Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 8

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< September 7 September 9 >

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 merge to Montreal Expos. BJTalk 02:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labatt Park (Montreal)

edit
Labatt Park (Montreal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure.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

Alberto Coto García

edit
Alberto Coto García (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

I am now considering this AfD to be closed, due to making a false nomination, and agreeing that the person is notable enough to have an article. SchfiftyThree 00:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

History of Xinjiang/Sandbox

edit
AfDs for this article:
History of Xinjiang/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

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

Bruley

edit
Bruley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because not only is it devoid of any reliabe sources or other external links, it is more than questionable for notability. QuidProQuo23 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan/Sandbox

edit
AfDs for this article:
Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Arabesque (gay film)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Arabesque (gay film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Keep Article has changed since I last commented. Asserts sufficient notability. SpecialK 15:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ

edit
United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sandefer

edit
Michael Sandefer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Michael sandefer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Spooning (croquet)

edit
Spooning (croquet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angel Light (novel)

edit
Angel Light (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

The author is notable, but not the book. It doesn't matter if it exists. It matters if it's notable. Schuym1 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. it has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself; in fact, I haven't been able to find any sources to establish its notability.
  2. it has not won a major literary award.
  3. it has not been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
  4. it is not the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
  5. its author is not so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards, rather that the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.

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

  • I wouldn't say that fanfasticfiction.org constitutes a reliable reference. The NYT article is nothing more than a brief plot summary, but it's not listed under "References", so I won't harp on that. I'm not sure that a link to Greeley's official website counts as an independent source, especially when the page linked is just a list of his works...? All these added "sources" prove is that the novel exists, not that it is notable. María (habla conmigo) 17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here are several more non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, this book passes WP:BK, it certainly could use expansion but it should not be deleted:
  • Beauregard, Sue Ellen. "Upfront advance reviews: Adult fiction." Booklist 92, no. 6 (November 15, 1995): 515., Abstract: Reviews the book `Angel Light: An Old-Fashioned Love Story,' by Andrew M. Greeley.
  • Steinberg, Sybil S. "Forecasts: Fiction." Publishers Weekly 242, no. 46 (November 13, 1995): 50., Abstract: Reviews the book `Angel Light,' by Andrew M. Greeley.
  • Becker, Allienne R. (2000). The divine and human comedy of Andrew M. Greeley. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. p. 142. ISBN 0-313-31564-7.--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Circle of Friends (social network)

edit
Circle of Friends (social network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

The above user may have a conflict of interest in this discussion, as they have mostly edited articles in relation to Jonathan Bishop (ColonelBuendia99 (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Dear User:Jonathan Bishop: You can rest assured that I do not consider you to be my peer or my competitor. I don't have competitors: I have colleagues. I collaborate with many of them happily.
My initial interest stemmed from my lack of awareness of major claims for the Circle of Friends that User:WelshAspie put on the Virtual Community and I think another WP page. Primarily, I wanted to understand more, in the interests of scholarship. Secondarily, I didn't want to misled readers of WP in case the claims were exaggerated or unfounded.
Please, do try to take the role of the other (George Herbert Mead) and stop violating WP:Defame and WP:Outing. You keep misconstruing my motives. I feel very sorry for you, but your actions keep inflicting hurt upon yourself. But you also persist in Defamation and Outing attempts, making it hard for me to feel sorry for you. You also are demanding a huge amount of attention. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to appreciate that as you are a sociologist at the University of Toronto you are far removed from the realities of a researcher and businessman who is also an elected representative. I can see why Richard Branson doesn't want to be a politician belonging to a political party - He would go from being universally respected by the public to being universally despised by his opponents. If your intention wasn't as I suggested then I apologise, as I should have assumed good faith. But you must understand that it is hard for me to do so in the climate I find myself in, where the media I consume, in my local media in the newspaper and on the Web, is full of people from opposition parties constantly attacking my colleagues and myself to make themselves look better. Unfortunately I tarred you with the same brush, though this was only after reading material posted by yourself and others --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
**whilst that may be true, it would be useful if you could comment on what he's claiming, and provide some verification that/if he's wrong.--Troikoalogo (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not part of a plot against you Jonathan. It's part of the normal process of protecting the integrity of WP. Barry Wellman is one of the most notable sociologists alive today, so I know who he is. But I have never met him, and it is very much stretching the facts to call me his "associate".--Anthon.Eff (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
i do know barry and i value him as a colleague, but alas i don't edit wikipedia in any way because he tells me to. I edit wikipedia to improve it and make it more reliable for my students and other students. as for 'circle of friends' as a technique, my first public use of the technique was 1998 when i used it as part of the circular encyclopedia project. I'm pretty sure at that point in time it was common usage and non-novel.--Buridan (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're claiming in 1998 you used a multi-user system that has the customisability and manageability of a instant messaging buddy list, with the interactivity of a hypertext application, so that it was possible to click on your buddies' name and see their buddies' names, like what I developed in 1999? If it wasn't a novel step, by combining two separate technologies, then how come Friendster recently got a patent for making a 'novel step' by combining two significantly related technologies? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yep, pretty much, web-based friend system with chat in hypertext, used an esoteric little language for mac ip server, fun stuff. people get patents all the time, sometimes they stand, sometimes they don't. the patent system is not made to certify anything other than x party has made claim to this as novel, and unless there is reason to believe otherwise, the claim is considered valid'. I've not read their specific patent, i can't speculate about its validity. i can say that we don't have verification of your claims, as indicated above and i likely tossed the last dvd-rom copy of our system seeing as the software has be obsolete for 7 years or so. --Buridan (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above user may have a conflict of interest in this discussion, as they have mostly edited articles in relation to Jonathan Bishop --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above user may have a conflict of interest in this discussion, as they have mostly edited articles in relation to Jonathan Bishop --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above user may be a sock puppet, as this was their first edit --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: It occurs to me that Circle of Friends is claimed to be open source software. My understanding of open source is that it is published and available to others to peruse and modify. It would be useful if [[Jonathan Bishop, the creator of this putative software point readers (and not just on WP) to the code -- and the description -- of Circle of Friends. Perhaps this has been done, and I may have missed it. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current version of the article does not seem credible. It seems to be asserting a claim to have invented a whole technology, that would require much more data to believe. Lack of sufficient reliable sources is why I would delete it. The only source provided, a 2007 article by Christine Rosen in New Atlantis, suggests that she considers Jonathan Bishop to be the inventor of the 'Circle of Friends' technology. (She does not explain how she arrived at that conclusion, and his name only appears once in the article). I think we would need more. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have emailed Christine Rosen several times, neutrally asking for the source of her information, and haven't received a reply. New Atlantis is not a specialized computer magazine, but a feature magazine written for intelligent lay readers that is (in the words of its Google blurb): "A quarterly journal devoted to science and technology issues and their relation to social and political affairs." I hadn't heard of it before, altho there is lots that I don't know. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Afghan British

edit
Afghan British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Antiguan British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armenian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Austrian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bahamian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barbadian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bolivian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brazilian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Kurds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Malays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Nepali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Serbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Burmese British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chilean Briton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colombian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Croatian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cuban British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dominican British (Dominica) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dominican British (Dominican Republic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ecuadorian Briton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Egyptian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Filipino British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Georgian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grenadian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guyanese British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indonesian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israeli British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Japanese British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lebanese British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malaysian Britons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mauritian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mexican Briton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Montserratian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moroccan British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New Zealander British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nigerian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peruvian Briton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Kitts and Nevisian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Lucian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Salvadoran British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sierra Leonean British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Singaporean British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Somali Britons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tanzanian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trinidadian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uruguayan British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Venezuelan British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vincentian British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yemeni British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Sadly these are only what I saw as the clear-cut cases. See User:Cordless Larry/Ethnic groups for some more! Cordless Larry (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was mystified by the titles of the articles I was not sure that either the English Indonesians that I know about would identify themselves with that name - and I was wondering why and how the actual term fits with anything else, I could be very wrong - but if it is not self identification then what the xxxx is it all about? SatuSuro 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The titles are neologisms, which is part of the reason I have nominated them. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will warn User:Stevvvv4444 that creating any more of these articles without establishing their notability will result in their being nominated for a block. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although something like Baltic British would be a neologism too, I think. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nigerian British coul probably be salvaged. Zagalejo^^^ 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but would need a reference or two first! Paulbrock (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's one to start you off. Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Do you think they are all notable? I can't see how articles such as Georgian British can be, when it states that there are only 551 Georgian-born people in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, my mistake. I see your point. I reviewed all the articles listed here and determined that this garbage should be deleted. My new opinion is Delete all this crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testmasterflex (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest keep but rename to Bolivians in the United Kingdom, New Zealanders in the United Kingdom, etc. This would remove the neologism problem. The other issues - original research, inadequate sources etc - are not reasons for deletion, they're reasons to fix the articles. In a country the size of Britain I think most migrant groups are notable, and demonstrably so. Aggregation might be appropriate in some cases, but it won't be in others - not every nationality can be lumped into a convenient geographical grouping. --Helenalex (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they would still be based on very little if any source material. Most of these are pure original research. It's also worth pointing out that no other nationality has these en masse double-barrelled articles about every group. If we remove the unsourced material, we're left, in most cases, with a single sentence. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I haven't looked at every article, but those I have checked seem useful information about distinct groups (and there is worthwhile difference between people from St Kitts & Nevis and people from Antigua, etc). Need for some copyediting, sure (too much "who's" for "whose", etc), and maybe checking sources (found a ref in Israeli_British which didn't seem to support statement), but these articles should not be deleted. PamD (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This has nothing to do with recognising groups or denying that they make a contribution - it's to do with whether they are all notable enough to have their own articles. Surely it would be better to have a number of well-written, comprehensive articles such as Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, British African-Caribbean community, Latin American Britons, etc. rather than many poorly sourced articles on individual groups? Furthermore, that these groups might grow over time is not relevant, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with anon. A lot of them are certainly notable, and the ones Cordless Larry mentioned appear to be the less notable ones. There are several stub and start articles that are related to ethnicity, and we don't see them all being tagged and listed as articles for deletion, do we? A lot of them are still in their early stages, and to be fair, they can't suddenly become featured articles the day they are created—it takes time. Now, don't take this personally, but I really don't see why we need to AFD list every single damn article that is related to British dual ethnicity. ~ Troy (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I really can't believe so many of my articles I have created have been nominated for deletion, I agree that many of them are not fully sourced, but many are. before I go any further, I believe that you nominating Brazilian British, Filipino British, Nigerian British, Pacific Islanders in the United Kingdom amongst a few others is a complete joke, these ethnic groups number in their hundreds of thousands, and contribute a huge deal to British society. It think the fact that you want to create one page to represent many ethnic groups is a completely unnecessary idea, Latin Americans and Caribbeans vary with religion, ethnicity and many other factors and placing them under one title is extremely controversial, I totally agree with you that many articles will need expanding, but I can help and work on that and ensure that all my future edits will be sourced. These really could become great articles and if one naming convention was agreed on, this could make the articles even better. It is extremely important to distinguish each individual ethnic group in a diverse nation like the UK. There are countless numbers of articles about ethnic groups in other countries that are even less significant than these and contain even less information (Paraguayan American being a good example). I really believe it would be a good idea to give these articles another chance, and I will ensure that the integrity of Wikipedia is kept, and that all articles contain enough information to make them worth while, at present there is no harm in keeping them, some need to be a lot better cited, and others don't. The only one I really agree with you nominating is Georgian British. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there is variation within broad groups, but such variation can be noted in more general articles. For instance, British people vary in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. but there is still an article called British people which explains these variations. I disagree that there is not harm in keeping the articles as they stand. Not only do most of them lack adequate references, many contain misleading "estimates" of population sizes which are attributed to sources that in no way support the claims being made. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said that I would ensure that all figures where put right, and there is plenty of sourced information, and honestly for example, what is wrong with the article Moroccan British, every single thing in the article is sourced, and it gives plenty of information on the ethnic groups history and population distribution. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To take that example, the 74,000 population estimate comes from a forum post, which fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are also lots of unreferenced assertions such as "Moroccan migration to the UK began substantially in the 1960s with many arrivals being a mixture of the professional and unskilled, all coming in search of employment and a new life". Can I also ask that you sign in when you post comments? At the moment, while you're using your signature you are appearing in the page history as User:90.207.84.89. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't remove AfD templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, like I said these articles can either have the information deleted or better sourced, they really do deserve a chance, and I know that you know that many of the articles are extremely important, and that you would just prefer to see them go than stay short and unsourced. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only reason you mentioned the Saint Kitts and Nevisian British article is because of the strange name, it is deifnately worth keeping, as there clearly is enough information about the ethnic group, as well as it listing the many famous British people of Saint Kitts and Nevis descent.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of which is referenced, I note. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have just sourced the actual figure of Saint Kitts and Nevis born people in the UK, when you are clearly going to go ahead and delete all the articles listed above.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced it, yes, and it's the only sourced statement in the whole article. A single population figure does not make a whole article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not amazed of strange name. This article as well as most of the others do not explain why these group are significant. 6519 people, I doubt whether the term "Saint Kitts and Nevisian British" exists or not. FYI, Google throws total of 12 pages all on wiki mirror when you search for Saint Kitts and Nevisian British within quotes (which means exact words or phrase).Hitro 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-British African-Caribbean community is enough for all countries in Caribbean islands. Information about many of the articles nominated here are covered within that article. No need for separate article for every country. Hitro 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I'm not saying that they should be "lumped together". Being in the same article doesn't mean that the differences between groups can't be outlined. There simply isn't enough notable information on these groups for them all to have individual articles. Being distinct doesn't in itself constitute notability. I'm distinct from my next-door neighbour, but I don't have my own article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a case for replacing some of these articles with broader ones which have sections on the seperate countries - for example all the Caribbean countries could be grouped together as Caribbean British, with subheads for Jamaican British, St Lucian British or whatever (I have no idea how appropriate this would be, this is just a random example). Many of the criticisms made here are either reasons to fix rather than to delete, or reasons to delete some but not all of these articles. Why should a well sourced article be deleted because a similar article isn't? For that matter, why should a badly sourced article be deleted if the sources are out there? --Helenalex (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have loved to have nominated all of these articles individually so that we could debate each on its merits. However, that would have caused chaos at AfD so I nominated those articles which I thought weren't notable together. This isn't just about referencing, it's also about notability. Note that I haven't nominated British Indian, for example, which is clearly notable. Saint Kitts and Nevisian British, not so much... Cordless Larry (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but in any case, the articles need to have time and patience if you're ever going to give them a chance. I'm entirely sure that the articles' creators never intended for this. ~ Troy (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of correlation between referencing and notability. Indeed the WP definition of notability is related to the available references. Whilst the AFD was made in good faith, I do feel that too many articles are included here which should be judged on their own merit. Paulbrock (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete articles with little or no results of pages with the same title on Google e.g. Bolivian British and keep those with more result returned like Brazilian, Colombian and Nigerian British especially where there are more results on Google that accredit the potential noteworthiness of the groups. The latter, especially are notable in that they are the largest of the diaspora outside Nigeria and there are enough famous people with worthy contributions to the UK of Nigerian descent, for a decent well referenced article to be put together. Much harder with Bulgarian, Basque, Maltese Georgian and Salvadorean British (WTF?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.249.215 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already said above, which ones should definately stay, but I am clueless to why the absolutely diabolical article Baltic people in the United Kingdom is not up for nomination, it has about two words in the entire article, neither of which are sourced. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only nominated the ones that are neologisms here, and I was going to deal with articles such as that one later. Actually, I put a proposed deletion template on it but it was removed because apparently it's controversial enough to need to go to AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There appears to be no rationale for deleting all of the articles. If "many" of the articles are unreferenced, that does not make it legitimate to delete all of them as a lot of these articles are simply in their early stages (as in you can't suddenly create a featured article). Also, considering the depth of how many articles are involved, there is simply no way to delete them all on the same basis. There needs to be a way to assess the worst articles first in a way that can be humanely kept track of. The article titles should be sorted and, as Helenalex said, grouped under less titles to allow for more composition. I agree that they need to be worked on and properly organized—or else there really wouldn't be much point in us being here. However, simply deleting them all will not solve the problem, and quite frankly, makes it harder to properly assess or deal with. ~ Troy (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, these are the worst offenders, picked from an even broader selection of articles. There is a list here detailing the good, the bad, and the ugly (so to speak) of this list. Also, I appreciate your comment, but these are, quite simply, original research no matter how we present these for deletion. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jza84, I know what you mean, but I'm still pretty sure that they can be worked on. However, what perplexes me is simply that I can't see how they should all be deleted just like that. I still think that there needs to be time to give them a chance, or else it will be harder to re-create the more notable ones (ie: ones that don't lack notability but just happen to need better sourcing or were recently started). While we obviously can't nominate each one that needs to be looked at, we still need to properly assess each and every one before doing away with these articles. Also, I'm sure that we could find sources for ones that have any significance at all. ~ Troy (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're all in agreement that one solution does not fit all of these. It will be helpful if we group them all according to what should be done with them, as in:
  • KEEP: Article is basically okay and subject group is notable.
  • FIX: Subject group is notable but article needs to be rewritten and/or properly sourced.
  • RENAME: Article is basically okay and subject group is notable but title is a neologism.
  • FIX AND RENAME: Both of above issues.
  • MERGE into broader article, generally covering the whole area/continent.
  • DELETE: Subject group is not notable.

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

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

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

  • Comment - I ask, in all good faith, that the above editor moderate his/her tone. I voted "keep" because I believe these articles to be notable and valuable to our project, and, hence, our readers, who will come to our encyclopedia wishing to find this information--this reason, and no other. Badagnani (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; given the above discussion, it seems many of these are neologisms. Aggregation would be much better than the existing situation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (after edit conflict): the nominator's reference to WP:NEO is a red herring: the topic of each article is an existing group of people, not a newly-coined word or phrase. See Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms. We need "a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English", and it might be that "Foo-ians in the United Kingdom" or "Foo-ian people in the United Kingdom" or similar would be better titles for some of these articles (with redirects from current titles and anything else plausible). Bad choice of title is not a reason for deletion. As for WP:NOR, some of it is sourced and some needs better sources, but the existence of the people is not OR. PamD (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These are neologisms which are rarely, if ever, used and hence not notable. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename or alter content as needed to comply with neologisms and WP:OR requirements. The subject of "British citizens of Japanese ancestry" or "Ethnic Japanese with British citizenship" or whatever we want to call it is a valid topic and one of interest. It should not be upmerged to "East Asians in Britain" or "British Asians" or whatever the term is, because not all Asians are the same - they came to Britain at different times, for different reasons, and play different roles in society today. The key focus here should not be on the titles of the pages, whether they are neologisms or not, because the topics they describe are still perfectly valid. And as for the question of it being Original Research, there are sources out there on these topics, and many of these articles do cite sources. So it's not original research, it's using sources already out there; old research. LordAmeth (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If sources exist, they need to be cited, and cited now. "Unverifiable material may be removed at any time". Indeed, as I've said futher up, if we remove the uncited stuff, we're left with (in most cases) a single sentence, one which is based on a source that doesn't even mention these neologisms by name anyway. In that capacity these are also breaches of WP:SYNTH. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have not contributed to any of these articles, and so cannot comment on the extent to which they may be original research. However, I think there is no need to be hung-up on the notion that it's a neologism. What's important is not the term we use (Japanese-British, Japanese Brits, UK Citizens of Japanese ancestry), but the fact that the topic is a valid one; regardless of what we call it, we are not inventing, creating a topic, we are discussing something very real. You're misinterpreting what the rules against neologisms are aimed at. LordAmeth (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. Re-read my point. I'm saying these should go because they are either a) unverifiable, or b) a synthesis of a single statistic woven out into bogus articles. I'm not coming into this from the neologism angle, but that this breach fundamental editorial guidelines - they're bad for the project with little scope of expansion. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. or nominate French American, Armenian American, etc. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. --Admiral Norton (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep- in my thinking all similar articles are example of nationalism and they need to be deleted (and I will vote for that deleting). Because this is discussion about deleting of only 1 article I must vote keep.--Rjecina (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be consistency across Wikipedia, but with all due respect it was enough of an effort to nominate this group of articles without trying to add all similar ones! The logic of opposing this nomination because you want similar articles deleted is lost on me. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is OK. I am changing vote to neutral.--Rjecina (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see that as a valid reason for keeping these articles. The ethnic diversity of the UK should be reflected at United Kingdom and Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, but it's no reason for these articles to exist per se. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also point out that the opinions of anonymous editors are liable to be disregarded per this. You should log in if you wish your view to be taken into account. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Already we have three IPs with strangely similar IPs voting "Keep." 71.241.157.107, 82.45.249.215, and 86.53.63.209. Bulldog123 (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • not related. They are 3 different internet providers from 2 different states (UK and US). If they are somebody puppet you must ask checkuser.--Rjecina (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Rjecina.
        It doesn't look like they match ([2] [3] [4] WHOIS queries for those IPs, respectively—Verizon Internet Services Inc. for the first one in Reston, Virginia; the other two might have just happened to come across). I have noticed that a LOT of the vandals I revert over recent weeks are based on that first ISP in Reston, Virginia (most recently as 71.241.157.81), so that should be checked over. ~ Troy (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- As per my unofficial check, I can confirm this is not a case of Sockpuppetry. First IP originates from Massapequa, NY, second originates from London and third from Hawick, Scotland. We should get on with main discussion. Hitro 06:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok. How does 71 (and 82, for that matter) not count as single purpose accounts? They don't have to be the same person - they were still WP:CANVASSed over here. If you're all confident this isn't someone's IP here, then you should realize IPs don't have watchpages. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not accounts. This is not a vote. Please focus on content not contributors. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I feel you would have a different opinion on that if all the IPs said to "delete?" Bulldog123 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're not addressing the argument. It shouldn't matter whether this has useful information. The information is still on their article. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and merge - This AfD is really too big. Neology is a valid concern with some of these articles, when there have been previous debates over for example whether Chinese British or British Chinese is the right title for an article, we have nothing to go on with some of these because there are no references that they are considered a group. Apparently the term 'Bolivian British' appears on only two blogs, but is there evidence that 'British Bolivian' is more common or even more correct? If it was more notable we would probably know. Some of these articles do not have the references to support them. Saint Kitts and Nevisian British is a prime example. It should probably be merged to an article about Caribbean immigration to the UK. The previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_13#Renaming_of_articles_on_minor_ethnic_groups_in_Britain showed what a mess all these article titles are, but the discussion ultimately proved to be not that effective, and I think this AfD is going the same way. There are probably some valid articles here, if the names can be got right, and the level of aggregation can be supported by content and references. I understand completely why this AfD was raised but I think these articles need to be looked at individually. I do not see any titles above that can't be fixed through merging or renaming. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rush to delete the lot. This is an extraordinary nomination. I don't have the time or stamina to look through all the articles and I don't suppose many other people do either. This being so, I don't think they should all be deleted. On the other hand I don't want either to suggest keeping the lot (more or less ruling out future deletion) or to criticize the good faith of the nominator. /// Let's look again at the nomination. It's some way above, so I hope nobody minds this repetition: Violate Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:No original research. Many of the articles also include population estimates that are either unsourced or are referenced with a source that does not support the figure given. User:Stevvvv4444 seems to be creating articles for every conceivable group in the UK regardless of notabilty and has been warned many times but ignores advice. Better covered at articles such as British Asian, Latin American Britons, etc. Sorry for nominating so many articles in one go but this is the only way I could see to sort this mess out. /// First, "avoid neologisms". I'd never heard of (say) "Montserratian British" and am willing to believe that it's a neologism. I could check this question at google but let's suppose for a minute that yes, it is a neologism. Yet the article is not about the neologism; it's about an understandable and arguably significant subject matter that has been described with a neologism. The solution to this is retitling. /// Secondly, "Wikipedia:No original research". This is important, but it's a matter for {{fact}} and if that has no effect then partial deletion. /// Thirdly, "articles for every conceivable group in the UK regardless of notabilty". Like it or (if you're a reincarnation of Enoch Powell) loathe it, Britain is (and has long been) multiethnic. There aren't that many nations in the world (or transnational ethnic groups), so the notion that Bhutanese British or Saami British were to get articles leaves me unfazed. (I'd draw the line at Parisian British, etc, or any division into Bolivian English, Bolivian Welsh, etc.; and yes, I know that Paris is more populous than Bhutan.) I mean, are groups of people -- often in the tens of thousands -- so much less significant than this lot? /// Fourthly, "Better covered at articles such as British Asian, Latin American Britons, etc" One problem is that these do indeed have established meanings. The former has at least a strong suggestion of the Indian subcontinent and while I think it should cover Lebanon and Japan I don't know if it does. Meanwhile, does "Latin America" cover US citizens who speak Spanish as a first language? Tama1988 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate your point about the titles, and if the articles are kept then they should be renamed in my opinion. They would also need a lot of editing to remove unsourced content - particularly the unreferenced estimates of population sizes which, as far as I can tell, are purely guesses on the part of editors. Hopefully, if nothing else, this nomination will spur people into action so that we can get these type of articles in a much better state. However, a few points: firstly, you say that there aren't many nations in the world, but there are potentially thousands depending on you definition of a nation. Perhaps you meant nation state rather than nation? Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that there should be articles about these groups simply because the groups exist, but this doesn't equate with notability. I exist, but I make no claim that there should be an article about myself. Finally, I would like to point out (again) that this nomination has nothing to do with not wanting recognising the multiethnic nature of the UK, as should be clear from my strong line against racism on Wikipedia demonstrated here, here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I have attempted to improve the article Antiguan British (see British people of Antiguan descent), I have sourced all information, and deleted information that doesn't have one. i would like to see what other people think of this article, I know some of the information links strongly to other Caribbean groups, but it is important to distinguish each one. It is definatley worth keeping the article, as it inlcludes information on the actual population of Antigua and Barbuda born people in the UK, as well as an important list of British people of Antigua and Barbuda descent. Also notice the name change.....I think it will be accepted my most people. Thanks, and I know this article could be improved further. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly better but there are still unsourced statements. I don't see how "109th most common out of all nations" is supported by the reference given that not all countries of birth are listed in that spreadsheet, for instance, plus none of the notable people are referenced. I'm also not convinced about the title since not all people born in Antigua and living in the UK are likely to consider themselves British or be British nationals. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Nigerian British article could be improved quite easily: here are a few sources: [5], [6], [7]. I'd start cleaning up that article myself, but I already have my hands full with another AFD. Still, the sources are out there for anyone who is interested. Zagalejo^^^ 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I was disappointed at the process here when I noticed that someone advocating deletion of these articles said that we already have a good comprehensive article on the subject called Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom, because that article is for the most part merely a list of these articles nominated for deletion here. I actually spent quite a bit of time using some VBA code to create a merge of these articles, and then went to add it to the above article, only to realize that it was a list of these articles, and would be way to long if the content was merged in. Surely the ethnic makeup of a huge nation could not be argued to be non-notable, and surely none of the terms are neologisms. So then we get to unsourced material. Any contentious or POV material can be edited out and any material lacking proper referencing could be marked by the appropriate maintenance template. This deletion nomination is simply fooey. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Drive by tagging" with appropriate maintenance notices isn't going to help a produce a great encyclopedia. Like I've said before, some of these articles are based on a single statistic, which doesn't mention the title of the article by name, and is never likely to be expanded with verifiable material. Futhermore, I think there is some misunderstanding as to what is an ethnic group - anybody can choose to be any ethnic group they desire. That is to say, one could identify as being ethnically Mancunian. The problem is, as an encyclopedia, we should be writing about officially recognised ethnic groups, not inventing ones for every nationality in the world (which I should add, nationalities are not coterminate with ethnic groups - China has many ethnic groups). Therefore, I'm not sure your comment that this "is fooey" is entirely helpful. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any case, there are too many ethnic groups in the UK for them to be properly covered in that article. I think Jerry is trying to say that deleting all of these articles is not the best way to deal with them, and also, it seems as though proper referencing can be easily dealt with for many of the more notable ethnic groups. ~ Troy (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

List_of_films_considered_the_worst

edit
AfDs for this article:
List_of_films_considered_the_worst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • Keep If it were the personal opinion of the author, the complaint might be valid. However, this is a well-sourced list of films that are prerennially included in publications and polls of critics. Certainly, describing a film as "bad" is subjective, as is the case for a film that is described as "good" or "great". There are no objective measures for films. Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps the point is not made sufficiently clear in the lead of the article, but the article is not about films you, I or the next person consider very very bad. It is about films that have been considered the worst by some reputable critic, or in some significant poll, and so on. In itself, saying, "Film XYZ is bad" is indeed highly subjective, but saying that such and such critic, or board of critics, or poll of moviegoers defined film XYZ the worst is an objective fact. More or less the same difference as saying "That girl is quite nice" or saying "That girl won Miss Whatever in 2005": the second fact might deserve a mention in WP, the first certainly does not. Goochelaar (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The fact that it's subjective to say "X film is the worst" does not mean the article should be deleted. Wikipedia is about Verifiability, and these films have been described as "the worst" in reliable sources. Although it does need some work (sourcing, worldwide view) but that can be fixed with some good old-fashioned editing! I've been keeping an eye on this page for a few months now, and it's been improved. It's strictly for films that have been called the worst, and entries that just say a movie is "bad" are removed. However, I do think that it should be tightened up more. I wouldn't mind if it was moved to Films considered the worst ever, so that only films that have been considered the worst ever should be included. This would be the flip side of the Films considered the greatest ever article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the nom's reasoning, but I agree with the above statements. It is not a list of films that are the worst ever, as we could not objectively compile such a list; rather, it is a list of films that are considered the worst ever by certain authorities. The title may mislead on the "authorities" part, which is elaborated in the lead. (As an aside, I find this list so useful in finding amusing movies and reviews that I'll save a copy locally for my own use if it looks like consensus is leaning toward deletion.) AnturiaethwrTalk 23:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone but the nominator. These are the sourced opnions of critics. Edward321 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clumsy title, but this is simply not a "totally subjective list" as the nomination claims. Townlake (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely <! Don't call me Shirley --> there's room for improvment, but there are a lot of good sources and such, as well as it being well kept and in order. I see no reason for it to be deleted. QuidProQuo23 23:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. A list that is a non-neutral as something can get... How about a name change to "List of films considered the worst by some but not all", and include those opposing points of view? For everytime someone says "brrrrrrr.... it's cold", someone else may say. "No, it's only a bit brisk". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone but the nominator. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone plus I think this is a WP:SNOW--Mike Cline (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't doubt the good faith intentions of the nom, and also agree with Goochelaar that the objective criteria might not be clear. As such, perhaps we could consider renaming the article to something that might convey that purpose better? Perhaps List of films critically considered the worst ever (just a random sugestion)... JuJube (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), it seems the consensus has reached a good keep. Deleting because it needs improving is not appropriate. Fr33kmantalk APW 05:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC) deleted by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as the article has absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever and no reliable sources to provide it with said assertions. Without prejudice to recreation which meets the notability and referencing standards from the getgo. Daniel (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Girls Learn (lifetime movie)

edit
What Girls Learn (lifetime movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • Keep. A movie made for a national network that is nominated for an Emmy? I don't see how this can't be considered notable. However the article need to be renamed to address the capitalization issue in the disambiguation. 23skidoo (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Dedative case

edit
Dedative case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional element. It also appears to be a neologism of dubious source. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I just added a source that explains this fictional case, but there is indeed no other use than a speculative appearance in Tolkien's Quenya. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to quote what the source you added has to say about this particular case.
    Tolkien did not identify this case by any name, nor have we ever seen it used in a text. Its function is therefore wholly unknown; it has indeed been called the Mystery Case. Some writers have used it simply as an alternative locative ending. They have had no nightly visits by Tolkien afterwards, so perhaps this is acceptable to him.
    It basically amounts to an obscure piece of conjecture among die-hard Quenya aficionados. How is that worthy of a separate article? Peter Isotalo 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I only suggested a "weak" keep. On a second thought this might as well be merged into the main Quenya article as a sidenote. De728631 (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible candidate for a merge with comitative case or adessive case, which seems to be much the same thing. As far as I can see, this seems to be a neologism invented by deep Tolkien language fans, who unsurprisingly did not know the semi-established terminology for the phenomenon. Whether it's notable enough to actually appear there may be debatable, but not an AfD matter. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a strong Tolkien fan: how is this source a reliable source for this kind of thing? If Tolkien himself didn't use this name (or any other for such a case), how can we know whether this is the correct name, or if there is a correct name? This is like Victoire Weasley in that part of the name (in this situation the name of the case, in Victoire's case her last name) is speculation. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source reliability isn't the main concern here; it's the rather obvious triviality and lack of real-world relevance of the topic.
Peter Isotalo 06:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete. Non Admin Closure. Schuym1 (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering problem

edit
Magic: The Gathering problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Factualize

edit
Factualize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

James Parry

edit
James Parry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • Strong Keep It's fscking Kibo! You don't get much more notable than that, for a person notable within the remit of cyberspace (as it was, before these intaweb things).
Besides which, the coverage by Wired should be sufficient for any rational purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Audio hawk

edit
Audio hawk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Comment - It was actually a cut and paste from an article, and has been removed as a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The cut and paste bio was from here, but isn't really a reliable source. Google News also shows a couple of articles from the Bexley times that cover the contest. But that's it. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of fictional messiahs

edit
List of fictional messiahs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Pirate pong

edit
Pirate pong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Turk (rapper)

edit
Turk (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Nationalism in the United States

edit
AfDs for this article:
Nationalism in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

2008 Red Square demonstration

edit
2008 Red Square demonstration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

The article was deleted from the Russian version for the political reasons. The subject is significant, because this is the only orotest against suppression of freedom of neighbours that took place at the central place in Russian Federation during the Russian–Georgian war. Therefore, the article should not be deleted. dima (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Political reasons? Or the same reasons as presented here? And your reason is not true. First off, there was a protest outside the Georgian embassy against Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia are neighbours whose freedom is being suppressed) and there was an anti-war protest of 300-400 people in Moscow. Even if it was the only protest, there is policy which clearly needs to be looked at which overrides the desires of 7 people holding up a banner. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 05:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How dare the Georgians suppress their freedoms? Don't worry, mother Russia will annex them and suppress the citizens itself protect them and ethnically cleanse deal with those annoying Georgians. Seriously, your comment is so politically biased, I don't even know where to start. - makomk (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, anti-Georgian rallies are completely in line with the policies of the current Russian regime and they don't meet any resistance from the authorities. On the other hand, political dissent has become so rare in modern Russia that I consider the 2008 Red Square demonstration to be a notable one. Hence, my vote Keep. I would not also object to the merger with 1968 Red Square demonstration as a last resort.--KoberTalk 05:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, trim down, improve. Political dissent is not rare, what is rare is rather harmless outcome to the detainees. Not accused of extremism, not shot in the head in police car - sort of christmas tale in August. NVO (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. If it was just seven people waving a banner on its own, it wouldn't be notable. Considering the symbolism - and more importantly the police reaction and political climate - and it becomes obvious that this is far more than that. - makomk (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any notable event described in news qualifies for inclusion. The event is clearly notable, as follows from publications in multiple reliable sources. It is also notable in the historical context of a similar demonstration in 1968. No evidence of soapboxing. The sources are not blogs. NPOV problems if any should be fixed without deleting the article.Biophys (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree fully with Kober on this. Närking (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable events Grey Fox (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and well-sourced. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for current and historic relevance; if need be, at least merge relevant content into the 1968 article. Biruitorul Talk 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article as article. This event is directly related to the Russian-Georgian war. This relation was immediately recognized by the journalists, who begun to make pictures and audio and video records, and especially, by the police officers, who tried to destroy all the documental records of the event. (In a case of hooliganizm, the police, contrary, would have to keep all the records as evidence for the court.) Perhaps, the demonstration would be just a "news", if the protesters could simply show their banner, cry about freedom, distribute their statement, talk to the people, answer their questions, and then peacefully pack back their banner and go to their homes (if necessary, with moderate protection from the police against the extremist supporters of war). But the brutal actions of the police officers made it historical EVENT. dima (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So these journos just happened to be walking at that area at the exact right time? You are attempting to engage in advocacy here. If this is related to the war, then merge it here. this group of 8 Ossetians also made the news (in multiple sources) standing in the Hague holding up signs accusing Saakashvili of genocide; is 2008 Ossetian protest in The Hague in need of creation? No, because it doesn't long-term notability and to do so is to engage in advocacy, and that clearly is not allowed on WP. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 02:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia, you made several unsupported statements. Now I comment only your "So": it does not matter. 40 years ago, all the eyevithness of the Demonstraiton of August, 25, "occasionally" happen to be from the same military uint. While they were not judged for false eyewithness, then, why you see anything strange if journalists happened in time? Journalists are supposed to be interested in events more, than just Soviet soldiers; and the journalists were not from the same newspaper. Also note that journalists did not pretend to visit the "GUM" shop while it was closed, as one of those soldiers claimed. So, the analogy with the 40 year old event is deeper than you think. dima (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Bi-tarian

edit
Bi-tarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

2009 Florida Atlantic Owls football team

edit
2009 Florida Atlantic Owls football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

2010 Florida Atlantic Owls football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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


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

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

XBRL International

edit

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

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

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

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

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter. I'm looking forward to what other editors may contribute. Lancet (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs to be kept. The subject is definitely relevant, especially since the SEC has released the roadmap to its mandatory use by 2014. I think an important thing to know about XBRL is who is responsible for the standard. The article itself needs work for sure, but the subject definitely belongs. --Glennfcowan (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did you look at the recently improved (current) version? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did Jerry, it's improved. Though the Mission section's content still seems promotional. Cheers, Lancet (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the recent work has made it less biased. I think the problem with business articles is that telling what they do is kind of like advertising, so they need to be written carefully. I agree that the mission section seems a little overdone and seems to be covered in the history section. I think the two areas could be merged and that one or more of the quotes should be dropped. Glennfcowan (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I have with dropping the quotes is if you then drop the reference sources as well. Somebody can then come along and say "there's no sources...blah blah blah...". As it is, the quotes are referenced by solid reliable third-party sources. If you delete the quotes while this is still at AFD, please find a way to keep the sources. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The Clique (film)

edit
The Clique (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

A film confirmable to be in production is still not notable without significant coverage, and IMDB is not a reliable source. It is also still not a notable film, even if it were completed. Again, no significant coverage on it at all and it does not meet the general film notability guidelines.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is the industry-wide accepted source; it doesn't become unreliable as to release date on our sayso.  RGTraynor  17:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah, as far as Wikipedia goes it fails WP:RS and our say so is really all that matters. It is user-edited and therefore not a reliable source for encyclopedic work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users can contribute, and those contributions have to pass IMDB's editorial fact checkers.  RGTraynor  19:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well... there is Warner Bros... which is not edited by the filmakers, Flixter... also not edited by the filmakers (but only a blurb), Media.www.ramcigar.com discusses the filming last February and Pawtuckettimes.com speaks toward filming last March, Videobusiness.com speaks of how production wrapped last March and tells the interest producers had in making this a series, Celebcards.com is another pre-release blurb, and there are others (some much longer)... depending on one's search parameters. Does one of them meet your interpretation of RS? It has significant covergaqe and principle filming has ended. Release is the next step. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Warner Brothers IS the filmmaker, so how is that not edited by the film makers? :P Flixr is nothing more than another directory style listing and is not any sign of notability. Its no different than the many many other such sites. The rest are all pre-release blurbs, not significant coverage and not significant enough beyond the usual press release stuff to make it very notable at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I thought one of your issues was "An old, no longer updated website..." and wanted to show a newer often updated one from the distributer. Disregard it as not being neutral. And please disregard Flixter if you wish, as it was only included to show that WP:GNG is being address. Per significant coverage in reliable sources Videobussines, PawtucketTimes, and Media.www.ramcigar are not mere blurbs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Promenade Pictures

edit
Promenade Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpecialK 16:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 02:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Best

edit
Third Best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Gimje Airport

edit
Gimje Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Being unsourced is enough grounds for deletion. No sources confirms non notability. The creator of the article even notified me that he doesn't think it's notable. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The author is the only one who has added any content. (One other editor added a category and an unref tag. And a bot dated the tag.) So the article would qualify for speedy deletion if the author requests it. A {{db-author}} tag in the article by the author or a deletion request posted here is all it would take. Ikluft (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it already does qualify for speedy deletion under G7. I see that the creator of the article gave permission to delete it on Undead warrior's talk page. That's a step beyond saying it's not notable. Ikluft (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

International Living

edit
International Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Trialeti Ossetia

edit
Trialeti Ossetia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

Yeah, I have noticed this fact. However, the Ossetian enclave, surely, exist and allegedly even was proposed to be autonomized. I think that this fact should be reflected in Georgian or at least Ossetian historical books or articles. So, Kober, some facts from the late history could be removed, but I think that concept of an article about Ossetian enclave could be backed by census data or something else.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion someone says about Tsutsiev's historical atlas, where territories claimed by South Ossetian Revkom are represented. A map, cited in article, possibly is from this atlas, so at least one publication (Tsutsiev, 2004) was done to designate this enclave.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Ossetian villages surely exist in the area, but the title and content of the article are problematic. I've never met the term "Trialeti Ossetia" in any scholarly account of the region's history. The website you are citing is just a web forum. It cannot be considered a reliable source.--KoberTalk 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But may be the map they refer can Tsutsiev, 2004? It has something like date-line. And possibly this is an only source of such term.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'm strongly oppose deletion, but I will not object if some facts from yahoo groops will be removed and article will be renamed to something like Ossetian enclave in Trialeti.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tsutsiev, Artur (2007). Atlas etnopoliticheskoy istorii Kavkaza (1774-2004). Evropa. ISBN 978-5-9739-0123-3. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we cannot construct an encyclopedic article and the entire story about a supposed "enclave" based on a single map. That would be WP:OR. And I'm not sure about the authencity of Tsutsiev's work. Is not it dubious that the concept "Trialeti Ossetia" appears only in a single 2007 publication by an Ossetian PhD? --KoberTalk 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, something should be about this area with other name at least in Georgian. In English I've found very few sources: [18].--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This paragraph says Ossetians in Trialeti "...century, when Georgia was under the Russian influence, Russian Empire, new ethnic groups came to Georgia: - Germans in south Kartli (southeast Georgia), Armenians (from Turkey) in Samtskhe-Javakheti (southwest Georgia) and Greeks and north Caucasian Ossetians in Trialeti (South Georgia). Russians (from Russia and Ukraine) also settled in Georgia at the time..."

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

  • Strong keep.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 13:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC) As for me, article may be renamed, but the fact from the article about Ossetian enclave and attempt to autonomize it is evident. You may also remove all facts you do not found appreciate, but at least census datas and information about re-settling from not OR sources should be kept at least as Ossetians in Trialeti. For example, the same could be found in Armenians in Abkhazia.[reply]
Also, one can label me pro-Russian history re-writer, but I'm sure, that if the source isn't found on www, it doesn't means that it is not reliable. For example, the most of Oxford paper publishings are not available for me, however no one object to usage of them. No one can label Tsutsiev tendentious only because he is Ossetian himself, without reading of his book. Possibly, in his book he referenced some documents of SO AO Revkom or something else, used this term prior he. Of course, I'm not sure, as this book also is not available for me. But labelling this publishing tendentious a priori is not right, yeah? My offer is to change the title to something like Ossetians in Trialeti, if Trialeti Ossetia is not appreciate for you ))--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 13:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after the re-name, since it no longer claims "between the lines" that any part of it has an Ossetian majority - the original name was unsourced and POV. As Üñţïf̣ļëŗ already mentioned, there are more articles like that, so deleting this one would be POV. The link to the 1921 map itself is OK, but the title in the article is not: "claimed"? Er, by whom? The yahoo group link is unacceptable - if nothing else can be found (in this case a blog by an association of refugees may actually be OK, but forum discussions clearly do not constitute verifiability) the assertion it "sources" must be deleted. I do think that the language of the article needs fixing as well. However, deletion requests should not be used to correct articles, and neither should they be used in propaganda drives. One of the "Russian" (actually meaning Russian language) googles (was on a Georgian site, for goodness' sake ([19] -for those who do not understand Russian, the Georgian writer pointing out the map claims that Russia will use the existence of Trialeti Ossetia to keep its troups there and annex the territory to Southern Ossetia). One obviously non-pro-Ossetian source I found ([20])does not specifically say Trialeti, but refers to Gori, so taking in the Georgian forum above, we know what they are talking about. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, did not include any reason why the Tsutsiev book is OK in my view (it would have been better to quote the 2006 ISBN number, since the 2007 one is not readily found at serious libraries outside Russia yet), but I suppose this will do: a 2008 opinion. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that so we are missing the articles Ossetian in Moscow, Ossetians in Sukhumi, Ossetians in Gaza ect. It is not encyclopedic article and the origin reason issuing this article, as it seen from the original name, is political. The Ossetians was wecome guests in all part of Georgia until the involvement of the Russians in the caucasus. Geagea (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Geagea, left the reasons of my edits to me. Nobody have right to label me pro-Russian, or ever Russian patriot. Especially after this edits: [21], [22]. So, do not draw hasty conclusions, even if they are evident for you.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 17:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake is from the Russian wikipedia. I did not point you as pro-Russian. Geagea (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I think we all are assuming good faith of Untifler. The source of this bias and OR is the article in ru which he used as a source. Untifler, please don't take the issue personally.
Now that Untifler has already renamed the article, I see creating the article Ossetians in Georgia as the only reasonable solution. It would deal with all regions of Georgia with significant Ossetian population; and Ossetians in Trialeti would redirect to it. This would prevent us from having the articles lacking context and content. Any thoughts? --KoberTalk 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to object =) However, some problems, leading to long discussions may occur because of one obvious reason: there is nod world-wide decision, which Ossetians are in Georgia, and which are not. However, this article would be a great deal anyway, as the same for Armenians and Greeks. As for the attempt of autonomization, in case of this fact will be proved, it could be represented at least in South-Ossetian AO, Trialeti and Ossetians in Georgia articles.
As for my oppinion, if the "larger" article will be created, Ossetians in Trialeti would be an expansion for corresponding section in this larger article, to cover more aspects. For example, as Volga Tatars are separated from the Tatars article. Another example could be Green Ukraine. However, I don't insist, and if it is rationale to write a larger article, i will support you.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well explained vote.--KoberTalk 17:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is perfectly reasonable under the new title. The fact that there are Ossetians in that region is well know and described on the CIA sourced map in the article. With the growth of scholarly interest in the Caucasian cultures and the remarkable ethnic diversity of this region, this article is a welcome addition to Wikipedia. I'm also surprised that there's an article about the Greeks in Georgia and Assyrians in Georgia, but no article about Ossetians in Georgia proper. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Existance of the article is perfectly fine. There are articles Russians in Georgia, Armenians in Georgia, and Jews in Georgia. The latter says that there are 13,000 Jews in Georgia. I would think that there are (or were, I don't know) more than 13,000 Ossetians in Georgia (outside of South Ossetia). So, I'm not sure why our respected Georgia affiliated WP editors User:Kober, User:Geagea, and User:Iberieli has opposed the article. I would understand disputing factual accuracy of the article itself but I don't understand the argument that the article should not exist. Speaking fish 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaking fish (talk • contribs) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals

edit
  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • I support deletion of the offending articles. They are clearly promotional and could lead to naive lay people reading these wikipedia articles and then trying to buy potentially dangerous items in the belief that they are "scientifically proven" the way the article is written.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty clear POV essay. The very fact that it's titled "Comprehensive study" suggests that this is an original synthesis of information and violates WP:OR. (Wow, talk about an unnecessarily overly wikilinked article, too.) The platinum nanoparticle article is a bit more difficult, but on the balance, I think it should be deleted. The article is definitely fringe-oriented. None of the more outlandish claims are sourced. In fact, it looks to me like only the trivial claims in that article have sources. There are decent nanoparticle articles out there, like gold nanoparticles, but there isn't much in this article worth salvaging. eaolson (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: we need an article on platinum nanoparticles--a notable, mainstream topic with thousands of scholarly references. But the current version of the article is not it. I'm not sure if it can be cleaned up or if it's just easier to delete and start from scratch. --Itub (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Platinum Nanoparticles & Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals as it has a reliable academic and scientific background, supported by laboratory examines, tests and researches. The correlation between aging, antioxidants, free oxygen radicals and the role played by Platinum Nanopartciles has been proved by a team of Japanese scientists and this is a patented research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here you can study the abstract:

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

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

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

  • Comment. Just wanted to make a couple of comments:
  1. Scientific journals are not patented. Perhaps you meant copyrighted.
  2. Elsevier is not a scientific journal, it is a publisher.
  3. The correct link to the journal article in question is [23]
  4. The article is a single study on the lifespan of a particular species of roundworm. The claims of near-miraculous anti-aging properties of Pt nanoparticles in humans are completely unsupported by this article. eaolson (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: both editors wanting to keep the "comprehensive study" article are single purpose accounts, where one even created the other's user page. For all clarity, the other editors arguing to keep "platinum nanoparticles" ins ome form are not spa's at all, so this note is solely about the "comprehensive study" part. Fram (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comprehensive study... is a great title for a dissertation, but it's the wrong approach for an encyclopedia article. And we already have articles on aging and on free radicals, as someone pointed out. --Itub (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Unwrapped steel

edit
Unwrapped steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • Keep This had already been made into a redirect, not an article. It is useful as a redirect because the term "unwrapped steel" is in use on the Internet. The purpose of the redirect is two-fold: (1) to get readers to the right article, and (2) to prevent accidental re-creation of the article that was formerly at this title. Fg2 (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Steel and keep redirect]] - Before the redirect, there are several article links that would benefit the steel page when merged to the appropriate section. Turlo Lomon (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. And can someone give an authoritative statement about what it means - please? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might prove tricky, as I believe it is trying to find a definition for a term that may not have a technical meaning. For example the term "unwrapped" does not occur anywhere in the book "Bainite in steels"[1] . I can find more *examples* of it not occurring in the coming days, but I don't think I can find an example of it occurring, thus making the request for an authoritative statement difficult to satisfy from a logic perspective (It can only be proved to exist, not to not exist, without an exhaustive search of every reference work ever ;) ). As for preventing recreation an admin could "salt" the page to prevent recreation. I don't like the idea of keeping the redirect, 'cause like it or not people use Wiki as a semi-authoritative, informal reference in and of itself, thus this page lends credence to the term, which as the term is not defined it becomes a form of unverifiable information. User A1 (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Additionally I propose that the references that were in the page, (1) and (3) (edit: 4) are about another topic all together (wire-wound steel cabling, not unwrapped steel) and are thus invalid. The only reference that, in my opinion, stands valid after scrutiny is the design page, which seems has no technical content. 08:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit -- struck out (3) and replaced with 4. Also the building article seems to be quite generic. User A1 (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For some reason this has not been processed. Personally I would prefer if the comments from before my statement about the quality of the referencing confirm their stance on this AfD, on the chance that the presented case has altered their stance. I will post this to the AfD discussion, in case I haven't used the system properly. User A1 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-occurrences

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

References

edit
  1. ^ Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H. Bainite in steels, transformations, mircostructure and properties. The institute of metals. ISBN 1-86125-112-2.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spectacular fail. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of German-speaking photographers in the Americas

edit
List of German-speaking photographers in the Americas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), improvements made to article consensus reached as keep. Fr33kmantalk APW 06:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence

edit
Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • Keep Kosovo has a similar article. There is controversy about this subject. The article has plenty of sources. Besides, the international recognition article would be too crowded if we merged and added all of these opinions to that article. --Tocino 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Colchicum (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea! But as it is now the article is nothing more then WP:FORK and WP:NPOV, I tried to delete the opinions sector since it had the most WP:FORK and WP:NPOV but some keep bringin it back, then I lost my temper..., but at least I didn't invade the article using military force... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be reinforcing with the involved editors then that no-one owns the articles, without WP:BITE. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not a deletion criterion, content forking is. Colchicum (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable, in the sense that the hypocrisy and double standards of both sides of the recognition divide has been widely reported in the media and by political analysts. There are several avenues the article can take includingt he obvious comparison of A & SO to Kosovo, the legality of A & SO declaration of independence in the 1990s, the legality of recognition under international law. International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is already quite long due to the long list in that article, but somewhere is going to be needed to place scholarly analysis. I do join with most others in the sense of being unbalanced, but I can give you examples of many articles on WP which have an extremely anti-Russian (some bordering on outright hatred) flavour to them, but the solution to this is to provide balance. And yes the embedded lists do need to go and to be standardised as per WP standards, but all it needs is for editors to be WP:BOLD and make the changes, and remember that no-one owns articles on WP, so it will not be hard to balance the views out and build an encyclopaedic article, because this is one topic which will be debated for many years to come, and it needs a presence on WP. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as content fork of International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and indeed an "indiscriminate collection of personal opinions of questionable notability". This article could be OK if its subject was defined differently. This article should explain first what the controversy is about. For example, Russia did not recognize independence of Chechnya but recognized Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Or, for example, Russian military forces occupied these territories and then declared them independent, even though they are currently occupied. This article should also explain why other countries did not recognize their independence. One of the answers: that was a purely unilateral occupation by a single country (Russia), unlike operations by NATO in Kosovo (an operation by all NATO countries), invasion of Iraq (a "coalition of willing"), and the Hitler's occupation of Chechozlovakia (Munich agreement). Hence the "recognition" also remains unilateral.Biophys (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed the opinions section and placed a notice on the article talk page. And have introduced information on Kosovo, and whether it does or doesn't create a precedent for A & SO. This is not my own POV, but based upon the POV of 1,000,000 web results, 7,500 news results, 700 book results and several hundred scholar results. This topic is controversial and as I have noted in the lead, both sides have been accused of hypocrisy, double standards and breaking international law, and this is one topic which already has been the result of much analysis, and will continue to be the result of analysis in international law in the future, and is clearly encyclopaedic in nature and should not be deleted, but worked upon. Now, of course, the pro-Georgian, anti-Russian crowd above (they know who they are) will totally disagree because put simply they do not want such a topic on WP because they want to portray Russia as an evil monster and want as much condemnation on here as possible, but their desires have to be overridden by 1,000,000 web results, 7,500 news results, 700 book results and several hundred scholar results --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus thus far is based upon the embedded list of quotes which has now been removed, so for all intents and purposes, the consensus surely now has to start yet again. International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is already too long approaching the 100kb mark, and can no longer be regarded as WP:CFORK but must be regarded as WP:SPLIT. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that there was already a consensus here, I just don't think we should let Google searches alone override our editors. That being said, I like what you've done with the article; both the international recognition article and the 2008 South Ossetia war article are too long and this looks like a good place to elaborate. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know you weren't implying there was consensus already, I was just pointing out that due to major change in subject content, that the major problem that people seem to had with the article is gone...of course, it can come back if wikified and written as prose, not just simply as a quotefarm. Additionally, the Google hits was done as a head them off at the pass manouevre with a presumption that editors could use the same excuse at International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in trying to rid the Kosovo precedent claiming it's not notable and has nothing to do with the subject at hand (with one also claiming I have to prove a precedent...of course that's not my position to do, I simply have to work with what WP:RS state, and the Google test was to show there is plenty of those to use and that it is a notable subject. And thanks for changing your position also, there's still a lot of work to go yet though. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source entitled "Kosovo Precedent Prevails" which has further information and is going to be used as a source for information. Just as I have taken info from the Heritage Foundation and will be taking information from a whole range of sources to expand on what the controversy is. And its not all pro-Russian, a good half of it is anti-Russian. As time goes on, there will be more and more sources which will delve into the legal aspects, and at that stage they can and will added. Refer to the correspondent Kosovo article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 03:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Story of Jatila

edit
Story of Jatila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Parable of the "elephant God" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Redeeming power of faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Parable of the snake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Story of a milkmaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Parables of Ramakrishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

  • Delete — After reading Huon's comment, I am changing my vote, I strongly feel that the parables should be moved to wikisource, And there are several parables of Ramakrishna which are very interesting, but not notable to be included in wikipedia. Thanks Huon! -- vineeth (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks, Huon - the fact that the Jesus parables existed for 2 1/2 years without any challenge does indicate a certain bias on Wikipedia (though I'm not at all implying a bias on your part, and never intended it that way). Having seen some other notable India-related articles nominated recently, even though there were reliable sources to support their inclusion, I can be a bit touchy about the systemic (and unintentional) bias. Moving the individual parables to Wikisource is a good idea. ~ priyanath talk 05:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Javier Flores

edit
Javier Flores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Bernard Schwartz House

edit
Bernard Schwartz House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), consensus is obviously a keep. Fr33kmantalk APW 06:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Battleship Yamato planets

edit
Space Battleship Yamato planets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

  • The original listing was messed up; nom forgot to add a header just like with the other two AfD noms he made on the same day, so if I did this right (not positive on that since it's my first time doing it and I just copied the header from another AfD and changed it appropriately) then the five-days timing should start today. Also, weak keep - the article is a mess, but AfD is not cleanup. Gelmax (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorganize and then keep/merge It should be renamed to "Setting of Space Battleship Yamato" instead of trying to pass off as a list. That said, after it's de-listified and competently reduced to a few paragraphs I'm sure there's a place for it. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for cleanup per Norse Am Legend's excellent suggestion; once this is trimmed down (and other articles in the series are cleaned up) it'll be easier to see where the remaining information should be merged. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Tallangatta & District Football League

edit
AfDs for this article:
Tallangatta & District Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because none of then show why they are notable:
Beechworth Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chiltern Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dederang-Mt. Beauty Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kiewa-Sandy Creek Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mitta United Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rutherglen Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thurgoona Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is ample coverage in The Border Mail, these local football clubs are often the biggest and most prominent organisations in these towns and these clubs are often over 100 years old. If they need improving, then let them be improved rather than delete them. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment" I've no doubt that the The Border Mail regularly reports on their activities, I suspect that evidence of things that they have done are notable would be harder to find.--Grahame (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All amateur football clubs well below AFL standard in a provincial and non-notable league. It's hard to envisage genuine notability of any of these clubs, apart from their longevity. If they have indeed made a substantial impact on their home towns, then such detail could be included in their home town's article. Murtoa (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is nothing in WP:ORG requiring that sports clubs be either professional or at national standard, and indeed there are hundreds of articles on minor and amateur teams and leagues. Is there amateur play in Australian football at a higher level?  RGTraynor  17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: yes, non-commercial organizations can be included if notable, but "organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found".--Grahame (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. The article was tagged, and reliable references were requested 5 months ago. Nobody has been able to provide any. Nothing in the article can be verified. Delete! --Lester 03:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability. Of course it would be featured in the Border Mail but apart from that theres nothing, no one can provide reliable references to improve the pages as Lester said and all of it would just be original research. Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the league (Tallangatta now has the external references added and templates as do most other country leagues). If a country town is notable then its footy team and league is (particularly for those who live there). Anything about the individual teams can be included in the town article, but an article on the league is required for navigation if nothing else. Delete the individual clubs, not well-written, never will be and not much to say. (Epistemos (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep for all articles for which verifiable secondary sources can be found after some effort has been made to find relevant sources. After this search, individual non-notable clubs can either be merged to the League article, or with their own town article. However, I would be very surprised if there were not many secondary references for each club, especially some of the older clubs that date back more than 100 years. I am poorly versed in sports history, but I suspect there are secondary references in published historical sources for many of the club articles. As said before, most clubs would also be substantively reported on by local papers, so would be very surprised if they are deleted because no verifiable secondary sources could be found. Amateur Footie clubs are often locally important, even notable, social organisations and football league games are important social events in country Australia. This is reflected by the coverage in the sports journalism in country newspapers. I am keenly aware we need to take into account from WP:Notability the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources.--Takver (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Secondary Sources; I suggest that More Than a Game: An Unauthorized History of Australian Rules Football By Rob Hess, Bob Stewart, Contributor Martin Flanagan, Published by Melbourne University Press, 1998 ISBN 0522847722, ISBN 9780522847727, 304 pages might be useful as a secondary source if it details the country leagues and clubs. I also did a check for sources for one of the above clubs picked at random - Rutherglen Football club - Google News found 3 news articles, the Border Mail had an additional two articles. I am sure there are other local papers which would also provide secondary sources. It just needs someone to add some of these related secondary sources to each article to satisfy the WP:N guideline.--Takver (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Rodger Bingham

edit
Rodger Bingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs of 2005

edit
AfDs for this article:
DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs of 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs of 2007

edit
AfDs for this article:
DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Narikela

edit
Narikela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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


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

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

The Dive

edit
The Dive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

The QUEST study

edit
The QUEST study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. Let me just clarify that
  • (i) you may opr may not be right about it's possible long term impact, but it seems to be too early to be sure;
  • (ii) I sympathize with the plight of the dogs and their owners, but surely hope they get good advice elsewhere
  • (iii) clinical trials are part of the life cycle of a drug as are confirming or contradicting studies as well as meta studies, official approbations and later controversies; in fact the aptly named Telegraph article "New drug to treat dogs with heart disease" mostly demonstrates that mainstream media are beginning to take notice of the drug and it is not a question that we can have an article on the drug itslef.
  • (iv) The full title still applies somewhat generally to the scope of many medications and other studies have the same name which apart from making searching for refs more difficult, is indeed not really relevant here.
In short, there need to be very good reasons to have a separate article on a clinical trial, and I don't think this is the case here. But there will now be five days for other wikipedians to weigh in.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment - Well the study can be mentioned where relevant, as usual pending editorial consent. Given that this is done by the article's creator I don't think that amounts to a merge with the need to keep the edit history, though.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 02:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation of pilots of KLM 4805 and Pan-Am 1736

edit
Conversation of pilots of KLM 4805 and Pan-Am 1736 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Mark Jen

edit
AfDs for this article:
Mark Jen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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


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

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

Message of the Sphinx

edit
Message of the Sphinx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • Scott, Whitney. "Media: Audiobooks." Booklist 96, no. 2 (September 15, 1999): 277., Abstract: Reviews several audiobooks on history. ......`The Message of the Sphinx: The Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind,' by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval;
  • Stuttaford, Genevieve. "Forecasts: Nonfiction." Publishers Weekly 243, no. 25 (June 17, 1996): 56., Abstract: Reviews the book `The Message of the Sphinx: A Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind,' by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval.
  • Macdonald, Sally (2003). Consuming Ancient Egypt (Encounters with Ancient Egypt). London: UCL Press. p. 185. ISBN 1-84472-003-9.
  • LaViolette, Paul A. (2005). Earth Under Fire: Humanity's Survival of the Ice Age. Bear & Company. p. 107. ISBN 1-59143-052-6.
There are more, a simple search on google books shows this book is notable. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the book has two reviews and was mentioned in two other books. Can you improve the quality of the article and demonstrate notablity? We66er (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reliable sources provided in the AfD discussion are to show that the article subject meets the notability requirements of WP:BK. We are trying to determine if the article topic is notable not necessarily re-writing the article during the AfD discussion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually improving the aricle with things claimed in the sources would do a better job than just a list of, in some cases inaccessible without purchase, of sources. We66er (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make is that the main purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine if the article passes the relevant notability requirements. It's great if someone has the knowledge of the topic, access to the sources and the time to improve the article. Determining notability of the article and improving the article are two separate tasks and our main task at an AfD discussion is to determine notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I took your point. My point, on the other hand, is despite the two reviews and two books that you say mention it, the article is still without sources and still has not asserted notablity after a year and a half. If its notable then spend 5 minutes and show us. Just saying its been reviewed in two publications isn't convincing of notablity. We66er (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Passing the notability guidelines for books is rather convincing of notability. As bad as books like these may be, the fact that their content is pseudoscientific is essentially irrelevant. Ardric47 (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The Sign and the Seal

edit
The Sign and the Seal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

I've added a few refs. Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Killheffer, Robert K.J. "Finder of the lost ark?." Omni 17, no. 1 (October 1994): 29., Abstract: Discusses the book `The Sign and the Seal: A Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant,' by British journalist Graham Hancock.
  • Clapham, C. "A far-fetched treasure." TLS (May 15, 1992): 23., Abstract: Reviews `The Sign and the Seal: A quest for the lost Ark of the Covenant,' by Graham Hancock
  • Stanford, P. "Grail travels." New Statesman & Society 5, no. 196 (April 03, 1992): 46., Abstract: Reviews the book `The Sign and the Seal: A Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant,' by Graham Hancock.
  • Stuttaford, G. "Forecasts: Nonfiction." Publishers Weekly 239, no. 13 (March 09, 1992): 45., Abstract: Reviews the book `The Sign and the Seal: A Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant,` by Graham Hancock. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add some of those to the article and improve it to keepable quality? As of now, the article doesn't insert importance. We66er (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added three refs to the article. I can't immediately access any of the above, but maybe someone else can. In any case, it should be clear that the topic passes WP:N, even if the article hasn't reached its full potential. Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reliable sources provided in the AfD discussion are to show that the article subject meets the notability requirements of WP:BK. We are trying to determine if the article topic is notable not necessarily re-writing the article during the AfD discussion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I and Zagalejo can't access some of the "sources." Thus, actually improving the article with things claimed in the sources would do a better job than just a list of, in some cases inaccessible without purchase, of sources. We66er (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you can not access the sources, I obtained them via the EBSCO database available through my local public libraries web site. As I mentioned in a similar thread in another AfD we are trying to establish notability of this book in the AfD discussion not necessarily improving the article to include all of the proofs of notability. They are two very different tasks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Tiffany Richardson (disambiguation)

edit
Tiffany Richardson (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Laurence Baxter

edit
Laurence Baxter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

I don't want to argue, but I do want to point out - 22 results. Result two is as an editor. There is a memorial in there. The last is not him also. That is less than one article per year, and most weren't that important. I think the rest need to be thoroughly checked and compared to other academics every day that come under attack for not being notable enough for PROF. To use your words "by existing standards, applied evenly." By these words, we would have deleted the page without second thought based on how we apply PROF standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was also editor of the International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management and Naval Research Logistics, which is a further push in the right direction, I think. I'll keep digging. Neıl ☄ 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While you are digging, it would be important to identify whether or not these journals are of sufficient significance for his editorship to be considered noteworthy. Are they considered important within their field? Did they have a significant circulation at the time he was editing them? When did he edit them? By whom were they published? Does all of the information about them come from reliable third party sources? (The latter is a serious concern because of the amount of mirroring and the extracts from the original article found on various websites.) Risker (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he is sole editor, then the journals aren't notable enough to mention. If he is not, chances are his job as an editor isn't notable enough to mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep per Neil. Needs to be carefully watched for obvious reasons. George and FTs points make perfect sense.Minkythecat (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the risk of an "elephant in the room" moment, may I point out that the only thing sourced in the article at the present time is the memorial lecture. The rest of the information appears to be added by someone who we cannot rely on to add accurate information, following recent revelations. However, there do appear to be sources out there. May I suggest - and I know this is out of the norm, but so is the situation - the article is deleted and then recreated so there is no link to the original creator of the article. Sadly, I think this may be the first of quite a few items that appear at AFD, throughout the Wikimedia George The Dragon (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I did not check the history or talk page and now I can see the article has been deleted and recreated prior to the AFD. I applaud the decision to do so George The Dragon (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on WP:PROF - Academics routinely get published. WP:PROF #1 is that The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed. This is what would need evidencing, not merely "has been published". FT2 (Talk | email) 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Comment on the content, not the contributor". FT2, a record of numerous publications (such as those of Baxter) would meet "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". Whilst Poetlister may have been behind the creation of the article, Laurence Baxter is almost certainly notable by existing standards, applied evenly. Neıl ☄ 10:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant. It would need discussion and evidence whether he made "significant impact" in his academic field (as opposed to marginal or low impact). That's not something to deduce from "had a lecture named after him" or "was published" or "who wrote the article". One needs to consider the effect of his work on his field of study. Was it "significant"? FT2 (Talk | email) 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would strike me that a sign of "significant impact" would be evidence that his work continued to be referred to by other professionals in the field over the 12 years after his death. I am not seeing any evidence of that in my searches; however, others may find something, and I won't discount the possibility. As to the lecture, I myself have attended many "memorial" lectures that are little more than lectures that would have happened anyway, but someone decided to name it in honour of a particular departed colleague. The lecture might be noteworthy if there is indication in independent, third party references that it is considered a significant lecture; for example, a report in a large-circulation specialty journal. Risker (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Risker. Very little in the original article was verifiable and read like a resume for obvious reasons. Though the article has been substantially cut down it still suffers from the same problems regarding assertion of notability and verifiability per George above. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the deletion it does not meet current notability guidelines and verifiability guidelines and that is all this AfD really needs to consider. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given evidence above that the article can be improved; I will do so over the next day or two. Neıl ☄ 10:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My !votes are rarely set in stone so if that happens then fine but work on it from where it is now rather than restoring the old revisions as suggested by Anthony below. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't have verifiable sources to go off of to claim this person is the person that some have thought may have published enough to fit. When it comes to identities that may or may not be true, this one seems to fall under that. I have worked on many academics when trying to deal with PROF, and I feel this does not fit the case if the identity is true. If someone at Stony Brook later comes by and remakes the page with reliable and well sourced information, then sure. I couldn't find anything in notable newspapers to suggest that he was big enough to warrant even a mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and undelete history. Clearly notable as there are a lot of people looking at this article. History should be restored both to show the historical development of the article and to comply with the GFDL. Anthony (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When did multiple people looking at an article = notability? Lets be more scientific: this shows that there aren't any worth while articles linking to it to really say that there is much of connection to anything on Wikipedia. If he was notable within a subject or a topic, there would have to be something at least. You'll need a lot more than a vague "lot of people looking at this article", which could easily be dismissed as them looking at it because of the recent scandal that is not real worldly notable. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"When did multiple people looking at an article = notability?" IMO, this has always been the key factor in notability. It is certainly more objective than trying to figure out whether or not people should be looking at an article. Anthony (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article traffic statistics: From Henrik's Tool(incomplete data for June/July 2008)
August 2008 - 216 views, average 7.2/day, peak 23/day
May 2008 - 259 views, average 8.3/day, peak 16/day
April 2008 - 177 views, average 5.9/day, peak 12/day
September 2008 -Sept 1-5, 41 views, average 8.2/day. Sept 6 had 17 views. Sept 7 had 97 views. The increase was directly related to the linking of this article with the Poetlister matter. This is not even close to being a frequently viewed article.
--Risker (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say 97 views in a single day clearly qualifies as notable (your featured article Jacques Plante barely got more than that yesterday), and Sept 8 is probably going to be even higher. And as I've said above, I don't think it's appropriate or objective to try to tell people what articles they should be looking for, especially since we're not dealing with a BLP. As far as I'm concerned, 2 or 3 views a month is notable enough. Hard drive space is cheap. Anthony (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"this has always been the key factor in notability" Honestly, I am very bothered by your definition of notability and I do not think it conforms to any of Wikipedia's policies, especially when these "views" are directly linked to the poetlister scandal and nothing else. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concurr with Ottava Rima, that Wikipedia pagehits seem a highly ideosyncratic criterion for establishing notability, one I've never seen used before. I've never seen anything like it in any of the notability guidelines. It runs completely against the spirit of WP:N. Substituting WP pagehits for extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject also bypasses all notions of verifyability etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone ought to fix WP:N, then. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The whole point of this project is to provide people with information they're looking for, no? Use common sense. ("verifyability" is a separate issue, and I see no one even challenging the fact that a verifiable article can be written. If "verifyability" -> "notability", then this is a slam dunk and you don't need my opinion.) Anthony (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWeak deleteDeleteKeep. Fails WP:PROF. All professors publish. I checked Web of Science and (being rather liberal to err on the side of caution, meaning some of these publicaitons may have been by another "LA Baxter") found 24 publications. These have been cited a grand total of 174 times. The most-cited article was cited 31 times. The h-index is 8. In the last 5 years (2008 only partly, of course), all articles together were cited 4, 4, 6, 2, and 1 times. (For those not used to these kind of figures, this is all rather marginal and far from notable). Naval Research Logistics is listed in the Journal Citation Reports and has a 2007 impact factor of 0.548 (its highest IF in the last 5 years, my access does not go back farther). That ranks it 40 out of 60 journals in the category "OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE". The International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management is not included in the JCR and according to its website started in 1995, so Baxter cannot have been an editor of this journal for very long. I cannot find out from their website whether Baxter was editor in chief, regional editor, or just member of the editorial board. In any case, the journal itself is not really notable. The same goes for the other journal. The only possible claim to notability left is the "memorial lecture", Risker has commented upon that above. Unless something more substantial is found, this is a clear delete to me. --Crusio (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak deletekeep whups I see Crusio has beat me here with the WoS search results, I was going to add that those papers in journals like BIOMETRIKA, AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, APPLIED STATISTICS-JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES C, tended to have low citation counts (under a handfull each). The paper in COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS PART B-SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION 10:281-288 (1981) has ten hits... I agree with Crusio that the claim to notability seems to rest mostly on the memorial lecture, which I don't think moves it over the bar. I'm not convinced that there isn't something out there that could sway my opinion, but on the basis of what I've seen, I don't think he's had a notable academic impact greater than typical for someone in his line of work. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC) changed to "(weakish) keep" per Nsk92 below. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, edit conflict with Pete... Here is a reliable source, an obituary in the journal Naval Research Logistics. I still think this does not establish notability conclusively, but change my vote to "weak delete". I would like to know what it means that Baxter "was a member of the Royal Statistical Society, the American Statistical Society, and the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences." Are these societies where one can become a member just by paying dues and by being a scientist working in that particular field or is there something more? --Crusio (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Statistical Society, note that American Statistical Society != American Statistical Association (?), Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, and I'm also interested whether Baxter as a member in the sense of "pay your annual dues and get the journal", or whether this is to be taken as an honour akin to being a member of Category:Fellows_of_the_American_Statistical_Association (from the wording I assume the former, but I would not think that would belong in an obit...) Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, speaking as a journal editor myself, if (God forbid) one of my Associate Editors would pass away, I would certainly publish an obit and do my darnedest to make it look as impressive as possible. So I think that I would certainly list memberships in learned societies if there were nothing else, even if that was no particular honor. All this still doesn't say much about Baxter, though. In any case, I think it is evident that he was "up and coming" and most probably would have been notable by now, if he had lived.... --Crusio (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The evidence in terms of citability is certainly weak and I am fairly sure that memberships in various societies mentioned were just ordinary memberships rather than elected ones. However, in addition to the memorial article in Naval Research Logistics[30] mentioned by Crusio, MathSciNet also gave another memorial article about him: Leitmann, George. In memoriam: Laurence Alan Baxter [1954--1996]. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 210 (1997), no. 2, pp. 417--418. It should be noted, however, that Baxter was an editor for both of these journals. I downloaded the memorial article from Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. It does say the follwing regarding his work:"Dr. Baxter was internationally renowned for his work in applied probability and reliability theory. He published over 45 papers and did extensive consulting in this area. The results of his work on separately maintained components have been incorporated into a widely used AT& T Bell Laboratories software package for calculating various characteristics of system availability. Dr. Baxter also extended several classic theorems of reliability theory for discrete structures to continuous structures, using functions that he named continuum structure functions." The article does not list any particularly impressive acolades but it does say that he was an editor of several journals and other publications: that he "conceived of and was Editor-in-Chief of Stochastic Modeling, a series of books published by Chapman and Hall of London from 1993 to the present". Other journals where he was an editor that are listed in that article are: Applied Probability Newsletter, Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Naval Research Logistics, and International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management." WP:PROF does mention journal editorships as valid contributing factors towards satisfying criterion 1 of WP:PROF (item 3 in Notes and Examples). According to this[31], there was a one-day memorial conference in his honor at Stony Brook in 1997. Together with the two memorial articles and a lecture series named after him, I think this does pass WP:PROF, albeit weakly. Nsk92 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article says in its LAST line that this person has a memorial lecture named after him. That seems to presuppose that he's notable for some reason. If the eponymous lecture is the reason, it should say so in the first sentence. If there is some other reason, it should say so in the first sentence. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed unsourced claims of notability that I was unable to find any non-mirror-site support for (they are noted on the talk page of the article, in case someone can find a reliable third party source for them), but the lede is as I found it. Of course, I don't consider him to be notable, and won't until the article has independent sourcing given the history of the primary editor and the fact that there was false information in the article when it came to my attention. I still don't find the memorial lecture to be notable, as I attend many similar lectures every year , often named in honour of non-notable people who were well-liked or whose death had an impact on the sponsoring organisation. Some places plant trees in honour of their deceased colleagues; universities name lectures after them. Risker (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience named lectures are named either for people who are quite notable or sometimes for people whose family members/friends have set up an endowment for a lecture series in their honor. In the latter case there is always a mention of the endowment in the series announcements. In this case there is no mention of any private endowment[32] On the countrary, in the series announcement the university is actually asking for money and donations to sustain the series. This seems to indicate to me that the lecture series was established by the department itself. Having said that, the lecture series was not a particularly major factor in my !vote, although I still view it as a plus. Nsk92 (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why it was named after him, should be tracable, and would attest to notability or otherwise. Can we find that out? Anyone able to check for a reason? FT2 (Talk | email) 13:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the obituary published in IMS Bulletin. It says the following about the lecture series:"A memorial fund has been established at the university to accept contributions to endow a lecture series in Dr Baxter's honor". I don't think it is easy to get much more information than that. Based on similar practices at our university, when something like that happens, there is an e-mail to the faculty, an article in the departmental newsletter and maybe an article in a college-level newsletter. These kinds of publications are not held by other libraries and given the fact that it was back in 1997, they would not be available electronically now. Nsk92 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a fundraising ploy. The boathouse at my undergrad had a floor named after my roommate after a car accident to try and raise money for its renovations. It didn't work. If you want to see the gush about it Laurence and why Stony Brook needs money, look here. "Your contribution will help ensure that each year the Fund will be able to present the Laurence Baxter Memorial Lecture. " I think based on that, we can remove any mention of the Laurence Baxter Memorial Lecture as fundraising SOAP. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not. If we actually posted their fundraising pitch in the article, that would be a WP:SOAP violation. Merely mentioning that the lecture series has been established is not. Nsk92 (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lecture series = a fundraiser only under another name. The two are the same. If his notability is related to a fundraiser, this is a clear case of SOAP and needs to be burned as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To equate an established academic lecture series with just a fundraiser under another name that "needs to be burned" is rather a stretch. Nsk92 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the page needs to be burned, not the lecture series. Response - You can through academic infront of whatever you want, but I've been part of academia my whole life and not once have I attended a "lecture series" (especially one held only once a year with limited response) as anything worth being "notable" for. This one is used to raise money. Just like every other group, they use a dead man in order to try and connect to the emotions of the school and raise money. I can name many people who have died and have memorial fundraisers connected to them, and I would hate if that became a source of notability. My roommate had a boathouse named after him, this guy only has an annual low attendance lecture. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am an academic myself and in my own field, mathematics, named lectures are a fairly traditional and well established format of colloquia-type lectures. Most respectable departments have one or two of these named lecture series. My own department has three of them, funded by a combination of private endowment and additional fundraising. There is nothing untoward about this. I don't think the department gets or can get much else for this other than to have this named lecture itself and be able to invite some particularly prominent scientists to deliver such a lecture. The endowed funds that finance such lectures cannot be used for any purpose purpose than the lecture itself, so the department can't hire anyone else with this money or do any repairs or by any equipment or anything else of the sort. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia is the proper forum for any kind of fund raising, even if it is only insignificant or isolated. The lecture series is not notable, and it only operates as a fundraiser and then a once a year lecture. It is named after the individual in question to raise money. I don't think it is right for Wikipedia to promote such things and it would be an awful standard to allow. Even if there was no money involved, the promotion of the lecture series seems highly questionable to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a misunderstanding here. The lecture series is not a fundraiser. Attendees will not be asked for contributions. There may be other fundraisers where the department will try to raise money to keep this lecture series going, but those are not mentioned in the article. In addition, I do not see how the inclusion of this lecture series in the article would constitute "promoting" it. And finally, even if it were, what does "promoting" in this context mean? People can attend, they don't have to pay anything, it's a freebie.... Anyway, I cannot imagine anybody being interested in "promoting" such a departmental lecture series on the Internet, even less Wikipedia. --Crusio (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say what you want, but I already provided direct evidence that contradicts that claim. The name and the rest is there to collect funds. Otherwise, they wouldn't have it in honor of him. Read the link above. Also, read WP:SOAP. This is a clear violation, especially with the obvious conflict of interest. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's bring this back to how one determines if an event is notable. It strikes me that the criterion should be whether or not independent third parties consider it notable and comment on it. Are there any reviews of this lecture series in any of the relevant journals? Is it mentioned in published commentary by other professionals in the field? Are the lectures published? Is there any information to demonstrate that new research has been presented there first? These things would make the lecture series notable. I think we've quite exhausted the discussion about whether or not a subject's notability should be dependent in part on having a lecture series named after the subject posthumously. Strikes me, given the different experiences of the participants in this thread, that it depends more on the notability of the lecture series, and to assess the notability of the lecture series requires independent third party references to the lectures. Risker (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Named lectures like this are never reviewed as such in academic journals (not even the ones at top places like Harvard or Princeton). It is just something that a person who gave a lecture like that puts on their CV under "honors". The department who hosts a named lecture of this type gets to invite some particularly prominent people and is able to pay them a better honorarium than for a typical colloquium talk. That is usually it. As I said above, the named lecture is not a very big deal but id does confer some degree of honor on the person it is named after. I based my !vote primarily on other factors, such as three published memorial articles in academic journals and extensive journal editorships. The named lecture is a plus, but not a very big one, in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking along the lines of lectures such as those included in Category:Lecture series, all of which meet most of the above criteria. I concur, though, that if notability is to be found here, it will be from something other than the lecture series. Risker (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and you noticed that Neil said "published professor [...] therefore meeting WP:PROF" while WP:PROF is pretty explicit that merely publishing as a professor doesn't amount to notability? Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of WP:PROF may differ from mine. Perhaps I should have said "well-published professor". Neıl ☄ 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pete. This is the first time I see somebody interpreting WP:PROF in the sense that many publications amounts to notability. It doesn't and is rather irrelevant for notability. Somebody with many insignificant publications can be completely ignored in his field, whereas someone with only a few, but highly-cited publications can be quite notable. WP:PROF clearly stipulates that for notability "either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" is necessary. Evidently, just having a lot of articles is not enough. --Crusio (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Small number of papers. Editor of a...specialist journal. That his work has been cited (and it isn't very much, as far as I can see) doesn't mean he meets WP:PROF. It's not a slam dunk, but I think that he's shy of inclusion. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just one journal, it's five journals and a book series. Plus there are three published obituaries/memorial articles about him. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I have changed my vote yet again, this time back to delete. The reasons are the following. 1/ Editorships. WP:PROF criterium 8 states "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area." Baxter was associate editor, not editor in chief, of lower-tier journals. 2/ Although I strongly disagree with classifying a named lecture series as a fundraiser, the evidence brought forward up till now does not indicate notability. If a high-profile lecture at a major meeting in his field had been named after him, that would be something else. As pointed out above, many departments have such named lectures and although we all list this in our CVs as an "honor", I don't think that this bestows notability (either for the lecturer or for the person that the series was named after). 3/ The published obituaries would have swayed the balance to "keep" for me, if Baxter had not been an associate editor of these journals. Any journal will publish an obit for an AE that passes away during his tenure (or shortly therefafter). If being an AE is not notable, then such an obit does not confer notability either. This is reinforced by the fact that those obits seem to put in an effort to say something nice abotu Baxter. In short, my conclusion remains that this was a very promising person, who very probably would have satisfied WP:PROF by now if only he had lived. Sadly, he didn't. --Crusio (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was an editor-in-chief of a book series and an editor for 5 journals. I think that is quite impressive and an idication of substantial stature in the field. Regarding the three memorial articles, I think the key consideration is that they exist at all. One could argue that he was an editorial board member for these three journals because he was a prominent scientist and that is ultimately why those three memorial articles were published. In fact, if one sbtracts everything else and takes just those three memorial articles, there is arguably a case for weakly passing WP:BIO here. The articles do describe him personally in substantial biographical detail etc. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nsk92 has swayed me, changing my !vote above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nsk92 is right, I'm swayed too. --Crusio (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editor in chief of a non notable series and non notable journals. If you are impressed, then feel free. However, it does not meet the standards. If he really was notable, there would be independent news stories on him. I failed to come up with anything in the US on him. There are no reliable sources on his history that are not part of a fundraiser. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF is pretty clear about the rationale for not requiring things like "independent news stories". If that's what you require, then I think you're quite at odds with WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that you misinterpreted me. What I stated was that he clearly fails PROF. PROF allows for professors notable outside academia, i.e. through independent news stories, to stay. Thus, he fails normal notability. I hope that clears this up. 01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • keep, unequivocally. All the requirements are present. First, if one thinks the General criterion supersedes or is an alternate for prof, there is substantial independent discussion of him in reliable sources. That alone should be enough to settle it. That's nt a weak reason for keep, its as full a keep as anyone else using the general criterion. (weak might be if there were only one such source). Second, by the criteria for PROF, editor in chief of a major book series from an established publisher is analogous, though waker, than a major journal. The editorial board memberships add a little. If that were all, it would be borderline. As for the lecture, yes, many departments have lecture series, and the lecturers in them usually don't acquire much notability by that except for some really distinguished series, but despite what Crusio says, the lecture is usually named after someone important enough for the lectureship to be an honor or there would be no point to it at all. That comes to weak notability also. A memorial conference for someone, on the other hand, is a clear and unmistakable indicator of significance, and I think by itself would establish notability. Now, weak notability in different fields does not add up to make one notable in any of them. But having many less than fully certain indicators in the same field is another matter. And in any case there are two certain ones: the publications about him, and the memorial symposium. Either is enough beyond any reasonable cavil. If it wasnt for who wrote the article, we wouldnt even be discussing this. It is of course completely wrong that either US sources are needed or that news stories are. Absurd criteria. And the standard for an article is notable, not "really notable." And perhaps it shows a certain animus when one editor tries to refute everyone's comment. DGG (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of Prof does he meet? He does not meet one. He does not meet two. He does not meet three. He does not meet four. He does not meet five. He does not meet six. He does not meet seven. He does not meet eight (not a well-established journal). He does not meet nine. Now, where is "there is substantial independent discussion of him in reliable sources" this? I haven't seen one reliable source discussing him. A "memorial symposium" does not make one notable, especially when less than 40 people attend and they don't have any notable lecturers. Also, if we gave a wikipedia page to every subject of a named lecture, there is going to be thousands of more unnotable people being given pages. This is a very bad precendent. This guy has done absolutely nothing in his field and PROF was made to make sure people like him didn't get a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, The Institute of Mathematical Statistics Bulletin, and Naval Research Logistics: an International Journal would all run obituaries suggests that he meets criterion 1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most journals tend to put obits for those who have published in their journal. I don't believe an obit is a source of notability. Obits are short and give little detail, and tend to be based on emotion and not substance. If this was a front page type obit on the NYT, WSJ, London Times, etc, then maybe. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Most journals tend to put obits for those who have published in their journal" you must be joking. This is bears absolutely no resemblance to my experience. I've had a fair number of different journals accumulating on my bookshelves, and none have published obits any but the most historically relevant figures. I'm not saying that this is true of The Institute of Mathematical Statistics Bulletin, but your claim bears no resemblance to any reality I'm familiar with. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, this guy was not a "historically relevant figure", and would be barely notable to be in Wikipedia if so. Thus, I think your point is contradicted by your previous evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a journal editor for 7 years now. In those years, we only just now published our 2nd obit, although unfortunately more then 2 colleagues passed away. The two obits concerned one person who was one of the founders of our field in the late 1950s, the other somebody who made important contributions to the field in recent years. Some other colleagues that passed away were probably notable in Wikipedia's sense (WP is rather inclusionist to my taste, including all kinds of minor sports figures and artists); they just weren't notable enough to merit an obit. AS I remarked above, I would publish an obit for an AE, even though according to WP:PROF an AE does not make one notable. As Nsk92 has pointed out, Baxter was an AE of multiple journals, not just one. And as DGG rightly pointed out, there are threee obits in reliable sources, that satisfies WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my point, and here is notability - an obit does not make you notable. Being notable justifies having an obit. If you want to prove his notability, find out the notability that justified him having an obit. My experience with obits and journals is that there are many for those I would not consider notable on Wikipedia. Now, according to PROF, being an lead editor for a journal is not notable, unless the journal is one of the leading journals. None of these can be considered as such. He wasn't ground breaking. He only published 19 times so far as we know, and "ground breaking" rarely happens in such a situation. It took him a long time to make tenure, this should tip people off. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Nsk92's and DGG's careful and convincing arguments. There are quite enough sources on him, for the GNG - and I don't think one can practically construe the GNG as not being able to "supersede or be an alternate." (or augment). I am reminded of a murdered Indian academic I deprodded a while ago. While I dug up other clear indicators of notability then, I was only able to find one memorial article, while this guy has three. And however weak they are understood to be individually, there are just too many PROF indicators enumerated above to definitively say this is a person with insignificant impact on his profession.John Z (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I have been following this discussion, and frankly have found myself moving back and forth on this one. In arriving at my delete !vote, although it's close, I consider the subject, to fail each criterion of WP:PROF as pointed out by Ottava Rima above. I also consider the subject fail the general notability guideline, and I don't think this one is particularly close. The real difficulty is that none of the memorial publications are independent of the subject. The essence of the notability that is that a subject's accomplishments have been sufficient to force outsiders to take notice of them. The fact that these memorials all appeared in associated journals dillutes their impact considerably. The memorial lecture series is certainly an indication of notability, but it is essentially an unquantifiable one. This is bit more of a mechanical application of the letter of the guidelines than I prefer, but given my lack of familiarity in the area, I think it's the most appropriate approach. I know that a number of commentors here are themselves in academia, and they are, perhaps, better qualified than I determine whether the various indicators mentioned, when combined, equate to the type of notability envisioned in PROF. I only wish all of our Afds saw this level of participation. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My attitude has always been, "if it's this borderline, go with retention". Neıl ☄ 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Montessori School of Westfield

edit
Montessori School of Westfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bruce Lindsay Party Machine

edit
The Bruce Lindsay Party Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever, no citations, appears to be a vanity page. Google News has nothing, and Google has only two pages of results--none of which looks independent. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing worth keeping here. If the person (is a party machine a person?) is significant and someone writes a real article on the subject, that's another matter. Fg2 (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Daylight Origins Society

edit
Daylight Origins Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • Unlikely: Sennot's "this society" is clearly refering to the immediately-previously-mentioned CESHE. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Giertych is a member of both, and that Berthault, a member of CESHE publishes in Daylight, but that no cross-membership/cross-authorship with MSS is recorded. I would further point out that DOS predates Morning Star. HrafnTalkStalk 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update4:I'd like to note that on September 12, hrafn, the editor who tried to Speedy Delete this article and then AfD'd it, retired from Wikipedia. Details are on his user talk page. His retirement does not change the fact that this AfD will proceed, but it may explain why there will be no further comments signed by User:hrafn here. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These comments are uncivil and quite irrelevant to this process. All of the three things mentioned lacked support from the general community, and again, irrelevant to this deletion. I'd delete your comments, but I have no time to deal with the drama that would ensue. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so it's noted that my role in establishing the RfC was entirely technical in nature and I am neither for nor against the points being raised. All text in the RfC, other than some standard formatting I copied from another user RfC, was exactly as was posted by Catherine to AN/I and edited by at least two others. The consensus there was that AN/I was the wrong place, but it was sufficiently well formatted that I (as an admin with some familiarity with process) was able to verbatim copy it to an RFC/U page, which as yet has not been certified. Orderinchaos 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the sentence that was offensive and i apologize for it; it had no place in this simple statement of facts. Again, my apologies for overstepping the bounds of propriety. cat yronwode not logged in a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemarlin wrote (to Catherineyronwode): "I'd delete your comments, but I have no time to deal with the drama that would ensue." I want to point out that accusations of uncivil editing are more convincing when the accusations do not contain their own uncivil comments. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about footnotes. When the AfD was posted on Sept 8, the article had 2 footnotes. People have done a lot of work on it since then and now it has 15 footnotes (at the time when I'm writing this note).--Linda (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just added two more third-party refs, the Kolbe Center and Nature (UK) science magazine. This may not be the most notable organization in the whole world, but it has been publishing a quarterly journal since 1991, has drawn noisy fire from anti-Creationist journals, and is peopled with Creationists who have biographies online at Wikipedia.
  • Comment: The Kolbe Center ref merely mentions that Nevard is the secretary of DOS, and given that both he and Giertych are on the KC's advisory council, the independence of this source is questionable. The Nature ref is merely "correspondence", in response to earlier correspondence from Giertych and (if Google Scholar is to be believed) makes no direct mention of DOS. Therefore neither source adds any notability. HrafnTalkStalk 06:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Kolbe Center page was used to source Nevard's role as the editor of the Daylight magazine -- information that had not previously been in the article, and which i believed did need a source. Questioning the "independence" of that source is disingenuous as there is no mention of a connection or a relationship betwen Giertych and the DOS on the Kolbe page -- just the fact of Nevard being the journal editor, which is hardly controversial! The Nature ref does indeed mention the DOS, and if you don't subscribe to Nature, a regular google-snippet will still reveal the mention, as i demontrated on the DOS talk page and will copy here:
Nature A timely wake-up call as anti-evolutionists publicize their views ... a seminar held in Brussels at the European Parliament on ... the Daylight Origins Society, ... www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/444679a.html - Similar pages
Cheers, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The non-notable secretary of this non-notable organisation is also the editor of its non-notable magazine -- trivial coverage.
Google Scholar clearly was in error -- however, on tracking down a full-text copy of this correspondence, I see that the only mention it makes of DOS is that Giertych is an honorary member of it -- again trivial coverage.
HrafnTalkStalk 09:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'd like to see this kept just to keep tabs on these organisations, but the article clearly fails WP:ORG as it does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. On that basis I must support deletion unless good sources can be found. . . dave souza, talk 12:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This AFD has no foundation and has been motivated by a sense of retaliation for [[35]]. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Firefly322's personal attack is false. As anybody who bothered to read this article's history can tell, I WP:PRODed this article before the author of the WP:ATTACKPAGE (s)he cites became involved. HrafnTalkStalk 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Not sure what I said that was a personal attack here. The link between this AFD and the ANI are fairly clear. It would be surprising to find a religion and science article that Hrafn did not prod. Furthermore, Hrafn likes to time his or her actions so that those involved are made to feel a sense of retaliation. Hrafn has only taken this to afd so as to make himself feel powerful and show others not to mess with him. The ANI provides documentation and is making this kind of behavior clear. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firefly, you're not a mind-reader. This page is about considering whether this article meets the minimum requirements of notability, not for you to make assertions about editors. If you want the article kept, find sources that meet WP:ORG. . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using basic confirmation holism, the article itself asserts that it meets WP:ORG. This AFD should be closed as speedy keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firefly, is this last possibly a serious argument? That it asserts importance is enough to prevent a speedy delete, but not a delete at AfD. DGG (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(interposting) DGG, the material does have coherency, but per WP:Truth, methods of determining what is or is not True are somewhat out of place here. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
classic irrelevant argument, especially for something much of which was pre-internet. DGG (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I have moved the off-topic Giertych material to the Giertych page. (Side-note: i also substantially reorganized the paragraph order on the Giertych page, too, because some items were in topic order while others were in chronological order; i added topical sub-heads and asserted chronological order within the sections.)
(2) That text-move makes the D.O.S. page shorter, but it is now better focussed, i believe. It still contains 3rd party sources, so i fail to see why hrafn, the AfD nominator, keeps re-tagging it for lack of sources. Therefore i am removing that template.
(3) I truly think that the only viable argument for deletion is non-notability, not lack of sourcing.
  • Comment: Should we merge Anthony Nevard into D.O.S. rather than delete both? I noticed today that the article on Anthony Nevard, the chairman of the D.O.S., was prodded on September 6th as well, also by hrafn. I improved that article too, and removed the prod, which, knowing hrafn's history here as an editor, means that the Nevard article will soon be nominated as an AfD by hrafn, if it isn't already. I would like those who are interested in the retention in Wikipedia of material about relious topics to consider proposing a merge instead of utter deletion and effacement of both articles. If i were to chose only ONE of these two to keep, it would be the D.O.S. page, with the Nevard mini-biography folded into the D.O.S. "History and current structure" sub-section. Thanks for reading this and for voting. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fringe, insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources. Nothing in GoogleNews[36], nothing in GoogleBooks[37], nothing in GoogleScholar[38]. Does not pass WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep given that the bulk of activity is before the internet era, and that catholic traditionalist organizations tend not to use the internet much, as compared with Fundamentalist protestant groups, and are from my experience very difficult but not impossible to document, the sources given are sufficient to show then notability. The mention in Nature is sufficiently mainstream to show at least that it's recognized, though the ref is certainly not substantial. I really do wish, however, that at least some other printed Catholic traditionalist sources could be found. Most creationist sources I am familiar with are from groups also showing sem degree of anti-Catholic prejudice, and therefore not likely to mention this one. If deleted here, the relevant material could certainly be added to the article on Nevard, which I think is solid enough to hold. Contrary to what Nsk932 thinks, "Fringe" is not a reason for deletion. Contrary to what Jim62 thinks, "Too fringe for WP" is IDONTLIKEIT, not a reason for deletion either. DGG (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't think that being fringe is a reason for deletion per se. However, for a fringe organization I would like to see sufficient coverage in mainstream media (as opposed to other fringe sources). The article in Nature is good, but not enough, in my opinion, in the absence of wider coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while I agree that Traditionalist Catholic creationism is a topic worthy of an article, I don't think that this organisation can serve as its basis. The UK has a small Catholic population (9% compared to the US's 26% and Poland's 95%), and Traditionalist Catholics are only a tiny (less than 1% and considerably less by some estimates) proportion of all Catholics. This means that Traditionalist Catholicism will tend to have an imperceptible public impact in the UK, and that we should look elsewhere (particularly to Catholic-majority countries) for notable examples of Traditionalist Catholic creationism. HrafnTalkStalk 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding Catholic demographical statistics: Note that Daylight magazine claims to distributed into a number of non-Anglophone and predominently Catholic nations, including Poland, France, the Phillipines, etc. I cannot check this distribution pattern, of course, but the point is that they are obviously targeting an audience outside of the U.K. Note also that Nevard is on the advisory board of the Kolbe Center of Virginia, USA, as is Giertych -- that is, we have some internationist outreach here. Again, i would prefer to merge Nevard into the D.O.S. and keep the D.O.S., not keep both. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: Daylight is not "distributed" to these countries (which would imply significant penetration), but merely has a "circulation"[39] that extends to them (which could be no more than a handful of subscribers, or even a single one, in each). It is not 'obvious' that this 'not very active' "English branch" of CESHE is "targeting an audience outside of the U.K." -- or doing anything much at all. HrafnTalkStalk 11:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too thinly sourced to enable a reliable article to exist. I don't mind that they are fringe, they just don't strike me as a notable participant in the fringe. The well-documented and clearly notable Maciej Giertych is said to be an honorary member of this group, but no source is provided for that statement. (Do we know for sure he is even aware that he is an honorary member?). The Daylight magazine is said to publish (among others) the work of G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis. I don't think this group inherits any notability from any of those worthy individuals. I don't perceive that any of References 1 through 5 is a reliable source. Can't any small group of people claim to be an important participant in the anti-evolution movement? How can we know that for sure? EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ed Johnston, seeing as how Giertych was referred to as an "honourary member" of the D.O.S. in both cited magazine sources (Nature and the NCSE journal) as well as in articles in La Prensa of Panama, and other newspapers logged at google's newpaper archive in non-English languages, it would appear Giertych knows that he is an honourary member of the D.O.S. and that we need supply no further references. :-) Perhaps i should bring those non-English language newspaper sources into the article. Maybe that would help establish international notability. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the whole points of the notability guidleline is that a mention does not confer it. Brilliantine (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the wording of the guideline. My recommendation to keep the article is based on a combination of factors; the mention in the journal Nature is only one of them. That mention though, carries significantly more weight than a mention in a local newspaper. With that and the other references, the topic-organization and the magazine they publish satisfy the notability inclusion criteria in various ways, in my view. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Nature citation carries very little weight -- as it was explicitly "correspondence" (effectively a letter to the editor), in response to a letter from Giertych previously published. HrafnTalkStalk 06:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts on this, but I did not enter my comment here with the intention of debating. I read the article, reviewed the sources, and stated my recommendation that the topic is notable enough to keep the article. For purposes of determining consensus with regard to this AfD, my entry stands as I wrote it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: added New York Times Syndicate -- in Spanish -- I just added another ref, in which the Daylight Origins Society is mentioned. It is from La Prensa, Panama, New York Times Syndicate, by Beatriz Navarro. They claim their material is distributed in other countries (that is, where English is not the language spoken, and where many people are Catholics). So i will add this ref. I have no idea whether it will change any minds -- but i will add it. cat yronwode, not logged in, sorry 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a two sentence mention rather than any sort of non-trivial coverage. Brilliantine (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a description and it is not from the site's own page. Hrafn had previusly noted the fact that the only description came from their own site. I'm just trying to help here. See below for two more references from 3rd partis. How many do you think would be optimal? --cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think to convince me of notability you would need, in addition to what is already here, one article in a not-too-obscure newspaper or journal that offers substantial coverage of the organisation, or discussion (rather than just a mention) of the organisation in a scholarly work. Alternatively two or three articles in not-too-obscure publications (WP:RS) where there is at least a medium-sized paragraph that actually offers more than a sentence or two of information on the organisation. Brilliantine (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: added British Centre for Science Education -- I just added another 3rd party ref, because this one notes that the D.O.S., being Catholic, "doesn't appear to cooperate at all with mainstream creationist groups which are all basically Protestant, calvinistic and evangelical." That's a new information, not found in other sources. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: added Christians in Science Young Earth creationsism link -- I have added a mention that the D.O.S. promotes not just any form of creationism, but specifically Young Earth creationsim. This appears on the British Christians in Science web directory as such. I thought the information was significant enough to include in the D.O.S. article, especially since there is already a Wiki page on the Christians in Science organization. I think that these refs about YEC beliefs and abstainance from linkage with Protestant creationist groups begin to paint a clearer and more well-referenced picture of the D.O.S. than we had when the nimination for AfD was made. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, that's another page which seems to be entirely based on selfpublished Christians in Science website pages which are giving me 404 not found messages. Verification is needed from reliable secondary sources, and current links to these primary sources would also be a good idea. Carry on, dave souza, talk 13:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the same problem of lack of secondary sources applies to Christian Order, another non-notable organisation being used as a reference to assert the notability of this organisation. . . dave souza, talk 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Creationism is spurious but deletion is a bad idea. Busker49 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there does not appear to be enough evidence of notability. Guettarda (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This organization is notable enough to have an article. There are enough references in the page. They've published a print magazine since 1977. They're involved with several other similar Catholic creationist groups. A Member of the European Parliament is an honorary member of the group. I don't believe in creationism at all, but just looking at this by the Wikirules, the article should not be deleted. --Linda (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there seems not to be enough evidence of notability per WP:ORG. Verbal chat 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with Wikipedia the world myself that we have this article and not one about, say, the Oxonian Society? WP:OTHERSTUFF, I know. Nevertheless, delete. user:Everyme 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with Eldereft and nom that it exists but sufficient non-trivial, independent, third-party coverage which would give perspective on its operations is lacking. Note that many organisations exist, have members and publish but are not notable - I belong to one personally (it's a professional society, but a small one). Orderinchaos 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just scrapes through the notability guidelines IMO. Better to keep bordeline notable articles than delete, after all that is what makes Wikipedia a uniquely useful resource. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , fails ORG completely. The sources are about other groups/subjects mentioned in the article or very pathetic sources indeed which merely acknowledge the group exists. Sorry, but this group is not notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Per DGG and Filll. It seems to me that offline references might be found. The organization was founded in 1977. There ought to be something, so give it time. I also think the NYT ref might be good, though I can't tell. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why is there such a desire to eliminate subjects from Wikipedia that someone happens to dislike for whatever reason. I dislike a number of subjects. Should I be trying to eliminate mention of them from Wikipedia? Of course not! There are external references to them, such as the mention in the New York Times Syndicate and the British Centre for Science Education - which is more weight than a mere mention in a local newspaper. Along with the other references, and the fact that they have been publishing their own magazine since 1977, this organization definitely should be referenced in Wikipedia. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 02:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogopoly

edit
Dogopoly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Agree to delete. The page is nothing but an echo chamber for the paleodogs and has no objective information. Dog IS-LM Model (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — Dog IS-LM Model (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
At least as important is this article's role in proliferating outmoded paleodog views. Strong and immediate delete. HighSteaks (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — HighSteaks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Paleodogs are the shit, man, how can we not fucking love them? Jesusdawg (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — Jesusdawg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Excuse me, the term is normal (attack removed). Jesusdawg (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fucking neodogs fucking ruin fucking everything. Whostolemambalticave (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete This article has become dogged (cue the rimshot) by a bunch of bored SPA's looking to create headaches for admins and anyone actually trying to create an NPOV article about this game. Looking away from all the stuff above and contained on the talk pages, this is just another cheap and dog-revolving version of Monopoly which hasn't found much notability outside a few buyers and this group of SPA/sockpuppets bored on a weekend. Nate • (chatter) 07:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 02:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invader wars

edit
Invader wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Delete - After doing some googling, most of sites that I have found are about either an arcade game or ports of that game to computers and nothing about what the text describes. - Dlrohrer2003 05:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Aprile Lanza Boettcher

edit
Aprile Lanza Boettcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

Aprile Lanza Boettcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

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

Millionaire Cupid

edit
Millionaire Cupid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Halo Surf Mod

edit
Halo Surf Mod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Adele Carles

edit
Adele Carles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Could I suggest then that you change your vote to Merge?Sumthingweird (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a merge target? RayAYang (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Kingdom Now theology

edit
AfDs for this article:
Kingdom Now theology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • Comment Good point. People attempting to coatrack on to it brought it to WP:AN attention, which is where I first noticed it. Several of us have been striving to improve it: put a good article together, and there's no room for coatracks. However, in the process of trying to clean up a pretty marginal article (see diffs in nom) it became clear that there is no good definition of this term--multiple reliable sources use it in multiple, contradictory ways. The inability to improve the article from its current sad state is the impetus for this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding: the Southern Poverty Law Center source you cite deals exclusively with "Joel's Army", and I could not find any mention in the source of "Kingdom Now theology" with both a read-through and Ctrl-F. Maybe there's enough for a short article specifically dealing with "Joel's Army", but the SPLC source doesn't say anything about "Kingdom Now theology". MastCell Talk 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The most a reliably sourced article could say is "X is a pejorative term used by various people to label different things that they disagree with. Nobody uses it to describe their own theology. One use is A, one use is B, one use is C, ..." filled in with the various examples I found on the talk page.[42] The problem here is not a lack of use of the term, it is a lack of meaning of the term. This article fails to meet the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline, and I believe it cannot meet that guideline due to the lack of useful sources. And the article may have been created in 2004, but it has never been sourced, and it was first marked as needing sourcing back in 2006.[43][44] With over two years to find sourcing for it; we have as a community failed. GRBerry 13:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Given improvements in sourcing. Kukini háblame aquí 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (EC) Our failure does not make this term not notable, or the topic unencyclopedic. I agree that it is often used in a perjorative sense, but if reliable sources use the term, and provide enough to write an article, it is appropriate for us to keep it. Stephen J. Hunt has more or less made a career on observing these type of movements, he wrote a book referencing it here. Another scholarly treatment is here, and another here. All three of these books appear to me to be independently published works likely to qualify as reliable sources. The difficulty in writing articles of this nature is that most of the scholarly material online will be JSTOR-type articles that are harder to access, while there are many privately maintained websites that only deal with the material from a POV doctrinal perspective. These often make it into the article, and skew its balance. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Hoax. Mr.Z-man 20:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Dad

edit
Ninja Dad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), will merge to Sunni Dynasty Fr33kmantalk APW 06:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonni (ruler)

edit
Sonni (ruler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

Four Funnel Liners

edit
Four Funnel Liners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

  • Keep but stubbify, getting rid of all the copy-pasted stuff from other ship articles. This appears to be a notable subject as a classification of ship, and merits definition and explanation independent of the individual ships that are of this classification. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless there is some engineering advantage to four funnels, I don't think this is notable. (The fourth funnel on Titanic was a fake.) Besides, as the nominator noted, all of the ships have their own articles, so there's no need for a bare list. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If multiple WP:Reliable sources can be found demonstrating that there is something to this subject more than the fact that a whole bunch of ships had four hollow cylinders sticking out the top, I might be persuaded otherwise, but at the moment, I'm inclined to suggest deletion of this article as redundant to the category. The ships listed all appear to be independantly notable both for being the largest ships in the world at their time and for other reasons percuilar to the operational history of each ship, but I don't think this individual notability is inherited by the subject. -- saberwyn 10:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is only a stub at present, following recent work on it. I would assume that a ship would only have four funnels if it had four boilers and the associated engines. I recall a reference to a British naval ship, possibly HMS Hardinge, which had four funnels and was taken to the Middle East during WWI, because unsophisticated natives would be impressed by such a ship. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (not an expert)[reply]
    • Actually, most of the four-funnel ships were given four funnels for appearance only. In most cases, one or more funnels were "dummy" funnels, as in they served no functional purpose except for aesthetics. This, however, is not unique to four-funnel ships. Many ships with two and three funnels also contained dummy funnels. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The existence of a category is irrelevant per WP:CLS. I have briefly browsed the sources available for this and consider them adequate to support a fine article. For example, I like the detail that visibility on the Acquitania was measured by the number of funnels you could see from the bridge. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love and War (album)

edit
Love and War (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/the-devil-and-daniel-merriweather. Besides which, the "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" criteria only applies to "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums", which this is not; it is a future relase album. Nathan86 (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as failing WP:CRYSTAL. The reference given above is cursory at best, and there appears to be little to no information in the article or that can be made part of the article which passes WP:V, which is suggested by WP:MUSIC ("Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage"). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article. Possibly the album can be mentioned on the artist's article. However, there is no confirmed release date (somewhere around spring is not a confirmed release date), as well as significant independent coverage. Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums states: "Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album." Out of 3 references provided, #1 mentions the album (though not an exact release date), #2 is a PR press release from the record company, #3 doesn't mention the album at all. That's not "significant coverage". Also, the list of included tracks has not been confirmed.--Lester 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Daniel Merriweather. This is his only album (and it's not even out yet), so I see no need for a separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite 23:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faded Love (Hank the Cowdog)

edit
Faded Love (Hank the Cowdog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vibroblade

edit
Vibroblade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Clearly fails WP:V (no sources cited) and also probably fails WP:NOR. In many cases, the source material never called the weapon in question a "vibroblade," and categorizing it as such without a reliable source is clearly original research. Remove the non-cited material and there would be nothing left. *** Crotalus *** 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you back up a bit? What's J&J, and by "page" do you mean its article? I also have to be anal about one thing: please do not resort to "fancruft" as a deletion reason. This is not a new issue. The word has no definition beyond "stuff that I dislike and/or want gone", and is widely considered to be insulting. Arguments don't need it. Thanks. --Kizor apparently now on behalf of the Invisible Nitpicking Council, 19:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment J&J would refer to "Johnson & Johnson", and there was a reference to a real-life vibroblade manufactured by Johnson & Johnson. There was a reference to a webpage on that implement- thus page is webpage. I used the term "fancruft" in the sense of "content [that] is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question", but if you don't consider that valid, I'm not sure how you can protest the WP:NOR argument. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, for the most part. Subject probably isn't notable (haven't done an exhaustive search yet). Not a helpful or appropriate navigational page--could be replaced by a two sentence string. UNLIKE lightsaber, vibroblades are often shown in movies as...knives, so there isn't a whole lot of production commentary and special effects discussion about how they might have put some LED's on a butter knife in Attack from the Martian Nunnery or whatever. Protonk (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Article is definitely OR. Also, I noticed a few non-"vibroblades" added to the list by the original author. This looks like a cursory glance at source material to compile there own conclusion, and if you actually read the material, quite a few don't match the definition created by the author. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article just needs to be improved and have citations added. The weapon is common in many areas of fiction. There are other articles on fictitious weapons like raygun or planet killer. Just improve the article, keep it as a stub for now. ScienceApe (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no distinct criteria for items' inclusion (at least those not called "vibroblade". Star Wars item (and any other universe's identically-named item) seems not to meet WP:GNG. --EEMIV (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have cited a work of the Oxford University Press which seems adequate notability. The rest is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does nothing of the sort. First, you haven't linked to a source at all, but rather a search result/preview. Second, even with this amalgamation of sci-fi vocabulary, there is no evidence of significant third-party coverage by sources. --EEMIV (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. This does appear in several dozen unrelated works, and it's not too much of a stretch to classify something as a vibroblade when the work it appears in describes it as a vibrating blade. In fact change the article name, apparently "vibroblade" is closer to a specific Star Wars term than a general one. I'm not ready to support a deletion, rather looking further into ways of improving this. If there are blades on the list that don't vibrate, that's a matter of cleanup and of improving the article lead. We should probably do the latter anyway. --Kizor 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once N's done, a good way to improve the lead would be to quote a couple of hard scifi works about the functioning and advantages of the vibroblade/vibrating blade/whatever as presented in those works. Perferably a couple of different ones. Hard scifi is that technically-minded fiction with plausible and often painstakingly explained premises. Doing this in the style of the glossary should work. --Kizor 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sources added show notability. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mac (rapper)

edit

Here lies another myspace musician who fails the basics of WP:MUSIC, and particularly lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe you misunderstand. WP:BLP applies to the content of an article, not whether the article should exist. The article may need repair, but the question here is whether the musician in question is notable, and guidelines for that are set forth by WP:BAND. I will have to do some research to determine whether he passes by criteria 5 and 6, but my instinct tells me that, provided research is done and some major repair work is done, this article will survive. 67.187.45.161 (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No 67.187.45.161 I understand just fine. WP:BLP applies to the content and our general inclusion guidelines also state that without non-trivial publications about a subject there need not be an article, period. JBsupreme (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Metro 90 Vrefron (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Outsidaz. Black Kite 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Zee

edit

Despite all the rumors and hype, this artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), consesnsus is to redirect/merge, makes sense will do it Fr33kmantalk APW 06:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Evans (Box Tops)

edit
John Evans (Box Tops) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC's standards for notability ("Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band") and a quick Google search revealed a brief profile on the band's site to be the only substantial, non-trivial coverage, which is not enough for a full, neutral biography of this individual. As far as I can tell, he has not been a member of any other notable band (he doesn't even associate with the Box Tops anymore) and thus a merge and redirect into Box Tops might be appropriate. Cheers, CP 02:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peel the Seal

edit
Peel the Seal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The citations here are inadequate for an encyclopedia entry. Not verifiable enough. Ink mathematics (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard sort

edit
Wizard sort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability of this algorithm. Maralia (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially, it looks to me like the author is proposing a (very naive and really bad) version of a Hash Sort--something that might warrant its own article. Anyway, there's a reason you've not found any evidence of notability for this algorithm: it's really bad. The algorithm does not even run in O(n^2) time, where n is the number of elements in the list, but in O(k), where k is the largest element in the list. That means if you have a list with a two elements, say, 1 and MAX_INT, that means that it would take on the order of MAX_INT operations to sort the list. Furthermore, as described this algorithm has no way of dealing with multiple entries in the list. This is very, very bad.
Furthermore, lots of the stuff he has here is just wrong. To attempt to represent even a small double as a long could conceivably create a very, very large number--meaning that the Wizard sort would take a very long time to finish.
This article is pretty much entirely OR, and not even good OR. It badly needs to go. However, I am going to temporarily copy this to my namespace--I know some people who might be interested in seeing this. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
agree. I started smiling at the unique integer part. NVO (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't been able to find any references either - Google gives nothing but false positives, and there's nothing on the arXiv - and so I think we have to call this OR. Scog (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete

As mentioned in the first paragraph: this method is a synthesis of different concepts (as most of the sorting algorithms, by the way). It is using Hashing technique with F(x)=x, however this method involves more steps then just hashing and it is not listed on Sorting algorithm page, which states that best known practical case is a Radix Sort, which is slower then Wizard sort.

I think author of the remark also missed Wizard Sort (non-unique integers) part, which explains how Wizard sort deals with multiple entries.

Also, please describe how in a world this algorithm will be O(n^2) as stated and not O(n+j), where j is the largest element in a set, as stated in the article?

It is correct, for small array with large values, Wizard Sort will waste a lot of memory and time, but issue of speed in sorting comes up, usually, only in large arrays. As for the last remark: it is a blatant original research, but that does not reduce its validity. And my last point: You can say anything you want about it, but Benchmarks do not lie!

djwizard Yevgeniy Dukhovny, September 08, 2008. —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — djwizard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Do Not Delete May be I am missing something, but arguments stated in TallNapoleon's message are simply incorrect, and I thought I showed how are they are incorrect. It is not that I agree or disagree with them: but they are just stating something about the article (like Wizard Sort not dealing with mulitple values) which are simply not true. Please someone explain this to me.--Djwizard (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if TallNapoleon is completely wrong and this is the best sorting algorithm ever, independent reliable sources need to be provided to establish notability. You needn't defend the algorithm's mechanics here; a deletion decision would not be based on a judgement of its value, but rather its notability. Maralia (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all, except for Maralia (who has a valid point, with which I disagree though), who are saying delete:

You might throw theory at it as much as you can, but I provided a Java code which you can run on you computers and use in your code (and some of you probably will use it in your code). If you run source code, it, almost certainly, will be faster then ANY sort you have available.

Show me a code which runs faster then this!

--Djwizard (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response For any one of us to run the algorithm and benchmark it ourselves and then put information in the article based on those benchmarks would constitute original research; "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments". The algorithm doesn't matter for the sake of this debate, rather it's the failure of WP:RS; "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: as far as I can tell this is a rather clunky implementation of Counting sort. I'm afraid benchmarks are not considered "proof" when it comes to developing algorithms, because they have a tendency to miss pathological cases. In this case, one such case would be a small list containing MAX_LONG, which would cause your sort to literally run most modern computers out of memory. It is true that for large numbers of values with a small range, counting sort will sort more quickly than any other sorting algorithm. But a single large element breaks it horribly. DJ, it's nice to see that you've taken an interest in computer science, but I highly recommend that you take a university level algorithms course. As for the policy on original research, for an algorithm to be notable it can't just be something you came up with. Rather, it has to be something that has been recognized by the computer science community as a whole, by being frequently used in applications, published in a scholarly journal, or something of the sort. Oh, and if Wizard Sort does deal with multiple objects, you have my apologies for missing that. It appears to do so in a very strange manner, when frankly the best way to do it is to have your Wizard array store the number of times each element appears--as, indeed, counting sort does. Best of luck, but still delete. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, per improvements made. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predrag Bambic

edit
Predrag Bambic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable producer, no outside refs, mostly self-published bios on google, nothing of note on google news, mostly just a list of his films. MBisanz talk 02:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), consensus is to merge, I've merged other way, from Viva (Canadian magazine) to Viva Magazine instead Fr33kmantalk APW 06:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Magazine

edit
Viva Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is a mixture of non-notability and advertising. References do not demonstrate in-depth independent coverage. TN‑X-Man 18:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Black Kite 23:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Stupid (Madonna Song)

edit
Get Stupid (Madonna Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from improper article title formatting and misspellings throughout, this is a video interlude being used by Madonna on her latest tour. It's not a full song appearing on any album, nor is it a single. As the previous deletion tag states, this is not notable. Any controversies generated by this belong in the Sticky & Sweet Tour article. - eo (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horton the Elephant

edit
Horton the Elephant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails Wikipedia guidelines for notability in fiction, specifically under the elements of fiction section, which requires "significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources" and "real-world context and analysis". This article essentially contains only plot information, which should be merged into the appropriate books (Horton Hears a Who! and Horton Hatches the Egg), as should the "Other characters" section. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Please note that I am referring the article about the character, not the two books in which this character appears (Horton Hears a Who! and Horton Hatches the Egg). Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep though the article needs to be split--one about Horton, and one about the other characters. Conceivable the other characters could go with the books speparately, but not the material on Horton. This is a major character in two of the most famous childrens' books ever, with a significant literature about both the book and cultural refs.I wonder if the nom even thought about looking for refs--the google scholar search in particular seems to have material to very considerably expand the article. . DGG (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not denying that there are possible references to add real-world perspective (though I think you may be overestimating; most of these are simply about the books, not the character), but any real-world information belongs on the main articles for the books, not the character article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. There's absolutely no real-world context to this outside of the books, nor anything that can be said that can't be a part of the articles on the books. RMHED's quotation above, as it's specifically tied to the plot and theme of a single book, is duplicative outside of its article. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure) WP:SNOW, no objection posted SunDragon34 (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmalls.com

edit
Deadmalls.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like it hardley passes WP:WEB and seems to be borderline for WP:N. Article has been nominated for CSD in the past. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigtec Private Limited

edit
Bigtec Private Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable and the second section seems a little advert. NefariousOpus 06:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


About the Bigtec Pvt. Ltd. page- Can you help me with it, then? I just read it at the cited sources and i thought I'd try my hand at writing a company bio. User: Isaac.Hume I'm sure you'd do a better job. —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 01:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied (A7). Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richon Tools

edit
Richon Tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non Notable and possible Advert Nefarious Opus 09:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Ty 07:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Damianakis

edit
Elias Damianakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not believe this artist meets WP:CREATIVE. There is a local story on him (Pasco artist finds comfort in painting religious icons), but he is not widely-known. The references in the article are to general and historical references about the type of art (icons) that he makes, but not about the artist himself. Stomme (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 01:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good thought, but in fact what he practises is the 2nd sense of the word (see the article), meaning icon-painting. He is not an academic. If the article stays all these should be changed. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, in light of that Delete per above, failing WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 08:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural influences on Superman

edit
Cultural influences on Superman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be essentially OR, lots of weasel words and speculations. Nsk92 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 23:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spook's Sacrifice

edit
The Spook's Sacrifice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was deleted as an expired PROD on 17 August and re-created. Old version of the article was all speculation. This version has less content but still no sources. Fails verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 08:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Training Network for Animation

edit
European Training Network for Animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Loose network of European animation educators, lacking any independent coverage. -- Mark Chovain 05:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment true but equally at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions we find In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion. In any case I have added several references to the article to support my assertion that they were easy to find. Richard Pinch (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), merging to main article as per consensus Fr33kmantalk APW 06:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Housing at Saint Joseph's University

edit
Housing at Saint Joseph's University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a non-notable group of buildings. My attempt to get it merged into the article on the University has been stymied by the initial creator of the article. Corvus cornixtalk 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable group of buildings? It's at a major university. Merging it with the main article would clutter up that main article and make it look very unprofessional and unorganized.Bus2Beezlebub (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint_Joseph's_University#Buildings doesn't look cluttered, unprofessional or unorganized. Corvus cornixtalk 04:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a detailed list of buildings. It just names certain notable buildings throughout the campus. I wanted to list the number of residents that each hall houses, the locations of those buildings, when they were built, and the types of housing available.

Go ahead and delete it. It's not worth arguing about.

If the article's creator is willing to merge the information into the University page, as I requested at the beginning of all of this drama, I will withdraw this nomination. Corvus cornixtalk 23:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability rationale; advert seicer | talk | contribs 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livecare Support

edit
Livecare Support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and still a little ad-like (was deleted before for being too ad-like NefariousOpus 06:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 00:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite 23:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Crossing

edit
Jackson Crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS. Sources are a store directory, a press release, and a trivial mention from Guidebook America. Note that a page on the town's other mall got deleted ages ago for a similar lack of notability — and that mall's bigger than this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever even been there? It's not "the junk mall" as you say, it has many large chain stores. -- American Eagle (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly big boxes, and lower end stuff like Dollar Tree. Westwood has most of the chains. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Best Buy, Target, Kohl's, Sears, Toys "R" Us and Bed Bath & Beyond - those are ones I can think of, chain stores. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even though it's certainly large enough to be generally notable but there is a distinct lack of significant coverage (outside of the global coverage they got in 1997 when they fired their Mall Santa--funny, poignant, but not really about the mall itself) but if better sourcing can be found, I'm more than willing to change my view on this one. - Dravecky (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Charly

edit
Operation Charly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

What at first seems to be an impressive article, is completely lacking in notability and sources. Google only comes up with 224 hits (half of which are wiki mirrors), 4 News hits for all dates, no Google books or scholar. The bulk of the material is from the Spanish language paper El Clarin. It appears to rely heavily on WP:NOR as none of the other sources mention "Operation Charly". Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and is not a newspaper. Delete. CENSEI (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Looks well sourced to me. Gamaliel (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You speak spanish? CENSEI (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit. Gamaliel (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you are vouching that the sources do indeed agree with th content they cite? CENSEI (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. I said what I said, nothing more or less. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you come to the conlcusion that it was "well sourced" if you never read the sources? CENSEI (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is referenced to a wide variety of reliable sources. A reasonable yardstick. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A "wide variety of reliable sources" hmm ... lets see. Is RISAL, The Network of information and solidarity with Latin America, which stopped posting information to its website 9 months ago, a reliable source? Is "Algeria Watch" a reliable source? After looking at all the other sources, some arguably reliable in the context of Wikipedia, none with one exception mention anything about "Operation Charly". So far, the only "reliable source" that mentions an "Operation Charly" is one single 3000 word newspaper article. Can an entitre article be based off of one source? Now, I will ask you again, is this article and its subject "Operation Charly" supported by "multiple reliable sources", or is your "keep" vote based on something else? CENSEI (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article uses as sources major newspapers in three countries. That's good enough for me. Gamaliel (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    None of which you have/can read and only one that mentions "Operation Charly". The use of the others, which I have read, are used to argue a position not clearly advanced by the sources. I think thats textbook WP:OR. CENSEI (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In repsonse to the above exchange; someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Wikipedia Sourcing roles disciminate regarding the language of the source. There is a general prohibition on filling the External Links sections with non-English links (with some exceptions), but if the only sources on a topic are from non-English publications, that does not disqualify a topic from having a Wikipedia article. If someone believes that a source is a hoax or has been added in bad faith, and does not read the language, the onus is on the claimant to find someone who does and who can call B.S. if needs be. No vote per the article as I lack enough knowledge of the subject to cast an informed opinion. 23skidoo (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not the issue of the non-English shorces, the issue is that only one of the sources is about "Operation Charly", the Clarin article, the rest of the non-english sources are used as WP:SYNTH the articles other portions. CENSEI (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, the Argentine military worked with the CIA in Operation Charly, in a program lasting until 1983. According to the Wikipedia article on Operation Charly, while the invasion of the Falkland Islands and the subsequent return to civilian rule in 1983 put an end to Argentine operations in Central America, the "dirty war" continued well into the 1990s, with hundreds of thousands being "disappeared." The Reagan administration took over the covert operations.

If this article is kept, the paragraph should be re-sourced. If this article is deleted then the paragraph should be as well. DCEdwards1966 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only English source, the Noam Chomsky article, is now a dead link. This is an English encyclopedia. If all of the sources are in other languages, how can editors evaluate them? Until there is some English sources, I would have to voto to keep them out. How can someone who is researching this subject verify that what is in the article is accurate? --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not having sources in English is, by no means, an impediment. Very valuable information would be lost otherwise. We have contributors from all over the world, and Spanish is one of the most important languages in use. Mariano(t/c) 05:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think the main problem with the article is the title. Operación Charly is not a widely used name for what it's being described. The Clarín (the most importante Argentine newspaper) article uses "Operación Charlie", while La Nacion (probably second) doesn't use a particular expression. Others use "Death Squads", which could refer to other similar operations. In short, while Operation Cóndor was a cooperation between several Latin American dictatorships, Charly/Charlie was about the cooperation between the Argentine military government and the CIA, and the spread of the anti-guerrilla technics to Central America. Have this in mind when serching for referencies, but I think the hole thing is quite documented. Mariano(t/c) 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Or move the contents to Operation Condor or a neutral title. I agree with Mariano that the main problem seems to be the title Operation Charly, it's unclear where it has come from. As far as I can see Clarin cites it from the book R. Cardoso, R. Kirschbaum, and E. van der Kooy: Malvinas, la trama secreta and the Spanish term is Operación Charlie. The State Department document concerning Raúl Héctor Castro's meeting with Viola in 1979 cited by Clarin is available online, the document concerning a meeting with Argentine Intelligence can be found here. The Argentine operations in Central America are well sourced (in English too), e.g. Bob Woodward: Veil pp. 184 ff. or the Interview with Duane Clarridge.--zaphodia (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two databases of scholarly work return no result for "Operation Charly." A books.google search has one hit unrelated to the subject of this article and a news.google search has one hit unrelated to this. Agree with the nom: At first glance it looks like a good article. However, without WP:RS there is no reason to have an article. And for the record, websites like www.algeria-watch.org are not reliable and the reliable sources in there cite background knowledge indirectly related. This may indeed be real, but we don't have the sources. We66er (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is based on a text attributed to Maria Seoane. She is definitely a biased source, but a competent one. In a civil war, all sources are biased. Can anybody check the content/tone of the wiki article to her printed texts, to verify that at least this source is correctly narrates? NVO (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the name of Maria Seoane in the article? The only journalist sources are citing information that is about commonly known history of killings in South America. Not a single WP:RS is about "Operation Charly." It's looking more like this article is a hoax. We66er (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Merge (non-admin closure), closing in spite of advice at WP:NAC (I participated in discussion) but full time period has expired and consensus was to merge, which I have done and I have asked for closure, see below; cleaning up to get out of backlog, undo if disagree :-). Fr33kmantalk APW 13:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Hazelgrove

edit
Claire Hazelgrove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Comment I don't know, the problem is she's a young candidate; she's not even the youngest candidate ever as the mirror link shows; saying she could be the youngest MP ever would rely on an election falling within the next few months/under a year before she skips past Ms Devlin; indeed she'd also have to hope the Benn lass doesn't get elected either as she would be 2 years younger; so really it needs a by election. It's just too much WP:Crystal for my liking, second youngster and possibilities? No; my delete still stands I'm afraid. --Blowdart | talk 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Yes, I'm having the same problems. Good for you, sticking to your vote! :-) fr33kman (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My Merge !vote also stands. Ros0709 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it does not; see WP:POLITICIAN. It does look like the nominator has had a change of mind but this cannot be procedurally closed by a non-admin because there are Delete !votes. Note also that despite the nominator's change of mind my own !vote (Merge) stands, one other editor has expressly stated that his Delete !vote stands and another editor has since !voted Merge. Ros0709 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment no objections here --Blowdart | talk 05:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged, and redirected. I've left the AfD tag as it would be a WP:Conflict of interest for me to remove it. Also I can't do a WP:NAC closure of this myself now, so can someone (who knows how) do it, or can an admin close as keep? Thanks Fr33kmantalk APW 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. OR/No RS/WEB seicer | talk | contribs 02:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donkpedia

edit
Donkpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination due to the speedy deletion of this article under A7-web was contested at DRV, where it was determined that the speedy deletion criteria did not apply. See the DRV discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 3. I have no opinion on this article or discussion at this time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memoirs: 1939-1993

edit
Memoirs: 1939-1993 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Relatively unknown book. Not worthy of an article IMO Chatmantoo (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could much of the information be merged into the main Brian Mulroney article - perhaps under the memoirs section - rather than being deleted A.C. Norman (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Merge info to appropriate section in Brian Mulroney. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Student News article on Yeardot
  2. ^ Barking and Dagenham Recorder, TV acclaim for wrestler Chloe John Phillips, 12 Aug 2008, Accessed 03 Sep 2008
  3. ^ 2009 hopeful Sam Phripp speaks to oikotimes.com
  4. ^ On Roster of Arsenal L.F.C.
  5. ^ FA Women's Premier League - League Table
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_8&oldid=1081071549"