Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 3

< June 2	June 4 >

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons

This list has been tagged for WP:N since December 2007, I am not really sure if the community will think notability tag should come off or if the article should be deleted. As the topic of notablity has not been addressed I assume that it fails WP:N Jeepday (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any real-world info relating to this topic belongs in Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons, which already contains a fair bit of such information. This article contains very little real-world stuff to add. Furthermore, all these red links do nothing but encourage creation of further articles which will fail WP:N. BreathingMeat (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons or Dungeons_&_Dragons items not notable in and of themselves. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the items listed here are not notable of themselves. I think their collective notability is addressed in Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreathingMeat (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - items are collectively notable, if not individually. Failing that, merge into Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists like this are an excellent compromise between the zealots who hate seeing articles on non-real-world subjects and the fans who want to create hundreds of articles on every minute detail. Honestly, cataloging fandom is Wikipedia's strength, and it'd be a shame to see all this work go to waste. -- Poisonink (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that I wouldn't be sorry to see the red links go, however. -- Poisonink (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly agree on the redlinks, and for all the reasons stated above. BOZ (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion and certainly no evidence of real-world notability; precedent is clear that such articles are unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Stormie (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as consistent with what Wikipedia is as well as per Wikipedia:Five pillars, i.e. notability to a real-world audience, verifiable, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. Passes Wikipedia:Lists as well by being discriminate and organized. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above vote has been canvassed: [1]. dorftrottel (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfDs should not be used to force notability checks, that is what the tags are for. The community has not ignored this article, they simple have been working on all the other articles as well. Would support a merge *if* it does not lead to page bloat. Web Warlock (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that tags can be used as the ultimate tool to enforce notability, and I think this article is a case in point. The notability tag sat there for months with nobody doing anything about it. The time has to come when the tag must turn into action, and in the absence of any notability assertions, the applicable action is deletion. BreathingMeat (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BOZ, WebWarlock, et al.--Robbstrd (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this list is a result of previous merges. Collectively I believe they are notable. They are a fairly prominent plot item of a prominent game. Agree with above and apologise for not prioritising searching for sources, but have been busy with other things. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Casliber, others. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Poisonink, BOZ, WebWarlock, et al. I'm of the opinion that the list has collective notability. The list is there as a compromise already rather than having individual articles on each list item, the idea of which would have a small but vocal minority of deletion-minded editors going nuts. This sort of article allows information to remain useful and available without proliferating into a multitude of articles which probably on their own (outside of some major ones that have cross-polinated into popular culture in other forms) wouldn't meet the strictest notability guidelines.Shemeska (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artifacts are commonly major plot elements. The list could even be expanded to include a brief description of each item. --Polaron | Talk 01:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The D&D monster lists could give some inspiration on how to work that. BOZ (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was the compromise intermediate way of doing it. The nom. should realise that if a tag remains on a article, that does not prove that the difficulty is real, let alone insuperable. A tag means it should have further attention, not that it will be suitable for deletion if it doesn't get any or if the tag remains. A tag of this sort is not like a Prod. DGG (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That this article can be AfD'd shows a problem with our guidelines, not a problem with this article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Was too lazy for a thorough search for sources, but am confident there is more than enough even for an article, and certainly for a list in here and here. dorftrottel (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mike Cline (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable element of a fictional universe. Agree with Peregrine that the nom for this article indicates a broken guideline, not a broken article. Ford MF (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per just about everyone else, and because no valid deletion reason has been given. (Being tagged for notability since December is not a valid reason to delete an article.) Rray (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. By User:Jeepday (G8). Malinaccier (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nonoba

Page deleted for being Nonsense, leaves discussion page redundant. Bit Lordy (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted per G8. Jeepday (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Concerns were not addressed that this is effectivley a foreign dicdef. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otenba

Wikipedia is not a Japanese-English dictionary. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Wikipedia is not a dictionary. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I don't think that wikipedia should take the career of Oxford Dictionary. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD. Comments to date suggest an analysis of existing content without consideration of whether the article has potential to be stubbed for further development. Questions of identity in Japanese culture, in particular gender identity, have received significant academic coverage in the West. The term is covered in more detail than just a DICDEF in several sources, such as [2], [3]; also JSTOR: [4], [5] - login required. Aside from issues of Japanese identity, the concept is also notable as an archetype in manga and also as a term that has entered Japanese from the Dutch language (orig. ontembaar). I'll have a go at improving the article at some stage, but probably won't get a chance today. Debate 木 02:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your improvements have merit but the article is still about a word rather than a topic. It therefore belongs in Wiktionary which is the place for words, their usage and etymology. See WP:DICDEF#The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even after my recent reworking, I agree that the article remains borderline. I note, however, that a shortish summary of anything is going to look a little like a definition. In my view there are at least two topics that article can significantly expand on at this point: "the tomboy in Japanese culture" and "Otenba as a Manga archetype", both of which would fit comfortably under the existing title. Debate 木 12:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was nominated for deletion in March ~~under the previous title~~ together with "List of tomboys in fiction." See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction. Fg2 (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Soul (Erre XI album)

Add to this AfD nomination the non-notable single, Carita Bonita Corvus cornix_talk 23:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased album by non-notable band. The band is currently nominated for speedy deletion for failing to meet WP:MUSIC, but there is no provision for speedy deleting albums. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:V and WP:N, the references are to myspace. Jeepday (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, references in myspace do not help notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable independent, verifiable sources Artene50 (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'd go with it being a hoax too, seeing that there are no Google hits for anyone by that name. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter "Chippy" Peeps

Apparent hoax article with no hits on google for a Rangers player called Dexter Peeps nor Worsley Wanderers and nothing for the book used as a source ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a hoax. Rockpocket 23:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, hoax - would be bizarre if such a prolific goalscorer for Rangers had been left out by this leading stats website. Other "facts" in the article are distinctly unlikely too. Bencherlite ^Talk

Delete looks like a hoax and WP:CB to me. ukexpat (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged to List of antivirus software by Ohconfucius. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of antivirus software

Whilst this may be useful for some, Wikipedia is not a guide, this 'article' is not encyclopaedic. Россавиа ^Диалог 23:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~. So long as it only contains encyclopedic information culled from the linked articles then it seems legitimate. There are quite a lot of articles which are just tables of information from other articles presented for easy reference. This does not seem to be frowned upon as a general principle and I can't see anything specifically wrong with this one although whether it should be called a "comparison" is questionable. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. DanielRigal makes a good point about the questionableness of this article being called a comparison - if anything, it needs to be expanded before it (fully) qualifies as a comparison article. It's more than a simple list though. That said, I fail to see how this article qualifies as a how-to, and thus deserves deletion. Wrldwzrd89^talk 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I believe the information presented is relevant to the articles from which this page is linked --- that is, if the data were presented as part of the encyclopedic article, it would not merit deletion. Perhaps merge with the article, or add to the "List", in which case you have a list with descriptions. . . which is what this appears to be. Hmm. Maybe hearing from the author would be a good thing. Renaissongsman (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of antivirus software. This information is useful, I just don't think it needs its own article. J.delanoy ^gabs analyze 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merged to List of antivirus software per WP:BOLD. No worthy of independent existence. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid the redirect because the AfD is still ongoing and we need to keep the AfD tag on the page. I have no objection to merge and redirect being the outcome of the AfD. As soon as it is official the redirect can go back on. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasting And Its Use In Learning

This is a personal essay consisting of original research and opinions. It is not written in a neutral tone. It has the authors' names on it implying a claim of ownership. It does not look like it could be converted into a proper encyclopedia article. Speedy, Prod and other valid tags have been removed without explanation. DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant original research. This should at best be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, not an encyclopedia. Delete. —Cryptic 04:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Submit it to a magazine, please. WillOakland (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe there's an possible article on this subject, but this is neither that article nor its title. Maxa megalon 2000 06:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it is all copy and pasted from the resources links. Admin removed the speedy tag.--Otterathome (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Berkley

not notable; the ref links to a short news clip that does not feature Susan Berkley at all (it features Pat Fleet, who is mentioned briefly in this article) Chzz ► 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arguably breaches WP:ATTACK in that the article seems to accuse her of misrepresenting herself. On top of this she is marginally notable at best. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable third-party sources given, living person of minor notability - that equals delete for me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP The nasty tone of this article has been removed:here but I hardly think this article's creator Lexlex has Susan Berkley's best intentions at heart in making this article. This appears to be a character assassination Also much of the info is from her web site which cannot be considered a WP:RS. Artene50 (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Merging is left as an editorial decision.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TaskMaker

Non-notable game which I've played the hell out of in my life. Only sources are a stubby All Game Guide review and a primary source. No other third party reviews or sources found. Has been tagged for merging with Storm Impact for ages, but nothing's come of the merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are certainly mentions and reviews in the contemporary computer press which could be obtained (searches found the references but no full-text of those articles so far for me). Seems to have been a game of at least some interest at the time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me some of these sources that you found please? I didn't find anything substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found references to reviews in Apple-related magazines of the time, but no full-text of those magazines is available to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge with Storm Impact. It seems to be a notable part of their history being their first game and all. CRocka05 (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I agree, merge with Storm Impact is probably best. --Mispeled (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Feel free to create the redirect if you feel it is applicable. Based on this discussion, nobody seems to think it should be kept as is. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Systems intelligent scrum

Has two Google hits, one of which is is Wikipedia's. Says it is a new concept; will develop into something. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scrum (development), until it actually does develop into a distinct method. Kate (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The other google hit is an entry on its author's blog that doesn't even predate the article. Should this "concept" become accepted and appear in secondary sources, then it'll merit a redirect. Original nonsense. Delete. —Cryptic 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. WillOakland (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't complain much, if you decided to delete the page, although I'd find that a bit unfortunate. It isn't a neologism, because no-one has connected the dots between these two concepts before. But if you really see it as too little to justify an article, I'd be happy to get back to it w/more references at a later date. Basically I just wanted to document the new concept that I believe to have genuine promise, and I hoped to offer the idea as `open source' to all right from the get-go through wikipedia. (SuurMyy (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - The concers of the nominator appears to only be theoretically addressed, as in, "somebody else will add the refs and clean it up." On top of that, a majority supported deleting this article with a few reccomending merge then delete. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- To further clarify, my reference above to a majority was not my deciding factor in closing this AFD. The conerns addressed by the nominator is that it is just a trivia article full of orignial research. Even though attempts to rescue the article added reference, that does not overcome many of the concerns addresed by those with a delete or merge opinions. Based on the opinions expressed in this AFD, it appears that there is no consensus to keep the article, however to delete or merge it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza delivery in popular culture

Contested prod. A collection of unsourced trivia and related original research. Delete as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 ^talk 22:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and there is an article on pizza delivery already. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it makes my head hurt, for all of the reasons stated above. Arkyan 23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to pizza delivery. It is a notable theme plot, as per Futurama etc. The article has only been in existence for half an hour! I suspect there will be some 3rd party sources in books on Hollywood comedy etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoa there. Isn't my vote self explanatory? I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oh good god. An article to capture every time a pizza is delivered in a book, movie or TV show? Indiscriminate collection of useless trivia. Otto4711 (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pizza_delivery#In_popular_culture and delete. Since this article was created by splitting out content, this article doesn't need to be kept for the GFDL, as it is an extremely unlikely search term. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just so everyone sees the kind of thing that happens here, one editor didn't think the content was notable enough in one article, so to fix the problem, the content was split out, and shortly thereafter it went to the chopping block at AfD. Rather than waste all that time, the article could have been trimmed down to only examples that predominantly feature the subject. It took maybe 5 minutes, and all I did was use the delete key and type a few words. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, oh GOD no. (created contrary to WP:TRIVIA and not based on sources that actually talk about the subject.) WillOakland (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did somebody order a...deletion (cue bad 70's-era music)? This will quickly become crufty and most of the items mentioned in the article are minor at best. Nate • (chatter) 04:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Too trivial for a standalone article, some of the more notable examples can be cited in the main article and also, of course, in pornography. (If you don't know what I mean, you're too young.) 23skidoo (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD delivery for I.C. Weiner! I'm not in favour of some of the past pop. cul. culls, but this takes the slice... Lugnuts (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in thirty minutes or less or it's free! I mean... really... Trusilver 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as encyclopedic, notable, interesting, verifiable, and unoriginal topic. Page is just a few days old, so Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Plus, trivia is encyclopedic. Even in a worst case scenario, I can't imagine why a merge and redirect without deletion would not be the route to take, but I see nothing to gain here from an outright deletion. By the way, pizza delivery is not merely "refeenced" in films, but is even the outright subject of some films, such as this one and this. In the case of other films, use of pizza delivery has been regarded by critics as "overly integrated product placement".See Heather Boerner, "Review of R.L. Stine's Haunting House: Don't Think About: Tween-friendly, ad-happy Halloween fright fest," Common Sense Media. See also Michele Cheplic, "Pizza Hut's Youngest and Most Famous Delivery Person... Maybe," Popular Culture Blog on families.com (13 Nov 2007). Also note from the New York Times: "Reviews/Film; A Youth's Salty Specialty On a Pizza-Delivery Route." See also The Pizza Guy Movie. Note all of these films of course have reviews and therefore coverage in secondary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pizza delivery. It is customary on Wikipedia to have popular culture sections within the main article unless doing so makes the article too long. The Pizza delivery article is not too long at the present. Subarticles are the way to go only when the main article cannot handle them for one reason or another. Sebwite (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge back if it turns out to be short enough--it doesnt take afd for that. Personally, I think it will overbalance the article if merged, but we can discuss that on the talk page. The use of this cultural theme is significant--or at least the creative artists who have used it seem to think so. The NYT article GRC found is at any rate the secondary source that has often been demanded for these type of articles. DGG (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already merged what I believe to be the appropriate content. If you think we should add more, feel free to do, but I think this AfD can be closed at this point. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article as re-written by GRC in the last couple of days is in every way superior to to article that was nominated. The article everyone disparaged above is gone by virtue of the rewrite, and the rewritten article should not be confused with it or deleted in its place. Re-list the new article if you must; I doubt it'd get the same negative response that the earlier article did.--Father Goose (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think the information should be in the pizza delivery article, which is now shorter than this one. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps there is actually more to say here there are probably more sources. DGG (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per excellent improvement. The newly-added refs show coverage from credible sources and verify notability needed for a detailed article, as opposed to a section in another (already long) article. A merge back to Pizza delivery won't be in line with WP:LENGTH. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emarosa

Controversial page, deleted several times. A user has created a version better than those previously deleted. Page created to get community consensus as to whether it should remain Malla nox 21:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C5, at least it will do in 4 days time, but hey, I'm willing to turn a blind eye to the small bit of crystal balling if you guys are. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the announced release date of July 8 2008 is five weeks away, not four days. Even then, it is debatable if the label is noteworthy enough to qualify the band for WP:MUSIC#5. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he referring to the four days that the articles for deletion process, not the release of the new album. Chadpriddle (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, 147.70.242.40 was right, I completely goofed my dates. However Cryptic is right about the EP which I missed too. Boy was I having a bad night last night. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC#C5 wants two albums. According to the article, they've released an EP, so they still come up short even if/when their album is published in July. The references provided in the article don't rise above the level of blogs and forum posts. I wouldn't have moved this into articlespace. —Cryptic 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C6, Jonny Craig use to be the lead singer of Dance Gavin Dance and that band's wiki has been up for quite some time and both bands have been involved in the internet media a lot in the last few months. Chadpriddle (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't particularly compelling; nothing in Dance Gavin Dance's article implies that it is meets WP:MUSIC either. —Cryptic 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only notability rests on former member of Dance Gavin Dance. In turn, Dance Gavin Dance's notability rests on that member being a future member of Emarosa. Circuler logic. Common sense applies. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton City Fire Protection District

RS coverage is trivial and ghits don't establish notability needed per WP:ORG which says, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I would have tried a prod tag first. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be a whole series of articles on fire departments and fire protection districts. Should all those be deleted? Further these special services districts do have incorporation charters and the like, which might make them even more important than some minor unincorporated community, which have been deemed to be inherently notable. --Polaron | Talk 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps if a district overlapped several jurisdictions or had an elected chief/board. Also, it would need the usual sources for notability. But if it is just part of town or county government, no. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment to both. Phlegm: I wouldn't do these via PROD, they get a tad too debated. Polaron:I agree with Phlegm, it's often a minor part of government. Some Fire departments/ambulance/police services have been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Farms Volunteer Fire Department, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flatlands Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floral Park Police Department, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Police Department, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockland Paramedic Services; two were merged: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheeling Police Department and another had no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bargo Rural Fire Brigade. That's not an exhaustive sample. it's what was on my watchlist but it's a good sampling _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a difference between a community, as the primary geographical unit, and bodies such as these. Whether they pass AfD or not tends to depend upon size and importance--I have a relatively high bar for these, but the consensus is probably not stable. DGG (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the place article. --Polaron | Talk 19:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of apex predators

This page suffers from two related problems. First, it is impossible to demarcate what is an apex predator because the term is generic, not a strict category. Thus, second, it is riddled with OR. People take the definition of "apex predator," look at some animal page, and decide "ya, I'll add it to the list." It's almost completely unsourced because most of the entries were off-the-top-of-the-head additions by various editors applying the definition themselves. And it will remain unsourced because, again, it's a generic term that biologists don't often explicitly assign to species. The second section speaks for itself: Extinct predators that were likely apex predators. "Were likely" is self-evidently OR.

However, I hope this can be basically a merge rather than a delete. One scrupulous editor did add some academic sources a couple of years ago; I have moved them here. I intend to incorporate relevant info to the main apex predator page. As a list is inherently unmanageable on this topic, choice examples can be used on the main search target, with sources that explicitly mention species vis-a-vis the term. Marskell (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I actually have nothing against a list of this nature - however the current version is almost completely unsourced and, as the nominator mentioned, original research. Will gladly change my mind if an authoritative source for this kind of information can be found. Arkyan 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge due to the nebulous (and possibly OR) nature of a comprehensive list. The original article is pretty short, so selected material would be easy to incorporate with discussion and examples. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A list of top-level (apex) predators is useful in the fields of ecology and Zoology. Beno1000 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim to those entries that have refs. On a side note, the diagram below is cute. Almost all predators have open jaws and the most dangerous predator is waving his hand.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim? Possibly. But the fundamental problem won't go away: this is not a scientific category but a generic term and people are going to continue to add their own interpretative additions. It's essentially unmanageable. It's a little like maintaining a "List of excellent baseball players"—there is no way to clearly draw a boundary. Marskell (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources show it is in fact a scientific ecological category. DGG (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is interesting, helpful and sourced list.Biophys (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with all the Keep comments above. This list meets all the relevant WP guidelines from my point of view.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the main article apex predator clearly shows it is a defined term. Any issue about lack of sourcing would be quite easily determinable with a yes/no decision, this is what citation needed tags and the talk page are for. Other keepers should note that 'interesting' and 'usefull' are not generally considered good reasons to keep an article, and might want to read he official wikipedia policy on what wikipedia is not, and this essay on the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I agree that the likely to have section is probably original research, unless there are several sources for such claims. MickMacNee (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hackett (politician)

Candidate in an election, no other claim to notability that would satisfy WP:BIO. Blueboy 96 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Owner of NN company and fails WP:POLITICIAN. —97198 talk 13:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abou Haidar

I'm not sure about the category as it is about an amorphous family. No sources for notability, it seems to be just a Wikipedia extension of some private websites - fails notablity guidelines. Doug Weller (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very amorphous article. Almost similar to the Fortuna surname article which was deleted a few days ago. Where's the notability for this article? Artene50 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of additional (Reliable) sources to establish notability. If the family had several notable members, or was influential or notable in some way (including being a really old and big family, if there are sources for that), then I can see an article - but, unfortunately, this ain't it. I'm also sorting this as both S - Society, since it focuses on a family group in a social and cultural context, and O - Group or organization, since it's a group of people. Two cats might get some eyes on this article. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate and Gin

Just someone who appeared on Britain's Got Talent and didn't win. Buc (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets criteria for inclusion (WP:BIO) per multiple dedicated non-trivial press appearances. Neıl 龱 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, as the press appearances are all with regard to the appearance on Britain's Got Talent (excepting a pet food user profile(!)), wouldn't it be possible to dig up similar references for almost all of the acts in the show and therefore give them each their own page? Seems we're on that road already, I'm just seeking clarification. Mallocks (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: -- it's neither reliable nor notability-establishing, but this article is worth a read. (It definitely should not be added to the article). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm - any article, sppof or otherwise, that spells irreparable "irrepairable" is rubbish by default (okay, I still laughed a bit). Neıl 龱 11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a quick Google News search indicates several dozen hits in the last month. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per A. B. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets basic criteria of WP:N/WP:BIO - multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. - fchd (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are multiple reliable sources for this article to pass both WP:N and WP:BIO--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one off event, WP:RECENT. Sources aren't that great either.--Otterathome (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Probably WP:N in terms of bringing an obscure sport to attention of a wide audience (millions) previously unaware of its existence, as evidenced by the comments in references & searches along lines of 'I've never seen anything like it'Drpeterbatesuk (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No less notable that all of the other britains got talent losers and a lot of them have pages too. More unique and therefore notable than most of them aswell. Tresiden (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Redirected to Proxy bypass. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bypass (computing)

Well, for starters, this sounds an awful lot like a proxy bypass, and for seconds, it's written in a how-to tone Yngvarr (c) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Proxy bypass probably already has most of this information, so we wouldn't have to merge. Its written like a how-to guide and is probably a recreation of proxy bypass. DA PIE EATER (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qliktech

Non-notable company. Ziggy Saw dust 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep among the press releases is evidence of RS coverage. That said, this has been speedied 3x. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Not only is it non-notable, the page appears to be nothing but an advertisement. Here's what I mean: "...their patented in-memory associative technology, which to this day is the main competitive advantage in the market." Player 03 (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll remove my vote. I'm no longer convinced that the company is non-notable, and the page seems to be getting better. I would tag it for cleanup, but I'm not sure if that is generally accepted in the middle of a deletion discussion. Player 03 (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. I think that notability is now established. If this article survives AfD, it should be moved to QlikTech International --Eastmain (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs references, cleanup and removal of advert-like clauses, but it is definitely notable enough for inclusion. Hymyly^T@C 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I must congratulate this company's marketing department on their industriousness - I've never seen quite so many press releases listed on a Google News search - but as Cari says there are reliable sources amongst them to demonstrate notability, e.g. [6] [7] as well as the ones added to the article by Eastmain. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as recreated material deleted through a previous discussion (WP:CSD#G4) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess Diaries 3

Contested prod for a movie that is "in production". WP:CRYSTAL and so on. And it appears, from the "2nd nom", that this is not a new discussion, prior discussion was delete; would a CSD apply in this case? Yngvarr (c) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing new compared to the last incarnation, and still no sources for anything substantial. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, tagged as speeeeeeedy delete. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Box Enterprise Linux

This fails WP:ORG, as there is no coverage in reliable third-party sources. It provides insufficient context for a reader, and _any_ information at all about it is sparse. No Google News hits at all. ff m 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient context, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication as to why this is notable - and not all Linux distros are notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rough consensus is that the list has too many issues at the moment. Contact me if you want a copy of the article to work on sourcing or as a basis for adding content to individual articles.--Kubigula (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of satanist bands

Non-notable list - there's a distinct lack of verification, with a single source. No proof that any of these bands are or aren't Satanists (except for the one reference for Tenacious D). This is little more than listcruft - holds no encyclopedic value, most bands are from the extreme metal genre, of which nearly all bands are often associated with Satanism, whether it be lyrically or otherwise. Due to a critical lack of sources or variability, this is full of original research ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another incomplete, randomly assembled, reference-free list. I guess they could say the Devil made them do it? Ecoleetage (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remarkably unsourced, particularly since the author has either read a lot or heard a lot of "stuff" about the bands, particularly when it comes to the statements about the groups that "aren't really" Satanists. I suppose it could be sourced with a little bit of effort, so I'll refrain from saying delete. However, when you make claims like this, people want to know the source. In Wikipedia, they say "citation needed"; when you're telling this to your friends, one of them will laugh and say, "Where did you hear THAT shit?" Mandsford (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But even if sources were presented for each band, does it still constitute its own article? ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, for now. I could go either way, here, to be perfectly frank, as this is kind of weird. What I would do is remove the list, split the data about satanism in re each band to the individual articles, and work categories. Thoughts? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can understand where you're coming from, since I've failed to ensure that the bands were sourced. I originally made this list to complement the 'List of Satanists' article - which was turned into a redirect because that too was insufficiently resourced -, but I must admit I too became disillusioned with it due to bands being listed who turned out not to be satanists. If you insist on deleting it, I suppose you can go ahead. Ideally though, I'd like to see comprehensive lists of bona fide satanists & bands although I understand they must be adequately sourced - and I would be prepared to do the latter. On the other hand though, Dennis' approach sounds like a sensible one. Dark Prime (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was do...something. To be honest, while it's clear that there's a consensus to not have this article in the main namespace, there's no consensus on what specifically should be done with it. There seems to be slightly more support for a merge than for outright deletion, but the merge target with the most support doesn't exist yet.

So let's do this. Rather than delete the article, I'm going to userfy it to User:Smile a While/Car life cycle. This will allow other editors time to expand it to fill the new title while reflecting consensus that the current article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. --jonny-m t 04:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old car

This is a sort of POV fork, though not to express a controversial point of view as is usually the case. The problem here is that this concept has been covered already in articles such as antique car, vintage car, classic car and used car. The concept of an "old car" is no more notable than an "old boat," "old person," "old dog" or "old" anything else. Moreover, this article depends quite a bit on original research or unsourced opinion of the author. The author has provided several sources, but few really address "old cars" as a concept in and of itself. The concept of an "old car" is simply not notable enough for an article, especially when it is already covered in other articles. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does indeed appear to be a POV fork. Arkyan 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, does meet criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, has plenty references, and the intro section to the article explains how the term "old car" is used. The term "old" is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. In fact, there is an article called "old age" (referring to people). And being covered in other articles does not mean there can't be an article like this, especially that this is a widely-used term that does not have the exact same meaning as the other ones the nom mentioned. This article does not have a neutrality issue - it explains both sides of the topic. Therefore, it cannot be considered a POV fork. Hellno2 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reasons nominator Realkyhick said (POV fork, unsourced/O.R. information, irrelevant and insufficient references, quality coverage in vintage car and antique car and classic car and used car) -- those are rock-solid reasons for deleting this. ALSO: the article is written from the perspective (i.e. tone) of a consumer's guide, discussing pros and cons and aspects like Consumer Reports would discuss washing machines. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a directory, etc. Nuberger13 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge to classic car. The classic car article gets it all. Starts off by saying "Classic car is a term frequently used to describe an older car, but the exact meaning is subject to differences in opinion." I think that's what the main writer of this article was trying to say. Xyz7890 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to classic car per Xyz7890 DA PIE EATER (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like text from a "how-to" seminar. There's nothing in this article that separates it from classic car, vintage car, antique car, or even used car (and the message seems more geared toward the last of the three). If this article is to be kept, recommend a merge into "used car." B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into used car (which currently reads like an advertisement for the used car industry, and not an article about old cars and their ownership covered here. An old car is categorically not a classic car. You would not take a classic car banger racing, and if you drive a knackered out 10/15 year old Buick/Ford Escort and you actually say you drive a classic car, you are most definitely being an idiot/arse. Modern classic cars are comletely distinct from this topic. In fact it could also be argued that an old car is not even a used car technically, as you can get people driving old cars for the reasons herein, but they actualy bought the car new themselves 10/15 years ago, so it never becomes a second hand car, but this fact still doesn't make this topic anywhere near being part of the classic car article. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had suggested on the Old car discussion page that the problems with this article may be solvable simply by renaming the article, but I did not rename it myself because I was looking for some suggestions for a new title from others. Fact is, though it is not an exact number, but rather an arguable level, there is a point in which society will come to view a car as "old." Since "old car" and "used car" are not exactly the same thing, the solution may simply be to have an article about vehicle age.Hellno2 (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into new article Car life cycle. As the intro to the page states 'old' is undefinable. Consequently I am unconvinced that this is an encyclopedic topic. However, I am reluctant to junk someone's work when it is sourced, and I think that there is an article out there that can be written. Car life cycle could cover the purchase of a new car, its pros and cons, car testing requirements that come into force as the car ages, the present stuff on old cars and finally the implications of writing off a car. Just a thought. Smile a While (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think you may have a winner here - a title that covers it all without any problems that I can see. This could also cover used, antique and classic cars, as well as new cars. If others are amenable to this, I might withdraw my nomination in favor of this. Anyone else? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree - I like the idea of merging all into the "car life cycle" article. I'd like to point out that, because the car is basically a 20th century thing, "old" is a relative term. If what's "old" now is 80 years, then 200 years from now what will our current "old" cars be? Ancient? Hoary? What about 200 years from then? I don't think something can be considered encyclopedic if it's transient in the sense that it WILL (not might) change with time. Nuberger13 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Same as those above me. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem syndrome (Computer games)

No good sources to meet verifiability and notability...just a whole lot of original research. — Scientizzle 19:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. — Scientizzle 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: As per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion It is a brand new phenomenon. Don't be in such a hurry to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.124.36 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking through sources to try to assess notability or even come up with the idea of the "Jerusalem Syndrome" in games, I can't see anything that's not original research. Plenty of stuff for Jerusalem syndrome, but that's an entirely different subject. Delete, as Wikipedia is not a place for inventing terms. It can be recreated if it is covered by reliable sources in the future, who don't appear to cover it now. -- Sabre (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion - Wikipedia have right to have page about a recent phenomenom, and there is always an possibility of merge in case this phenomenom might get different official name (unlikely).
Honestly, when an article Paris syndrome - psychopathology has right to be at wikipedia, this article has right to be at wikipedia as well. At worst it should be prefixed by tag "This article talks about recent phenomenon, thus citations from scientific articles from trusted sources like arstechnica.net are unavailable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghar (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No article has a "right" to exist, the topic must merit encyclopedic coverage. For this, a topic must be verifiable, properly using reliable sources, and of sufficient notability. Rather than arguing that some other article also exists, work should be done to present actual sources upon which to build this article. — Scientizzle 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete. I am uncomfortable with phrasing inclusion as something that an article must earn, rather than something that we decide together to be for Wikipedia's gain or detriment. The former can lead to the so-very-common phenomenon of RC patrollers flaying valid articles in need of attention instead of adding to them, and AfDs split into prosecution and defense (at which point we can just blow up the encyclopedia and go home.)
    Problem is, the latter approach does not improve the article's situation, either. Our basic principles are verifiability, no original research, and reliable sources because this environment cannot work without them. According to all these, a topic needs more proof than its own say-so. We can't publish original thought. If we did, we'd be up in our earlobes in EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION. [8] Okay, so that's objectionable for a whole lot of other reasons, but for another example there are a lot of fascinating, intuitive and utterly wrong home-made physics theories. Let those in without requiring proof and, barring everyone on the planet spontaneously developing great media criticism and wiki editing skills, the site's value goes straight down the toily. Judge on a case by case basis? How would we prove or disprove this article? We can't at the moment, and there seems to be no way to fix that, so it can't work on WP.
    
    Notability is a separate beast that I'd rather not invoke. With characteristic naivete, I hope that this makes sense to you, Raghar. --Kiz o r 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a neologism. The article also has no real hope of growth because only a very small percentage of releases are incomplete or not fully cracked. Due to the nature of the subject matter there is also no hope of verifiable references to reliable sources. Garrett^Talk 04:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostwriter, Brent J. Cole

Delete. Non-notable. Article is written by the subject. A google search for "Brent J. Cole" turns up a whopping four hits: two of which are Wikipedia links, one of which is presumably the subject's own website and the last one being a ZoomInfo page. CyberGhostface (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same as CyberGhostface. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain JuJube (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN, self-promotion article. If this is kept, it needs to be renamed "Brent J. Cole" to conform with article naming policy. 23skidoo (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:A. The subject is not notable, and none of the biography is referenced. How notable can a ghostwriter ever be, when all the books bear the moniker of someone else? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Non-notable writer who posted an article about himself and then proceeded to edit war by vandalizing all of the AUTO and COI and deletion tags. Oh, let's see: WP:single-purpose account, WP:EDITWAR, WP:BK, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:VSCA, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Woodville Hall, Redirect Tapton Hall of Residence. Fram (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodville Hall

Non-notable residence hall, creater deprodded on the grounds that another residence hall article exists. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding Tapton Hall of Residence for the same reasons above. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both on the grounds that neither dorm building is notable. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to university's article. The university is obviously notable, as most are, but this residene hall is probably litllte known outside ~5 miles of the campus. Therefore it would be hard to find reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other Woodville Halls, one a boxing/music venue of some note, and another a hotel. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability for these is only from significant off campus coverage of important events, sourced architectural distinction, or sourced truly historic nature.DGG (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please note that the two halls, though bundled together, belong to different universities. Smile a While (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Tapton Hall of Residence to University of Sheffield student housing#Tapton Hall. This hall is already covered there so the only thing that really needed to be merged is the image and I have now added that. This is a valid redirect so I see no point in deleting it. Smile a While (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woodville Hall. No existing merge target and nothing here is sourced. Smile a While (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Woodville Hall to Sheffield Hallam University (no sourced content to merge) and merge and redirect Tapton Hall of Residence to University of Sheffield student housing#Tapton Hall (not notable, and not possible to build an encyclopaedic article with little sourcing available) Regards, EJF (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Matter

Has been substantially edited by its subject, and pretty much reads like a vanity autobiography. No references to provide evidence of notability and does not seem to fulfil any criterion of WP:MUSIC - it has been tagged for notability since April. ~ mazca ^talk 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per nom. I'm really tired of seeing autobiographies and vanity pieces on Wikipedia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficiently referenced for inclusion in Wikipedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tajudeen bioku

Despite lots of over-the-top claims, the man has only produced one film, The Divine Emerald, which according to imdb, was only ever shown at the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival. Whether or not he is the rightful king of his tribe, and whether or not his work is as stupendous as the article says, there aren't any sources backing up these claims. There are also only 55 Google hits for the name, and it appears that there is more than one person with that name. Corvus cornix_talk 17:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With permission of the nom, I am adding the following related page, as it does not seem to meet WP:FILM and the notability here is intrinsically related. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as non-notable unless reliable sourcing can be found to indicate otherwise. In the 34 distinct hits produced on google by combining the name of the film and its producer/actor/writer, I found nothing that meets our reliable source requirements to verify notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Ged UK (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better Get to Livin'

~~non-notable, low peaking single, doesn't deserve to an article Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I withdraw this AfD since plenty of sources have been added. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Backwoods Barbie. Corvus cornix_talk 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Backwoods Barbie. I did this before but someone undid it without comment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now has sufficient sources to establish notability outside of the album. It might be too much info to merge now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:52, 6 June 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)} 21:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : the song was charted = it meets WP:N. In addition, the peak position is not the only criterion to establish notability. As the song was released by a notable artist, it seems reasonable to think that it was the subject of coverages in the media. Europe22 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all charting songs are notable on their own. WP:MUSIC says only make a separate page if there's enough info for a separate page. This article is short enough that it can be merged to Backwoods Barbie. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : The article was created just three days ago... It's logical that it is a stub. As a rule, we don't merge all stubs, but we let them much more time to be expanded. Europe22 (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the song also needs to be notable, and since it did not reach the top 40 of the country charts -- typically we use Top 25 criteria unless there's a wealth of reliable sources -- this song fails WP:N. Spell4yr (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Backwoods Barbie per nom. Spell4yr (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it is notable because it is her first country single in years and even if it didn't chart too well, it was still like a "comeback single" and anyways, sry about undoing whatever 10pndHammer... I was trying to help CloversMallRat (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about When I Get Where I'm Going? That was (technically) a Dolly Parton single too. As for undoing my redirect, it would have been better if you had left a comment in your edit summary regarding the undo. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This song was fairly notable. Got lots of airplay and video play when it came out. Was considered something of a "comeback single" as some other commentators have mentioned. I've added some more info and references to fill it out a bit. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The song peaked at #48 on the country charts -- that hardly qualifies it as having "lots of airplay", and would reflect a lack of notability using current Wikipedia country music standards. As stated above, we typically only include Top 25 singles unless they achieve notability by other means (Not Ready to Make Nice is a good example). Which reminds me, I need to redirect Invisibly Shaken, as I assumed it would hit top 25 when it was released but it appears that it won't go above #43. Spell4yr (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are these "Wikipedia country music standards" you mention? On Wikipedia:Notability (music) it says that "songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts... are probably notable." Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're unwritten rules that typically govern what songs we have pages for. "Never Mind Me", for example, was an article I created for Big & Rich's song, but it was later redirected to its album because it only peaked at #34. We typically redirect anything lower than #25 as hundreds of songs chart every year, and if we included pages on every one of them, there would be a lot of unnecessary kilobytes. Wikipedia is not a country music wiki.

Do I think it's a good song? Yes, I do. But I don't feel it satisfies the notability for country music articles that has evolved over the last few years. Spell4yr (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we need to have articles for every country song, but surely we consider more than just chart position! Apparently the video for this song was pretty popular (according to the director), and the fact that it's the first (and highest charting) single from her "comeback" album should count for something. Just my two cents. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, her video currently has 250,000 views. Big & Rich's Between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace has 400,000 views, and Eric Church's Lightning has 180,000 (the latter in less time than Dolly's video), and neither of those has pages. Video popularity is still not a great indicator of notability. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think some of the pertinent info from the page should be worked into either Backwoods Barbie or Dolly's article, incorporating the YouTube/"comeback single" information (if we can find a reliable source calling it a comeback). Spell4yr (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of sources calling the album a "comeback", don't know about the single though. In the case of the Big & Rich and Eric Church songs, I think they lose points by virtue of the fact that those artists are not very historically significant. Look at our Beatles and Bob Dylan coverage for example. We have articles for virtually every song they ever created, even if they were completely ignored at the time. I'm not saying that Dolly Parton is as historically significant as Bob Dylan, but her career is certainly a lot more important than that of Big & Rich. For an artist of Parton's importance, I think it makes sense to try to have more than the baseline level of coverage. I'm sure in a few decades (or years even) there will be books about Dolly Parton's life and career that will mention this song, and thus provide even more material for a good article. I can't say the same for Eric Church's "Lightning". Kaldari (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the material, even if more comes out in the future (which seems to be a little bit of a crystal-balling assumption), can be incorporated into either her page or the album's page, as typically country music legends haven't been given the Beatles/Dylan treatment with their songs. This may be something to undertake in the future, if there is consensus that artists like Parton, Johnny Cash, George Jones, and others should have more extensive information, but based on precedent I cannot change my vote. I am wondering if Caldorwards4 or TenPoundHammer, or anyone who hasn't voted would like to share any thoughts in this discussion, as I think Kaldari and I have had a really good discussion on this, but I would like some other viewpoints to see if maybe I'm being too narrow-minded here. Spell4yr (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page contains sufficient content for a standalone article now. Never mind that it didn't make Top 40; the song received enough coverage in reliable sources that it would be too much info to simply merge back into the main album page, which is fairly detailed in its own right (at least for a page on a country album). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I seem to be in the minority now, I withdraw my redirect vote and will instead abstain. Spell4yr (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so considerate and reasonable. BTW, I just found one more reason why the song is notable: It was the first single released by Parton's own record label, Dolly Records. Kaldari (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Mayeur

Delete No WP:RS, does not assert WP:N, not notable Bstone (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was created only a few hours ago. Article needs clean up and addition of sources, not deletion. I've already found one to start from [9] just doing a quick scan. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found another. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable jewelery designer for large part of the late twentieth century. The sources are not on-line, but on the pages of fashion magazines and in books. --Blechnic (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off line sources can easily be cited. However there are none listed, thus no WP:RS and nothing in the article asserts notability. Bstone (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is AfD, not pressure others to work it. I don't care if it's deleted. It's more work to create an article than to delete it, and I assume there's some hidden AfD contest. He wrote a chapter in a book, that's good enough for me. You've just cited the usual: it ain't on the web, therefore it ain't notable. Yawn. --Blechnic (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First up, this is a textbook WP:INSPECTOR. Secondly, please read the first paragraph of WP:N: "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." Lack of reliable sources (often called "asserting notability") is not always a good criteria for deletion. An article is not required to assert notability, the subject just need to be notable. This artist appears to be a notable jewelry designer as you can see from even a cursory Google search, here, here, and here. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No reliable sources is the correct conclusion. Fram (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II

This is an article about a future TV show without any sources. A Google search for "the duel II" returns no results about this TV show, except a TV.com discussion which refers to this Wikipedia article. A search of the MTV web site shows no TV show called The Duel 2, The Duel II, or other similar title. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (see WP:BALL) Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources for this show's existence. Corvus cornix_talk 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should remain in tack for now. Since all the sources have been listed.74.193.223.111 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added a source. The cast leaves tomorrow for Panama City. More information will be forthcoming in the near term to improve the quality of the article. Zredsox (talk)
- The only source I see for this is a webforum, which is not a reliable source. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vevmo's editors are in touch directly with the cast members as well as the production sources at BMP (the show's creators) and MTV (the show's broadcaster.) When Vevmo announced the Real World Hollywood Cast in December 2007, it was subsequently picked up by more mainstream outlets over the following weeks (although not announced by MTV for another 4 months.) They have a solid track record of factual reporting in this micro genre. Zredsox (talk)
    - Pleas read WP:RS. A webforum is not a reliable source. Corvus cornix_talk 06:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It says clearly: Web forums [snip..] Some however, are edited by reliable organizations, and therefore may possibly be justified as exceptions. - In this case it is a reliable organization with a track record of reporting factually the casts and locations of this particular series. Zredsox (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have reviewed the content of the site and with only the exception of the show title which actually has not yet been finally determined, all remaining information is accurate as sourced through previous series cast members who declined or were unable to accept the invitation to participate in this challenge. Further confirmation exists on the myspace page of a show producer whose present ___location is identified as Panama, the cited ___location of the show taping. If I could cite myslef as a source for the article I would, since I represent one or more cast members whose names appear in the article, unfortunately to so identify myself would compromise my client(s). I must wonder if the person who wants this article removed is a contract lawyer for the production company. Let free speech rule!Reailyagent (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#A3. Pedro : Chat 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Costa

Contested prod. The article makes no claim that the subject is notable and no references found online to support notability. Tagged as non-notable since November 2007. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This perhaps could have been speedy deleted. freshacconcispeaktome 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. Also, I have removed all the information that was directly copied from here [10]. Hal peridol (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - does not assert why the subject is notable. ~ mazca ^talk 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable 3rd party sources. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a "no context" and WP:SNOW. Disruptive de-prodding, edit warring, and WP:POINT hardly constitute good reasons to drag out an AfD on a one-sentence article. All of the nominator's actions on this one, including the two prods and now the AfD, have been in good faith, so an early close would be appropriate here. Thank you! Qworty (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - not notable, but as there is only one line about who she is (a painter), I'm going with a no content CSD. So tagged. Person does not assert notability, I have no evidence thereof. That it's listed as a stub is probably moot. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G12 by Gwen Gale , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panagiotis Emmanouil

The article fails to establish notability using qualified references. The only references listed are directed to a personal website that is created by and for the subject of the article. Additionally, the username of the creator of this page is the name of the subject, which is a likely indication that the article, referenced website, and user, all belong to this individual, who is evidently promoting themself. I have also removed the addition by the same user to the List of child prodigies article. Freqsh0 (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 by Gwen Gale, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnisnotch

A nice little story about an inside joke. No reliable sources provided, none found. Couldn't find a speedy category that fit. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense bordering on gibberish, someone's having us on. Doug Weller (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It doesn't meet the G1 definition of patent nonsense because it isn't incoherent. Walt Disney and Hitler's last spoken word is definitely blatant & obvious misinformation though, so G3 tagged accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not notable, nor probably even real. If there's a speedy delete that covers it, so much the better. Ged UK (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Communications

Nothing added in a week, I don't believe that this article makes any effort to show why it is notable and should stay in wikipedia. Ged UK (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—The Vegas facility they are building is absolutely enormous, and it may be part of an important trend in IT infrastructure. Please expand the article. Thanks.—67.160.10.246 (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it has its own website, explaining its products. It has a relationship with Cisco, a huge IT company. Its very notable because of this, but the creator probably was too lazy to expand or didn't have enough time to expand. Whoever put the non-notable tag there should have searched Switch Communications before they put that there.
Keep - this company has received substantial press attention, especially for its Las Vegas venture. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between The Lines (band)

Fails WP:Note; references are not reviews but simply mentions they were playing on a particular week in the wider context of bar reviews. Blowdart | ^talk 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same as Blowdart. Plus, It doesn't seem that they published any CD, and if they did it doesn't seem notable enough. In conclusion, I hope that one day they will be successful and famous around the world, but this day is yet to come. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. The article doesn't have any reliable sources.--RyRy5 (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The S.S. Tipton

There is no references that this movie/tv episode exists. Looks like fan speculation. A new series The Suite Life on Deck will be produced. This article is speculation/invention about the last episode of the The Suite Life of Zack & Cody or the first episode of The Suite Life on Deck and is not backed up by anything. NrDg 16:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same as NrDg. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Also, beyond the issue of "where is the proof this actually exists" is the issue of the notability of an individual TV episode. There is already a list of episodes page and none of the information in this article goes beyond what could be included in that article. --NrDg 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proof is in other countries like Japan and Israel where it has aired proof: http://www.disneysociety.com/2008/05/15/the-suite-life-of-zack-and-cody-ss-tipton/—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.185.67.216 (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fansite does not count as a reliable source of information. They could have gotten the info from the wiki article for all we know.--NrDg 03:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It Has scences from the episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.185.67.216 (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site says "I don’t have an air date for the US yet, but I do have an episode description and I believe some video clips of the episode. Here’s the description:". Note the "I believe" part for the scene description. Not a reliable source of information. --NrDg 04:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Violates WP:CRYSTAL, also incomplete. Probably wouldn't pass the smell test as far as being significant enough to merit a separate article according to WP:EPISODE. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.S. Tipton

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Newspaper Publishers Association

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not one single in-text reference, and if the number of employees is indeed true, I don't think it is notable enough. The current content of the article is quite confusing for me, and seems mostly unreliable. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Europe-wide international trade association. Lots of references at Google News archive, but the copyvio material should be cut down to a stub. --Eastmain (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as I said on the talk page, there is some RS coverage about the Association to build an article. Current author has an admitted COI and this article is not encyclopedic but that doesn't mean there can't be one. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I first ran across this as a copyvio speedy delete. The author was attempting to release the content through OTRS which I followed up on but they enver followed through. Appears to be a notable organization, but the article would need some work to fix POV issues from the COI. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable organisation, with very well-known members (shout out to the Associação Portuguesa de Imprensa!). This needs a good rewrite and referencing. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as hoax. Remember that AfD is not a vote; consensus is most important. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castle of Mirrors

Article is unreferenced, topic seems unlikely, links (in Ukranian) do not seem to be related to the subject, sole editor* has recently started three other hoax articles. Unable to locate any sources, reliable or otherwise. (*One other edit of content is by an ISP in California, main editor has numerous edits related to Stanford University.) Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion. If there are no sources to the entire article, I don't think it should be kept. Plus, the subject isn't notable enough in my opinion. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now--probably notable if accurate, but woefully undersourced. JJL (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "for now"? What are you expecting to change? The second external link is to photos of the castle at Medzhibozh. That article is quite detailed and makes no mention of the supposed characteristic mirrors. Kamenets-Podolskiy, also in that link, was captured by the Ottoman empire the very year this structure was supposedly built and, again, the article fails to mention this very unusual structure. (The first external link seems to be photos of the same structure.) So, the editor posts numerous hoax articles and this one which defies all attempts at verification. What do you think is about to turn up?
Delete as hoax. An extensive search of the net, under a variety of names, including Ukrainian tourist sources, turns up zippo. Debate 木 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per notability. I talked to my parents, who are from the Ukraine, and they attest to its existence. Handc (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Handc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: User:Handc was a co-contributing account to one of the deleted hoax articles of the creator of Castle of Mirrors. As full disclosure I marked that, and this, article as a hoax, along with several others by the same editor. T L Miles (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as fact. I'm also a student at Stanford University, and perhaps the reason for such a preponderance of Stanford ties is the popular Ukrainian history course offered here. This course frequently mentions the Castle of Mirrors. NewborneBaebe (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — NewborneBaebe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and Salt Obvious hoax. The pictures are of Castle Medzhibozhe [11] [12], which appears to predate the claimed 1672 constuction and there are no claims about the mirrors. The article claims the Castle of Mirrors was built in 1672 and had most of the mirrors shattered in 1596, an obvious impossibility. It also claims that silvered mirrors were placed on the outside in 1684, but silvered mirrors weren't invented until 1835. Finally, the article claims the view of Castle of Mirrors is blocked by "the mirror maze and hedges surrounding the property", something obviously false from the linked photographs. Edward321 (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Elmerfike (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Elmerfike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada

I have suggested to merge this article into Sierra Nevada (United States), but there where 2 objections. Although I disagree with the reasons, I don't think it would be appropriate to merge this to the main article.
I suggest to delete this article (or merge it, depending on the result of this AFD) because:
1.In my opinion, There is no real encyclopidic content here.
2. There is no "Further Reading" section in the main article, and I think this is a mistake.
P.S Please forgive me if I made any mistakes, because this is the first AFD I'm opening. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice list, but not encyclopaedic. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ADVERT. There are plenty of places to host this online. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a reasonably comprehensive bibliography of references for material about the Sierra Nevada. The page was developed by many editors, not representing any particular company. This is not a list of web pages, but a list of books that complement several articles about the Sierra Nevada. The list article is linked to from those articles. Deleting this list would harm readers who want to find out more about the natural history of the Sierra Nevada.

Further, this afd seems to be in response to negative feedback about a proposed merge. Appealing to afd to generate a different opinion from the Talk Page is not helpful editing. We should continue to discuss at the Talk page. hike395 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list satisfies Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists since its focus is specific and useful to a broad range of potential readers. The #5 argument of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations)) comes closest to refuting the list basis. But on close reading, #5 gives a fine intersection of cross-cultural categories for its reasoning, which is not the case for List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada. (The article ought to be renamed List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada (United States)). —EncMstr (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an appropriate list. It meets the standards of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, and doesn't intrude on WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Annotated bibilographies are very encyclopedic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about whether this should be kept or deleted, but I would like to note for the record that it in its current form it is not really annotated.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one who has enjoyed the Sierra Nevada in California, this list contains very handy references not only to articles, but to memorable and beautiful places which are also notable. If lists of entertainment topics can remain in the encyclopedia without calls for their deletion, then so too can the List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Of use to more than just the Sierra Nevada article. Thus merging would do more harm than good. --mav (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Annotated bibliographies are a good supplement for a encyclopedia that purports to be based on external sources, and for WP I'd rather have them in separate articles instead of making the main articles longer and longer. I note that printed EB has biblios for many of its major articles. Stan (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchford Brook tram stop

With a space or with full quotes there's no off-wiki indication that this proposed tram stop exists in discussion, let alone is a notable tram stop. There doesn't appear to be mention of it in the official discussion of the expansion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in any way and I doubt the tram line will be built, certainly not in this decade. It seems to be all on hold. This is probably just taken from here Midland Metro route maps -- which in turn is taken from Midland Metro. The Midland Metro route maps article should also be deleted, is there a way to include it with this or do I or someone else just raise another AfD for it? Doug Weller (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Midland Metro Line 1 is in operation, so that it is legitimate to have an article dealing with that, but articles on tramstops on other lines are inappropriate and should be deleted for the moment, being left as redirects to articles on the area where it is said they will be. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Midland Metro is a light railway, rather more than a traditional tram system, so that the use of the word "railway" in a tag is appropriate. It might conceivably be approporaite to have an article on the whole suggested line, but as far as I am aware all the lines except line 1 (which is in operation) are mere proposals. Line 2 (Tipton to Brierly Hill) has had a public enquiry, but has not been funded. The rest are mere ideas in planners' minds. This article thus fails WP:Crystal, as would any others on proposed Metro lines. Where the stops will be is something likely to be determined at the public enquiry. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G7 - Author Request. Article History shows that almost all substantive content was introduced by original author, who is also the nom here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Flynn

Although I created this article I now feel that I was in error. The November 9th Society and its current leader Kevin Quinn have both received third party coverage but Terry Flynn has not and indeed I created this article based on a profile on the N9S website that has long since been taken down. As such I do not feel this article is encyclopedic and accept that I was in error to create it. Keresaspa (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete article history shows nom is primary contributor and the above seems like a pretty obvious request for deletion. I've tagged it as such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PNGlish

Accidentally used CSD A7, and got declined because the article is about software. I still think this page should be deleted because the subject does not seem to be notable, and in any case, it is apparently in the early stages of development. Probably because of this, there are no references anywhere on the internet about this software. J.delanoy ^gabs analyze 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If A7 extended to software I'd certainly have deleted this as a speedy. No assertion of notability, none found on search. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails notability, not sourced and biased. AVand ^talk _contribs 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a delightful example of why A7 might be worth extending to software. No evidence or assertion of notability. ~ mazca ^talk 18:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of any third-party reliable sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as unverified, unsourced, probable spam. No prejudice against recreation or userfying for improvment if/when the article's creator (or anyone else) can find reliable, third party sources that talk about this institute in a neutral way. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Sleep Institute (CSI)

Advert-like article on sleep institute. Speedied several times as spam. Now slightly less spammy. Fairly obvious COI (and apparent sockpuppetry). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete though less "spammy" it is still spam as well as non-notable and contains no 3rd party reliable sources for verification purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy: The editor is new, didn't realise what was required, and has since contacted me (as the admin who deleted a related article by the same author) via email to ask advice on what our requirements are. I believe the sockpuppetry was a case of the editor not understanding why their original account no longer worked, so making a new one. I don't intend to contest the AfD, as the article does not currently meet WP:VERIFY or WP:NOTE, but the author is currently blocked, rather harshly in my view, and obviously can't do anything to improve the article - hence I think a speedy is a little premature. I agree there may also be WP:COI issues, but I think we could at least give this a few days to see where it goes. EyeSerene^talk 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that both of those accounts existed prior to today's blocks - neither was created as the result of a blocked account. I requested a block of the second account for block evasion by the user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for catching my mistake - I did notice at time that they weren't new accounts, but by the time I commented here I'd forgotten :P However, I think my point still stands - the user apparently has (or had, as one's now indefblocked) access to two accounts, but since there are very few edits from either, and the second was only used to ask for advice on the article talk page once the first had been blocked, I still don't believe there was any intentional sockpuppetry. EyeSerene^talk 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't either, now - rather a new user who didn't understand the rules. I have undone my block, which was rather harsh when taken in full context. Unfortunately, this article is somewhat lacking in terms of verifiability and asserting notability. Neıl 龱 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as having no sources. Alex Muller 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addicted (Jamiroquai album)

Fails WP:MUSIC: not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without reliable sources. Even a Jamiroquai web forum ([13]) says it's crap. Corvus cornix_talk 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A web forum isn't enough. It isn't even licensed to have unreleased and future works. (Phrasia (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- I don't understand your keep !vote. What sources are you relying on? Corvus cornix_talk 21:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least get rid of the release dates and stuff. This album has been confirmed with that title. (Pleasantview (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - The argument here is that there is not substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Have you found any such coverage? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. where has it been confirmed? Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus. I'm not convinced that we should delete anything only because a LP says "please delete me", but this particular subject, even without the purported statement (that as far as I can tell is not verified, only assumed to be true), has borderline notability at best. Consensus here says delete with valid arguments above and beyond "I want my page gone", so delete it is. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Stern

Apparent Formatting Error at AfD suggests that another user attempted to nominate for deletion placing tag on their behalf Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Richard Stern, the subject of the article. I am requesting that the article be taken down for two reasons:

1. I am trying very hard to reduce my internet presence because I have career aspirations that would be impossible to meet with prospective employers referencing my wikipedia page; it has become a major hindrance to my personal and professional life and as such it is in my best interest to have it removed.

2. I am not a notable person. If I had any semblance of notability when the page was created, which was nowhere near universally agreed upon, it is long past. Further, the major basis for my article's creation - my youtube page at youtube.com/rickyste - has been removed. The article should be removed because in all honesty, no one cares about me, nor should they; I think you will find no one rushes here trying to save the page on its merits.

I plead with you to respect my wishes and conform to Wikipedia's own standards for article inclusion. Thank you. 64.245.33.164 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Plvekamp (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Broad coverage in RS including interviews in which the subject voluntarily particpated and notability is not temporary. Jim Miller (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I gave this careful consideration. I read every word of the article. I read Mr. Stern's comments here and on the BLP noticeboard. I even clicked over to Youtube to watch one of lazydork's dopey 3-minute videos about Rocky. He's a nice guy, but he's not notable in the strictest definition. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy gives wide latitude to administrators to delete pages that would otherwise be worth keeping. I think this is a perfect example of where such discretion needs to be used. Previous cases of living people who requested that their biographies be deleted convinced some of my colleagues to propose an opt-out procedure for people of borderline notability who want their biographies removed. I support the proposal, which is not policy, and I would apply it in this instance.

Let me discuss the notability of Richard Stern in some detail. He is not notable in general. He is an ordinary American man in his late 20s who wants to live an ordinary life. By good fortune, he found a hobby uploading comical videos to Youtube, and he became a YouTube celebrity. He is now condemned to have a biography about his YouTube videos for the rest of his life, a biography that will confine the fullness of his life into the few hours he spent making, uploading and discussing these comic videos. He voluntarily gave interviews to news organizations such as the Miami Herald, but even this does not make him a public figure in the same way that a politician is a public figure. Articles about YouTube celebrities wind up in the back pages of newpapers where nobody reads them. The notability of Mr. Stern is essentially limited to the online realm and has not irrevocably spread into the real world.

You may ask if I would also support deleting the biography of Funtwo, the South Korean guitarist famous for his hack of Pachelbel's canon, who gave an interview to the New York Times, if Funtwo requested the deletion. Yes, I would support that. Even though Funtwo's video is much more famous than lazydork's video, the fundamental principle remains in my mind that individual people are not inherently notable for being online celebrities, even if their celebrity status is covered by offline news sources. If we want to have articles on them based on reliable sources, that's fine. But the minute the subject of a biography posts here and asks to return to private life, saying that the publicity around his short-lived online persona is negatively affecting his career prospects, it's time to delete the biography and find something else to write about. Perhaps it's not fair to the people who spent hours adding references and refining the infobox, but we can't satisfy everyone, and if we must choose whom to satisfy, the BLP subject's wishes take priority. I feel strongly about this, and I would encourage the voters and the closing administrator to account for the unique BLP factors. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And this is where I always disagree with this interpretation of the policy. According to this [14], Mr. Stern explcitly sought out notability, saying "It was offensive to me that I wasn't like, the biggest star in the YouTube world." We're not talking about a youthful indiscretion here either. This is a law school graduate who intentionally pushed himself into the limelight, sought out notability, and has now decided that he wants to put the genie back into the bottle. I know that the decision will not be the one I am arguing for, and we will have yet another lousy precedent of letting people resign from their established notability, but it is still wrong to delete an article that obviously meets WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:OR because of a so-far imagined "harm" that might someday, somehow violate WP:BLP. Jim Miller (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Subject is covered in a number of RS, therefore notable. QED ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't appear to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Perhaps a small listing at List of YouTube celebrities instead? -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 18:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Within the lead of WP:BLP is the statement: An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". At times like this a judgement has to be made. Certainly we'd never delete the article of a national politician or an international superstar on request. However we can ask these two questions. Is WP harmed if there's no article on Richard Stern? I'd say no. Is Richard Stern harmed by the existance of the WP article? He says yes. Therefore let us do no harm.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article is kept or merged, I suggest we rename the article, and remove all references to his real-life name from Wikipedia, to protect his privacy. --Rob (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with this as an alternative. His real name isn't the important feature of the article. --Faith (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - How do we know that the person alleging to be the subject is truly the subject? This goes beyond WP:AGF. If someone wanted another's article deleted that would be one way to go about it. Perhaps the subject is happy to have a bio here and is unaware of this discussion? I just went through this same thought process with Christopher Cuddy (User talk:Christophercuddy), who also says he wanted his article removed (and it likely could be removed). I think that if someone purports to be the subject of the article then they should contact the office (Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject)) and provide proof after which the office can note that here. Since the subject's wishes can play a part in some situations I think it is important to know if we truly have the subject's wishes. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The subject has contacted me about a BLP issue before and used the same Email address. His story about canceling his YouTube account checks out, as well. I have no doubt it's him. Ichormosquito (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ditto. Based on his editing history and his comment on my talk page, it's clear that no impostor would go to this length to fool the community. It's definitely genuine. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If he e-mailed you from that account then cool. I'm not saying, just saying. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not that notable and much of the article does not pass BLP muster, in my opinion. We don't need an article on every person who gets 15 minutes of fame on YouTube.--agr (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't matter if the subject requesting is the subject or not, this is just YouTube 15 minutes of fame, long passed, agree with Reinhold completely. --Blechnic (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons listed above --Faith (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I created this article and would defend it till doomsday, but the subject has made it clear he wants it gone. We can always bring it back. Call me crazy, but a record of the first breakthrough YouTube auteurs WILL have historical value. Ichormosquito (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak delete. I want to make it very clear that the "I want it deleted" bit doesn't sway me in the least. I don't agree with OPTOUT whatsoever. That said, the notability of the subject isn't particularly convincing; in the deletion-heavy environment of today, I don't think that this would successfully pass an AfD anyway, even without the opinion of the subject. He doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jim Miller. As notability is not temporary, I guess I'm rushing here to try to save the page on its merits. The sources are reasonably strong in asserting notability, and even the subject's desire for such notability. I do think that moving the article to the user name makes a lot of sense, though. Maxa megalon 2000 06:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This bio needs some work. However, I don't think it should be deleted. The Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN, and the Miami Herald, mentions on Wired.com and MSNBC.com, all spanning several months, all sources that are read and viewed by millions combined, how is that not notable? Notability is notability. Being notable does not mean that the person has to be important or famous. I don't see anything in the article that is defamatory so I fail to see how it would damage his reputation. His notability is not for an event it is for his actions, spanning a length of time, involving contemporary culture and youtube 'fame', for better or for worse, has been deemed, based on coverage and very reliable sources, an important part of contemporary culture. The newspapers are reliable sources and if his real name was mentioned in them I see no reason to remove his real name. This is not a case of basic human dignity because the article does not mock or disparage the subject directly or indirectly. Everything mentioned appears to be documented well. One could say that his actions will only be notable briefly and non-lasting, but since it is a part of popular culture it is very hard to tell what the futures holds especially since youtube celebrities, both past and present, tend to be mentioned on blogs and other resources often. The fact that people like Mr. Stern are embraced by contemporary culture and internet culture makes it noteworthy in my opinion. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: The problem arises, with bios like this, when Wikipedia is the only thing keeping someone in a spotlight when their 15 minutes has passed. --Faith (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only temporary notability. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 64.245.33.164, Shalom, Qaddosh, Cube lurker, Blechnic, agr, Faith, and Ichormosquito. — Athaenara ✉ 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how can Wikipedia do any significant harm to someone when the information can be found readily in major news sources on any google search? DGG (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a very good argument because searching for "Richard Stern" brings no contentious content except for Wikipedia in the first several pages of searching. --Faith (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try "lazydork". Ichormosquito (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is the exact point; without knowing 'lazydork', you'd only be searching for the man's name, and the only connection to this issue in the first several Google pages of hits would be Wikipedia! Therefore, we are holding the notability long after it has died down in Google hits. --Faith (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but "lazydork" gets a quarter of a million hits; and it brings up some quality Google News hits. To "do no harm" is my top priority; but if it weren't, I'd suggest we simply rename the article. Ichormosquito (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His notability is marginal, meaning deletion is within BLP policy. Somehow civilization will endure without this page on Wikipedia. Noroton (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid I just don't see sufficient notability to merit an article. Also, in weighing the Encyclopedic value of the article against the subject's wishes, I believe that this subject's wishes carry more weight. The article does have the potential to harm the subject. Other web sources on the subject will eventually fall from view. Webpages come down. Copyrighted material falls behind pay walls. The ephemeral nature of the web will see much fall away. Wikipedia, we hope, will endure for considerably longer. Anyone who's tried to research on subjects who are falling out of the media knows how hard it can be to find information-- we are succeeding in becoming a free storehouse of all knowledge. Removing information about this particular subject will not seriously diminish that storehouse. In this instance, the greater good lies in acceding to the subject's request for deletion. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--change to "delete per Faith's comment above." Dloh cierekim 12:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retitle article as Lazydork instead, but as a biographical article this is definitely notable. Perhaps removing the given name would be an acceptable compromise? (jarbarf) (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akramicus Azimi

The sources on this page don't check out. The journals are real, but the articles don't exist. I suspect a hoax. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Google does not return anything and both words are part of a proper name. Very suspicious. Could be a personal attack. Best be safe. --Triwbe (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's an academic in Perth, Australia, named Akram Azimi. Joke page by a student seems a definite possibility. Deor (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked the journals, and those articles have not been published in them. Can't find any mention anywhere of this supposed parasite. It definitely looks like a hoax. Good spider senses, Kafka Liz! --Bonadea (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's a fake, maybe an attack piece, sources are bogus, so I removed all information tied to faked source. Can't this just be speedied? --Blechnic (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and per above. Victor Lopes (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Neıl 龱 10:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Intruder 2: Fatal Intrusion (a.k.a. The Intruder 2: Intrude Harder - US title) 2003

Seemingly a hoax, I can find absolutely no evidence this film exists. Supposed a sequel to The Intruder (1986 film). –– Lid^(Talk) 14:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the articles history it seems that two SPAs and an IP have been going around vandalising articles about The Intruder and this is one of the bi-products. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intruder 2 - Fatal Intrusion same article. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted speedily as G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell's House

Does not appear to meet notability; page is written like an advertisement; a similarly-titled page, Maxwells House, with identical content was speedied twice yesterday as a violation of G11 User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm being bold here and redirecting it to CafePress.com as per Fred Durham. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maheesh Jain

Is the cofounder of a company with Fred Durham, who's starting to look like a WP:SNOW at his own AfD[15]. It may seem reductive to say that if one goes, they should both go, but it's hard to see how Maheesh Jain is notable if Durham isn't, since Durham outranked Jain as CEO. Qworty (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the only claim is that he was VP Business Development at a small dot-com, pretty clearly fails WP:BIO. Antiselfpromotion —Preceding comment was added at 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:BIO, no reliable sources to establish notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caltroit

Non-notable mixtape, fails WP:MUSIC. Contested PROD. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, this is an album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.190.210 (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC) — 99.227.190.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Comment - The article calls it a "mixtape/album". The only source in the article, the download site, calls it a mixtape. Most of the sources (all of them unreliable) that mention Caltroit call it a mixtape[16][17][18][19], etc. In any event, it does not have substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cellnotes

Contested proposed deletion. Notability of subject is not established, no third-party references. Khatru2 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find no third party references, seems also to be a COI issue with article's creator. Gr1st (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by a user named User:Millermobile, the user page for said user confirms that he is the creator of Celltones, so that means this is a WP:COI. Its NN anyway. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a vanity piece. JuJube (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong deletion forum. Redirect deletion discussion take place over there. KTC (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgoroth (band)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gorgoroth (band)

Redundant redirect, causing inconsistencies with search engines such as Google - which usually refers to this redirect rather than the article directly. Usually redirects to outdated version of an article - takes over a day to be fully consistent. Dark Prime (talk)

Redirects are dealt with at WP:RFD, not here ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mature recollection

Non-notable. With one small exception, not substantively edited since its creation on 18 March 2005 Snappy56 (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nominated by User:Scolaire but unfinished AfD. I think the article should be merged with Brian Lenihan, Snr and/or Irish presidential election, 1990. Snappy56 (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not nominate the article, I {{Prod}}ed it. If it has been brought to AfD so be it! But an article cannot be deleted and merged so you are opposing your own nomination. Scolaire (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposing my own nomination because that would be silly! Yes, an article can actually be deleted and merged. Snappy56 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Performing the merger: Three ways are given, all of which involve deleting text from the source and converting it to a redirect. This cannot be done if the article has been deleted, for obvious reasons. Conversely, deleting an article after cutting and pasting text makes it a delete, not a merge. Scolaire (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The phrase is dealt with in Brian Lenihan, Snr and the controversy is covered in Irish presidential election, 1990. There is nothing in this article worth merging into either of the others. Scolaire (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants the deleted content for use elsewhere, just let me know. --jonny-m t 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Taoiseach

Non-notable. An expression unfamiliar to the great majority of Irish people. Not substantively edited since its creation on 16 October 2005 Snappy56 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nominated by User:Scolaire but unfinished AfD. I think the article should be merged with Taoiseach. Snappy56 (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not nominate the article, I {{Prod}}ed it. If it has been brought to AfD so be it! But an article cannot be deleted and merged so you are opposing your own nomination. Scolaire (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposing my own nomination, I did it on your behalf. An article can be deleted and merged if that is the consensus of the debate. It's not a yes/no question.

Eh, yes! The procedure for merge is so completely different from the procedure for deletion that you can only do one or the other. And it is your nomination. I never asked you to do anything on my behalf. Scolaire (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, I'm withdrawing nomination, and I will add a summary of Phantom Taoiseach into Taooseach. Phantom Taoiseach can then be deleted. Snappy56 (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Phantom Taoiseach was a term coined by Professor John M. Kelly". But the term died with him, if it even lasted that long. There is nothing in this article worth preserving. Scolaire (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing in the article worth preserving seems overly dismissive, it's an esoteric topic but one of interest to students of Irish politics. A summary of the article can be added as a paragraph to Taoiseach article, as it is not particularly extensive. Snappy56 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on John M. Kelly. I don't see the notability value of this article as a standalone. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a redirect is pointless as nobody will ever type "Phantom Taoiseach" in the search box (per nom). The only links to this article are in the form of an (equally pointless) see also on three articles, one of which is also up for deletion. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: as of now there are no links to this article, except on AfD-related pages. Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should links to the article be deleted before a decision is made .Garda40 (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can be. The value of the link is a separate issue to the value of the article. Anybody who disagrees with the removal of a link can always revert. Scolaire (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a non-notable term. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is some useful material here, but I am uncertain whether there is sufficient notability for an article under this name. I hope the material herein can be used somewhere, say under Taoiseach or John M. Kelly. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as an apparently non-notable product. --jonny-m t 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IBM WebSphere Business Events

Nothing noteworthy here Bardcom (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please relist this discussion to elicit more comments please --Bardcom (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Bardcom - It is my understanding you beleive it adds no value. My intention is that anyone searching for "Websphere Business events" in Wikipedia may at least get an explination of what the software relates to (IE event processing). I work for the development team who produced the software, and so can provide more flesh to the document if this is what is required. I just wanted to avoid making it too much of an advertisment etc. I have added a bit more info as to the parts of the product and what they let you do. I have now also added a graphic showing such a flow. I'd be grateful if you could let me know the sorts of things you'd be looking for me to include so as to avoid deletion of the entry and my need to write it again from scratch. Incidentally I see quite a few other products in wikipedia which just define themselves with a couple of lines, then link to a more detailed description of the technology they implement - for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_WebSphere_ESB Jtq4u (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi, wikipedia is not a directory, or a resource for conducting business as per policy WP:NOT. The question I asked is, "Why is this software notable?" and can you provide references or citations to back up any claims. Otherwise, this article is merely promotional. Also, be aware that the fact that you are an employee of IBM and are hired to work on this software may be interpreted to mean that you lack a neutral point of view. --Bardcom (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi, Yes I can see that the site isn't a directory. However today I am researching the other software products that interoperate with WebSphere Business Events, and note that every single one of them (most of which are IBM products) have entries in Wikipedia. That was what spurred me to note the absence of this product and therefor update it. I am a great beleiver in this site and use it a great deal in my personal life, thus a mixed reasoning for wanting to update. Although I can hardly be considered neutral from a logical point of view I hope you'd at least agree that my current version of the doc doesn't have any marketing spin on it - I have simply listed what it does and pointed to the generic definition for this type of software. As for notability.. I am not sure if the software could yet be claimed to be notable I guess as it was only released last week. Hopefully we can get the views of some other people regarding the delete and get a balanced view. Cheers Jtq4u (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - forgot to add, here is a master document that exists listing 50 or more IBM product entry pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibm_software I wonder if the notability comes from the fact IBM is so large as to be notable? who knows.. anyhow I am just saying I wasn't adding anything out of the ordinary. I also added the new page to that inventry Jtq4u (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd just be happy if you can tell me why it's notable. If it passes notability, everything else will follow in time. Without an indication on notability, I'm afraid it's just marketing and this information would be better off on the IBM website. So, the key question to you is, why should there be an encyclopedic article about this produce??? --Bardcom (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources are referenced to show the notability of this non-consumer "event processing" software. (What does it do? It processes events, silly. I pity the foo' whose events go unprocessed.) Instead, we are treated to a large, probably copyrighted graphic that extols the benefits of this software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am flattered that you think my image copyrighted.. It took me about 15 mins in word, using graphics which have permission for such reproduction. I'll have a think about some more detail, though most of it is provided via my first link on the page and I don't want to duplicate this. I'll take a look around see if it has notability in the market place yet.. though as I say it was only released last week - however there is a heavy precidence for listing ibm products - look to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibm_software Cheers James

comment - I have taken a look on the web for "WebSphere Business Events" and there seems to be quite a bit of non ibm information on it, I'll add citations to this. Also Several list it as an "IBM flagship product"

comment - I have improved the description to give a nut shell description of what event processing actually is.. though still linking back to the main complex event processing page that previously existed. I must say that should this page end up remaining the process has forced me to improve it greatly when compared to my first version, so whether it remains or not the process clearly works! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtq4u (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem here is that this is apparently a brand new release - can't possibly be more than three days old - of a product whose potential purchasers probably number in at most four digits, and probably not more than three. The brand and publisher is indeed notable; the particular product is not. Now, we have guidelines as to the notability (jargon for encyclopedia-worthiness) of commercial products; they're often referred to by the shorthand link WP:CORP. They basically require that some note be taken of the product by sources outside the business. I tend to interpret that fairly strictly: for me, the outside sources should also not be trade publications of limited circulation or interest. And, generally speaking, non-consumer software used in business environments should face a pretty stiff test of notability. Concern about using the resources of the encyclopedia for advertising is a particular concern.

My more personal interest is in clarity of writing. Some segments of the business world seem to delight in vague, evasive-sounding and unhelpfully general or abstract descriptions of what their products do. (And frankly, describing the purpose of software as "event processing" is a near-perfect example of what I don't like. I'd rather know what it feels like to have events being processed for the poor peons who have further data entry duties added to their job descriptions as a result of the arrival of "event processing".)

So, basically, what I am looking for is some evidence that this release is a significant event for people outside the realm of IT professionals who already use the other IBM software this release is apparently supposed to integrate with. If that case can be made, I'd happily change my opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say about WP:CORP is true then it needs changing because that is too severe a criterion which many other articles on other topics could not pass. Most maths articles, for example, have no notability outside that field. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed many mathematical articles that are abysmally written: almost entirely free from context, and jargony to the point of being unintelligible to non-mathematicians. Probably some could be deleted or merged.

On the other hand, even bad math articles raise few suspicions about being placed here to advance a commercial interest. Important mathematical concepts generally fit the profile of things you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I got something out of it and have improved the lede with a citation. The author seems new to this and should be allowed time to understand the formalities here, per WP:BITE and WP:IMPERFECT. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not biting newcomers or criticizing the unfinished article. I'm very impressed with the diagram and the article expansion, etc. But my original question is still valid....why is this product notable? Why? --Bardcom (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey there - thanks for the improvements, that reads much better :-) Jtq4u (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not yet a great article, but a product of a major corporation that is in use by some major customers. I'd also be happy having this become a redirect to a list of IBM's less important software products, but I think Wikipedia benefits from having some content on this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article is about a brand new piece of business software in an emerging new field, not about the major corporation. Also, I don't see, and can't find, any references to any major customers using it - do you have any names or references or is this an assumption? I've no problem with the article being merged to a list of IBM products, without prejudice for this article being recreated once notability is established and referencable. --Bardcom (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above—non-notable corporate spam. --KurtRaschke (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by User:Chrislk02 per CSD G11, blatant advertising. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At-One

Speedy tag was removed.Unsourced and no assertion of notability. Reads like Spam. NAHID 08:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete The article has been written by a business manager of AT-One who is responsible for all the copyrights. AT-One as well as the two mother organisations DLR and NLR are government owned companies without economic interests.
Delete per Nom - also reads as WP:COPYVIO at moment as all text being added seems to be lifted from their website [20] -Hunting dog (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam and/or Copyvio (take your pick) Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard delete as pure unsourced advertising. Why bother keeping this copyright infringement? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is unsourced and there is no assertion of notability. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, a nice G11. FusionMix 14:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (non-admin closure), under WP:CSD#G7. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Genocide

Blatant POV text pushing the fringe idea (apparently peddled these days by some extreme nationalist sources) that there was a "genocide" against ethnic Macedonians (no concrete information is provided when and at whose hands). Sources are obviously not even remotely reliable. Note that the current text of the article is shamelessly stolen from the Armenian genocide article; the claim about death marches is taken from there and seems to be a total fabrication when applied to the Macedonian case. I can't read the alleged sources (both in Macedonian), but I'd bet these "death marches" aren't mentioned even in those. The same seems to be the case for the alleged numbers of victims. This article is a case not only for deletion, but in my view also for sanctions against the author (Makedonij (talk · contribs)) for blatant disruptive editing. I'd encourage uninvolved admins to check the author's previous record and consider WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Block!~~ Err... Delete! Unsourced. NikoSilver 10:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, oppose block, just warning.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to prevent a misunderstanding, I obviously didn't mean we should be voting about any blocks or similar sanctions here. That discussion goes better elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not confirmed with this article. I should also note that any real or perceived problems with the Wikipedia editing history of the article's author is irrelevant to this discussion; there are other channels on this site for reporting disruptive editing. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article offends Wikipedia every second it remains there. I suggest speedy deletion per WP:IAR.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just allow me to add that I can see this article only as a (failed) humoristic attempt by its creator, especially when the platform of a political party is used as a verifiable source. The referencing of the article gets indeed anecdotic dimensions.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No comment! --Makedonij (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You wont be able to delete it in real life !--Makedonij (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I just start to edit this article, references will come later.--Makedonij (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable and verifiable sources. Wikipedia is neither a vehicle for propaganda nor a battleground. Aramgar (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:New sources.--Makedonij (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the "sources" is remotely reliable, and none of them even supports the claims made in the article (victim counts, "death marches", et cetera). It becomes clearer and clearer that this editor is simply lying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article flirts with the characterization of hoax, and its creator and sole editor flirts with the application of the remedies section of WP:ARBMAC IMO; Makedonij's attitude in our case is in an obvious disaccord with the principles set by the above-mentioned decision of the ARBCOM.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom; we aren't here to legitimize some fringe group ("see? Even Wikipedia knows the truth"-style arguments). Send this packing and target any new articles for quick analysis, keywording 'Macedonian' and 'genocide'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:I've made a mistake so delete it.--Makedonij (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor should be praised for his bravery to recognize his wrongdoings; and it needs courage indeed to admit one's mistakes, as you did here. But the facts remain: You created an almost "hoax" article, you added some obviously non-verifiable sources, you firmly supported the necessity of this "article" continuing to add "sources" of yours, and suddenly, without further explanations you "erased" whatever you did and contradicted yourself, declaring that this was a "mistake"! Therefore, I may laud your courage in changing your initial stance, but I think you are still obliged to offer some explanations for your overall attitude. As far as the AfD is concerned, I think and repeat that, especially after Makedonij's statement, the only applicable solution is speedy deletion, something I would do myself, but, since I have voted, I want to be ok with the rules. But any adm watching our discussion would conclude that this "anecdote" should immediately end.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a holiday

non-notable show ju66l3r (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per creators reason for keeping posted on talk page "....should not be deleted because all the page is is a promotion for my show Give Me a Holiday" (drastic COI and no evidence of notability)-Hunting dog (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "show" that exists only in some kid's mind—WP:MADEUP. Deor (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE WP:RS WP:V and throw in WP:NOT as the creator's second note on the talk page seems to indicate that they are looking for a webhost for the info so people that missed the meetings can find out whats up. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute idiocy. JuJube (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: Can someone please WP:SNOW this. Recent edits to the article indicate that this "TV series" hasn't even started yet and each series is supposed to "run" for 2 years at a time. User also posted on the article's talk page two "reasons" to keep the article which are in exact and direct conflict with WP:NOT, which demonstrates that they are either ignorant of the rules or acting in direct opposition intentionally. ju66l3r (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Night trackers

This reads like a hoax and has no sources. There is no clear evidence of it on Google and IMDb reference may be a hoax too. No evidence of notability is presented, Grahame (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - surely this is a speedy? - the actual usage of the term is either an American Movie of 87 or a game - clearly a hoax - thought speedies could be done on sudden full of red linked hoaxes like this? Satu Suro 07:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly NN, most likely a hoax. The IMDb entry pre-dates this alleged TV show by two years, so they may not even refer to the same thing. Debate 木 08:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax created by WP:SPA. Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems hoaxy and inplausible. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Garcia

Another editor recently tagged this as WP:HOAX, which might well be the case [21]. But even if this person actually exists, he thoroughly fails WP:ATHLETE. Qworty (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's either a hoax, or hopelessly inaccurate (hoax being by far the most accurate of the two). There's no Joshua Garcia listed as playing for either the Buccaneers or the Saints, either now or in the past, and the 1992 draft pick number #122 was Gary Dandridge, who wasn't selected until round 5 anyway. - Bilby (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To reiterate what I posted on the article's talk page, I can find no evidence of this player ever playing in the NFL. He certainly wasn't a fourth-round pick in the 1992 NFL Draft. His name isn't on the official PSU list of football lettermen, and he's not listed at databasefootball.com.

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

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

The result was speedied, as copyvio. Deiz talk 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yard-O-Led

Crufty / ad-like corporate history. Looks like a copyvio but unable to confirm, might just be the writing style. Contested speedy. Deiz talk 07:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as COPYVIO [22] - that wending story bit produces that as sole ghit, only opening three sentences aren't direct copy and paste. -Hunting dog (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G12, WP:COPYVIO. Article tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied originally, and it was contested / reposted. Deiz talk 09:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Light Rail

This article is about a non-existent subject, light rail in Albany, New York, and the only "source" thus far is an opinion piece that says Albany should have light rail. The supposed details of the future service are actually the recommendations of the writer, who appears to be an authority but says nothing about whether his opinions are part of any formal plans. Furthermore, the article appears to say that Albany has already decided to go a different way for the time being at least. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox or a crystal ball. Unless some reliable sources are found and cited to cover this subject properly, I recommend it be deleted. (If it does survive somehow, it should be moved to "Light rail in Albany, New York", because there appears to be no proper noun for this potentially future service, and Albany is ambiguous. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Future transit systems need to be at the planning stage before we can consider having an article on it, allowing articles on transit systems in the suggestion stage opens up for a whole host of articles on things which exist only in someone's dreams. A single letter opining that there should be a light rail somewhere is a flimsy foundation for an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. At least some degree of real planning must occur, I think. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ovidiu-Mihai Ionel

Several reasons for deletion. First, no convincing Google hits. Second, no assertion of particular notability - certainly nothing verifiable. Third, no valid references: the first link leads to a self-published forum, the second doesn't load, and the third isn't about him. As an aside, this is the author's only contribution, and certain phrases ("the nonsense teachers are teaching children these days", "how media is controlling our life") are amusingly inappropriate. In sum, though: no real references or assertion of notability; possible self-promotion. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unsourcable, self-promotion. The few sources used are unreliable (one is self-published, the other, as Biru says, are quoted for no apparent reason). The article is riddled with WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR, and it simply cannot be salvaged (given that the person simply does not appear in reliable sources). Dahn (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Why this is for AfD? I am puzzled to see an article which is a candidate for speedy deletion is brought in AfD discussion. What kind of nomination is this? WP:AfD claearly states before nominating any article for AfD, "confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:speedy deletions". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, the result's the same, only with a few days' delay - no need to get alarmed. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Buckshot06(prof) 11:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But I declined the speedy; it doesn't meet the criteria. There is nothing in the criteria to allow the subjects to request deletion of their own articles; notability is vaguely established. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient secondary sources to prove notability. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Times - Fishbone's Hen House Sessions

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Critical Times - Fishbone's Hen House Sessions

Non-notable recording, fails WP:MUSIC. Much material contributed by an account with the same name as the studio. Likely spamming. Contested speedy (another editor kept reverting the speedy as quickly as Twinkle could process it). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DVD album of live works by Fishbone (a major, long-lived band), its release was controversial and caused the band to distance itself from the publisher due to unflattering footage. It clearly passes WP:MUSIC. I've cut most of the fluff recently added by a promotional account and it is worth noting that this article was created by a neutral and experienced contributor back in 2006. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The spammer account has been indef blocked, finally. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry it took so long, few admins venture into the realm of Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep in its current form. The version I'd tagged was pure spam, however, I'd failed to look at the article's edit history given the amount of spam the account in question was generating. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I, the original nominator, withdraw my request. Article needs improvement, but the library is clearly notable after reading comments left by those involved in creation of the article. Britanica article also verifies notability. I urge those close to the subject matter to improve/expand wording of the article to keep people from mistaking this is a run of the mill town library again. Sorry for wasting anyone's time here. --Airtuna08 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Free Library

Fails WP:NOTE; Town libraries not notable. Only famous libraries like the one in New York City for example are notable. What's next? Town supermarkets? Airtuna08 (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This library is notable due to its status as an original 1903 Carnegie library (also see Category: Carnegie libraries), and was also partially the result of the first municipal tax in Ohio for a library. It is hardly is in the same category as a "town supermarket." Just because it's not largely well-known to you like the main New York City library doesn't mean it is completely non-notable. Further, it is part of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Ohio as part of their own Libraries in Ohio project.--JonRidinger (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A century old Carnegie library up for deletion? Even Britannica has an article on this library. Contrary to the nom's comments, many town libraries are notable. And which library is the nom referring to as "the one in New York City"? The Brooklyn Public Library? The Donnell Library Center? The Queens Borough Public Library? The New York Public Library? --Oakshade (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Britannica even has a cropped form of the public-___domain picture on the WP article :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're different. Look at the cloud patterns. In the Britanica one, you should see blue just above the roof line if it was the same one. And it's from a lower angle as you can tell by the foreground tree. Similar (bad) photo quality though. --Oakshade (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gee thanks. Glad I made the effort. Anyway, the picture used in the Britannica article is the same picture that is used in the Kent, Ohio article, not the one used in the Kent Free Library article. Not the greatest pictures because of when they were taken (sun is behind the library), but far better than nothing. I do have plans to get better pictures when the sun is at a better angle. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to rag on the photo. A non-professional looking one is better than none. Your effort was worth while.--Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being a Carnegie Library confers notability. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article just says it was donated by Carnegie, if the library has so much history how come the page is only a long paragraph. From reading it, I just get the impression its your run of the mill town library. If someone can expand it and show me its history of how it came to be and what not, I'll withdraw my request. --Airtuna08 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course it can be expanded, but whether or not that happens will hardly determine whether your request is honored or not. As you can see, the simple fact that it was donated by Carnegie makes it notable and removes the main issue behind your request. You not being familiar with it doesn't make it non-notable. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines stipulate that an article is worthy of inclusion if secondary sources on the subject exist, not if an editor placed them in the article yet. What you want is article improvement which deletion is not. --Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per JonRidinger. Elan26 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Keep Being a Carnegie library implies notability. The length of the article is not a consideration in deletion, it's a sourced stub, which is OK. Kate (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Article needs significant improvement/expansion to reflect the things I learned in this discussion. The way the article reads right now really gives the impression it is just a town library and nothing more. I urge the main contributors to brush up the article with a history section, etc to keep a mistake AfD from happening again. But from reading different comments here makes me believe the article should stay as well, so I withdraw my nomination. Goodluck to those involved in improving the article! --Airtuna08 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, certainly no consensus to delete, but please add the references mentioned.. Bduke (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin Bache

Aside from being the great-grandson of Benjamin Franklin, and the son of a red-linked politician, I can't find anything about this guy that gives him notability. Because notability is not inherited and without his famous relatives he is otherwise completely non-notable, I don't see any reason to keep this article. DesertAngel 05:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - According to an obituary and Appleton's Cyclopedia he seems to have been somewhat significant as a surgeon in the Navy and a director during the Civil War of the Naval Laboratory at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, which supplied most of the Union Navy's medical supplies, and later Medical Director of the Navy. He also was a professor at Kenyon College. The guide to the Castle-Bache Collection says he "became a noted physician and chemist, teaching at the Franklin Institute (1826-1832), the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science (1831-1841), and at Jefferson Medical College." Further research, perhaps in offline media, might better establish his notability as a physician, chemist or academic. I don't know if there are any guidelines on notability of military officers, but if it is relevant, he reached the "relative" rank of commodore according to the obituary (see Commodore (United States)#Civil War to see why this might not mean much.--Michael White^T·C 01:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck-through text refers to another person, Franklin Bache (1792-1864).--Michael White^T·C 12:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some more refs, mainly not online. This seems to be an obit in the New England Medical Monthly, this in the Detroit Lancet. This and this say he converted to catholicism in 1849. This biography of E. R. Squibb, mentions him seeking the approbration of BFB, and this also mentions BFB in association with Squibb. John Z (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The arguments for deletion are much stronger than those for keeping (~~including~~ even excluding IAR and the incorrect reading of WP:ATHLETE). Fram (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Brownell

AfDs for this article:

Article is a biography of child who received some press coverage for pitching a perfect game in Little League Baseball. This article represents a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. In first nomination (which was closed no consensus), the closing admin described the decision as "insane." I tried merging the article with 2005 in baseball, but my edit was reverted, leading me to request deletion again. BRMo (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —BRMo (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kinstone Eagle improving the article enough to assert notability. SashaNein (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closing nom's statment on the previous AFD was completely rude and inappropriate for a closing statement, attempting to have strong influence in a future AFD, giving the argument for deletion a unfair advantage before the first vote is even cast. SashaNein (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if the article may satisfy notability, it still fails WP:BLP1E, which is policy. BRMo (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the spirit of BLP:1E is to prevent articles on people known primarily for scandals. Zagalejo^^^ 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E says, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted...a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." It is not applicable only to people known for scandals and is precisely applicable to cases such as this one. BRMo (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~Delete. You have to seriously contort WP:ATHLETE to make it even come close to supporting the notability of this individual. Someone said in the previous AfD that she should fulfill the criteria because she is playing in the highest level of amateur competition available to her at her age. Sorry, but the notability requirements for athletes do not in any way make any such exceptions for this argument. Even if you somehow get around this obvious problem, you still have to deal with the fact that she also fails WP:BLP1E. This was a one-time thing, there are no sources that suggest that she any notability that extends outside one exceptional but otherwise unnoteworthy game. Trusilver 09:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ~~Changed my position per discussion below. Trusilver 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have been considering this one over and over for days now and though I had been somewhat swayed that this meets the spirit of the notability guidelines if not the exact wording of the policy, I keep being drawn back to WP:ATHLETE and the fact that this information is just better being consolidated with the article User:BRMo originally attempted to merge it to. Trusilver 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This shows a severe limitation in 1E - when the event is not as notable as the person becomes as a result of the event. In this case, we cannot cover the event in the way the spirit of the policy means. A congratulatory meeting with the President, and the placing of her jersey into the Baseball Hall of Fame put this beyond the normal "dog bites man" concerns that the policy is meant to address. The Hall of Fame thing is the real kicker for me, as this demonstrates ongoing notability. Jim Miller (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - The article—all three sentences of it—deals with only one game and the recognition this girl received from it. It fits very nicely in 2005 in baseball, and BLP1E clearly recommends that such articles should be merged and shouldn't be stand-alone biographies. BRMo (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Except that WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply since none of the references or the article in question are about the event. I can't even find a box score of the game. If there was WP:RS coverage of the game itself that met WP:N, and included trivial mentions of this subject, then WP:BLP1E would apply. If it really applied in this case, we would have the usual recommendations to merge/rename to the event. The policy is not designed to limit notability, but to maintain perspective of which is more notable - the event or the individual involved. In this case, the individual's notability has clearly surpassed that of the event. Jim Miller (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:IAR Which is also policy LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I agree with your "keep," I agree with others that IAR is a bankrupt argument in xfd discussions. Townlake (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of people who have had "meet and greets" with the president, very few of them are truly notable. Her jersey was part of a women in baseball exhibit at the hall of fame, she herself was not elected to the hall of fame.. She has done no other noteworthy things.. Kinston's original argument is even false.. little league baseball is not actually the highest level of competition for youth athletes.. the best young players play on all-star and tournament teams which are a much higher level of play than what is generally played in little league. We really should not set a precedent of placing little league baseball players in wikipedia. Spanneraol (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced, the girl is notable for a variety of reasons flowing from the "one event," and while I don't think she passes WP:ATHLETE, there are numerous reliable independent sources that have chronicled her noteworthy, unique achievement and the follow-up to it. Seems to me the steady stream of recognition she's achieved (particularly her jersey going into the Hall of Fame) takes this out of 1E territory - the independent coverage has not been marginal or cabined in a broader overall discussion. Townlake (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well, you have just pretty much explained how she doesn't pass notability requirements. At what part of your argument do you explain how she does pass notability requirements? So far, all I have seen from the keeps are variations of WP:ILIKEIT as well as my favorite, WP:IAR (the last refuge of people trying to keep garbage articles). So far I have not yet seen a legitimate rationale for notability. Show me one and I would be inclined to reconsider my position. Trusilver 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please assume good faith here - quoting WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." We have that, don't we? The only reason to delete would be 1E, but there's a list of unique traits and aftermath to this girl's accomplishment that to me get it past the marginalness indicated by 1E. (It's comparable to the Jason McElwain story in certain respects.) Reasonable people may disagree, but the murkiness pushes toward article improvement, not deletion. Townlake (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should also be considered if she has any notability outside of this one event... And really she doesn't the event may be notable and as such it is rightly included in 2005 in baseball.. but Katie really is not a notable person in any other regard.. do we want people who know Katie adding to her bio with other details about her life? There are privacy issues involved with a bio of a young girl. Spanneraol (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 1E: I'd just respond with my thoughts from immediately above. As for the WP:NPF concern, that same concern could be applied to any other human being on wikipedia, couldn't it? That's why policies like WP:NPF exist. Townlake (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree on that point. I cordially dislike WP:NPF and consider it to be second only to WP:IAR on the list of unforgivably subjective policies. Trusilver 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, and if we start deciding xfD discussions on the basis of WP:IAR, then let's just shut down the whole process. Corvus cornix_talk 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2005 in baseball. She received enough attention to merit a mention somewhere, but an independent article on a Little Leaguer is really pushing things. We could probably fit the entire content of this page into 2005 in baseball, so no information will be lost in a merge. Zagalejo^^^ 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I already merged the article into 2005 in baseball. When my merge/redirect to the original article was reverted, I decided it had to go to AfD again as a violation of WP:BLP1E policy. BRMo (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason I gave last time: "*The standard for WP:ATHLETE for an amateur is "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Little League is the highest level available in baseball for people of her age. Her gender makes her a rarity in the sport, and her accomplishment has been achieved by only a select few. She has been honored by the Baseball Hall of Fame as the article states. ... The article is sourced with independent third party sources. This person is notable by amateur athletes standards." Kinston eagle (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The standards make no mention of "highest level available... for her age".. it's just highest level available. As I say above, this isn't even the highest level for little league.. the best little league players play on all-star and tournament teams.. the quality of play at regular little league varies greatly depending on the league and district. No records exist as to perfect games in little league.. I know one kid in my son's league threw a no-hitter last week.. i'm sure perfect games occasionaly happen. She was part of an exhibit at the hall of fame, she personally was not inducted into the hall. Her game got some minor attention but her life is not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we were to follow the logical extension of Kinston eagle's comments, then every person who has every played in Little League would be notable. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though I'm on the keep side here, CC is correct. If this article survives, it can't be under WP:ATHLETE. Townlake (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a note, since no female player has ever been inducted into the baseball hall of fame, this young lady was given the same honor as the entire All-American Girls Professional Baseball League - being added to the Women in Baseball exhibit. Where the AAGPBL was given the honor as a group, this young woman got the honor as an individual. Jim Miller (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2005 in baseball as the information is already merged. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game is an event, and the Baseball HOF is a second event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a total of three mentions over the years in publications that would be considered non-trivial. Yet I'm not notable. Why's that? because regardless of the fact that I'm mentioned doesn't mean that the mentions were for anything unusual or extraordinary. And neither is this article. She was not inducted into the hall of fame, and she has done something that kids do all the time in little league which is not all that notable either. Trusilver 06:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 year old girls pitch no hitters all the time? Perhaps then a list article with all of the 12 year old girls who have pitched no hitters would be appropriate then. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Even one of the people who support keeping the article admitted that she completely fails WP:ATHLETE. Is it neat that she accomplished this? sure, why not. Is it encyclopedic? not at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have been overy this from every angle and if we are going by policy, every applicable policy clearly states that an article should not exist for this. Trusilver 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Order I'm not sure it's an "admission of completely failing ATHLETE" as much as it is recognizing that ATHLETE's easy-keep standards don't apply. The article still passes the fundamental WP:N test, as well as this aspect of WP:BIO: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." I don't think many 12 year old girls are recognized for their achievements by the Hall of Fame to the point where they become part of a lasting exhibit. Townlake (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable argument. I have spoken to a friend of mine who coaches little league and he explained that no-hitters are far more common in little league than they are in professional baseball. (makes sense to me, I suppose) If this is fact, than the hype surrounding this article stems ONLY from the fact that she's a 12 year old girl. And if this is the case, does her age and gender in conjunction with doing something not at all extraordinary qualify her for notability? Trusilver 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'd respond to that with a couple things. First, there's a difference between a no hitter (which I agree is common in LL) and a perfect game where the pitcher strikes out every batter (as is the case here). The latter is far, far more rare, no matter who is pitching. The fact this was done by the only girl in her Little League, against a squad of all dudes, is the whole reason this was made into a big deal to begin with - the Hall of Fame saw fit to label it extraordinary, which is not something they do lightly. Townlake (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, while I'm not 100% convinced that this article fully passes notability standards themselves, I do feel that it has at least a weak grasp on the spirit of the notability standards. That said, I'm changing my position to a weak keep. Trusilver 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still just one event.. A perfect game does not mean they struck out all the batters... it just means they didn't reach base... could be a ground out a strikeout, a flyout whatever... In any matter, it may be a unique event but I still don't think it makes Katie worthy of her own article. Spanneraol (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear about it, in Katie's perfect game she DID strike out all the batters. In other words, a perfect perfect game. I'm not sure this had ever been accomplished in organized ball at any level before. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Little League website says "it does happen a few times each year". Zagalejo^^^ 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - A question for those of you who are voting for keep. I'm actually ok with the idea that Brownell's game and the subsequent recognition deserve to be covered by Wikipedia. But why does it have to be in a separate biographical article? Regardless of the technicalities of WP:BLP1E, the spirit of it seems quite straightforward—if it's possible to merge coverage of a person who is temporarily newsworthy into another article rather than having a separate biography, it is preferable to do so. I've demonstrated that the material in this article can be merged into 2005 in baseball; if another ___location is preferable, that would be fine too. But it doesn't need to be a biography. Since BLP1E advises doing a merge and redirect, what's the objection to doing that? BRMo (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With respect, your questions have been dissected in tremendous detail above. I know you mean well, but I'm not sure what we gain by resetting the discussion and starting it anew down here. Townlake (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article satisfies WP:RS, but let's think about this. Is a kid pitching a perfect game encyclopedic? The answer to that is no, sources or not. I'm invoking WP:IAR here, I don't see how this is worthy of an article. Wizardman 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure this happens quite often (and I am sure that it's going to happen over and over again in the future), and there is no reason to pick out this one incident as notable. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that something happens "quite often" and "that it's going to happen over and over again in the future" is not a valid argument. War, for example, happens "quite often" and in all probability will "happen over and over again in the future". This would not reduce the notability of World War II, for example. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, rain happens too. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a girl throwing a perfect game in Little League by striking out every single batter faced happens quite often as you claim, please provide sources for other examples, I would very much like to read about them. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh -- there's the logical rub. If it happens so often that it's non-notable, then it doesn't get reported. A bit of a conundrum. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument. The Baseball Hall of Fame seemed to find the accomplishment notable, as did the White House, as did numerous press outlets. Townlake (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I no longer think that just having two RSs makes someone notable when the accomplishment is not itself of any real importance. I'd like some evidence that this is. I'd accept it if it happened in the LL national championship./ The deciding factor for me was the cite above that it happens several times a year in the LL. DGG (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again If you can provide sources that show Cooperstown routinely recognizes girls who pitch perfect, all-strikeout games against all-boy LL teams, we're anxious to see those sources. Townlake (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that the Hall of Fame took note of this really only proves that her parents are better at getting publicity for their kid than most Little League folks. Spanneraol (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Townlake, you're failing to prove why this article is particularly notable. It happens often, if Cooperstown notices one particular one, that doesn't make it that much moe notable. Wizardman 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply The gender component of the story is the distinguishing factor that touched off the stream of recognition. That's why Cooperstown took an unusual interest in her. (As an aside: the reason I've been so interested in this AfD is that I find it fascinating the Baseball Hall of Fame deems her notable, but Wikipedia might not.) Townlake (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Is Cooperstown just trying to be "with it" and "politically correct" by choosing 1 youth (who happens to be female)? And doesn't the difficulty of the event (which is why it is logged when a professional pitcher does it) depend on the skill of the batter? 27 strike-outs by players of this age/skill level does not seem that notable. (IMNO) Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's actually only 18 strikeouts in this case. Little League is only six innings. Spanneraol (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Frankly, the arguments to keep this are terrible. What's next, junior croquet players? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as G3 (pure vandalism/hoax). Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Congress for Justice and Human Rights

As far as I can tell, this doesn't actually exist - couldn't find any references. I may be wrong though,so I brought it here. Chris (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Google hits at all outside Wikipedia. Probable hoax, but fails WP:N in any case. Gr1st (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Yes, it is a hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No sign of notability here. Black Kite 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TOSCA Testsuite

not notable; spam-like Chzz ► 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully disagree with You, Chzz. Yes, it may not be a very notable article, but is definitely not a spam, as I am using this software for testing myself and many coleagues of mine are using it as well. That was exactly the reason why I created an article about it. Vadimka (talk) {----}16:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no evidence that this is well-known or widely-used software; unable to find any significant third-party, reliable sources. --MCB (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability; no significant third-party coverage. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4 and salted. Mattinbgn\^talk 04:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hoge

AfDs for this article:

Fails notability criteria. Chris (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just like the other times. Captain panda 04:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of laojiaos in Anhui

Without further verification of facts, I'm concerned about the controversial nature of this list. I cannot verify the credibility of the source, hence this nomination. Chzz ► 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list is not particularly useful -- after having to refer to the laojiao article, all it tells me is that there are prison labor camps in certain cities in a certain province of China (all of which have the unexplained abbreviation "RTL" in their names). While the Chinese prison/labor system is notable and needs to be covered in Wikipedia, this particular type of list is not the best way to cover it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the article were perfectly sourced, just linking to the cities where these camps exist is of no use and makes this list worthless. If this were a list of articles about the camps, then I might reconsider. Corvus cornix_talk 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirfrisbean

Made up in school one day Chris (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - extremely obviously WP:MADEUP with no Google hits apart from this page and claim to notability "Kirfrisbean is played by many people in Hazlet, New Jersey"! -Hunting dog (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious and blatant violation of WP:MADEUP. Trusilver 09:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete idiotic schoolkids doing idiotic things. JuJube (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not DeleteKirfrisbean is a game and is popular in Monmouth County, NJ. I am waiting on a news article so I can properly cite and document this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFacchin (talk • contribs) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC) — MrFacchin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seyyed Mosque

Xfd rather than speedy to give the user a shout - maybe it could be improved into a reasonable article; otherwise not worth too much bother about. See tags on article for reasoning. Chzz ► 03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think we're jumping the gun on this one. In Farsi, there seems to be a lot of sources on this subject. [23] This article seems to be a rough copy from the Farsi Wikipedia one which obviously needs a better translation.--Oakshade (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable, and though confusing can be fixed. 9Nak (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i have written this artice in both fawiki and enwiki i will try to add some source to this article.--Mardetanha ^talk 15:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs cleanup and improvement, not deletion. WilliamH (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have added one source.--Mardetanha ^talk 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments; availability of sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Tiptoety. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhando Billy Endusa

Not sure this meets notability guidelines Chris (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as I originally tagged. Not notable, no sources at all, cannot verify, possible vanispamcruft. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Another editor speedy-deleted the article. Non-admin close requested. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep No consensus to delete or merge so a default Keep. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of disc

I don't believe that the topic of this article is suitable to be included in Wikipedia. The article seems to be mostly a collection of information that is of historical and lexicographical interest but not notable or encyclopedic enough for an encyclopedia. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a shortened version to the top of disc and/or disk which both point to a DAB page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough to be discussed in several on-line articles on the different etymologies and proper usages of the two variants. I have added a couple of sources to the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since WP:INTERESTING is an argument to avoid, lets go with this: the article is derived from multiple non-trivial publications. And its interesting. ;-) (jarbarf) (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the top of disc. I have added a further source and cleaned out, probably unsourceable, speculation. It will now fit at the top of disc which would clarify why that page has alternate spelling. No objection to a straight keep, either, since it now has multiple, non-trivial sources per WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Swissnym

non-notability Paxsimius (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Utterly fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and non-verifiable without 3rd party reliable sourcing Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close in favor of already-running AfD. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional congress

AfDs for this article:

This is an opinion piece clearly aimed at the US Congress. The writer is trying to make a point about how current events being taken are illegal. Regardless of the validity of that statement, this has no place in an encyclopedia. Mblumber (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, looks like this somehow got nominated twice. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constitutional_congress. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Schools of the Sacred Heart. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart School (Bethlehem)

Non-notable elementary school. Fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have searched Google, books, scholar, and news and can't find evidence of notability. Only found trivial coverage: listing in directories and so forth. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Schools of the Sacred Heart from whence it may have been spun out. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Schools of the Sacred Heart. TerriersFan (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Schools of the Sacred Heart or Bethlehem,_Pennsylvania#Primary_and_secondary_education. Little reliable source coverage to show notability, and certainly not enough to build a viable verifiable encyclopaedia article. EJF (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Is it quite divided in regards to arguments related to the notability issue. So as a result, it is a No consensus --JForget 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Lance de Masi

Only one line in article now. Maybe we should delete until someone wants to contribute something substantial. Mblumber (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertation of notability beyond being the president of a university in Dubai, which, IMHO, is not enough to justify one line. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OK, when I approached this, I thought that surely a university president would have interviews, profiles, or other sources listed somewhere. However, beyond his recent election to the presidency of a chapter of the International Advertising Association (which I added and cited), I cannot find a single other source on him. I would certainly welcome the recreation of this article with more sources, but for now, there doesn't seem to be much out there. TN‑X-Man 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of a university is notable. It just needs expansion to show it. it was not very clever to write an article with so little information, but that's another matter entirely. What there is shows notability. DGG (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no inherent notability for university presidents; please show "multiple independent reliable sources" first. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per inherent real world notability of university presidents, coverage in multiple reliable sources, and also per Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance as the article was about an hour old when nominated and has already improved since then. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell us why you think they're notable? Adding the words "real world" doesn't magically make a subject notable. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've looked at the google search linked to by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, and I'm not convinced that he passes the WP:N bar of extensive coverage in reliable sources independednt of the subject. I may yet be convinced that he's notable, for example this bio blurb makes parenthetical mention of awards he has won... Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep University presidents are notable. --Blechnic (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand that university presidents are usually notable. But using Google (with the usual caveats that come with that statement), I could not find anything that really fits as a reliable source. Please note, I did use (-IAA) to filter out results relating to the reference already noted. There are some articles that quote him, sure, but nothing approaching significant coverage. TN‑X-Man 02:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A president of a university is notable for that reason alone, if nothing else. Having been nominated shortly after creation, it's just too early to start wondering where the quality sources are. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not that I'm wondering where they are, it's that I can't find them! However, I'd be happy to withdraw/ change my opinion if some were added to the article. I did a search and added what I could to the article. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:JNN - "The mirror of 'Just not notable' is the assertion that something is notable, but fails to provide an explanation or source for the claim of notability". Again, what makes college presidents so special that notability is presumed for them? Why should we override the requirement that "multiple independent reliable sources" deal with them? Biruitorul ^Talk 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to suggest notability is to be presumed; rather, it was a comment that was meant to suggest that since he is a university president (which I think is indisputable judging by a simple google search), he's likely notable, ergo — sources probably exist and just need to be located. If editors could give more than a few hours between article creation and nomination for deletion, the sources might be provided by other users. Some users have access to and use libraries, where information not on the internet can be found. In other words, not being able to find anything on the internet is not necessarily determinative, and when the person is a university president it's my feeling that sources are almost surely available. They might even be in Dubai, which might require an editor in Dubai to do the editing. (All of these are revolutionary and scary ideas for anyone who believes that google has access to all the secrets of the universe, I know, but they could prove to be useful.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Notwithstanding his status as a University President, I can't see him passing WP:N or WP:BIO. I see no reliable evidence that his intellectual product has had a notable impact in his academic area (which is the essence of WP:PROF), and therefore suggest that his notability be judged on WP:BIO, which he fails. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he's not being judged as a professor, but as a university president. This seems a real sticking point for folks looking to delete articles on Wikipedia, find a niche: shoe horn the article into it whether it fits or not, then spit out the associated alphabet soup. Whatever. I'm going to start spewing random policies myself. --Blechnic (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think that Pete.Hurd is naming random policies. WP:N outlines the general notability guidelines for all articles. WP:BIO is a little more specific, as it deals with biographies. We cannot apply a very specific WP:UNIVERSITYPRESIDENT (as it does not exist), however, there is WP:PROF, which is usually brought up in debates about the world of academia. I think what Pete.Hurd is trying to say is that WP:BIO is the most specific guideline we can apply here, since Dr. de Masi is not a professor and WP:PROF would not apply. I hope that clarifies a little bit where Pete.Hurd (and I) are coming from. Please remember that we're here to build consensus. Pete.Hurd, please feel free to let me know if I misinterpreted anything you said. TN‑X-Man 01:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tnxman307 does a good job of explaining for me. It is fair to say that there is a general precedent on list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions that University Presidents (of suitably august institutions) are notable, the merits of this have recently been debated in the middleish of this thread here. The idea that University Presidents are notable is closely associated with WP:PROF which is a more lenient and inclusive guideline than WP:BIO. I'm not actually arguing that de Masi is not a professor, and therefore not covered by WP:PROF - rather I think that 1) he's an academic and therefore covered by WP:PROF, and 2) as I read WP:PROF, it doesn't say that administrative positions confer notability, only academic impact does, and therefore I see no passing of WP:PROF. I see no evidence that he meets the more stringent requirements of the more general WP:BIO, and no escape clause saying that important people in big important organizations are notable even if they fail the general condition: "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." If I've overlooked a policy that clearly states "all University Presidents are notable", then I'll gladly change my !vote. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as long as those proposing deletion have to dismantle accuracy in order to pressure for deletion (I swear there's a merit badge for AfD behind this), I'm not going to buy the crap that gets tossed this way. University president is not usually lumped in on the university's home page with "administrative positions," like vice president of financial aid. You had to reduce the position to one of the multitudes in order to support your arguments. Yawn. Alphabet soup response. Yada yada yada. --Blechnic (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blechnic, there is no need for you to be rude and incivil here. I do not necessarily support the arguments of Pete Hurd and Tnxman307 but they did present rationally reasoned and policy based arguments (which are also polite, unlike yours). Their point is that neither of WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:PROF states that university presidents are automatically notable and that the other criteria of these guidelines are not satisfied by the subject of this AfD either. If you want to argue that "all University Presidents are notable", fine, but you do have to point out to a specific notability guideline here and argue that either explicit language or the implicit meaning of this guideline support your assertion. Nsk92 (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, it was nominated for deletion because there was only one line in the article, not because it was not notable. Why do I have to provide anything, when the AfD gave no reason whatsoever? There are thousands of one line articles on Wikipedia, what would happen if I nominated them all quoting precisely this nomination here? I'd get blocked. Yawn. So much for politeness forcing a discussion on a made up reason that isn't policy and demanding policy from me? --Blechnic (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator may not have given sounds policy-based reasons for a delete, but the other AfD participants have. If you want the article kept, you need to present convincing policy-based counter-arguments. Nsk92 (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I misunderstood, anything can be nominated for deletion for any reason, and then will be deleted unless someone counters to keep it? Yawn. Sorry, no, it hasn't been nominated for deletion, even the nominator doesn't know anything about it. Alphabet soup contains something about AfDs. This isn't one. --Blechnic (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"anything can be nominated for deletion for any reason, and then will be deleted unless someone counters to keep it?" Not at all, and that is not what I said. If neigher the nominator nor the other AfD participants offer good reasons for deleting the article, it should be kept (and if for some reason it gets deleted, such a deletion should and would be reversed at WP:DRV). However, if the nominator gives a bad reason for deletion but other AfD participants give good and convincing reasons for deletion, the article may be deleted and such deletion would be proper if the AfD demonstrates appropriate consensus. This is how the AfD process works. Nsk92 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, this is how it works, just like it says in the policy, of course the policy also discusses junk like whether or not ghits are a reason for deletion and that seems to be the sole basis of every nomination on AfD: if you're talking about something that has a web presence it can stay in Wikipedia, but if some lucky merit badge seeker finds an obscure topic not all over the internet (ie, not associated with pop culture), they can just claim ghits and down it goes. Sorry, policy is just a tool for hitting newbies over the head. I've been hit enough. Bounce it off of someone else's head, or get me banned so you can grab your AfD merit badge for keeping Wikipedia clean for pop culture. --Blechnic (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blechnic, as someone who is in the position of agreeing with your bottom line vote of keep in this instance, I feel l need say you have been sounding somewhat uncivil in your comments. At first I thought your comments were given in good humour, which I always enjoy, but as they've continued I think it's clear that's not exactly how they are being given. It's not really productive to denigrate other editors who may enjoy working in AfD as "merit badge seekers" or to make a lot of "yawn" responses to other editors' comments. If you aren't really that taken by what they are saying and feel you have "heard it all before", just ignore it and move on to something else. There's no reason to put others down or cause bad feelings to develop here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sufficiently thick-skinned to be OK with the "yawn" responses, but I thought that his comment "I'm not going to buy the crap that gets tossed this way" in reply to Pete Hurd was definitely incivil. Nsk92 (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat uncivil? I use the same tone and attitudes towards others that has been the established and appropriate tone for users and admins to use against me. I would call it quite a bit beyond "somewhat" incivil. --Blechnic (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand it correctly that you are upset by the "somewhat uncivil" characterization of your comments because you aimed to be "quite a bit beyond "somewhat" incivil"? Nsk92 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have made the statement more extreme. I could have just said don't be a dick, even if you think others act that way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability verified by reliable sources. Does not pass WP:PROF. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summary comments This is a rather odd one. His university is an important one, with full internationally recognized accreditation through the graduate level, with 400 graduates a year, now in its 13th year--there are quite a number of articles about it; he is mentioned in many of them, handing out the various prizes and diplomas and making the ceremonial speeches (the proper search terms are AUD Masi -- the university is usually known by the acronym). Always before, in such a situation, it has been possible to find some actual references & information about the individual--if nothing else, there's an elaborate press release on the university site. There's almost no information to be found here-- he holds the very modest academic rank of assistant Professor of Marketing Communications--and his only degree listed is an honorary one from a rather dubious place, Schiller International University. For a professor of advertising, he is really remarkably modest. there may well be an interesting story here & I have a guess, but I cannot find anything specific--I searched a few likely places not scanned by Google. I added what I could, and I still consider him notable from his position. But if deleted, redirect to the university. DGG (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he is the president of an important university and of the UAE chapter, which according to [24] is the largest chapter in that organization. There's this short bio [25], and [26] p.8 and 161 give his MBA & MA degree (Indiana University) , as well as his BA from St. John Fisher College. But he should be kept because it is clear he is an International Man of Mystery and thus highly notable.John Z (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, googling on him and BBDO gets [27] with his age in 1997; he was Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from June 1991 to March 1997 of BBDO Worldwide.John Z (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korde

Delete nothing to indicate that this surname, among millions, is notable; WP:NOT an Indian surname directory Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite my comments at earlier AfDs on name articles I don't believe these type of things really need to stay. Perhaps if they had one reliable 3rd party source in the articles I'd change my mind again. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Naqvi

Not notable journalist DimaG (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – I believe that Mr. Naqvi has generated just enough 3rd party news coverage to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, as shown here [28]. However, I am going back to the article to eliminate POV material. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a newspaper columnist, he does not generate news, it appears that he only reports about it. He does not appear to be the anchor for the 7 o'clock news (thus a household name). Reporting newsworthy items as a columnist certainly does not automatically confer notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another non-notable working stiff of the press. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC) just another non-notable working stiff of the press[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Styble

Notability is not shown DimaG (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable radio talk show host. Only source given is a non-notable encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in the Chicago Sun-Times, Albuquerque Journal, Seattle Times and Sacramento Bee (see [29]) speak strongly to notability as do the 1670 Google hits. Plus his widely-recognized work as editor for four years of Zimmerman Blues (as "Brian Stibal") and columnist (as "Bryan Styble") add to that notability. Article needs reworking but it's more than salvageable. - Dravecky (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After checking a bit beyond counting Ghits, I see that none of the links here appear to me more than press announcements of a new appointment and of new radio programs hosted by the subject. There is a complete lack of sources or biographical material to indicate how this person is in fact someone who passes WP:BIO. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, poorly sources.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bandazian

Notabilty claimed by winning competition set by local recording studio. Speedy and maintentence tags removed by article's creator Richhoncho (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only the slightest shred saves it from A7 (the sources at the bottom; not quite substantial enough). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:BAND by a mile; besides, creators can't remove speedy deletion tags -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete WP is not myspace for a band which appears to fail every single criteria in WP:MUSIC. Even the coverage in the Asheley Citizen-Times (who they?) fails to bring up any important elements which support the band's assertion of notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clergyman-naturalist

Unreferenced, hasn't been touched in almost 2 years, and lacks notability. Also possibly covered by other articles, rendering this one redundant. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search for clergyman-naturalist -wikipedia returned less that 400 results, few actually relevant to this definition; definately not notable -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect that this may in fact be a neologism , original research, or just a combined dictionary definition. This combination of terms is not widely accepted and fails WP:A Ohconfucius (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this falls under WP:IINFO as a loosely connected topic. Naturalists came from many walks of life with the same necessary attributes as the clergy. (Some money, and more time, basically.) --Dhartung | Talk 03:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is conspicuously absent here. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all I believe that this is a WP:NEOlogism. Next, it is most likely WP:OR/a WP:VANITY page made about someone who was a clergyman-naturalist. And lastly it's not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wondered about the origin. Creator Duncharris (talk · contribs) disappeared later that year after increasing frustration judging by tetchy edit summaries. But prior to that the editor was an apparently valuable contributor to botany and naturalist articles. It doesn't appear to have been created to support a particular article judging by nearby edits. Well, Duncharris isn't here to ask. --Dhartung | Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. WP:FRINGE, already covered in similar articles. Black Kite 23:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whole-Earth decompression dynamics

Non-notable fringe speculations with no 3rd party refs Vsmith (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There do seem to be several third-party references on Google, though the article should include them. It definitely has some NPOV problems but that's never been a reason to delete in and of itself. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Some "references on Google" is not enough. At least I've created a link in Expanding Earth theory#External links.--D.H (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly retain a mention in Expanding Earth theory. It looks like a one-man show with no peer-reviewed publications or coverage in the popular press. The content is lifted directly from http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec102005/1937.pdf. The article was created last week by a single author. --Art Carlson (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: There should perhaps be a mention in J. Marvin Herndon as well as in Expanding Earth theory. The entry should redirect to one of these sites. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is referenced and featured several times in science related press. Peer-reviewed publications are not a requirement, rather notability. Should be expanded, improved and criticized, rather than deleted. MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that. Where has it been featured in the press? --Art Carlson (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable that we can sometimes overlook things.

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 89, NO. 11, 10 DECEMBER 2005 Feature article written by author of theory and published by notable science magazine.
Neutrino Geophysics: Proceedings of Neutrino Sciences 2005 Featured paper by R. D. Schuiling, Inst. Geosciences, The Netherlands, Abstract.
Best of Science (blog) Is Science About To Change As We Know It? Referenced (along with Growing Earth Theory)
Expanding Earth Theory and Noah Referenced by David Freed At Pondering Confusion web site.
National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources Referenced under GEOLOGY. METEOROLOGY. HYDROLOGY # 015584.
Cornell University Library Teaching Earth Dynamics: What's Wrong with Plate Tectonics Theory? Referenced in Physics Education.

MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same case as with Growing Earth Hypothesis - Deletion or Merging. But it's absurd to create an article on it's own - it gives undue weight to that theory. --D.H (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be considered undue weight by peer-reviewed science research standards. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research publication... "and as such Wikipedia does not usurp the usual validation processes of scientific institutions such as peer review, scientific consensus, and academic recognition. Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Wikipedia editors. Inclusion or exclusion is therefore not a judgement on the validity, importance or accuracy of a scientific contribution, but simply a reflection of the quality and quantity of responses it received inside and outside the scientific community."

The same users {all with science affiliations}, proposing this deletion or merge, who have also just implemented a unilateral merge of Growing Earth Theory (which had already gained a deletion-debate:Keep consensus decision as worthy of an independent page), in mid merge debate, and removed nearly 80% of its content, leaving only a short dismissive reference to it in Expanding Earth theory, appear to be attempting to impose science research publication standards on encyclopedic content, by acting to remove notable but dissident science related articles. This portends of a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV guidelines.

There is nothing absurd about keeping these articles which have gained established notability, because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; "there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page."

MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read exactly the Wikipedia-Guideline: Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Wikipedia editors. Inclusion or exclusion is therefore not a judgement on the validity, importance or accuracy of a scientific contribution, but simply a reflection of the quality and quantity of responses it received inside and outside the scientific community.

I think "quality" refers to "inside the scientific community" and "quantity" refers to "outside the scientific community". Now, looking at your links above: Links 1 and 6 are written by the author himself. Link 3 and 4 are normal Webpages, mostly referring to variants of Expanding Earth theory. And Link 5 only mentions the title of the work. The only link which looks like a reputable source is Link 2 - I think that's not enough. --D.H (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the intention is clearly that both "Quality" AND "Quantity" refer to both "inside and outside the scientific community" because a scientific standard alone is not the criteria for inclusion, rather notability. Thus there can be no intention of imposing only a scientific standard on quality, but rather a more broad encyclopedic informational standard, as the guideline states in its opening. In this context, the 5 references cited above make the case for notability because the reputability of the sources must also be considered in broader terms and not only as reputable by science standards. MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelNetzer in response to his list of references up the page a bit: Oh, so that's what you mean by the "science related press". Now I understand why I overlooked it. I thought you were referring to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as relevant for notability in Wikipedia.

Written by the originator of the theory => not independent (Of course, such a reference can and should be used in an article, but it cannot establish notability.)
Not peer-reviewed, but might count as independent and reliable. Upon closer examination, this paper[30] does not refer to "Whole-Earth decompression dynamics" either explicitly or implicitly. It seems to be dealing (on the whole unfavorably) with an independent hypothesis by Herndon. => not relevant
Blogs (especially by anonymous authors) are notoriously unreliable.
An individual essay without "editorial integrity" ("We all have something to say and here is a forum to say it!") => not a reliable source
A long and unannotated list of abstracts which mentions the Current Science paper => nothing new here
Written by the originator of the theory and published on a pre-print server (no editorial review of content) => neither independent nor reliable

Strike out. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelNetzer concerning Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: Nobody is suggesting that we should not have an article on this topic because there is no room for it, or because it would eat up resources that could be better spent elsewhere. The issue is whether the secondary sources exist that we absolutely require in order to write an encyclopedic article without doing original research. They just don't. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Art Carlson: You made a faulty assumption. I meant exactly what I said, that the content "is referenced and featured several times in science related press", which it is. Whether this qualifies for notability by Wikipedia standards, should be seen more favorably than in your entirely dismissive assessment.

Current Science is a notable science publication. Their featuring the article implies an editorial assessment. So though written by the originator, the publication effectively assesses the subject and author by editorial scrutiny of inclusion, and bestows repute on both as worthy of the publication's notability.
The paper is relevant in that it demonstrates professional review of the subject. The entire paper focuses on the a core issue of the subject of our article. Again, one wonders at this attitude of outright and demeaning dismissal, when the article's subject is evidenced to be in the process of gaining professional and popular notability.
The author of the blog is credited and not anonymous. He publishes quality dissertations on science issues. His reference to the subject is not a matter of a reliable professional or academic opinion, but is reliable in the sense of adding a measure of notability to our subject by its mention.
The individual essay is a third party reference of the subject. It is not original research and in itself represents "editorial integrity". Frankly, one must wonder what motivates such utter disregard for these sources as displayed here.
The list demonstrates that the subject is referenced by a reputable professional institute.
Again, the reference... and description of it, is not original research and represents a reputable university's acknowledgment that the subject is worthy of inclusion in its academic references.

But even assuming that the degree of notability is put to question, Wikipedia's broader guidlines do not deem this to automatically justify deletion as a first measure and action. Just the opposite, acutally.

Articles not satisfying notability guidelines: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."

Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics is a relatively recent hypothesis coming from academic origins and clearly attaining some measure of visible notability. It entirely qualifies for the broader considerations of inclusion in Wikipedia.

What we are witnessing here is an ongoing dispute within Wikipedia wherein science affiliated editors pounce at every opportunity to remove content based on science research standards and not on informational encyclopedic qualifications. Growing Earth Theory, for example, had ample established notability and already earned a place in Wikipedia. Yet this same group of editors, which now seeks to remove another article contrary to peer-reviewed standards, as a first measure and action, against the broader Wikipedia guidelines, effectively disregard an entire set of encyclopedic considerations, and attempt to limit popular and notable content by removing it, suspiciously due to a science standard bias, as seen in how they've removed Growing Earth Theory, by their unilateral merging of it into a dismissing short representation in Expanding Earth theory.

The proposition to delete this article came before any in-depth review of its notability was undertaken. The demeaning and dismissing attitude demonstrated by this group of science related article-delete supporters, violates good faith and other broader considerations intended to enhance Wikipedia, and not relegate its content into any one group's subjective preferences.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Fringe theories In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

I don't see the article as qualifying based on the references provided in the article or the links discussed above. Vsmith (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless reliable third party sources can be provided per WP:FRINGE. Blueboar (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe Merge into Expanding Earth theory Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either into expanding Earth Theory or possibly Herndon. But by this I mean merge, not extinguish. The article should have substantial amount of coverage for each of the variations--at least a full paragraph. The present article there does seem to include too much and without giving sufficient detail--to that extent, the complains of the defender of this article have some justification. DGG (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to J. Marvin Herndon. --dab (𒁳) 05:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to J. Marvin Herndon. The theory is notable to him, but I do not see that it is so in general. The present references might support inclusion in a new Modern alternatives section to Expanding Earth theory. Better would be to devote that article solely to the now-discredited scientific theory and put this and Growing Earth at Modern alternatives to plate tectonics or somesuch. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK to mention theories like this in passing somewhere and to provide an external link to them, but the lack of secondary sources makes it impossible to write encyclopedic content about them, regardless of whether in a devoted article, as a subsection in another article (about the originator or about the scientific version of the topic), or in an article collecting individually unnotable topics. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough of a source to say that he propounded the theory. If that primary source is the closest we can find to a reliable source, then just mentioning this on the biography page is as far as the idea should be covered. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for walled gardens. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fathom the terminology "fringe" of Science and "unsupported speculation" to describe, negatively, this entry! I have read his 2008 book, MAVRICK'S EARTH AND UNIVERSE, and found it useful. It is not likely the EVERY theory starts out as a mere nugget of truth and then gets elaborated as time passes. ME & U offers lots of factual underpinnings while, it seems to me, that vociferous naysayers say only stick with the ACCEPTED theory. By the way naysayers, there are many fully developed theories about the whole Earth's geophysical behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.211.102 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the above anonymous contributor is not familiar with Wikipedia inclusion guidelines, that the proposed deletion is not pursuant to a scientific consensus standard on the theory (though this may play a latent role as an instigator of the proposal), but rather that a consensus on its degree of notability is being put to question.

About the article's notability: It has already been said by several editors that some degree of notability for the article is indeed present, though this may not be enough, by some editors' standards, to justify inclusion. However, as in any good opening statement, the one in WP:Notability sets the broader standard for the guideline, while the more detailed sub-guidelines {as cited here in discussion}, each refer to elements within the broader standard. Yet the manner in which these sub-guidelines are being cited here, appears to ignore the broader standard itself. Thus, it may not be enough to cite any one of the sub-guidelines in order to determine the fate of an article, if by doing so, the broader inclusion standard is being compromised by any sub-guidelines. For a refresher, here is the WP:NOTABILITY opening statement:

"Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." {emphasis mine}

I submit that:

Based on the references cited above, the article does indeed meet the guideline for being "worthy of notice", and that it also meets an accepted subject-specific standard of academic content, as required in the table cited to the right of the opening statement.
Because Google references alone cannot be an ultimate standard for notability, and because the already cited references indicate a reasonable probability that more references may exist outside of the realm of Google, such as in academic sources, print papers and publications, or popular media coverage not yet uploaded to a website which Google can detect (which the search for has not been seriously undertaken and definitely not exhausted), that this satisfies the guidleline (already cited above but deems being repeated here) for Articles not satisfying notability guidelines: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." {emphasis mine}
Being evident that the article's writer may either 1} not be familiar with WP:Verifiability guidelines; or, 2} chose not to entirely comply with this encyclopedic standard; this alone does not justify deletion of the article: "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." {emphasis mine}

About merging with Expanding Earth Theory: The broader recognition of Expanding Earth Theory, which the Wikipedia article covers extensivley, is that of Prof. Geologist Sam Cary's theory, considered to be discredited by scientific consensus. It does not seem proper or possible to compromise this recognition by including within it the necessary details of other theories which are Modern alternatives to plate tectonics, within the EET page itself, as suggested above. It does seem proper, however to utilize such a section in EET for a brief description of such notable alternative theories. However, these should link to an independent page for each theory that meets the standards of inclusion as notable topics (such as Growing Earth Theory and this article). This would allow for the inclusion of details of such theories, needed for informational encyclopedic standards... without compromising the integrity of Expanding Earth Theory, as it has come to be recognized, known and credited.

Based on all these, this article should be kept, not merged. It should also be improved by expanding on necessary details, referencing more sources and cleaning up for neutral point of view tone.

-- MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:ACADEMIC only refers to the "professor test". It is not relevant here. The quality of your other sources has been sufficiently discussed above.

You are mistaken. WP:Academics refers to a list of criteria relative to Academics, which include: "An important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources." and "...collective body of work is significant and well-known". All these contribute to the article (coming from an established notable academic) being worthy of notice. (see new reliable sources for notability below) -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are being sloppy here instead of deliberately misleading. What Wikipedia:Notability (academics) actually says is this:

"This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics ..." (An academic is a person.)
"If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, ..."

"4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known."

"5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources."

This policy refers to people, whose ideas and theories may contribute to their notability. Whether any given idea or theory is itself notable is regulated by other policies. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither sloppy nor misleading. Simply establishing that a concept/theory/idea gain academic notability by their own merit, though additionally accompanied by the notability of an academic person whom you refer to. Even the term and topic Academic redirects to the page Academia, which is "...a collective term for the scientific and cultural community engaged in higher education and research." Thus the term academic denotes more than just a person, such as Academic acceleration, Academic art and Academic conference. There exists nothing in the guidelines to entirely limit the use of the word to persons (though this appears to be the more common use}. On the contrary, the inclusion of academic concepts and theories (which must naturally originate from academic persons) indicates that an Academic theory becomes worthy of notice by its own right, even though its author has also achieved academic notability. The opening tag on WP:Notability guidelines states about the page: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". I believe this is the special circumstance we have before us on this topic. -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 and 3. I've googled it. You've googled it. The other references (which no doubt exist) obviously cannot be "readily" found. And if they're that hard to find, the "probability" that they will be strong enough able to establish notability is small. (It sounds like you are arguing that we should never delete any article on the grounds of non-notability because we might find some good sources somewhere.)

You make another misleading and faulty assumption. I would not support keeping an article that did not show reliable notability for its core idea, or a high probability of achieving it, as this article does. However a wider search of the core mechanism for Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics has yielded new reliable sources indicating widespread notability not yet referenced in the author's biography, nor in this one. (again, see new sources below) -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the best arguments for keeping the article, ... --Art Carlson (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are suspiciously (and sarcastically) dismissing a wide range or encyclopedic considerations put forth in the guidelines, and that this may instead act as a boomerang, reflecting upon your personal POV rather than an objective assessment of the particular circumstances of this topic. Still, the best arguments are perhaps yet to be seen. (below). -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability, although perhaps this idea warrants mentioning in Expanding Earth theory.Adrock828 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - New sources for reliable third-party review of the core mechanism for WEDD: As seen in his biography, the author's collective body of work centers around a new concept/theory/idea which has gained much widespread and reliable notability. "He is most noted for deducing the composition of the inner core of Earth as being nickel silicide, not partially crystallized nickel-iron metal. More recently, he has suggested planetocentric nuclear fission reactors as energy sources for the gas giant outer planets and stellar ignition by nuclear fission." Amongst his body of work is the subject of this article which relies on the core mechanism put forth in his collective works. Thus, this article's subject must be seen as part and parcel of the collective body of work, which has received widespread reliable third-party review, as seen in the newfound sources below:

DISCOVER MAGAZINE: "Nuclear Planet" {August 1st, 2002}.
COAST TO COAST AM Radio: Featured guest discussing "Earth, Geophysics & the Solar System" (March 16th, 2006}.
THE WASHINGTON POST: "Is Earth's Core a Nuclear Fission Reactor?" feature by Guy Gugliotta (March 24th, 2003}.
NATURE NEWS: Are there nuclear reactors at Earth's core? (May 15th, 2008)
The Internet ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE: Richard Brook Cathcart "On Initial Aggregation/Ignition of J. M. Herndon’s Earth Georeactor"
SPACE DAILY: "The Nuclear Heart of the Earth" Wayne Smith interview and opinion (March 1st, 2003}.
SCIENCE CENTRAL NEWS: Ann Marie Cunningham's review: "The Core" {March 8th, 2003).
EARTH CHANGE MEDIA Radio: Mitch Battros interviews author on "Radical Theory about Earth's Core" {Tuesday, March 4th, 2008}.
EXPLORER: " Is There Science in This Fiction?" David Brown reviews author's theories' influence on "The Core" film {May, 2008}.

In addition to these, a Google search on the author yields much more coverage in third party blog pundits and references in science related collections of research projects. These all support the case for widespread notability of the author's core concepts, which he has become very well known for.

I am not under the illusion, however, that all these will not be contested as they do not refer to the article's subject directly. But I do make the case for the necessity of these core ideas being intrinsically bound to the subject of this article, and thus establishing a thread of reliable third-party regard to the concept of Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics. If nothing else, these new sources shut the door on the dismissing nature of whether WEDD is worthy of notice. They likewise prove a very high probability that WEDD is included within the widespread regard of the author's body of work... all focusing on the core mechanism for Whole-Earth decompression dynamics. -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: Yes, but there already exists an Wikipedia article on Herndon's Georeactor. All your links refer to that theory, but not to "Whole-Earth decompression dynamics". So your argumentation is wrong. --D.H (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argumentation is not as you allude to, DH, but rather that the notability of Georeactor also lends notability to Whole-Earth decompression dynamics, because Georeactor is the mechanism which drives WEDD. The two concepts are in reality both parts of a more expansive theory of Earth dynamics which the author puts forth. -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelNetzer has undertaken a well-motivated search for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in oder to establish the notability of this topic. I note that he has failed, by his own assessment. to turn up any additional sources that "refer to the article's subject directly". --Art Carlson (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another mistake, I'm afraid. I undertook a search for establishing that this topic's notability should be viewed within the broadest considerations of Wikpedia guidelines, and not merely by how much coverage it has received directly. "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." (emphasis mine}

I do not believe that I failed at establishing the above, though Hendron's nuclear Earth core may freeze over before the formidable stack of fellows whom you've proven to be, would admit it. With this, I rest my case. Thank you and good cheer. -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the georeactor idea is a wholly independent idea from WEDD, with the only common thread being the author. The WEDD driving mechanism is that that Earth was once compressed by gas and is rebounding to a larger radius after the gas was blown off; the georeactor is not involved at all with that concept. Therefore MichaelNetzer's new links do not establish any notability for WEDD. -- Adrock828 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A final clarification in light of this statement. Earth's early compressed gas core composition, according to Hendron, is exactly the source which later developed into the Georeactor he bases his entire set of theories on. They are both at the Earth's (and other planets) core, and are thus intrinsically linked together. -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was opened a full week ago. The most vocal contributor, MichaelNetzer, has now rested his case. I also have nothing more to say. Would an admin please come in now, rule on the consensus, and take the corresponding action? It would be nice to have this off the table. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A personal note by J. Marvin Herndon

I very much appreciate the effort evidenced by the discussion above and wish to add a few comments. WEDD is wholly separate and distinct from expanding Earth theory, just as it is distinct from plate tectonics theory; it is in fact the unification of the two. Much of the science of the Earth began with the mistaken belief that the Earth as a whole is like an ordinary chondrite meteorite. In the 1970s I began to discover that Earth is instead like an enstatite chondrite meteorite. Since then, I have begun to understand the nature of the Earth, its formation, its dynamics, energy sources, and magnetic field from the perspective of Earth being in the main like an enstatite chondrite meteorite. WEDD is just one part of the picture. I have put all this together in my recently published book "Maverick's Earth and Universe". It will certainly take time for the science community to grasp the full import; funding and careers are at stake. Moreover, many in academia try to bury new ideas, instead of discussing and debating them. All too often young people are being taught science "facts" which might not be facts at all. On the discussion page of WEDD, a teacher made perhaps the best arguments for the page remaining: "Allow the students the chance to be given the choice to make progressive and influential decisions, so that they may make contributions to think and reason and analyze for themselves new scientific concepts." Again, thank each of you for your efforts on behalf of WEDD,Marvin Herndon (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We certainly are interested in your perspective on the articles about you and your ideas. Although your comments were mostly aimed in a different direction, you indirectly confirm my impression from the rest of the discussion. WEDD is a "new idea" that the science community has up till now tended to ignore ("bury") rather than "discussing and debating" it. This confirms that there is a paucity of the "reliable, published secondary sources" on which Wikipedia articles should rely. (See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.) (This is at least true of the scientific sources which are always relevant to a scientific idea. It is possible in some cases - apparently not for WEDD - that popular sources by themselves could make a scientific idea notable, even in the absense of scientific sources.) I also want to help young people learn to "think and reason and analyze for themselves new scientific concepts", and I think Wikipedia is an excellent vehicle toward this end, but only where sufficient sources exist to put a topic into context from a neutral point of view. The day may come that "the science community grasps the full import" of WEDD, but Wikipedia is not the place to either speculate about that day (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) or to try to hasten it (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox). --Art Carlson (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fringery; already sufficiently covered in the Herndon article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G12, copyright violation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece terms

AfDs for this article:

Fancruft and trivia; mostly unsourced, mostly not notable Doceirias (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Doceirias (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is a copyright violation, and has been so tagged Ohconfucius (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOR. Asserts no notability to meet WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, "The Grand Bolivian Hamster" I think I can say this is more than probably a hoax. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Havez

This is most probably a hoax. Captain panda 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Clearly a hoax. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the three rings

This is definitely a hoax. Captain panda 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Dethalbum. A clear consensus. In addition, there were no reliable, secondary sources either in the article, or produced during the AfD, to support notability. There was no sourced content to merge. TerriersFan (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go into the Water

Article lacks proper sources and does not seem to assess any notability. See WP:A, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:WAF. ShadowJester07 ►Talk 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SONG. redirect to The Dethalbum Ohconfucius (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album, and merge any WP:reliably sourced content. -- saberwyn 03:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Shilghati. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hwlwighati

Here I am putting a town up for afd, I fully realize the presumed notability of populated locations. I also realize that Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline and that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy that starts with The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. That having been said, I found this article while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and did not find anything resembling a reliable reference.Ghit web Ghit books Most of what I found seems to circle back around to the Wikipedia article. The best resource I found was Tripura Written by suchetan kr mukherjee Sunday, 01 July 2007 at googling.in which is basically a rewrite of Tripura that even links back to assorted Wikipedia articles. The official tourist site http://tripura.nic.in/ttourism1.htm does not mention Hwlwighati as far as I can tell. I only have one request, if you want to vote keep, find and post a single reliable reference to the article and I will vote keep as well. Jeepday (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless the existence of the place can be verified and sources can be provided to correct the nonsensical statements in the article as it stands. The lead says that it is in the state of Tripura and is near Udaipur, yet those places are more than 1,000 miles apart. It also says that the place is situated on the banks of the Gomati, which is nowhere near either Tripura or Udaipur. Something's fishy, and without references this cannot stand, per WP:V. Deor (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Udaipur in Rajasthan is not to be confused with Udaipur in Tripura. Google search will help explain that. Same goes for Gomati too. You can see it here.Shovon (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shovon. The article itself links to the wrong Udaipur and the wrong Gomati, then. With your hints, I was able to find a map showing a place named "Silghati" in the correct area, and Google searches for the spelling "Shilghati" do turn up hits that at least establish the existence of the place (assuming that this is the place the article refers to). I'm changing my opinion to weak keep and recommending that the article be moved to Shilghati, since that seems to be the name used in the preponderance of the English references. I would like to see some references for the information in the article, though, as I'm not finding sources for nearly any of it. Deor (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Deor has pointed out, the article, in all probability refers to Silghati. There is definitely no place called Hwlwighati in Tripura. Shovon (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As you stated, inherent notability of populated places is trumped by WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced as possible hoax Ohconfucius (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. In addition, the consonant cluster hwlw seems markedly improbable, and unlikely to be produced by any sensible transcription practice for any of the several Brahmi script derived alphabets. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Shilghati and keep. The name Hwlwighati is of mysterious origin, and likely can be eliminated, but the ___location itself falls within the per se notability rule for towns. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Old hoax. Delete. Google turns up nothing useful but stuff on answers.com that were derived from here on Wikipedia. Google Maps suggests searching for Halwati. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Going to weak keep per the research above, in favor of a move to what seems to be the canonical spelling. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~~~. The place, at least going by its present spelling, does not seem to exist at all. Please refer to this.~~ Changing my opinion to Keep after seeing the map pointed by Deor. But, the article's name should be changed to "Silghati" Shovon (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Shilghati per above. That's the spelling on the government web site.[31] Shilighati and Silghati appear to be plausible variants. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Shilghati and keep, the alternate name and ___location has been verified. Jeepday (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the long standing consensus about inhabited places. Rational or not, a single afd is not the place to upset something as stable as this--especially because I think there would not be consensus for changing the standard for these. DGG (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Harvey

Other then being a mayoral candidate once and a provincial politician candidate twice in Charlevoix and also being a former provincial public servant, I have not seen anything that suggests that he passes WP:BIO. This article also does not indicate that he is well-known outside of the Charlevoix region. The article mostly indicates that he was a candidate in the 2007 by-election against Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois but was not updated even though he lost. JForget 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Klein zach 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Wikipedia is not a campaign soapbox for candidates for political office, or a directory of would-be politicians. Appears to fail WP:BIO Ohconfucius (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. --Jamie^☆S93 03:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University College Dublin A.F.C. season 2008

I can't find an article about this team, so I don't think one for a specific season is warranted. If a decent article could be made on the team itself, that would be a better start. Chzz ► 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A very extensive article on the team already exists at, funnily enough, University College Dublin A.F.C. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In theory keep. They're a top flight team in a notable league, so I don't see a problem in having this article. However, there is nothing of any note in the article itself. I don't think that's grounds to delete - there's nothing wrong with stubs. But it needs a lot of work. Peanut4 (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs improving, not deleting. As Peanut4 says, the club is a top-level pro team. Giant Snowman 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many such articles already exist for top-flight teams in various leagues (see Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2007-08 season for just a selection), and technically speaking the reason for nomination is invalid as it seems to have been nominated solely on the grounds of the team not having an article, which isn't true -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above BanRay 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the article but have been unable to add to it since as I am busy at the moment doing exams. When I have the time it will be kept regularly updated. DmanDmythDledge (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled PlayStation 3 games

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this is a table of entirely unsourced information concerning future events (and Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball). KurtRaschke (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information has beenup for a long while just as part of a different page. I created it because of this, personally it doesn't really bother me if it stays or goes but some people obviously wanted it in the first place. Chocobogamer (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete\Merge : To List of PlayStation 3 games --SkyWalker (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the reason I split them was because of the insane length of that article. Its been moved to the talk page, which is probably the best place for it as its not as such encyclopaedic. Chocobogamer (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is unsourced and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --neon white talk 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I'm concerned working titles are talk matter, and they are on there, so this article can be blanked. Chocobogamer (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, fails WP:NOR, WP:NOT#INFO, WP:CRYSTAL. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G12. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K. V. Simon

Non notable biography. No citations of independent reliable sources. None that I could find independently. The article appears to be a copy from http://gracefullife.net/kvsimon.htm Work permit (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation, so tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per author's request (blanking the page). Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional congress

Written as an essay; the userpage version is already being discussed for deletion. Ironho lds 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the writer of the articles request. I was trying to delete the content and blank the page and reverted the page to have the deletion notice and to request continuation of deletion. And was given final warning to be blocked in the process. How can I get the warning removed as my intention was not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Constitutional congress (talk • contribs) 03:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --KurtRaschke (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure original research. J.delanoy ^gabs analyze 01:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NPOV and WP:OR violation. (Frankly, I think it's speediable, as patent nonsense.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user involved is getting slightly cranky about it; i wanted to put it through AFD to get some editor consensus to convince him to quiten down, instead he's complaining i'm "harrassing" him and threatening admin action. Not one of my better ideas. Ironho lds 01:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay or OR or NPOV your choice. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real content besides, as nom says, criticizing the U.S. Congress; major NPOV problems -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Tagged for speedy as nonsense. ukexpat (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The other editors said it best (and earlier)! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Svensson's law

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Svensson's law

Appears to be a hoax. No Google hits other than the article itself. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it appears to be a hoax. Nothing cited, nothing especially notable. Happyme22 (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Delete. I'm coming up with nothing but fresh-air on this, even in some obscure academic sources. No brainer. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find anything confirming that it exists. Soxred 93 03:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My olfactory detects a hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete created by a single purpose account, Ness2008 with possible view of propagating a hoax Ohconfucius (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, I'm going with nonsense. The article doesn't actually say what the law is, it only says what it describes or explains, and that Moore's Law is derived from it. Utter bollocks, this one. Someone else can tag this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of MADtv Music Video Parodies

Listcruft. No encyclopedic value. Coasttocoast (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The lack of referencing is a major bother (what episodes did these parodies appear in?).Ecoleetage (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs a lead and criteria but seems like a valid subject for a list. --neon white talk 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand "Parodies on Madtv" or "Sketches on Madtv". But this is a list of a very specific type of sketch they do. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unencyclopedic list. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This article can serve very useful to people wanting to find these videos online. Once the people find them online, they can go an purchase them, thus leading to raise in profits for companies. Deleting this article, also does not help MADtv, as MADtv could use more popularity. Waterparkman (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A trivial, unsourced and unencyclopedic list. If there is a Mad TV wiki out there, transwiki it there. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the above person said, transwiki it to the shows wiki, if it has one. CRocka05 (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

<--

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

The result was delete. The consensus was clear. In addition, the page is wholly unsourced and, despite the extended time, no evidence has been adduced that this record (hey that dates me!) meets WP:MUSIC. I would add that global ghits butters no parsnips; it is the quality of available sources that count. I see no reason not to set up a redirect, which I have. TerriersFan (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedroom Boom

Not notable Chzz ► 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep With 66,000 ghits, I'd say this is more than one of the countless unnotable hip-hop songs out there. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, article fails WP:MUSIC & WP:RS. Redirect back to U.S.A. (United State of Atlanta). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesn't assert notability and has no reliable 3rd party sourcing for verfiability. Also Wiki is not an advertisement for "Such as YouTube, Myspace, Google video and various others". Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources; fails notability under WP:MUSIC, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

-->

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zena Timber

Prod contested by The Enchantress Of Florence. No evidence of notability. Katr67 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:V. The article does not assert notability, nor cite anything. Happyme22 (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hard to think of any policy or guideline that would spell out notability for this one. Qworty (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FSC certified forest, and "The national Forest Stewards Guild has designated the Zena Forest as a Model Forest..." which gives notability. Could be reverenced easily, so WP:V doesn't matter. Malinaccier (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And trivial coverage (i.e. the page is not about Zena in the reference you added) does not confer notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Aboutmovies. The footnoted link talks about a whole bunch of forests--the reference to Zena Forest doesn't even have an accesssible web link. It doesn't pass WP:N Artene50 (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Lack of notability. Malinaccier (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric J. Wilson

Procedural nom of prod contested by The Enchantress Of Florence. Katr67 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original prod nom: "This article is not notable under wp:notability Additionally, Autobiography which was self-written (see user that created it in history - wilsoej0 is his email address under The University of the South's naming convention)." Katr67 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being the author of a non-notable book and a congressional aide isn't really sufficient to pass WP:BIO. The fact that this is an autobio doesn't really help either. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails the alphabet soup test: WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:BK, WP:POLITICIAN, etc., etc. Qworty (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm the original prod(er). This AfD I think was started up from me contesting some reverts that Enchantress of Florence made. There is a discussion page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Unrealiable prodders". If Enchanted has some valid reasons to contest the deletion, I'd like to hear it Shoopdawhoop-lazor (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Perhaps not a good faith contested prod, but if somebody holds the hoop up I guess we jump through it. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability in reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Portal (video game). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GLaDOS

Article is unsourced an frankly frivolous, basically contains a verbose version of what is already contained at Portal (video game) peppered with unnecessary trivia of a character that appeared only in a single game. Totally unnecessary article. Delete. Rehevkor (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I've just used the entry. Trivia is where Wiki scores over Britannia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.173.47 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That single game was one of the critical and best-selling favorites of 2007, and the character was the most important part of the game. Needs sourcing to be sure, but the character is critical in the Portal experience. Nate • (chatter) 04:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous AfD on different casing of name, that's good enough for me to abide by. Nate • (chatter) 08:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete if anything is salvable from the article, Partial Merge with Portal (video game Rotovia (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current article isn't all that great, but the character has garnered a lot of attention and analysis that I would think justifies the article's existence. Maxa megalon 2000 06:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would normally say to merge, but in the case of this article there really isn't anything to merge that hasn't already been sufficiently covered in Portal (video game). This article is unnecessary and despite the phenomena around Portal's popularity, this does not in any way warrant a separate article. Trusilver 09:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Portal (video game). Reasons have been covered sufficiently. JuJube (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Portal (video game) which already covers the character in sufficient detail including it's notability in the game (eg, a merge is not needed here). While notability for the character is there, a separate article either will go into too much detail (as this one does) or will be small enough to include already. Term is a searchable term, so redirect should stay. --MASEM 01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Portal (video game).--SkyWalker (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Extremely) likely search term. Current content's problematic but not particularly objectionable; redirect (without deletion), just like we did with GlaDOS (AfD discussion). —Cryptic 04:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit of Googling reveals a number of potential sources ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36]), though I'm not sure how reliable they are and whether they provide enough information to justify an entire article. Una Laguna^Talk 06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First three are blogs and wouldn't be RS; fourth is sorta mentioning Glados in passing, but not so much about the character in passing, and I can't remember if the fifth is used in Portal or not already, but there's not that much there about Glados itself. I will state that I think the character is notable, but a better encyclopedic treatment is to keep the content within the Portal article, pending any further games with Glados in them that might require more discussion. --MASEM 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, they didn't seem reliable, and even if they were there's hardly enough encyclopedic content there to justify an entire article on this one character. Redirect to Portal (video game). Una Laguna^Talk 10:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portal (video game). Covered quite sufficiently in the aforementioned article, and it's a legitimate search term. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portal (video game). I already thought this was a redirect, as GLaDOS is covered very well in the game article. Evidently I was wrong. Recreate the redirect. There's nothing more to say about GLaDOS than is in the Portal article - Portal's storyline is GLaDOS. -- Sabre (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portal (video game). Per WP:SPINOUT, there's not enough content backed up by reliable, third party sources to warrant spinning out this character into a seperate article. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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