "notability" is irrelevant--it is both arbitrary and utterly undefinable. Verifiable existence is the only relevant criterion for inclusion of an article on the subject. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A radical and very unconventional view on Wikipedia inclusion standards, but thank you for articulating it clearly. If you feel that way, you should take it up at the talk page for WP:N and try to have it modified or even deleted. But for now we have to respect previously established consensus and follow the existing notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. We are not bound by precedent at all. We are expected to judge each case on its merits. There are no hard-and-fast rules on Wikipedia. The "policies" merely reflect what has been done in the past; they are not rules to dictate what happens in the future. This is where you change consensus, and when that happens, the "policy" pages are updated to reflect that. Your suggestion is completely backwards, then. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using this argument that subjects of articles exist. That is not considered sufficient by longstanding consensus. Please try to use stronger, more convincing arguments, and avoid attacking other editors in the process. --Dhartung | Talk 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of attacking others when I have not done so. Furthermore, my arguments are plenty strong and valid. That others disagree with them does not change that fact. I am not obligated to think like everyone else. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A retired engineering professor, H. Paul Shuch is the aerospace engineer credited with designing the world's first commercial home satellite TV receiver."^[57]. Sounds notable enough to me. Article could do with some cleanup though. -- Naerii 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any COI issues will be best resolved by the participation of other editors rather than deletion. AFD is not punishment. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable perhaps in several different respect. Kurt, i am not sure how useful it is to give your much expanded definition here in discussing this article--it is hardly needed & might even give the incorrect impression that there is no basis for inclusion otherwise. There are better places for general policy advocacy. Seems rather clear that the only real problem with this particular article is with the COI that has made itself evident in the manner of writing, which is fixable enough. We do not have to build the article out of direct quotes, we can use self published sources for uncontroversial routine information. DGG (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No notability concerns, article meets core policies. Catchpole (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There is enough info to justify notability under WP:PROF. The awards/honors like being a fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, and being an elected member of the International Academy of Astronautics are probably sufficient in this regard. More awards, some of them academic, are listed at the SETI League website, [58]. The claim to being "credited with the design of the world's first commercial home satellite TV receiver" also appears to be verifiable and would go some way towards satisfying WP:PROF as well. I must admit that I had trouble with finding sufficient references to his scholarly work via GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks, where very few hits came up, and this worries me a bit. He might also qualify under WP:BIO because of his SETI involvement and public advocacy for SETI. I would say that the article needs a serious clean-up and a reduction in size. There are lots of personal details that are both unverifiable and of marginal relevance to his claim to notability. E.g.: "His earliest memories as a toddler include Schubert's Unfinished Symphony, to which his father told him bedtime stories. He began the obligatory piano lessons at age 5, continuing until he fell in love with the violin at age 11." Nsk92 (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Unsure. On closer inspection, the British Interplanetary Society is not really a scholarly society, but more of a public advocacy group (as the aticle British Interplanetary Society says, Arthur C. Clarke, a science fiction writer, used to be its Chairman. Given that I was unable to find substantial evidence of academic notability in terms of citations in scholarly articles and books, I do not see enough data to justify notability under WP:PROF. It is possible that notability might be established on other grounds, per WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak Keep. I did a GoogleNews (all dates) search for Shuch SETI and got 67 hits[59] at least 50 of which appear to be related to the subject of the article containing nontrivial coverage. The same search of GoogleBooks gives 51 hits[60] (most are false positives but at least 20 or so appear to be related to the subject). This popular media and books coverage appears to be enough to satisfy WP:BIO as a notable public activist. Nsk92 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (after ec) I am not trying to punish Shuch for COI editing. Here are my explicit concerns. The nutshell at WP:NN says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. Shuch himself has made the vast majority of the edits to his article, so it seems especially important to have relaible sources backing up his claims. He has been made aware of this and has had a few weeks to add more reliable sources.
So what is he notable for? The article's "Overview" starts with Shuch, also known as "Dr. SETI", an aerospace engineer and microwave technologist credited with the design of the world's first commercial home satellite TV receiver[1] [2],... Now, that sounds very notable, but what are the "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" cited here? A patent? An article or textbook on or published history of satellite TV? No, reference 1 is a book on "Deploying License-free Wireless Wide-area Networks" and the claim is given in a bio of Shuch, who is one of the book's technical reviewers. The book's author is Shuch's "former student, former employee, fellow radio amateur, and lieflong friend." Does this seem like a "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? The second reference is to a history page on a 1999 website for "Real-World Technology Ltd: The UK's Set-Top Box Tuner Specialist". Even there it does not quite match the claim made in the article, but rather says H Paul Shuch had designed microstrip low-noise converters for the radio amateur 2.3, 3.4 and 5.6 GHz bands, and it was a small step to adapt them to cover the 4 GHz satellite downlink band.
As I see it, Shuch could be notable for four things he has done: 1) professor, 2) engineer, 3) SETI work, and 4) filk singing. 1) Professor is covered by Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and he does not seem to meet the standard that "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" - the article does not say that he has even been tenured anywhere, for example. 2) Engineer and 3) SETI seem to fall under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals and the engineering work notability I adressed above. As for SETI work, the organization he was director of does not (yet) have a Wikipedia article on it. As for filk singing and WP:MUSIC, not notable. He has one ref in the whole music section, which attributes the cited quote back to Shuch himself: But Shuch would rather call himself a cross between Carl Sagan and Tom Lehrer.
I agree with Kurt Weber - Shuch exists, as do over 6 billion other people. I do not doubt that he has done the things the article claims. As I see it (and as I said above) if he is notable it is for his engineering and/or SETI work (there are lots of retired adjunct / visiting professors out there and many filk singers too). I am not an expert on his fields of engineering or SETI and it may well be that he is notable, but I just wanted to state my concerns more explicitly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for tracking down the references given in the article to justify the claim that he is "credited with the design of the world's first commercial home satellite TV receiver". Per your research, the references given either do not qualify as independent reliable sources (the first reference) or do not explicitly back up the claim (the second reference). WP:PROF is not just for professors but for academics in general. Many academics work in the industry/non-profits/government etc rather than in universities. I was basing my vote primarily on the evidence of academic honors and awards that he (claims to) have received, such as being a fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, and being an elected member of the International Academy of Astronautics. The SETI League website lists some others, such as the Hertz Foundation Fellowship in the Applied Physical Sciences (In view of the experience with the satellite TV claim all these would need to be verified). Generally, being an elected member of an international scholarly society is a good indicator of academic notability, provided the society itself is well-established and reputable. This would seem to be enough to satisfy the requirements of WP:PROF. I do still have some doubts, since, as I said, I did not find much via GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks searches under his name. So I am a bit on the fence about this one. Nsk92 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to Unsure; see my comments above. Nsk92 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I am beginning to think that maybe the correct thing to do here is to create a WP entry for SETI League and merge this article there. After all, his main claim to fame does seem to be his SETI activities. I did a GoogleNews search (all dates) for "SETI League" and got 74 hits. [61] Some of them are rather interesting in how they characterize the SETI Leage and Shuch himself, e.g. this, from "New Scientist"[62]:"Paul Shuch, director of an organisation of amateur SETI enthusiasts called the SETI League, based in New Jersey, believes that the signal must have come ...". This tells me that the popular press citations related to Shuch do not really go towards proving his notability per WP:PROF, since his opinion is cited not as that of a scientific expert but rather, as a leader of an organisation of "amateur SETI enthusiasts". Nsk92 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly suggest an article on SETI league, but I think this article will hold up in addition. Popular pre3ss citations are perfectly usable for an academic--they dont prove academic notability, but they do prove notability. It's well established that an academic who meets the same general criteria for notability in the eye of the general public can be notable as such. the special rues are to deal with the situation that the general eye of the pubic press does not cover them much. DGG (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, popular press citations may be used as an indicator of academic notability per WP:PROF, but only if they involve citing his opinions as a scientific expert on a particular subject (or articles about him and his scientific accomplishments). That does not seem to be the case here since he is quoted not as a scientific expert but as a leader of a group of "amateur SETI enthusiasts". These kinds of citations would go towards general notability under WP:BIO as a public activist for a particular cause, but it is not clear to me if the number and depth of such newsarticle citations related to Shuch are sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's the point, is he notable as 'a leader of a group of "amateur SETI enthusiasts". ' I think we agree that it is possible for someone, academic or not, to be notable a leader of such a group. To me, being talked about as such in New Scientist is quite enough to show it. DGG (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Expanded rationale: speedy deleted in accordance with request by author (G7). Just two extremely minor, constructive edits were made by other users SoLando (Talk) 17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Commander

Despite the fact I created the article, I've had a rethink and I reckon it's not very well done (no sources), and the game isn't nearly notable enough. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 11:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nobody else has edited it much so you could put db-author on it if you want to. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. None of the other edits are significant, so {{db-author}} would work just fine here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete due to lack of reliable sources. Luk suh 16:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee williss

Article speedy deleted A7 first, then recreated and an editor expressed concern about notability and factual accuracy. Seems appropriate to nominate it here. Tone 10:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to future recreation. I can't find anything that makes her particularly notable. In fact, I can't find anything other than this at all, and being on a reality show doesn't automatically make you notable; however, she might become so in the future as a result of being on it/winning it, so no salt. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Saw this article when it was created, then tagged for A7. Agreed with it then, and I agree with it now. My searching reveals nothing significant about this individual. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article has incorrect capitalization in title, also it looks like she wrote it herself SevernSevern (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Opinion I'm a big fan of Ashlee Williss just for the record. She may not be famous yet (not yet notable) but her music is awesome. I was really happy to see her listed here. Wikiwakilover (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per Celarnor. --Finngall ^talk 03:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think she's noticeable enough, but the article isn't quite Wikipedia material, yet. LukeTheSpook (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in the sense of "not delete". AfD is a process to determine whether there is consensus for an article to be deleted or not. Such consensus is not apparent here. But it's up to the community to determine whether there's consensus to merge this article somewhere else, and if so, to what extent the article should be merged. I suggest that this determination should take place on the article talk page(s), as is usual for merger discussions. Sandstein (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

This is an anti-Palestinian propaganda launched by some editors. The title of the article gives the impression that celebrations broke out in multiple countries all over the wold, however when you read the article you find that it only covers the Palestine's celebration. What relevant material here is already covered in the International Reaction section of Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and there is no need for a separate article here. Imad marie (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title is certainly not aproppriate. However, the International Reaction section of Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks does not mention Palestine at all (at the moment). I therefore propose a merge (the whole section is very short anyway) . --Tone 10:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is some more about it in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Still short, though. --Tone 10:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the title not appropriate? That's exactly what they are. Call a spade a spade.

The title gives the impression that it covers celebrations from multiple countries. What we have here is reports about a couple of thousands of Palestinians who celebrated. Is this enough to create an article about it and call it: "Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks"? Imad marie (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it's not enough for an entire article, but why isn't it enough for section called "Celebrations" in the aftermath article? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only material we have concerning "celebration" is the Palestinians', and I'm not sure if a couple of thousands of celebrating Palestinians is worthy of a section. Also please note that the Palestinian reaction was mixed, while some celebrated it, the Palestinian Authority and media condemned both the attacks and the celebrations as well. My suggesyion is to merge the content in the section International Reaction of Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Imad marie (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant. Agreed. :) Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new section under the Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, a disputed and relatively minor footnote in the history of 9/11 doesn't need a whole article. We should probably merge Post-9/11 there as well. <eleland/talkedits> 12:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Not a significant enough event for a whole standalone article. Yes mildly interesting, but it only needs a mention as part of a wider "Reactions to .." section or article (and that should have far more focus on the overwhelming expressions of sympathy that came from most quarters, including the Middle East; as well as highlighting any "celebrations" from other places other than the one or two mentioned here). --Nickhh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I meant to say as well .. cut the volume of material back drastically, otherwise it will overwhelm any article or section it is merged into, and the WP:UNDUE issues will remain. --Nickhh (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- you seem to be arguing two incompatible positions - on the one hand, claiming the topic is not significant enough to warrant a standalone article, on the other hand saying there is so much information here that if it is merged, it will have to be trimmed down. You really can't have it both ways. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Er, no, I am being utterly consistent - these were minority events of marginal notability, being hyped by Wikipedia editors who want Palestinians to be portrayed collectively as celebrants of mass murder. They deserve neither a whole page nor a massive subsection on another page. Pretty simple point really. --Nickhh (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- How is it possible to describe this as "marginal notability", when the article documents coverage by all major US news stations, and international media , sources to more than 2 dozen reliable sources? What criteria for notability are you using? I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wasn't just Palestinians (or Muslims) who celebrated. Even non-Muslim people in Canada and the USA celebrated. Kevin Potvin and Westboro Baptist Church for example. Andjam (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This received coverage on every major US TV news station, as well as newspapers the world over, as documented by the multitude of sources in the article. In fact, it was so notable and noteworthy, that a subsequent controversy arose, over allegations that the TV footage was faked. To Imad's point - if it's true that it was only Palestinians celebrating, we could rename this to "Palestinian Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks" I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Keep the facts mentioned in the article happened and were part of the headlines of the headlines of the news services around the world. User:Lucifero4
Comment to I am Dr. Drakken and Lucifero4: an event being covered by media does not mean that it has to have its own article. Imad marie (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wikipedia is not a newspaper etc etc. --Nickhh (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The every first line of our notability policy is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." This topic clearly meets this criterion. What exactly is the policy being invoked to delete this clearly notable subject? I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply 1) "It is presumed" is a very different statement from "It is [definitively]", presumptions can be rebutted. 2) You should also read further into the notability page - "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability"--Nickhh (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Indeed, presumptions can be rebutted. How about you start? It seems that there is significant coverage, so what is it that makes this non-notable? This was not a short burst of coverage - as the cited sources show, they lasted quite a while, and as I noted in my comment, they were prominent enough to launch a separate controversy, with some claiming the footage was faked. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply The notability of this event is not what is being debated here, what is being debated is WP:UNDUE, and that this event certainly does not need an article about it on its own.

Imad marie (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I'm glad we agree that notability is note an issue (Nickhh please take note!). With regard to WP:UNDUE, the policy says "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." - I don't see anything here that justifies article deletion. If you want to quote some reliable source that presents an opposing view point (i.e - that these weren't celebrations) - go right ahead. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, you were the one who first used the word notability here, I just responded to that. And actually I think it is an issue about notability (or the lack of it). These demonstrations were relatively minor events - briefly newsworthy at the time, but not significant in the long run. Therefore having a whole article about them here is in turn an issue of undue weight being given to this reaction/alleged opinion. It's got nothing to do with any debate about whether the events referred to were or weren't celebrations. And it's also about WP:POVFORK too - this page has so many issues I lose count. --Nickhh (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but the celebrations of the September 11 attacks were a part of the reactions like the expression of the regrets.(User:Lucifero4)

Merge with the reactions article. I can't even think of a way to retitle this article without setting off NPOV alarm bells. This would also become (if it isn't already) a soapbox/vandalism target. 23skidoo (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 Attacks. Luk suh 16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the article is short and don't looks like it will be expanded. A lot of it is also about other reactions and about allegations of celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. // Liftarn (talk)
Keep. The nominator claims "The title gives the impression that it covers celebrations from multiple countries"; how on earth does it give that impression? The article should cover notable celebrations, wherever they occurred; if it happens that they only occurred (or were only sufficiently documented) in one area, or only by one set of people, so what? How does that put the lie to the title? -- Zsero (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be documented that the Phelps family held a celebration at the time, that could go in too, since I suppose anything they do that gets reported is inherently notable. I'm not aware of any such celebration, though; they certainly expressed approval of the attacks on later occasions, and continue to do so to this day, but that's not the topic of the article. -- Zsero (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Quoting you from the article talk, this is your definition for a celebration : "Dancing, handing out candy, openly declaring joy". According to your definition, do we have other groups who "celebrated" the attacks? I think not, and some editors will make sure no other "acts of approving the attacks" will be included in the article in their anti-Palestinian campaign. Imad marie (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - if nobody else can be verified as having notably celebrated, then nobody else will be included; why is that a problem? How does the title imply anything about how widespread the phenomenon was? -- Zsero (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notified on main 9/11 article - here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep --the article asserts celebrations in various countries and seems to have multiple good sources for it. As I see it, the opposition to this article is political. DGG (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The celebrations are very notable, and have lots of good sources. The topic is very notable, and the topic does seem to me to be notable enough for its own article. Yahel Guhan 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge An entire article based on the repetition of one single media report (the infamous cake-video), which was likely staged, by several media outlets? I think not. pedro gonnet - talk - 07.04.2008 06:58
Comment Please see how some editors are trying to use this article to produce undue weight in other related articles as well. Imad marie (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, exists as WP:COATRACK at the moment, don't I recall Arafat donating blood to the 9/11 victims? Let's not focus on "a random civilian who lives in country X". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could provide additional sources on that topic, that'd be good. To be honest, I'd be surprised if he were eligible to give blood, based on his age. Andjam (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not entirely clear if Arafat gave blood or just made a show of giving blood, but RS (BBC) support the "made a show out of donating blood". Regardless, he certainly was not eligible being extremely sick, and a number of Palestinian officials have also said that he died of AIDS. This is in the article best I'm aware. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge BUT if some pressure group try to remove the information when they are merged (arguing wp:undue), the article will have to be restored. Ceedjee (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Reply: Really? So you think that three one-off alleged celebrations by a few thousand people deserve around ten paragraphs in an overall reaction section; compared to the current one or two paragraphs that cover every single expression of condolence, sympathy, including candlelit vigils in Tehran, official statements from governments and organisations across the world including the Middle East, annual public commemorations and silences in the years immediately following the attacks etc etc? Or maybe Wikipedia is just here to tell the world what evil and horrible people all Palestinians are. --Nickhh (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Then, any merge vote must be considered keep. See below Ceedjee (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commet - I agree with Ceedjee. This is the big problem here, where a group of people want to see the material gone even though it was published on so many RS major news outlets. I haven't decided if a merge or a keep is best, but I certainly won't support a 'delete' motion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply No one wants the material gone, however the way how it is presented now is WP:UNDUE, and if it decided to be merged then it should be presented in its fair balanced weight. Imad marie (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply Currently WP:UNDUE ? That is not possible. An article cannot be wp:undue. Only an information in an article can be wp:undue because in that article too much weight would be given to one point of view. The decision to keep or delete an article is rather link to the notobility of a topic : does a given topic deserve to be developed ?. And the criteria to analyse in mainly linked to the secondary sources linked to the topic.
      - Here, the consensus is between merge/keep. So, it should not become delete arguing WP:Undue after merging. I hope my point of view is more clear.
      - If somebody is against the total merging, then he must agree with the existence of the article. Because one of the reason why articles are created is to put in them the information that could not stand in an article because it create a pov-issue there. Ceedjee (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Let me reword, the article is WP:POVFORK and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia. Imad marie (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be wp:povfork but I don't think it is because this is not an analysis. povfork is rather when the same material is dealt and analysed of 2 different ways because editors cannot agree about how to introduce this respecting npov in the same article.

Here, the article focuses on the celebration, ie the reaction of contenment after the 9/11... This phenomenon existed.

What should people do is to find more 2nd sources discussing that reaction by some political analysts or sociologists. I am sure there are some. I already read this. Also, the context should be given.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. See to it that reliable sourced notable material is not deleted.Bless sins (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is sourced. Is notable. Deletion is not the answer to NPOV violations. POVFORK allegations are too easily made, and deletion is not needed to fix them even if true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Potters School

Advert for non-notable internet school. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only material outside of their own ress releases is an obituary on someone who wrote course material for the institute. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total unnotable rubbish. Apex Glide (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete blatant advertising.--Michael White^T·C 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It appears that it was originally speedy tagged but it was deemed that because it's a school that it needs to go to AfD. Standard fails WP:N and WP:V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it shouldn't matter that it's a school. It is clearly blatant advertising. JuJube (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 If any editor (non admin) would like to see contents for a potential future informational merge, let me know on my talkpage. For the moment, consensus is to delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pillars of Nosgoth

Article is about non-notable game objects. Strandwolf (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down and merge content to the Legacy of Kain article to the extent allowed by whatever reliable sources can be found; the game, being a primary source, should be fine for a minimalist summary of what it is, but anything more would require some substantive sources, IMO. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also redirect. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim, merge & redirect Most of the article is plot summaries from the games anyway. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Legacy of Kain. Luk suh 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 11:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references at all; fails WP:N. Even if references could be found, it's likely this should be merged with Nosgoth or better yet Legacy of Kain. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ty 17:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Ganendra

Contested speedy. Non-notable art gallery operator. Few relevant Google hits, and almost all are directories, gallery announcements and news releases. Nothing to indicate how she meets notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Definitely not a good speedy candidate. Subject is responsible for decorating lots of high-profile places and events, she has received coverage for turning her home into a public gallery and for speaking at the local Speaking Club, as well as mention in art circles, which indicates that she isn't a nobody. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The individual clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence is not enough. You exist. Maybe. Does that mean you deserve your own Wikipedia article? Not a chance. DarkAudit (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it does. Everything that exists is article-worthy. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sir, please do not clutter AfD discussions with obvious foolishness. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What foolishness? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Start writing. I'll check the AfD or deletion log after dinner. DarkAudit (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - For me to write the article would be a conflict of interest. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celarnor. Epbr123 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm kind of surprised to see someone from ICU nominating things of potential notability for deletion... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Worse yet, I'm the guy who started the WICU. But I nominate articles for deletion fairly regularly. This subject is simply not notable, and I don't see anything as far as additions to the article that would change that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's written in a poorly-disguised first-person style, in the manner of vanity article. Not in itself grounds for a definite deletion but it most certainly needs sourcing and a rewrite. Mazca (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parts were copyvio from a website owned by the subject. I've removed the parts that were copyvio, added 7 or 8 references, and I'll start expanding the article when I get back from dinner. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It would seem to me notability is well-asserted at this point. Keep looks like the right thing to do. Mazca (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The refs make a big difference. Only one thing really concerns me, and that is the fact that the New Straits Times articles are behind a membership wall, which makes them a little tough to verify. (It may also explain why my Goggle search missed these.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a new policy that all news sources have to be readable via the internet? Does this mean we can't use print sources anymore? If this is the case, why do we have citation templates which don't include URLs, and why are other articles allowed to use them? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they're easy to verify by anyone with access to a library that has a ProQuest subscription, which is pretty much everyone in the United States. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here that shows a notable person re: WP:N, WP:BIO, or even WP:COMPANY. Trying to establish notability by the notable events she has participated in would be inherited notability reasoning, just wont fly. The cited newspaper articles are trivial mentions and some are not even about the subject, she is just used as a story source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references are used to demonstrate that she is a well-respected and known member of art circles, which lends to her notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Her notice comes mostly from professional activities she is preforming as a type of art agent. She therefor has the trivial day to day mentions generated by anyone working in that field. "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" and therefor wont establish she is an "important figure". If she did allot of this type of work and received a large amount of coverage she may meet the guidelines for WP:COMPANY, but we are way below that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions with photographs of her and short interviews regarding her involvement? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Its her job. We do not normally put up articles about people who do their job unless it pushes them into some other sort of "notice". We need significant articles about her, not about what she is doing. The normal coverage of someone doing their job in trivial coverage of fairly local events does not meet WP:N since it is not "significant coverage". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fountains of Bryn Mawr has put in better words than I much of the concern I have about this subject. The refs (those that I can get access to — see above) seem to be more about events or organizations to which she has a connection, not specifically about her proper. "Inherited notability" is the best way to put it.

Delete as NN per FOBM and others. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs)

Arthur Allen Leff

He was a faculty member at Yale but not really an important one if I recall correctly. This is also an "orphan page" -- D.T. Forrester, April 5 2008.

Comment. Info from Yale Law School. Ha! (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems at least marginally important, based on Ha!'s link. The man got a full-article obituary in the New York Times, which is usually a good sign of notability. [63] Zagalejo^^^ 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The individual clearly exists. That a page is not orphaned is not a reason to delete it; rather, it is a reason to seek out relevant pages and link to it from them. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kurt, this time you are definitely wrong: the individual does not exist since he died in 1981 (and there was an obituary in NYT about this). Not that it matters, since the issue is not past or present existence but notability.Nsk92 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- full NYT obituary is sufficient evidence of notability. Jfire (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merely a professor at Yale Law, referred to by famous people, but unnotable? A full NYT obit has always been taken not just as an indication of notability, but as conclusive evidence of it. The article needs to be expanded from it.DGG (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems a clear-cut case. As noted by others, an NYT obituary is sufficient for notability and verifiability. The subject also held a named professorship at a prestigious institute and has been honoured by the creation of a fellowship in his memory. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs)

Imagine That (sketch)

Was prodded by Nickpheas (talk · contribs) whose rationale was: "For a sketch, even a running gag, to deserve a page of it's own requires that sketch to have spread into public consciousness. Imagine That has not, and shows no indication that it's likely to. It made a few appearances on the radio, did not translate to TV. It spawned no chatch phrases. Wikipedia certainly does not need a series of transcripts like this - even the Dead Parrot doesn't go into this much detail." Although I agree 100% with his assessment, and even prod-2'ed the article, I feel that this might be a controversial deletion, so I figured it warranted AfD instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see a real claim of notability here. The fact that it was in three series of a radio program does not automatically indicate notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Rtphokie (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No controversy I can see, not notable and no assertion of notability made. - Dravecky (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Surprising Adventures of Sir Digby Chicken-Caesar

This is an overly detailed play-by-play/fancruft of a sketch. Only sources are pretty much primary as said sources are from the network's website. Just like Numberwang (which was redirected), this sketch doesn't seem to have any real notability, as popular as it may be among fans. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Even the title's POV! —BradV 05:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even less notable than NumberWang, and unlike NumberWang hasn't inspired any jokes on its own AfD.Nick Connolly (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look at me, Numberwang is the only TMaWL sketch I've seen so I can't make jokes on their other 38,295 (That's Numberwang!... sorry) sketches. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I love That Mitchell and Webb Look this isn't notable. Everything that could be salvaged is already in the That Mitchell and Webb Look article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge into That Mitchell and Webb Look, not worth having a separate article in this case. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 12:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be covered perfectly will in the article about the series, and unlike Numberwang, this is unlikely to be useful as a redirect.--Michig (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Joelster (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, A7 (music). Tony Fox (arf!) 06:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done

The page seems to want to make claims of notability, but searching for information on the band comes up with very little aside from their own myspace page(s). Rnb (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) Non-notable band. Probably COI too considering this is the only contribution from this user. —BradV 05:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 per above, so tagged. No notability per WP:MUSIC. And I doubt that the Michael Butler in this band is the same as the one in Exodus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G1 by User:Versageek. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sama llama

prank article Df747jet (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G1 as nonsense, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete reverted, tagged again. Wow. —BradV 05:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and moved to WTC Northbank Wharf. -- Longhair\^talk 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Centre (Melbourne)

Article on a building in Melbourne appears to fail the notability guidelines. Prod removed without comment by author, even after I asked for an explanation. —BradV 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Appears to be not notable. The only news hit with results for "World Trade Center" + 'melbourne' is this, and it just happens to include the two by coincidence and is not about the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using the Australian spelling centre is somewhat more successful, especially by using keywords "crown" or "yarra".

I hadn't thought of that, thanks. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but move to WTC Northbank Wharf, its current name. There does seem to be a fair amount of coverage over the years, in part due to its being the original home of the Crown Casino (now part of the Crown Casino and Entertainment Complex across the river) and now as some adjunct to the Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre. It's not that it's tall, it's that its redevelopment, tenants, and its sheer size as a major office-building complex have kept it in the news. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WTC Northbank Wharf, which seems to be the current name of the place. I wasn't thinking and searched under a different spelling of the word center than is used by Australia and Europe. There seem to be more than a few bits and pieces now, but since this is no longer the name of the place, it should be moved and redirected there. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move as above. Notable building (with its own postcode no less [64]!), but at least put it to the correct title. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Move - proceed with the move. I'm inclined to believe that buildings with their own postcodes are likely to be important enough to be notable. matt91486 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Dhartung's arguments. Notable with its own postcode, etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move I've done a major cleanup and rewrite, and added 5 decent references. --Canley (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as per above discussion - Denimadept (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move it is a building of note in Melbourne CBD, but the post code is a furphy the reason is because there are multiple postal exchanges within the suburb Melbourne the name is to ID the ___location only, like Cloisters in Perth. Gnan garra 03:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, although the "list" is in need of some massive cleanup as noted. Marking as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the Americas with alternative names

Article is full of WP:OR and WP:SYN. I see no way to fix the article to avoid that, so I have to conclude that Wikipedia is not the place for this. —BradV 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to WP:SYN "serving to advance a position" : what position do you think this article is serving ?
Why don't you list for deletion Names of European cities in different languages ? This unbalanced treatment between American cities and European cities seems questionable. Teofilo talk 06:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Names of European cities in different languages, there are a list of sources at the bottom of the page which indicates where all the information comes from. The fact that there are no third-party sources publishing a list of cities in the Americas with alternate names means that this entire article is original research and is not verifiable according to our policies. —BradV 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't most major cities have different names in other languages? Even so, this list is overflowing with original research, synthesis, red links, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going on delete. This appears to be largely the names of cities in other languages, nothing more. Honestly, I'd expect something more than what's here other than the non-english names of cities (maybe some perjorative names, like "Garbage Grove" for Garden Grove, California) - but that wouldn't save this. Basicaly, what the Hammer said. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. —BradV 05:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or Merge With Names of European cities in different languages: A, and so on B, C D E F G H I J K l M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z, removing "European" from the title, so that all cities of the world receive a similar treatment. If you delete this, you have to delete the whole series of toponymic lists : List of countries and capitals in native languages, Names of Asian cities in different languages, Names of European cities in different languages, List of alternative country names, List of country names in various languages. Teofilo talk 06:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was expecting something else, but this list is mainly just the names of the cities in other languages. Redundant. JuJube (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Most of these look like transliterations of city names into other languages, not actual alternate names. A few of these look like they might be alternate names, though, so this can probably be saved with some heavy editing. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the topic. I like the organization. And WP:ILIKEIT points out that those are not reasons to keep an article. Yes, it's interesting, and I'm saving it to my hard-drive, but it has a long way to go before it can be encylopedic. The former names of cities, as well as Americas Indian names for the locations, are encylopedic, although sources should be cited in a bibliography. The foreign versions of the names are a tougher matter. Transliteration of foreign writing is a mixed bag. As a kid, I thought it was neat that my hometown of Lexington, KY, was "Rekishingtong" in Japanese katakana. Things like "Rubrobastum" as Latin for Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are purely for fun, since Caesar never visited there. "Angelopolis" for L.A. is more silly than fun, since "-polis" is a Greek suffix, not Latin. When you get to "Didacopolis" for San Diego, it goes beyond silly to insulting to the reader's intelligence.

Finally, variations like Bogotá, Bogota, Bogotà, and Bógóta for the capital of Colombia are unnecessary. I can't bring myself to vote delete, because I think this can be transformed from "fun to read" to "encyclopedic and fun to read"; on the other hand, I can't vote for keep in its present form. Good idea for a topic, needs a more disciplined execution to work as an article. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Mandsford, given your rationale, if it still existed, I'd almost say that BJAODN would be a good home for it. Almost. =^^= That said, your thought: is "split" a good !vote for this? Obviously there's encyclopedic information in here, but it's better placed in each city's article, IMNSHO. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in favor of comparative tables, if for no other reason than to spare a reader from having to look over individual articles. Plus, it makes more sense to make a table, than to edit all those articles. However, a reference table has to be accurate without question. The "Latin names" make me want to choke ("polis" can be a Latin suffix as well, I guess, as with Neapolis for Naples), and variations based on placement of accent marks are distracting as well. Mandsford (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Requires reliable sources before being encyclopedic content. Luk suh 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists like this are helpful & appropriate for encyclopedias. Apparently needs some editing.DGG (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the crufty indiscriminate nature of most lists, this one is actually useful. Worth keeping. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really fail to see how a list of this nature is in any way encyclopaedic. It would be better to simply mention any pertinent native translations for certain city names in the lead for each article (such as in Cardiff or Munich), but only where these are in common everyday use in that area. Bettia ^(talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this should be edited similar to the European one with sources.Jjmillerhistorian (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Talkpages, not deletion discussions, are the fora for discussing merges and redirects. The possibility of merging the content of this article elsewhere or redirecting this title to another article is left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 12:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Invocation

Delete per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on the basis of 'Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook' and 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The opening paragraph is encyclopedic. The verbatim wording should go, however. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Alice Bailey. Once the big quote is removed it is only one paragraph and that is not enough to justify a separate article. I can't see scope for it to develop further. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DanielRigal. Luk suh 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've removed the verbatim section. Merge sounds good- redirect as people might search for this. I've heard of it.:) special, random,Merkinsmum 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, nonsense --Tone 14:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wingman (Coors Light)

Prod (and cats) removed by IP with no explanation. Article is written like a bad essay rather than an encyclopedia article and does not assert any notability. It is simply about an advertisement term. Only one of three refs is worthy (others being a wiki article and Youtube video), and it is a mention is a book which is unknown how it relates to article. Wow, now that I'm looking around, it was created by a new user called User:Andrew McAwesome, who also created the only links to the article. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an essay filled with original research Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' nonsense.--Rtphokie (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Nonsense. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - CSD G1 applies. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think G1 applies, as the article is certainly long enough to establish context; G1 is usually for sub-stubs with insufficient context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I had G1 and A1 mixed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's basically a lengthly essay of one of the "Real Men of Genius" commercials- they aren't notable one-by-one, and it has quite a bit of OR. Any salvageable information is already in Wingman (social), which this article actually cites as a source. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Bud Lite does the "Real Men of Genius" commercials. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 15:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superrelativity

Seems to have no sources except self-published and a dedicated .org. Main authors are creator of theory, and an account which is dedicated to that theory and its author. I believe that Super Relativity is different from Superrelativity, the former seems to have sources, and the latter being a non-notable interpretation of the former. See also edit summary of page here. If this were not so, I would assume that the editor would have started out with a notable source like this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR, WP:FRINGE. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing links I will add it among others. This is one of many TOE's, but one wich has gained already some recognition in the theoretical field. Also the notation is generic to supergravity and superstring, both other theories in the same field. Also the article should include all improvements to einstein's relativity, from any author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs)

So you're saying, rather than delete we should expand? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so. I am doing my part in litterally letting hundreds of engineer students to seek for more information on the subject.I will add the new links soon . This is also why I call it superrelativity so not to only include Mr. Fiorentino's work— Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs)

Keep, but needs cleanup and a few more sources. Time magazine ([65]) covered the topic in 1950, and Google Scholar has a number of hits for this term. Will need cleanup to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN, but it has potential. —BradV 04:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More links have been added, including one that in fact refers to superrelativity as a possible final theory itself --BennyCreemers (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be a great deal of confusion surrounding this article. There are at least three things being mixed up here:
- The Time article which Bradv found above appears to have been covering general relativity - the use of "super-relativity" in the title seems to have been an embellishment by the writer. Ignore it.
- The primary subject of this article right now appears to be a fringe theory of "super-relativity" by Mark Fiorentino. I was unable to find any published papers by him, so I'd probably conclude that it's non-notable. (As a general note, established physicists generally publish their theories in scientific journals, not in writers' communities.)
- However, there is also an unrelated theory of super-relativity by Peter Leifer which has been published. I don't know much about this one, but if someone can rewrite this article to cover Leifer's theory, I'll happily change my vote to a keep.

Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I thought there was something fishy going on. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a fringe theory, perhaps not. But it deserves to be on wiki, as much as Heim theory and other fringe theories. Or at least further referenced with Einstein and Tesla biographies and such for everything to be fully accounted for. Furthermore this has not been accepted by scientific journals at all because of the radicality of the concept and the miscommunication from Mr. Fiorentino about his "aether" concept wich is actually a 5th dimension concept. I would also like to see more of Mr. Leifer's theory. It's gonna be have to kept for this to happen however. As is stated in the article and also on a swiftly deleted page about him, he was a longtime software engineer, and an awarded trouble-shooter at IBM. He has also been a philosopher, not a physicist, for more than 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs) 06:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to get it kept is to go and gather as many mainstream sources about it as you can. About both the theories. Even a small piece about it in a mainstream source should be enough. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I've seen more coherent technobabble in Star Trek. Complete original research at best. — Coren ^(talk) 15:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coren (and I'd say "Star Wars"). The current article is pure mumbo-jumbo. If there is a substantial theory out there, we can always recreate the article without the burden of this nonsense. 5-dimensionally collapsed micro black holes should raise a red flag... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Zetawoof. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So these are not multidimensional mumbo jumbo, wich has not yet been verified by experimental facts?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterotic_string, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_exceptionally_simple_theory_of_everything, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything e.a. I would expect that all physically unverified theories be treated the same on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.84.166 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia does not treat all "physically unverified theories" the same (apart from the fact that it is unclear what exactly that should mean). Wikipedia requires notability. As a minimum, there must be multiple verifiable reliable sources about a topic for it to be covered. Also, of course, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a superrelativity topic in general, there are already sufficient sources. For a Super Relativity subsection there are already two, unconnected sources. These sources are identifiable and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.84.166 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I would like to enter this discussion, I read what you wrote, first of all something is science until the theory is falsified. Did you do the research to falsify this theory? When you did not do any research in this field I would like to argue if you have the right to vote for a deletion of this theory.

I do not have a bachelor or master in physics, my field is economics. However I do like Mr. Fiorentino clear and bright view on this subject. A fact superrelativity is the word/ term for the theory which is written on this page, a deletion should be based on false statements not on opinion. --User:81.204.195.145 (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is this IP editor's first edit. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No encyclopedic notability, scientific or otherwise. And, with respect to User:Zetawoof, I think this should apply even if the article is rewritten to cover P. Leifer's work unless lay notability is asserted or himself passes WP:PROF. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and no assertion of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete this awful nonsense -- fails everything, original research, neologism, no verifiablity, no notability, no reliable sources, fringe theory, you name it. In fact as far as I am concerned this is a clear speedy candidate. The contents themselves are just abject nonsense. (And 'super' does not mean better, by the way.) Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a speedy nom before. Nonsense and fringe aren't good reasons to delete, but as you say, the others are. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by Zetawoof, this appears to be unnotable, as well as OR. Peter Liefer's theory also does not appear yet to meet notability requirements. Hal peridol (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Hello, I am the author of the theory and I would ask that this article be kept or at least remain in a probationary status until I can complete work on this topic within Wikipedia. I can supply references as well as much more detail as to what the theory is about if given a chance to do so. It is a work in progress. Is there a way to keep it in a hidden mode and then be able to submit it for review when it is completed? I believe that this work is very relevant and useful information and that is worthy of this online encyclopedia. I think that it is a thought provoking topic with much to add to the ongoing debate between the deterministic philosophies of the past versus the more popular Quantum and String theories of today.

--MarkFiorentino (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all you have to do is edit your userpage, and put [[/Superrelativity]] in it, and save. Then click on the link to edit. Paste in all the code from Superrelativity, [66]. That will perserve it till mainstream sources can be found. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced OR. Abecedare (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of no proper sourcing. First publish in a serious journal (if that is possible!) and wait until other authors have cited it. Harald88 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per everyone else. "The more popular Quantum and String theories of today" belong on Quantum mysticism. dab (𒁳) 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a quantum theory. This is the improved General Relativity theory explaining this/this. Everybody should read everything before they decide to vote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.79.71 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you don't need General Relativity to explain Biogas, and not even Einstein could explain Fox News. Am I missing something? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Einstein explained Fox News rather thoroughly: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patent orginal research, with a whiff of Time Cube Bfigura ^(talk) 04:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incoherent OR. Tone and history of updates by two SPAs suggests it is a vanity article. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Zetawoof pointed out above, this appears to be a fringe theory or original research hiding behind two similarly-named but essentially unconnected published theories. Cosmo0 (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Stephan Schulz, please everybody get your facts straight. This is the magnegas where they use this to make this —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This" is a well-know process and needs no new theory to explain (except that someone needs to smack the reporter for falling for the "just drill a landfill" spiel), and "this" is an unreviewed arXiv paper by a known kook which is part trivial and part technobabble. Anyways, the "paper" does not even mention relativity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Rewrite. I originally prodded this article. But on second thought I think the topic is actually valid, based on [67] and [68]. That said.... although the topic may be valid, the current article on the topic is atrocious, and I think that is why I (and many others) have been jumping to their delete guns. It can't be allowed to stand in its current state, but I think its open to being rescued by someone who knows what they are talking about and has some sense of proper style. --SJK (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both those articles are by Peter Leifer, whose theory is currently not the topic of this article, and which may not be particularly notable to begin with. See my comments above. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Complete. Hello all, I would like to thank everyone for their interest and comments about the Super Relativity topic. Since there is a great concern about this article. I will set my attention to getting the article into shape as soon as I can. This article is by no means completed yet, so I apologize for that. I have been working at breakneck pace on the book about the same topic so I have been tied up with that project. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to keep an article in a hidden view until it is ready. In order to save the topic here on Wikipedia I will stop work for the next few days and work on this article for wikipedia.

Mmfiore_(Mmfiore;) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Stephan for the kook's link but maybe he is not a 'kook' after all. SR should also explain this as is stated here

The electrolysis of water is a rather well-understood process. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really? I must contend there are at least some properties of OH- that are not accounted for, as is stated here and here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.79.71 (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it encorporates an explanation for Wardenclyffe, Tachyon and Dark Matter in its electromechanistical concept --BennyCreemers (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to put the article under your user page (userspace, userfy) -before it is deleted. Complete it with mainstream sources at your leasure, then re-create the article. If you find the sources. See instructions on doing that I gave above. If that's done, the closing admin could perhaps note that this is what is going on. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE. Quote:

"I have chosen six of the most influential individuals that were involved in the development of the theory, they are Rene Descates ,Isaac Newton, James Clerck Maxwell, Hendrick Antoon Lorentz, and Albert Einstein. In the book due to be released in late 2009. The theory discusses the work of the scientists stated above. It points out that all of these brilliant individuals very successful theories were achieved on the basis of ether theory. The book also establishes and highlights the critical differences and enhancements to ether theory that SR Theory possesses."

DVdm (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I think that you have an excellent suggestion and I will do what you suggested. I believe to get the job done properly it will take me at least 2 weeks to do and I am really up against the wall with writing the book. Thank you for the good idea.Mmfiore_(Mmfiore;) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 This is a clear cut'n'paste of User:Tlogmer/Kylie that wasn't created by the author who has been creating it. For example formatting lost. Lets not waste our time here. WP:CSD#G6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangi (talk • contribs)

Kylie minogue unreleased songs

A7 speedy declined, unsourced indiscriminate list with no indication of why it is notable. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, nn, unreadable, unencyclopedic list. JJL (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, not wikified (which makes it hard to read). Macy (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS. Everything else could be fixed, lack of RS is fatal. – ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless, unwikified list. This Would be better. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 01:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cant really read it. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --Rtphokie (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreadable and unreferenced. Luk suh 02:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unclear,don't understand what is written about, makes no patental nonsense.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: seems there is some relation to User:Tlogmer/Kylie? /wangi (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced ramblings on mostly non-notablle songs, indiscriminate list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if the article was written well (and it isn't) the topic would be somewhat disputable. Pundit|utter 03:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. Dreadstar † 03:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rima Morrell

This is a controversial biographical article about an academic of unclear notability. It is poorly referenced and parts of it seem to be irrelevant puffery which makes it harder to see where any substantial claim of notability lies or whether the claims made are verifiable. The subject of the article has been editing it and arguing on the talk page. The subject has become angry and is accusing another editor of libel. We need to decide whether the article has a future and then sort it out if it does. DanielRigal (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem as if this article needs to be on the wiki. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 01:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails A7 --Rtphokie (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly referenced and written in non-NPOV voice. Luk suh 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sense of neology.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 02:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the person seems to be notable to some extent, but on the other hand the article is written poorly, and the chances that it will improve (and that some editor will decide to spend time wikizing it) are not very high. Pundit|utter 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a3 (no meaningful, substantive content), WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SNOW. This is some kid saying "I think I'm going to make a film in 2010." NawlinWiki (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2010 film)

Delete: Fails future film notability guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, unverifiable, crystal ballism. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - too late - someone's speedied it. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secretdesign

Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's already been speedied as a G11 (spam)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. No assertion of notability. Malinaccier (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Fox

This article has been listed as speedy delete (non-notable band), the speedy was removed by the article's creator. Not even a hint of notability. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Speedy delete A7, so tagged. It turns out that Randy Rhoads was indeed in this band; however, it was formed when he was 14, so basically it was just a non-notable garage band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The article is about the band that was formed in 2007, which does not assert any importance or notability. The mention of Randy Rhoads is either an explanation of where the name was derived from, or a coatrack of notability. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lotti and Rosemarie Knaack

Although I actually created this article, after learning a bit about the BLP policy, I see this is a clear violation of it. Lotti died in 1958, there's one part of the violation, and 2, Rosemarie could be dead for all we know. There's no way to be sure, the site where I got the information from never said anything. I say Delete I am sooooo cool! 16:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - only significant contributor requests deletion.--Michael White^T·C 17:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

v t e Ontario Hockey Association Junior "C"
Current teams	Alliston Hornets · Alvinston Flyers · Amherstview Jets · Aylmer Spitfires · Belle River Canadiens · Blenheim Blades · Caledonia Corvairs · Campbellford Rebels · Chippawa Riverhawks · Colborne Cobras · Dresden Jr. Kings · Dundas Blues · Dunnville Terriers · Erin Shamrocks · Essex 73's · Fergus Devils · Frontenac Flyers · Georgina Ice · Glanbrook Rangers · Goderich Sailors · Grimsby Peach Kings · Hanover Barons · Kincardine Bulldogs · Kingsville Comets · Lakefield Chiefs · Little Britain Merchants · Midland Flyers · Mooretown Flags · Mount Forest Patriots · Napanee Raiders · New Hamburg Firebirds · Norwich Merchants · Paris Mounties · Penetang Kings · Picton Pirates · Port Perry Mojacks · Schomberg Cougars · Simcoe Storm · Stayner Siskins · Uxbridge Bruins · Walkerton Hawks · Wallaceburg Lakers · Wheatley-Southpoint Sharks · Wingham Ironmen · Woodstock Renegades
Current leagues	Central Ontario · Empire B · Georgian Mid-Ontario · Great Lakes · Niagara & District · Western Ontario
Clarence Schmalz Cup · Ontario Hockey Federation · Hockey Canada