Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirected to Slide Away and non admin closed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slide Away (Verve song)

Unnecessary, as the reason for the page was a song which is now located at Slide Away Enigmaman (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why each Verge single can't have its own article. Kingturtle (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote? It does have its own article. I'm proposing an extraneous page with nothing on it for deletion. Enigmaman (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What happened here??! Content at Slide Away (Verve song) was moved to Slide Away, then Slide Away (Verve song) tagged for deletion as an empty page? Suggest nominator withdraw nomination and change Slide Away (Verve song) to a redirect, as that page now is a duplicate of Slide Away. Paulbrock (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Sorry. My mistake. I will change it to a redirect and remove my nomination from the main AFD page. Enigmaman (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chickendove

No references, never used in any political mainstream off the net. Ripped from urban dictionary Jscheiner (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have been used anywhere of substance, only Ghits are Urban Dictionary and various right-wing blogs. Would seem to fail WP:NEO. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete this article applies no references, notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've heard of a chickenhawk, but never a chickendove. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair Beecham

This fails WP:BIO. Also, considering that (she?) is only known for one thing, it may be not notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, this person seems to have gotten coverage in major news sources ([1]). Probably notable. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, MBE, founder of a £450m company. Pburka (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--if the information and sources for that get added to the article. DGG (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Is frequently cited in text books as an example of a successful entrepreneur,[2] and also has plenty of press coverage.[3] I've put some sources in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - U.S. editors may find it helpful to search some .co.uk addresses, as there is extensive and notable coverage of the subject. --BizMgr (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A7, surprisingly) by Jmlk17. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blind mans bluff ( movie )

Non-notable student film Polly (Parrot) 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If movies could be speedied for lack of evidence of any possible notability , this would be a candidate for it. DGG (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources? No. --DerRichter (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophies of Milan Kundera

Essay, inappropriate for an encycyclopedia, 100% original research WP:OR. History suggests that it may be a recreated article. Camillus (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as an essay overflowing with OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, probably OR. --DerRichter (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 23:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, WP:SOURCE, and SELFREF pretty much sums it up. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay built on original research. Not really appropriate for Wikipedia. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above, but also as a POV fork. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Soxred93. --Beloved Freak 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Even if not OR (which it certainly seems to be), this could probably be best merged with the core article anyway. This article is redundant at best. --BizMgr (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Longhair\^talk 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maruthamunai

Unreferenced personal essay. KurtRaschke (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal essay, full of original research and lacking in context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this was plagarized out of a pamphlet or something. --DerRichter (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I've stripped out the OR, added some more info, and it's now a decent stub. Pburka (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Article is fine in its present state. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Article has been fixed now. Soxred93 | talk count bot 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Village whose existence is verified. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the nominator's reasons apply anymore. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - The article has been sufficiently rewritten to satisfy me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actual population center. --Oakshade (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W. Mark Lanier

A mainly vanity (it seems) article, already deleted previously for copyvio. Many of the sources are the own lawfirm, and the rest are journals. No outside, solid sources beyond. Jmlk 1 7 22:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability.--DerRichter (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to be notable. Needs to be severely pruned, though. Pburka (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Agree with Pburka. I did some preliminary edits just to see what was really in the article ... could definitely use more cleanup. There's a verifiable source that he is in the top-100 list of lawyers. A random check of Category:American lawyers shows some articles that have similar notability. Truthanado (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: DerRichter argues "fails notability" yet article subject is included in articles on "Vioxx" and "List of Texas Tech University People" with invitation to create article on subject. (I am Mark Lanier making this response, so my bias is there!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmark675 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are numerous print and media references to Lanier, especially in reference to the Vioxx case (MSNBC, for instance). I didn't find any that would individually satisfy WP:N, but the sheer quantity of them goes a long way. --BizMgr (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite serious need for scrubwork. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as the notability for this article has been firmly established from this debate. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading day

A non-notable day, set aside by few schools during final examinations. Is it really notable enough to receive an article? Jmlk 1 7 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought most schools had reading days. The concept is at least worth a mention somewhere - maybe merge to Final examination? Zagalejo^^^ 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most four-year universities that I know of have a reading day. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But are reading days encyclopedic? Really?--DerRichter (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC#It_is_unencyclopedic Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. All of the references are either primary sources or simply confirm the existence of a Reading Day. There's no independent literature about Reading Day. Pburka (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Primary_source#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. Wikipedia is a compendium of primary and secondary sources. If you read some of those cited resolutions and student newspaper articles, you can see that they support the arguments, counterarguments and facts summed up in the article. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing delete vote in light of the references discovered by Abd. Pburka (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they may exist, but I don't think they're that notable. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep ghits "reading day" university, 58,500. Article sources include published discussion of the topic, I also found more "independent literature about Reading Day" at: [4]. See also [5]. All established student newspapers, which I'd consider meet WP:RS. --Abd (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a few schools--a reading day or reading period has become fairly widespread, and is generally referred to in the sources that discuss things about colleges. considerable expansion is possible. DGG (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When did we go back to counting ghits to establish notability? Dloh cierekim Deleted? 15:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I totally agree. That arguement is used in most afd discussions now, too. --DerRichter (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a lot of work, but does meet WP:N. To address DerRitcher's concern, I believe if the article were re-written, expounding the history, modern usage, and implications of the subject then it could be Encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BizMgr (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although probably should be "reading period," since at many schools this runs more than one day. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Raziani

Purpose of article seems to be entirely to advertise the DeMani brand and thus fails WP:SPAM. There are no meaningful references other than spam links. Article was created by User:DeMani and hence appears on the face of it to breach WP:COI. The article on the company associated with this person MR Gems is also proposed for deletion elsewhere SpinningSpark 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. --DerRichter (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant advertising. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Redlich

Member of a small-town board in New York state, and unsuccessful candidate for Congress--thus failing WP:BIO. Blueboy 96 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum High WP:COI as well--author is Wredlich (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 21:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with WP:COI--DerRichter (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failed political candidate and local politician. Not notable. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per COI & WP:BIO. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - gross COI issues, promotional in tone, blatant advertisement, 4/5 keeps come from confirmed sockpuppets of Nicosec. Rudget . 13:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brant Secunda

Appears to be self-promotion of non-notable individual. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also proposing the related article for deletion:

Dance of the deer foundation - center for shamanic studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Nlu (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete both articles as spam. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete of second article only (repost of previously speedily deleted spam) - No opinion on first. Exxolon (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both as spam. Blueboy 96 00:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete both. Certainly exists, as far as Google search can establish, but no reliable sources to verify notability of the organisation or individual. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Changed opinion to Keep Brant Secunda, delete Dance of the deer foundation - center for shamanic studies per Jeepday below. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Dance of the deer foundation - center for shamanic studies", Neutral on "Brant Secunda", and (this may not be the place to call for this) Block confirmed spammer User:Nicosec. I've been dealing with knocking back what's clearly a self-promotional article back to a stub for several months now, only to have User:Nicosec (Nico Secunda, Brant Secunda's son), the author of the article, come back and revert changes, and spam other articles as well. The only thing that makes me wary of complete deletion is that Brant Secunda is prominently mentioned in the book "Carlos Castaneda: Academic Opportunism and the Psychedelic Sixties" as one of the prime examples of a plastic shaman, and this might actually be a claim of notability from at least one citable source. In any event, the version of the article that Nico Secunda keeps spamming is totally unacceptable and the sooner he is banned from Wikipedia for his repeated spamming, the better. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I am the creator of both these articles. I have no idea what brings you (Peter G Werner) to believe that I am Brant Secunda's son! More importantly, I have created these articles with an unbiased view. I know, as many people around the world know, that Brant Secunda is one of the most well known teachers Native American culture and traditions and that his foundation (The Dance of the Deer Foundation) has worked to aid the Huichol Indians for the last 30 years. I believe in itself makes both Brant Secunda and The Dance of the Deer foundation's pages viable on Wikipedia. Instead of continuing to delte this article, why not edit it in order to make it better. Anyone can do the research I did in order to write these articles. I continue to believe that these articles should remain undeleted. (User talk: Nicosec) —Preceding comment was added at 16:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you or are you not Nico Secunda? If not, strange choice of username for somebody who's sole account activity has been adding Brant Secunda-related material to Wikipedia. If you are Nico Secunda, you've got a huge conflict-of-interest going on here, and I really think you need to pay attention to what WP:Autobiography says about this. Also, you keep adding spam links to shamanism.com to the Huichol and Shamanism articles, even after repeatedly being warned (by several different users) that this is not appropriate. Look, bub, Wikipedia has rules, and you're consistently violating them. You either need to cease doing this or you need to be banned from here. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would seem to meet WP:N google book brings back 21 hits [6] by multiple authors that support the article in general. Jeepday (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually only 18, and some of them are duplicates. --Nlu (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Per COI issues, as well as the lack of reliable sources. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both I edited both pages after much research in order to make them less biased and clearer overall. I recommend all who commented to re-read them in order to reevaluate. Mathew012345 —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article has enormous POV problems the way you've written it. Basically, it reads as a publicity release for Brant Secunda. Note that Secunda's status as a "Huichol shaman" is highly disputable. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mathew012345 (talk · contribs)'s 12th edit, with the other edits all having the same edit pattern as Nicosec (talk · contribs). I am labelling the user as a sockpuppet of Nicosec, although closing user is free to disagree with me on that. --Nlu (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Having read both articles both before and after the most current changes were made, I know think both are fine. I do not see the articles a publicity releases. They are pretty strait forward. ( I did correct one small grammatical error) Penny
- User's 9th edit, and all other edits by user were to the same articles edited by Nicosec (talk · contribs), with identical content. I am labelling the user as a sockpuppet of Nicosec, although closing user is free to disagree with me on that. --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason for the pages to be deleted. He is well known and cited and written about all over the place. Seems notable enough to me. BobC5678 —Preceding comment was added at 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only edit. --Nlu (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With apparent sockpuppetry galore, if this continues, I may very well unilaterally simply delete and WP:SALT both articles. In fact, I am regretting not having done it before submitting them for AfD. It is apparent now (to me, at least), that Nicosec/sockpuppets is bent on spamming. --Nlu (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also note that a User:Nicky012345 turned up to vandalize my userpage right after I posted about Nicosec's spamming activities on this page. Peter G Werner (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have started a sockpuppet case here against [[Nicosec and four others. Will add any more if they appear. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Dictionary X

While there are numerous ghits, they stem primarily from people posting definitions from the book. I don't find any evidence of reviews of this online only book. There was a disucssion on Talk:The_Devil's_Dictionary_X when it was originally prodded but the one RS is and was a 404, the rest are blog postings, usenet postings, forum posts and a DMOZ listing. None of which pass WP:RS therefore I don't see this passing WP:BOOK Travellingcari (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established through reliable sources in the article, and like the nom, I can't find any. Deor (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also can't find anything to meet WP:N. Article may be spam as well. --BizMgr (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, appears to be an advertisement, no attempt at references or third-party notability, author doesn't appear to express an interest.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 08:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Benghazi Six

The film The Benghazi Six has not entered production, so the article does not warrant existence per the notability guidelines for future films. Even IMDb shows an "in development" page for this project. If production begins on this film, the article can be recreated. What pre-production detail exists can be added to HIV trial in Libya#Movie in the meantime. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Erik.--The Dominator (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the article fails the notability guidelines for future films. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sankebetsu brown bear incident

As one user points out on the talk page, this is perhaps Wikipedia's funniest article but for all the wrong reasons. A series of bear attacks in Japan in 1915 is described in great detail. The reason I'm nominating the article is that I'm not sure about how notable some bear attacks 100 years ago are. As can be seen from List of fatal bear attacks in North America by decade, fatal bear attacks are sadly not anything notable. People are killed by bears every year without any articles about it. In short, where's the notability here? Apart from the lack of notability, the article is so badly written it defies belief. It is written as a strange mix between horror novel and animal psychology. We're told both what the victims and the bear was thinking and the whole piece is as far from an encyclopedia one could get. To make matters even worse, it is written in extremely bad English, filled with language mistakes and virtyally impossible to read. If the event is notable enough to be kept, I strongly recommend that the entire text is deleted and an encyclopedia text is written instead. However, I don't even think this is remotely notable. JdeJ (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In layout, at least, it appears to be a close copy of the Japanese Wikipedia article. Does the tone match, I wonder? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For what it's worth, for comparison purposes, here is a computer translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article:[7]. Edison (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Endless detail about a non-notable event. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article claims there were two books, a radio play, a stage play, and two manga about this. There also seems to be a permanent exhibit. The only thing I could turn up in English besides this article is a government website that won't display. If the bear attacks were so notorious that they gave the bear a name it could be something like the Tsavo maneaters, even though lions also attack humans on a regular basis (generally, as with bears, for defensive purposes). But we would need to verify the credibility of the sources in regards to WP:N and WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's notable because the bear claimed the greatest number of victims in the modern history of Japan. Many novels were written and films were created on this incident according to the Japanese Wikipedia article. Kind of like a bear version of Jeffrey Dahmer. Just because murder cases are nothing special doesn't mean serial murderers like Dahmer aren't notable. --Saintjust (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big in Japan. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's notable in Japanese, it's notable in English. Yes, it obviously has ridiculous problems and needs massive cleanup, but I don't think it's dire enough that we need to start over entirely. --Hyperbole (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In reply to the comment and the keep vote above, it's entirely possible it's big in Japan but the article fails to claim any notability. And to be honest, I'm not sure that all content that is notable on some Wikipedia versions are notable on others. While the Tsavo maneaters are reasonably famous and yield a high number of returns on Google, this event seems to be completely unknown and the only results are linked to Wikipedia. A sentence or two about the attacks could most certainly be included in the relevant paragraph dealing with bear attacks in general, but this article fails to make any case at all for its notability and judging by the Internet, it simply isn't notable. JdeJ (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the article does a pretty good job of claiming notability: see Sankebetsu brown bear incident#The memory of the case and Sankebetsu brown bear incident#The works which made a case a subject. Anything that has inspired statues, restorations of houses, novels, plays, and mangas is probably notable. --Hyperbole (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respectfully disagree on two points. The link between being notable in Japan (where it took place) and being notable in English isn't immediately clear to me. And as the whole article is a long piece of fiction without any verifiable facts, I can't see how even a massive cleanup would help. There are no proof this even is a real event! I think it is, sure, but the whole article reads like the plot of a Stephen King book. Pure fiction and no facts. JdeJ (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you that this article is in desperate need of references. Unfortunately, your Google searches have pretty strongly indicated that nearly all available references are in Japanese. But that doesn't make the subject non-notable - just a bit more challenging. And, yes, it also contains totally unencyclopedic language - stuff about the bear's thoughts and the difficulty of blogging about the incident, as well as stuff that looks like it was written in third person omniscient, as there was no one to report it. That stuff needs to be removed from the article ASAP. Still, I don't think deleting the entire thing is the correct remedy. "Article is broken; I'm too busy to fix it" is not a valid reason to delete. --Hyperbole (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've clearly stated, the very bad language and hillarious content is not the reason I've nominated it. It is it's complete lack of notability, at least outside Japan. Searching Google for Sankebetsu + bear and excluding Wikipedia hits yield around 50 results, most of whom doesn't even mention this incident. But let's say 30-40 hits on Google. Compare with 12.000 for Tsavo man eaters. I have to admit, though, that it was tempting to nominate it for not being written in English. I'm not sure what language this is It was thought that the tragedy was the case, what is called the animal which doesn't possess a hole, the bear which failed in the hibernation, became hungry and increased a ferocity. but at least it's a language I don't understand. But once again, the very low quality of the article is a big problem but not the reason for it being nominated for deletion. JdeJ (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(provisional)Keep This is not the "encyclopedia of things that happened in English speaking countries." I am for keeping this if editors fluent in Japanese as well as English (I expect there are quite a few) can verify the sourcing, so we know that it it is notable in Japan as appears to be the case, and that there is reliable sourcing. A bear attack in Japan in the early 20th century which killed 7 people is every bit as encyclopedic as the Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916 in which a shark killed four people along the Atlantic Coast of the U.S. And that is hardly an "othercrapexists" comparison. If it is notable in Japanese language sources, then it does not deserve deletion just because of choice phrasing such as "After it when Kesagake was dissected, a lot of peace of the victim are found out from his breadbasket, and the village people made sadness new." Edison (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%, it's definitely not the Wikipedia of the Anglophone world (of which I'm no part myself). I still don't think that everything that is notable in every country necessarily is notable here. Having said that, I agree that the situation would look very different in good and credible sources were added. JdeJ (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. There are a number of works that the article claims were inspired by this incident. However it would be good if references could be added. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Translators shows several persons who say they are fluent in English and Japanese and who can translate. Would it be considered canvassing in any sense to request they take a look at and improve this article, and evaluate whether it has Japanese sources which satisfy notability and verifiability concerns? Edison (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fascinating. Just needs cutting and cites, which exist. I started the cutting. This event is mentioned in two books by John Knight, Waiting for Wolves in Japan (Oxford U Press), and "Natural Enemies: People-Wildlife Conflicts in Anthropological Perspective" (Routledge), both on Google books, both of which have refs.--Wageless (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite: It's obviously received plenty of significant coverage (indeed, exclusive coverage) in multiple secondary reliable sources, which are entirely independent of the subjects (interesting to see how we could have any sources not independent of these bears :-). By definition, therefore, it passes the notability test. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the sourcing and the works based upon it. Clearly of permanent legendary status in Japan -- 92 years later This article actually meets the so called "100 year test" of permanent notability used by some of the most extreme deletionists. Obviously needs to be rewritten into idiomatic index and shortened very substantially. WP is the WP in the English language, not the WP devoted to events from the perspective of the English-speaking countries. It covers events world wide to the extent we have sources (in any language) and editors who can use them. The WMF foundation could have organized the different versions on a different basis, but the distinction is only in the language of the encyclopedias. DGG (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability outside of Japan is not necessary in the English wikipedia. When reliable sources exist, in any language, they can attest to the notability; whether or not US/Brit/Aussies have heard of it or not. English is the language we write in; but, not the only language we write about. Neier (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I appreciate nominator's concern about the notability of bear attacks in general, the mauling of ten people (seven of them fatally) in one week by a wild animal would be notable in any era and in any place. That this more well known in Japan than in the United States is not surprising. Generally, what happens "over here" is given higher priority than what happens "over there". Mandsford (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, see talk page for analysis. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Brannan

A biography of a marginally notable individual who has expressed, in OTRS ticket 2008020210003368, a strong desire that it be deleted, not least because much of the information is (he says) wrong. It has been deleted before, but the previous versions were abject nonsense. This is not abject nonsense, but the subject says it's largely incorrect, and there are very few reliable sources we could use to fix that, especially since he has stated in no uncertain terms that he's not interested in helping us to do so. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is my default "vote" for anyone of marginal or unclear notability who wants their own article deleted. I feel in such cases we should respect the subject's wishes. Besides, as written thee subject does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparenly you haven't seen Shortbus then. He's not just notable for his music but he does pass WP:MUSIC. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - we don't delete articles just because subjects of the article don't like what's been written about them. Further, I'd say you were out of line by removing sourced content and then nomming the article for deletion. You should restore the content immediately. Regarding your edit summary, Subject says he has no interest in pursuing a gay pride agenda, and also refuses permission for the photo, for which he says he owns copyright. Removing both for now, as a courtesy. It does not matter what the subject of the article has an interest in. We don't pander to article subjects "wants" in articles about them. With regards to the photo, Brannan does not own the copyright to it. It was taken by Jason Anfinsen who attended one of Brannan's performances - Oct 16, 2007; Mercury Lounge, New York City to be exact. Regarding the "openly gay" content that was removed by the nom, when a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included.- ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, we do if the subject is of marginal notability. Daniel Brandt is the canonical example. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the only way I can see keeping this is permanent semi-protection? Is this guy at the same level as George W. Bush in terms of notability? If he is, Wikipedia has no sense of proportion. Blueboy 96 01:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous ways of addressing vandalism concerns the best of which is likely good writing supported by RS. And Brandt's 14th AfD suggests that maybe these two cases are a little different. Brannan is a singer and actor, ie. entertainer, performing for the public, Brandt had a unique route of infamy. Benji boi 06:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (can we use WP:SNOW here?). He may not be super-famous but he certainly meets notability for bios. If there is something incorrect then source the correct info and move on. There's no reason we can't use verifiable sources similar to media outlets but agree if information is wrong then we should fix it. If the subject and nom want removal of his being gay then they should take it up with those who report it and not wikipedia, our stating what a source has published is not "pursuing a gay pride agenda". That would actually be problematic POV issue, instead we write articles about what gay pride and gay rights are and what people believe is the gay agenda. Benji boi 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ATT, we could have said that he had discussed his sexuality in an interview, or discussed the difficulties of growing up gay in Texas. What we actually did was to edit war with the subject over a statement that he is openly gay, a form of words he clearly dislikes. Please do make an effort to be sensitive to the feelings of article subjects. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Marx had an issue with "openly gay" in that he found it offensive that it had to be spelled out he is "open" as if it is ever something that should be concealed. --David Shankbone 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can see why that particular form of words might be an issue for a lot of reasons. Edit-warring with the subject over it did not make him feel warm and loved. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we're not here to make people feel warm and loved. And it wasn't clear, until much later, that that "edit warring" wasn't simply reverting more vandalism to a page that has a history of it. Benji boi 10:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally veer away from the term "openly gay" - it's subjective and means many things to many people. Guy's suggestion above about how it could be handled is instructive IMO. Orderinchaos 13:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he totally meets WP:BIO with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Multiple attempts at engaging the subject about his article, including determining what he sees is "wrong" with it, have met with resistance and no further indication about what might actually need fixing. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion, but this is in the interest of transparency. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no issue with alerting the projects who oversee an article, in this case the LGBT project. --David Shankbone 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allstarecho canvassed rather more widely than that. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "canvas".. I informed people who have participated on the article's talk page, that the article was up for deletion, something you should have done. Were you trying to sneak it by people hoping it would be deleted with no fanfare? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 21:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was answer an email from a hurt and upset article subject, whose opinion of Wikipedians is that they all act like, well, like you did just then, in fact. We've managed to give him the impression that we do things just because he doesn't want them done. And looking at some of the reaction here, he may well be at least partly right. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quite notable, with coverage everywhere from the New York Times to a cover piece in The Advocate (though that one's paywalled). Between the music and the movie, he seems to pass. Deleting instead of responding to concerns through editing is a bit harsh...Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although he seems like a jerk, the article is innocuous. Wikipedia isn't here to be controlled by the people we write about. It's one thing if something is blatantly untrue. It's another thing if they have these vane "I can't be categorized!" notions about themselves. If he's not gay, is he bi? If he's not bi, is he straight? "I'm none of those things, I'm my own creature! I hate you!" Pfft...whatever. --David Shankbone 21:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please don't make personally-attacking comments about living people in AfD debates. FCYTravis (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability for entertainers, the gay thing is sourced, and there is no deadline— so as long as there aren't BLP violations, I see no reason to delete. Granted, the notability is weak, too, but ironically as a direct result of the guy repeatedly trying to delete the bad publicity (WP:COI), it was actually revealed by other editors that he actually had significantly more verifiable coverage in secondary sources than I had initially thought. That is, I would have happily argued a delete due to notability issues, but as a direct result of the Streisand effect, it seems that the stuff the dude was trying to delete actually ended up helping to solidify grounds for inclusion. :P Let that be a lesson to future editors: always try to use the proper channels. --slakr^\ talk / 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brannan is notable per WP:BIO, not only for his music, but especially for the movie Shortbus (which also has a song of his) with sufficient reliable sources. All the other issues brought up by him and about him should continue to be addressed on the talk page. And please people, lets all assume good faith. — Becksguy (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of questionable notability, article is potentially incorrect with few RS to fix it with and subject has requested deletion. Viridae ^Talk 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The whole thing seems a bit ridiculous, honestly, the entire point of being an actor and musician is to become notable, otherwise you wouldn't seek the public eye. It seems the subject is upset about his article mentioning his homosexuality, which is another issue completely. If we delete it, and he continues on his career, eventually someone will recreate it as he becomes more notable. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They guy certainly pass WP:BIO and encyclopedic integrity should be the priority here. Obviously being a BLP, and in the interest of getting it absolutely right, the subject's concerns should be heard and responded to but deleting the article is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There is already serious discussion on the talk page about improving the article to address the known concerns. While it would be ideal for Mr. Brannan to cordially work with the article's editors to come to a speedy and more amicable resolution, if he wishes to persist in hostilities all we can do is rise above the fracas and focus on making the most encyclopedic and neutral article we can. Deletion just for the sake of deletion is not compatible with Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean anything in the history that might be a serious BLP issue. BLP problems don't trump WP:BIO, as BLP isn't a deletion rationale. However, I would strongly agree with JzG's assessment that these BLP issues are serious and require serious attention. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, notability is marginal, and sourcing is horrible. WP:BLP most certainly trumps WP:BIO Mr.Z-man 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand on what you mean when you say that BLP (not a deletion rationale) is the reason for deleting an article that passes the community-accepted notability guidelines? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in WP:BLP does it say that it isn't a deletion reason? WP:BIO says we can have an article, not that we must. In a case of marginal notability where the article is causing the subject serious problems (I've seen the emails to OTRS), we should definitely listen to WP:BLP (we should always listen to BLP). I see no reason why Wikipedia will be harmed by removing this article. "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." Mr.Z-man 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where in BLP does it say that articles are supposed to be deleted if they have BLP violations? "Delete due to BLP violations" is an affirmative claim, the burden is on you to explain how BLP is a valid deletion rationale. BLP is a great rationale for fixing the heck out of an article. Not nuking it, esp. if it meets BIO (even, according to you, marginally). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, if an article's history is so riddled with BLP violations that it can't be rehabbed, it should be deleted.Blueboy 96 00:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my keep rationale? The article's history isn't really relevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I initially thought that oversighting the offending versions would be a way to keep it--but that would basically mean deleting it and starting from scratch. Blueboy 96 02:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean your vote is "delete and immediately recreate BLP-compliant version"? The problems in the article's history with vandalism or BLP violations really don't amount to substantial delete rationales when the subject is notable and we can tidy up the history in some other way. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do when the subject of the article objects to its existence as written and there's not a whole lot to work with in this article's present incarnation. So yes, delete it ... but without prejudice if enough sources can be found to merit the effort it would take to rein in the BLP violations. Blueboy 96 19:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see any concrete suggestions about what in the article violates BLP, or in fact what in the article might even be considered problematic. These supposed OTRS emails, the subjects vague comments in his blog, and various editors waving hands don't add up to concrete issues. The article as it stands could use more sources, but that's in no way a reason for deletion. The man passes WP:BIO and unless honest real BLP violations are stated openly, we're simply bowing to this man's wishes, not creating an encyclopedia. Would someone please actually specify what supposed BLP violations exist? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, and anyone else with access to the info-en quality queue, can confirm that the emails most definitely exist. Mr.Z-man 03:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt Brannan has sent emails. What I am requesting is specific indications of the supposed BLP violations and/or what is "wrong" with the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it should be noted that the article subject did first try to engage with the community User:Jaybrannan and was blocked. He was then directed to OTRS User_talk:Jaybrannan#Open Ticket Request System, to trust them to advocate for him and address concerns within policy. That is what has happened to say that you doubt the email exists, ticket number 2008020210003368 as quoted in the nomination does exist. Gnan garra 04:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated several times, I don't doubt that Brannan sent emails. He's been pretty vocal about not liking the article. What I'm curious about is what exactly is either a BLP violation and/or "wrong" with the article. And also for the record, "engaging the community" consisted of blanking the article and pleading to have his article deleted - using the same language - a total of ten times in one day. That's not exactly "engaging". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the threshold for inclusion under notability. Lawrence § t/e 23:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now. I don't see the multiple independent reliable sources establishing the notability of the subject. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article is under full protection but two sources that could be added is the Vancouver Sun article mentioning the internet phenomenon of his music and the interest by Ashwin Sood and Nettwerk in producing him. There is also the write up by Xtra West, Vancouvers Gay Newspaper publication, about his Shortbus role and some background. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more reliable sources There is the New York Times write up by Fred Bernstein that is devoted to Brannan. Another New York Times piece about Shortbus that includes interview with Brannan and discuss some of his background and how it affected his role. There is also an offline mention in Out Magazine & Rolling Stones that can be hunted down. The closest online source for their existence is Brannan's own press page. It looks like there is quite a bit of sourcing available to establish notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that someone has already pointed to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. That, with the existence of some sources, makes a reasonable argument for notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The subject has asked for deletion and indicated it is not factually inaccurate. Given that, we should only keep it if 1) we are sure of its notability - i.e. we'd be weaker as an encyclopedia without it. and 2) We are damn sure it is fair, accurate and impeccably sourced. Well, on 1) we are not, and on 2) not a chance. Far more damage is to be done by keeping something we don't need and can't be sure about than having nothing, so the conclusion is obvious.--Doc^g 00:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete okay, incorrect BLP? WP:IDIOT applies here, guys. Besides, he's very marginally notable, so there should really no reason to keep it. Will ^(talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as the subject is borderline notable and as per the basis of WP:BLP do no harm given the subject has taken the time to make contact via OTRS. I'd also suggest that care be taken in the way people comment during this discussion and that the AfD get courtesy blanked as well. Gnangarra 00:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- updated the situation is that the subjects notability has been established to my thinking, yet in recognition of the subjects concerns it may be more appropriate to actually delete the article and then create a new thus removing the concerns of BLP in the history, Gnan garra 13:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginal notability at best. Pburka (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, actually we do delete articles about nonentities who don't want to be written about. Why? Two reasons. Firstly, they're nonentities, and secondly, they don't want to be written about. Any questions? --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reluctant delete and redirect to Shortbus~~ Looking at the history, it seems the only way the article can be kept is to leave it under more or less permanent semi-protection. Unfortunately, this guy's notability isn't strong enough that it can be kept under those circumstances. Blueboy 96 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that is a vandal-magnet or that requires semi-protection is not necessarily subject to deletion (see Pokemon), and such does not (or rather, should not) influence how we evaluate the article's notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep, but delete edit history and rewrite from scratch per arguments from Orderinchaos and Snowspinner. Blueboy 96 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The volume of users commenting on this one is interesting. Anyway, I think the sources shown here in the topic, the New York Times ones, definitely confer notability. His opinion of his own article shouldn't matter. matt91486 (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove anything that is not sourced. Notability is clearly asserted through independent third parties, and the opinion of the subject on the article is irrelevant in my view. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A real live person is the subject of this article. He's not so very notabile that we would loose anything by not having an article on him; on the other hand, Wikipedia is so pervasive that he feels that he is being damaged by the article. It's very little to us to delete the article, and apparently means a lot to him. Delete it and leave him alone. ➪HiDrNick! 02:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing in the present version which is not in the reliable sources, based on clear cooperation with the subject. Based on what he says about his career on his website, Possibly the article should highlight his songs as much as his movie roles. DGG (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- marginally notable subject requesting deletion. In case the article survives AfD: I support Guy's courtesy edits in view of the over-emphasis on sexuality in a biography that's based on pretty poor sources as it is. From WP:BLP: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic". For the meaning of "a neutral biography", try WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT. Avb 14:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Here is a 2006 NYT Real Estate article that may e.g. help inform editors debating the notability issue here, if only because it details the subject's housing arrangements and income. Oh, and I have no objection to the article saying he's gay; it's just that picking one or two scenes from a movie and turning it into a large part of the actor's biography looks like a clear case of undue weight to me. Avb 15:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's an argument for editing, not deletion.DGG (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and presented as such. You can find my arguments for deletion after Delete and before "In case the article survives AfD". Avb 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I saw Shortbus a month ago. After the credits rolled, I looked it up on Wikipedia and went through all the actors' bios, including Jay Brannan's. Why? Because I wanted to know more about them, to see what else they had been in etc., etc. I was seeking knowledge. Now, people are voting delete on this article because they claim the encyclopedia will not be worse off without it. But the fact that he is a successful actor and musician, as established by the Googlers on this AfD, means that people will want to know more about him. I did. That's where Wikipedia comes in - we write articles on people that wouldn't make the EB, because we want to spread knowledge. Trying to be more elitist doesn't help. The fact that the subject doesn't want an article is irrelevant, I'm sure Ted Haggard doesn't want his. And finally, unrelated to the Afd, Jay Brannon is comfortable with the fact that I've seen him suck another's man dick but not that I know he's gay? Wtf? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP issues aside, the guy really isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia article, not unless you've confused this place with IMDB or some other directory service. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes our notability inclusion criteria. If abuse of the article is so great, then we still have the option of full protection with edits being approved through discussion. Insane, yes, and I hope it doesn't come to that, but it's an example that clearly shows that deletion is unnecessary. We have the tools to write a good article about this guy and comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV, lets not pretend we don't. -- Ned Scott 09:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets our standards; see cover story on the Advocate, New York Times, Xtra West, Vancouver Sun. Coverage dates back about 18 months, so not fleeting. I am also inclined to vote "keep" on the basis that he apparently lied about owning the copyright to an image (according to nom). I hope this photo is restored to the article if the result is to keep. Welly bump fandango (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Welly bump fandango (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cheeser1 (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:N guidelines; non-trivial coverage in New York Times, cover story for The Advocate and more. Sources just need to be added to the article. BLP issues (whatever they may be) can be dealt with by editing. --Beloved Freak 11:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BLP concept of "do no harm" should be paramount in deciding what should be in the article, but there's no question that the guy is notable. Maybe we should deal with this situation by deleting the edit history, stubbing the article and starting again. Orderinchaos 13:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears notable. I have looked at the OTRS ticket, and don't see any real issues here - there's nothing in it that Mr. Brannan hasn't posted publicly at his blog here: [8]. This amounts largely to someone who doesn't want to be in Wikipedia. I'm willing to discuss the merits of courtesy deletion, but to have accurate content removed because of bizarre claims that noting somebody's publicly claimed sexuality is "pursuing a gay pride agenda" and to have freely licensed photos removed under false copyright pretenses poisons the discussion beyond usefulness, and in that case, my instinct is to keep it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm actually not completely convinced he even passes WP:BIO - a fairly minor part in a film (the NYT story mentions him, but isn't about him), something on YouTube, and a few songs released via MySpace? Marginal at best. Add in the possible BLP and the subject's concerns, and you get a clear course of action. If Kept, User:Orderinchaos' suggestion about deleting, stubbing and restarting should be taken.Black Kite 16:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His part is one of the leads in the film. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Notability The following is a response to all the editors that have expressed concerns about Jay Brannan's notability. There are way more than sufficient non-trivial, reliable sources to establish his notability as a singer/songwriter and actor. Much of his notability came as a result of his role in the ground breaking movie Shortbus (2006). I might also point out that Shortbus premiered at the influential and prestigious Cannes Film Festival and won numerous awards at film festivals. He was one of the lead roles in that movie, as is expressed in many of the following. He is now concentrating on his music career. Any potential or claimed WP:BLP issues are not commented on here. The following references were complied (in no particlar order) from comments here, his article, and Brannan's website press page.

New York Times, October 8, 2006. Article specifically about him, his apartment, music and Shortbus. Highly relevant. [9]
New York Times, September 24, 2006. Article on Shortbus including a significant, non-trivial amount of coverage on Brannan specifically. [10]
Advocate, October 24, 2006. Cover story in the American national gay newspaper. here and full article on Brannan's press page [11]
Attitude, December 2006. Cover story in British award winning gay lifestyle monthly magazine. Full article on Brannan's press page [12]
Next Magazine, September 15, 2006. Cover story in New York City gay lifestyle weekly magazine. Full article on Brannan's press page. [13]
Next Magazine, January 6, 2006. New York City gay lifestyle weekly magazine. Full article on Brannan's press page. [14]
Cincinnati Enquirer weekly CINWEEKLY, October 25, 2006. Full article on Brannan's press page. [15]
Variety, May 21, 2006. Article is mostly on Shortbus, but does mention Brannan. [16]
Dazed & Confused, December 2006. British style magazine with article on Brannan's role in Shortbus. Full article on Brannan's press page. [17]
Zoo Magazine, 2007 # 14. Interview about his music and Shortbus. Full article on Brannan's press page. [18]
The Vancouver Sun, January 26, 2008. Newspaper article mostly on a music producer that wants to manage Brannan. [19]
Xtra West, January 18, 2008. Vancouvers (Canada) Gay Newspaper. Article on Brannan. [20]
Gay Times, July 2007. The leading gay magazine in UK. Music issue with article mostly on Brannan's music, but also memtions Shortbus. Article on Brannan's press page. [21]
Connecticut Post, October 22, 2006. Newspaper article mostly on Brannan in Shortbus, but also some on his music. Full article on Brannan's press page. [22]
Logo, July 30, 2007. Gay TV channel. [23]
Logo, January 25, 2008. Gay TV channel. [24]

We know that there is more on Brannan, such as what ever is in Out Magazine and Rolling Stone and others. If anyone can find them, or anything else significant, feel free to add to my list. This should unequivocally put any claims about marginal notability to rest. He clearly more than passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Fair is fair, so I ask the closing admin, and especially those with notability concerns to examine or re-examine their recommendations in light of this list, since we can't edit the article. — Becksguy (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered multiple times in reliable sources. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if this was not a BLP and was not an OTRS issue, this article is still crap by our standards and needs a total overhaul if kept. He's notable for a role in a movie, the article devotes a total of one sentence to it, and goes out of its way to mention that the film "includes graphic depictions of sexual activity." We're using YouTube as a source to prove that his YouTube videos are inclusion-worthy and there's no source for the actual biographical details. Mr.Z-man 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it does need an overhaul, but it's fully protected at this point. Otherwise I would have included the refs in the article, rather than listing them here in detail. And that would have most likely led to rewriting and improvement, per WP:HEY. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to edit per WP:DEL. And that includes WP:BLP concerns, unless it's impossible to fix, which is obviously not the case here. There is more than adequate sourcing available for the article as it is, including the "actual biographical details". A general question: Where, exactly, are the BLP issues? — Becksguy (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this we have {{editprotected}}. Please do propose changes, it can only help. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A multitude of reliable sources all support his being notable. Even many of the Delete !votes say that he's not "notable enough," allowing that he does have some notability. Every subject wishes their entry was the way they'd like it to be, but that's not the standard here. This biography meets our requirements for inclusion, and, while well-meant, bringing this AfD seems like something of a bad idea, considering that Brannan's notability has been easily established. Edit it & improve it; just don't delete it. --SSBohio 06:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised to read such comments as "Brannan's notability has been easily established". He's listed seventh or thereabouts among the actors in one movie. He's recorded a song or three. That's about it. I took the top of the list of press mentions above, the one from the NYT, and read it. It's not about Brannan; it's about accommodation, and it takes Brannan as an example of somebody in a particular situation and incidentally writes a little about him: the subject could just as well be the guy next door to him. Then I read the second article in the list, the other one from NYT. Here, Brannan's treated as just one of the main actors in the movie; he's not given any particular prominence. ¶ True, Brannan has some notability; it's not open and shut. But if he's anywhere near borderline and doesn't want an article, spare him the article. And if that doesn't work -- "No, he's condemned to an article! He can't escape! Nobody with a smidgen of notability can escape! To say otherwise is 'deletionism'!" -- then have the maturity to remember that so far as he is notable it's for his music or his acting or both, not for his sex life/interests or lack thereof. Unless of course this "wikipedia" invention is just tabloidopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) Did you look at the other entries in my list? Zoo magazine had a interview with him. The Connecticut Post piece was on Brannan. Both on just him. The Gay Times piece was exclusively on Brannan, as was Dazed & Confused, the first Next article, and Xtra West. In the Advocate cover story on Shortbus, Brannan was very prominent. Same for attitude. (2) The first NYT article could also be about this interesting guy that got their attention due to being in Shortbus, with a tie into a really small apartment and how he copes with that and his creative life. It's speculation to say that it could have been the guy next door, since it wasn't, and we don't know the editors intent. The article's lede is exclusively about Brannan, it doesn't even mention the apartment until the third graph. (3) And I have found, so far, about 20 songs by Brannan. (4) And, yes, Brannan is listed as 7th in the movie credits. However, that's still a staring role (and listed as such) among a fairly large group of 43 collaborative actors (excluding the two bands and the extras) in a project. Also, Brannan, together with seven other actors, were nominated for Best Ensemble Cast in The Gothan Awards (for Shortbus in 2006), per IMDB. (5) Yes, I agree that the article needs more work for balance and completeness. Others do also. (6) And when do we let the subjects of articles control what is said about them, assuming no BLP violations. The New York Times doesn't allow that. (7) Would you please take another look at what is laid out here? I think it's more than sufficient to keep. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - Shortbus is, by any measure, a weird film - an ensemble cast of deliberately unknown actors. I do wish people who didn't really know much about it would consider whether this is an error that should be corrected before they comment on the AfD. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look. Yes, there's gossipy press coverage of him. So, he's put out 20 songs, not two or three. But you're sounding a bit desperate when you say that somebody who's seventh in the list of credits has a starring role: even in the risible Oscars, a number three (forget seven) only qualifies as "supporting" actor, I believe. And he's one of an ensemble cast that was nominated for best ensemble cast; well, good for him, but to me this too looks some way short of stardom. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. Hoary, you are attempting to apply a Hollywood frame of reference to a move that's about as un-Hollywood as one can get, and yet still be a movie. This was a collaborative project, not a Hollywood product where a few box office stars were hired, together with a director and supporting actors and extras, and a budget. All 43 actors participated and collaborated with the director in creating this movie. To be seventh in a class of 43 is an achievement as there is no single star here. Your comments and Phil Sandifer's comment lead me to believe that you have a fatal misunderstanding about this movie and about Brannans role in it. And about his notability. Have you seen the movie? Heard any of his music? Brannan did a wonderful and extremely difficult job in Shortbus, and no one here wants to hurt him. — Becksguy (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient notability. Dlabtot (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Protection The article is no longer protected. — Becksguy (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ensemble actor in a movie (or a couple of movies), minor singer/songwriter, and precedent exists to delete marginally notable articles for which the subject has requested deletion. When he wins an Oscar or is the chair of a Fortune 100 company, it's not up for discussion. Until he does something that's truly notable, he's only marginally notable, and I see no reason not to consider his wishes in here. These article subjects are real people who have real emotions that should be taken into account. - Philippe | Talk 18:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should consider their feelings, but that doesn't mean that the articles should be deleted, as these BLP issues should be addressed by editing and discussion on the talk page. Frankly, given the compiled list, I fail to understand how you don't see notability. Two NYT articles, and a Advocate cover article, plus all the rest? It's not rational to ignore that notability. Notability has nothing to do with feelings, and I suspect these feelings are wrongly influencing decisions in some cases. And that makes for bad encyclopedia writing and editing, regardless of the direction of the tide. We insist on reliable sources, NPOV, and balance to get as far away as possible from subjective interpretations and emotional responses to subjects. Don't you agree? — Becksguy (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per BLP concern. Clears notability threshold but not sufficiently to overcome Brannan's own request to delete article. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been asked before, and maybe I missed it, but where does it say that the subject of article has the right to say "delete me from your encyclopedia"? And isn't that precedent highly problematic if, say, Karl Rove told you to delete his article? Or do we only honor requests of subects that aren't too notable (splitting even more WP:N hairs)? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brannan is not a far-right Svengali who worked tirelessly and successfully to pervert the political and legal process and destroy a nation. He's just a guy who's recorded some songs and acted in a movie, I believe. (Actually I'd never heard of him, his music, or the movie till this AfD brouhaha.) Love him [now there's a bizarre idea!] or loathe him, Rove is indubitably notable; Brannan is not. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That has nothing to do with it. This person's delete !vote was based solely on the rationale that despite being notable enough to merit an article, we must honor his request to delete the article about him. You seem to have confirmed my suspicions that some people are under the impression that some things are more notable than others (despite the fact that WP:N defines two possibilities: notable and not notable - there's only one notability threshold, and all articles have to meet it). So if Rove suggested we delete his article, obviously we can't because he's a Svengali! But since you don't think this guy is notable enough for us to keep the article (despite the fact that he's notable enough to have an article), we delete it at his request. This comes from what? And don't say BLP, because BLP does not demand we delete articles at the subject's request unless they are defamatory and cannot be fixed (not the case). -Cheeser1 (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's along the lines of my main question, also. As a musician and actor, isn't the entire purpose of his career to become notable? Working steadily in either field almost assures you of becoming so. I still feel this is a question of the subject rejecting the content of the article, and not the article itself. Snowfire51 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're talking about feelings (a most unfortunate development, I think), I increasingly feel that en:WP editors are somehow feeling jilted. ("Brannan should feel honored by an article! Why does he reject us?") Of course, I have no evidence whatever for this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why say it. And what does "feelings" have to do with notability. Notability is determined by reliable sources—which the article has in abundance—not our feelings either for or against a subject. Yes, I feel bad that Jay Brannan is upset and I can understand why he is. But I think that the article should stand on it's own merits, not because the subject is upset about it and some editors feel that as a result the article should be deleted. Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense, and is not supported in policy. Feel bad for the subject, but make these kinds of decisions rationally, unemotionally, and consistently. The place to discuss BLP issues, if they exist, (unless blatant enough to delete on sight, obviously not the case here) is within the normal editing process on the talk page. Not in an AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly and demonstrably notable, per Becksguy's admirable list above. If there are BLP issues (and it appears that there may well be), they can be dealt with by editing (including possibly starting the article again from scratch to remove offending edits from the history), and certainly don't warrant full deletion. David Mestel^(Talk) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Is a willing public figure. For many reasons I've explained before (see User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP for some relevant thoughts) it is unreasonable to allowed requested deletions for willing public figures. Furthermore, given Brannan's actions as an actor and in other roles he is about as willing a public figure you can get. Now, the argument can be made that one aspect of the willing public figure test doesn't apply as much here; it makes more sense when the people in question have engaged in political or other discourse in the public sphere which has real impact rather than just entertainment. However, this is balanced by the fact that acting, singing and song-writing all demonstrate what amounts to a strong interjection into the public sphere. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll also invoke WP:HOTTIE which overrides everything else. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Surely we have a WP:FUGLY to help us AfD Anne Coulter, no? --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Unfortunately, we aren't that evolved on Wikipedia yet. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment I long for the day... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has clearly been established as per the list compiled above by Beckguy. We should not delete a bio just because the subject does not like it. If he has BLP concerns, he can communicate with us on the talk page or by ORTS. Aleta (Sing) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Notability has not clearly been established, it remains ambigious and in that case, we do consider his wishes, per BLP Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)</s?~~[reply]

Strong delete - brief mention in one NYT article does not notability make. Similarly appareance in one medium notability movie with a largish ensemble cast does not notability make. At best, he his notability is ambigious which means we respect the person's wishes. Presuming he continues with his music and acting, things may change and there should be no presumption against a future article but he clearly isn't noteable at the moment Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears there are quite a few sources which people have established that are not currently used in the article nor posted in the talk page. It would be nice if people could either improve the article or at least post them in the talk page so other editors can be aware they exist without having to work through the lengthy discussion to find them Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are totally right, which is why I complied the list above. Also posted the same list on the article talk page as you suggested. I have been working on the article off line as it was fully protected during most of the AfD and using {{editprotected}} seemed unworkable for an article overhaul on a piecemeal basis. — Becksguy (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, remove any and all unverifiable content. I won't say "likely", but it is possible that nothing can be verified outside of Brannan's role in the production of the "future cult film" Shortbus (both as an actor and as a musician featured in the soundtrack). If this is true, merging might be a reasonable compromise. — CharlotteWebb 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the first NYT article by Bernstein that shows it isn't all about the movie (I removed whitespace and added slashes to save space): Mr. Brannan is sometimes compared to Rufus Wainwright, another openly gay young singer-songwriter. Mr. Brannan sees himself as “more like Tracy Chapman and Joni Mitchell — I go for the sound of the angry, sad woman.” In “Half-Boyfriend,” he sings: I can’t believe you’re leaving/just when I let you in/and when you had me believing/I could feel again. Luckily for Mr. Brannan, his tenor voice makes even the saddest lyrics easy on the ear. In addition, there is also an article in Gay Times primarily on his music, and almost all the references cite his music, making it notable apart from the acting gig. — Becksguy (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per, most prominently, JoshuaZ (notability is, I think it is probably fair to say, now well established [I'd suggest that the nominated version relatively persuasively demonstrated the clear notability of the subject, but any dispute about notability has, I think, been well addressed by the admirable WP:HEY work that several editors have done], and Joshua's application of the "subject requests deletion" provision of BLP is, as almost always it is, quite right). Joe 06:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Viva Voce Virus
[edit]

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

I have not been able to find any secondary sources that can assert this film's notability, so I am putting it up for deletion per the notability guidelines. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources and not even IMDb has an entry, to me it seems like a fake, there is no evidence that this film actually exists.--The Dominator (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb doesn't necessarily cover anything. I think it's more likely that this is a very small-scale, indie film that does not necessarily warrant inclusion on Wikipedia due to the lack of information available. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No IMDb doesn't cover anything, but chances are if it isn't notable for IMDb then it isn't notable for Wikipedia.--The Dominator (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it's not covered by IMDB, chances are it's a hyper-obscure film. As such, the chances of meeting WP:N are slim. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete no reliable sources to indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Delete per WP:SNOW

Paul Albu
[edit]

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

Assertions of "strongest man in the world" within the text made this unsuitable for speedy deletion but there are zero Google hits to justify the assertion, doesn't meet WP:RS, WP:V; I bring it to the community for disposal Accounting4Taste:talk 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. An obviously ludicrous "assertion" is not enough to get around speedy-deletion criteria. I think WP:SNOW definitely applies here, too. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war in Iraq
[edit]

Civil war in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated for proposed deletion by Magickyleo101, further to comments made on the article's talk page. I oppose the deletion, as I feel that the article is detailed and informative, as well as being within the scope of several WikiProjects. However, lacking the detailed knowledge required to update the article, I felt that it would be uncouth to simply remove the prod tag based on my own personal opinion, hence this discussion. I would personally vote to keep the article, as it seems perfectly informative as it is, and perhaps requires someone with knowledge in this field to update the article with more recent developments – as such, I have already left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq to this effect. (This article was moved whilst this page was being written... apologies if I haven't updated any links.) haz (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and move to Sectarian violence in Iraq. This is where I wanted the page to be moved but that would require an administrator's help. The page needs to be updated and the "Civil war" label must not return.--S TX 19:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A previous attempt to rename the article resulted in no consensus. An article rename may be possible, but it shouldn't happen as the result of an AfD discussion. After this process concludes, it would be better to follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Nosfartu (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. There should certainly be an article on sectarian violence, but the content of the current article is poorly suited for a simple rename. The Iraq Civil War article lists out commanders, belligerents, army strengths, etc., which forces the discussion of the violence into the mold of a traditional conflict. Moreover, whole sections of the article wouldn't make much sense after a rename (e.g. "Use of 'Civil War' Label"). Finally, nearly all of the content is from more than six months ago, and a lot has changed since then. Any update would essentially create a new article, and I don't see any reason not to start from the ground up. The article is just going to be misleading until it gets some pretty significant rewriting. Magickyleo101 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, barring deletion, a rename is by far the best option. I make this argument in the article's talk page, but if we keep the article and simply try to update it, we'll enmesh ourselves in original research. There just aren't enough credible and current outside sources which make claims about whether there's still a civil war (and if not, when it ended). So we either act as if there's still a civil war (which is promoting our personal views in one way) or we insist that the civil war is over and promote our personal views in another way. But it's a violation of wikipedia standards either way. Magickyleo101 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is going on in Iraq is one of the big issues of the present time. Part of it is the sectarian violence. There should be an article to cover it. It is of course true that the situation keeps changing. A sensible approach to this is to record how it keeps changing, without destroying the write up that said how it was. Given that this issue gets media coverage, there seems no reason for an article on this topic to breach NOR policies. One thing that bothers me is that the user who has requested that this article be deleted User:Magickyleo101 has only ever contributed to this article.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be laboring under some confusion. I think everyone here agrees that there should be an article on sectarian violence in Iraq - the point under dispute here is whether (what was) the "Iraq Civil War" article should become that article on sectarian violence. If you think it should, and if you think that NOR policies won't be a problem, then I'd ask that you give us at least a few recent articles which either talk about an ongoing "civil war" in Iraq or which tell us when the civil war ended. After all, it hardly seems too much to ask that you back up your assertions about the sources we'll be able to find with some actual, you know, sources... Magickyleo101 (talk)

And I don't see why my status as a new community member should be grounds dismissing what I'm saying. I've been open about my actions, and I went through the proper channels. The article I'm trying to change hasn't been updated in almost half a year, and everyone seems to agree that it has some pretty significant problems. So it's not like my proposal is totally random, or that no one else can see why I think there's a problem. Trashing my status really comes off as grasping at straws... Magickyleo101 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was at AfD in Sept. 2007 as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil war in Iraq (second nomination). That time, it was over a content dispute. I find the argument for this go-round less than compelling. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Six months ago there were up to date sources on the civil war in Iraq. Since then we haven't gotten any new sources yet the situation in Iraq has changed. So we need new sources to make a NOR consistent update on what's going on. But no one seems to be willing to track any down. Magickyleo101 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. The "out-of-date" nature of the article has been disputed for months. Sources have been coming in all directions so WP:OR is not an issue here. Whether or not this sub-conflict is over, its WP:Notability does not expire. Supposed WP:NOEFFORT is not a good reason for deletion. And this article has seen no shortage of effort from all sides. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If recent sources mentioning a civil war are so easy to find, then why don't you give us some? It's been a while since I've seen a news article use the term, and that's what's causing the problem here. And this isn't an argument from WP:NOEFFORT. As things stand now, the article is misleading. We need sources to fix that. We have none. Magickyleo101 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked: Reuters, AP, USA Today, Reuters, AFP. Again, there is no lack of new information. It's the meaning that has been fought over non-stop for months. Again, even if the conflict has passed, its notabily does not expire. Also, WP:Reliable sources not expire either. Look at the edit history since September. Look at the Talk page assertions that the "so-called civil war in Iraq" is over. This isn't about a lack of sources. This article has seen non-stop edit warring about what sources and facts to include. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of those sources use the term "civil war" at all, and both of them suggest that there wasn't one (i.e. they only talk about going to the "brink of civil war"). The other articles you link to simply talk about violence in Iraq, which is important, but not necessarily related to the civil war. What we need are articles which actually talk about whether the war has finished or whether it's ongoing. Either that, or we need to change the article's references to a civil war to Iraq's almost-civil-war. Magickyleo101 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request - The argument I'm making here really only has two parts: (1) We can't update an article on the civil war in Iraq without new information on the civil war in Iraq. (e.g. We need to be able to say whether there's still a civil war; to say which aspects of the fighting now going on in Iraq are elements of a civil war and which elements are simply sectarian violence.) (2) We can't get new, NOR consistent information on the civil war in Iraq, because there don't seem to be enough recent news articles which mention, you know, a civil war. So (3) we can't simply update the article on the civil war in Iraq.

Now, these things make it pretty easy for people to reply to my argument. Either a) tell us how we can update the article on the civil war without information on the civil war, or b) give us some outside sources which mention a civil war in Iraq. But short of that, I don't really see how any update can go forward. And responses which don't do either of the above just seem non-responsive. Magickyleo101 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a) you should cite reliable and verifiable sources, while for b) you should consult the article's talk page where a long list of sources establishing the civil war title seems to be provided. --Nosfartu (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Restore to Iraq Civil War. The article was previously nominated for deletion twice [25] [26] with two resulting decisions of Keep. A previous attempt to rename the article also resulted in no consensus.
The correct way to make the proposed changes to the article is through the edit page link and the talk page, not to propose it for deletion. An article rename should not take place without following the process outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves. All editors would be encouraged to use this process instead. --Nosfartu (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason why consensus has shifted on this issue, despite the article's apparent age. A new editor might want to make some changes in the article, but provides no compelling reason for deletion. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, "Civil war in Iraq" is a notable topic. Renaming/redirect/merge/update etc. do not require Afd. Rich Farmbrough, 14:15 9 February 2008 (GMT).

Keep though renaming may be an option since officially it hasn't been declared as a civil war. Mpondopondo (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove The article has some good information regarding sectarian violence. But ethnic composition and naming of groups that commit acts of violence is not in line with the title. I would rather simply have the title changed, but apparently that has already been attempted. Misleading the readers with a title that has little to do with the article is dishonest. Angncon (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* - After some clean up I believe this article should be kept. It is clear, helpful and very modern in its convictions. chris4682 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 06:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Students of the University of Alaska Anchorage
[edit]

Union of Students of the University of Alaska Anchorage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable student government and should either be deleted or redirected to the main university article. There have been zero mentions of this student government in the Anchorage Daily News, the city's only major newspaper. I brought this here in part because I would like to open discussion about the notability of student governments so I can redirect other non-notable university student governments to the main university articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending sourcing/rewrite - University student governments are inherently notable and there are dozens of extant articles on student unions around the world; see Associated Students of the University of California, Cambridge University Students' Union, Hull University Union, Uppsala Student Union, Georgetown University Student Association, University of Alberta Students' Union, etc. See Category:Students' unions and Category:Students' unions by country.

Inherently notable? That seems over-the-top, considering that many student governments don't do much of anything. How should notability of a student government be measured? If it is not covered by anyone outside the school, I don't know Wikipedia should take notice of it. This student government has never been mentioned by any news source outside the school, which one might imagine would happen if it were doing anything important. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to say that it's never been mentioned outside the school is certainly false. There is at least one (minor) reference in mainstream media, as the USUAA co-sponsored a political debate between Tony Knowles and Lisa Murkowski in 2004. While that reference (now in the article) is certainly not the world's largest report, but it does belie the assertion that the USUAA has never done anything of interest. It took a 10-second Google search to find it. What may be uncovered in a scholarly search at the UAF library is yet to be seen. FCYTravis (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you assert that things that happen at universities, if not noticed by the broader world, are never encyclopedic. I would vehemently disagree, because even if not noticed by "outside" sources, universities themselves are important communities of interest. What is of interest to the university or college, is of interest to hundreds of thousands or even millions of people - students, alumni, local residents, faculty, staff, administrators, etc. This is the very point of university newspapers: they cover their communities in greater depth and detail than the mainstream media do. I know of no general consensus on Wikipedia which defines what happens inside a university as unencyclopedic. I would argue that what goes on inside a university is more encyclopedic than many things we cover in even greater detail. Universities are the engines of learning, research and self-discovery for our world, and Wikipedia should have more information about them, not less. What is important to Wikipedia is the existence of verifiable, reliable sources. If we have those, we can write an article about it. Universities generally produce plenty of reliable sources. FCYTravis (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student governments are permanent, have major, sometimes multi-million-dollar budgets funded by mandatory student fees, partake in activist activities, manage student life and are generally a major part of the university community. The current state of the article is unreferenced; I will work on that this weekend. I have stated on the talk page my intentions to adopt this article and improve it. Deletion is not the answer here. FCYTravis (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously keep if more verifiable content is added per Mr. Travis above, otherwise a merge to the UAA article would be reasonable, though not necessary. In no case should this be deleted outright, so I consider this AFD nomination frivolous. — CharlotteWebb 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that a merge would be perfectly logical if we can't find anything else - but I'm pretty sure we can go beyond what's there. There is definitely non-trivial coverage in the college newspaper, which conveniently happens to be online. I'm studying at Alaska's flagship university up in Squarebanks, so I'll go to the Rasmuson Library this weekend and do a search on the UAF/UAA library collections to see if I can dig up any offline, dead-tree sources. FCYTravis (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending rewrite by FCYTravis. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main student organisation of a large university of a well known college is notable, if there is enough material--as there is in this case.DGG (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Archeology
[edit]

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

Quantum archeology is the "study of the scientific resurrection of the ancient dead, including their memories" whose origins lie in "reversing the idea of psychohistory from Asimov's Foundation trilogy". This appears to be a fringe theory, albeit one with little coverage under likely spellings of the term, if Google is anything to go by, and therefore may lack sufficient notability to justify an article. Sturm 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Amazingly, there seems to be one legitimate mention, though I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the drivel in this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The strapline for Vlatko Vedral's talk was "Raiders of the lost entanglement", so I suspect it reflected his interests in quantum mechanics and information theory ("possible effects of entanglement in macroscopic systems, topological phases and one-way quantum computation"). --Sturm 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply'

er no, quite the oppposite. Professor Vedral is talking specifically about quantum archeaology, in fact gave a series of lectures on that subject at some of the most prestigeous institutes in the world. In fact haveing had chance some of his work, I'd conclude he is one of the world's great thinkers and was critically aware of his terminolgy. I'm greatful for the refernece and hope other begin to contribte to the article when the deletion tag is lifted as I'm heavily committed on internationally important work

ELDRAS (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks Clarityfiend, I've tidied it up a bit so I hope you dont still think it's drivel. Vlatko's papers at Los Alamos deal 'exactly' with this stuff ie the thermodynamic difficulties of quantum information recovery (cited below), and quantum archeology is an attempt at a method of compensation for this by directly tackling the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as offering techniques founded in psychistory to describe historical states in the universe. I hadn't heard of him before your reference. I would have thought this debate is pretty pertinent for him but I can email him under wiki rules apparently. BTW I dont see a new filed as something that suddenly has masses on new work like a calculus, but as often the gathering and collaging of existing areas of work into one subject. So quantum archeology is really just an incremental step from assembled areas of probability, quantum theory, psycohistory (which itself emerged from Asimov's fiction...as indeed Wikipedia did (the galactic encylopdea in foundation trilogy) apparantlyELDRAS (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is original "research" (if not pure fantasy), if anything is. Either that or is it misrepresented as science when it should be about a series of fictional books. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply Well it's futurism and there are articles, courses and books coming out on it, which I've now tried to list on the article page.ELDRAS (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This idea is a significant element in Tipler's

Omega Point theory which is certainly notable. This article is not well-written but it is only two days old - see WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is the idea known by this title? Because this is practically the entire documentation of "quantum archeology", which isn't exactly a promising demonstration of an academic subject's notability. --Sturm 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply good point it's a pretty new idea, some call it Quantum Resurrection, some Simulation. I'm unclear how to chage a page title, but we've been hammering it since about 2002 as quantum archeology on Mindx.ELDRAS (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no evidence (in the form of reliable sources) that this is anything other than one guy's loony notion. Deor (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There are a few looney notion guys then including the ones cited on the article, which I apologise for not having put up earlier. Also it's an idea not a scince at presnt, though it overlaps with psychistory which it is the mirro image of to achieve resrrection. You cant realy have relaible sources for an idea like a technology, it's iethre out there being debated or it isn't, and quite a few forums debate it, though I'm unsure of citing forums as references being new. I'm also concerned that as the speed of discovery and research is speeding traditional methods of peer review are not going to stay still. Forums are respectable areas to have honest work discussed and this trend will increase over peer reviewed magazines and books. In fact that's the whole idea behind Wiki!ELDRAS (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply So Deor- what magical mystical force do you claim makes the brain not subject to rational physical laws and makes it's processes uncomputable and uncopyable? "Quantum Archeology"- or Ancestor Simulation is an UNAVOIDABLE result of a mechanical universe- only a dualistic world-view where the mind is seen as supernatural would see QA as "loony" --Setai (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/do I get a vote?This is my first article & I've edited it since the challenge. Quantum computing is new but a reality and QA was a new idea that we mainly kicked about on emails and the forum. I think the idea is important but maybe the title could be changed. Quantum Archeology will enable reconstruction of many things from the past and the argument that human beings are no different gets howled at but is science. It's premise is that you should be able to backplot events because there are fewer histories than in present worlds. I'm interested in the successful formatting of a wiki article. ELDRAS (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELDRAS (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question (Well, actually, three questions.) Has this concept been published in any peer-reviewed journals? Has it been discussed in venues other than email and an online forum? And is this an idea of Tipler's, or does it merely draw inspiration from his work? Sturm 11:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply1. Nope not peer reviewed by this name though as the Nick Bostrom Simulation argument and Omega Point by Frank Tipler it has had wide idscussion in transhumanist circles and publications.

2. Yes in books like the one cited in Notes on Quantum Ressurrection and also the Physics of Immortality; in serveral online forums! It's the hottest idea in transhumanism at present, the other two being cryonics and A.I. 3. Yes it's Tipler's varying only by angle of a description of a method rather than actual resurrection as opposed to a simulated resurrection.
4 Sturm my idea was to set this page as a Stub and let people formulatead/detract from it, which noone's going to do if it has marked for deletion on it. There's enough people who debate transhumanist resurrection. Frank thinks it'll happen at the end of time n a simulation, and quantum archeology assumes it'll happen for real when processing power increases. Either way I cant afford any more time on it. CheersELDRAS (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely keep- the idea is new but is very important- consider that the only way to refute Quantum Archeology is to claim that there is some mystical aspect of the body and brain that are not subject to the laws of physics and so cannot be duplicated or copied- therefore QA is an axiomatic result of the physical case of the Church–Turing thesis - this sort of idea is not at all controversial in theoretical computer science and Digital Physics circles- Setai (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you the Setai who responded to a new MindX forum post called Wiki's going to delete Quantum Archeology!!!, in which a forum member called "eldras" urged people to "contrubute to the wiki article or it'll be deleted"? Sturm 13:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyGet real Sturm-, not everyone's goluming about in the darkness. setai posted there that he HAD posted here, -& quoted it. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by ELDRAS (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 February 2008
Reply This was a rhetorical question to inform this discussion of the thread's existence. If we're going to get new editors coming to this discussion off the back of that forum post, people have a right to know. --Sturm 22:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I'd already stated the MINDX reference the day before if you'd care to check this thread, and whilst it's true I didn't know the protocols it is absurd to delete this article which DOES have coverage in the science community.

It's an absurd weakness in wiki that a new page is deleted or kept by a vote which can be by people ignorant of the subject or it's importance in a community, because I would wager an administrator would just count yeas and nay without reading the page in question or area more than cursorialy; though it is possibly an inevitable protocol. I've also probably wrongly assumed you are an administrator who decides whether to delete it or not. But I'm glad to have fneced with you and sorry you find the idea of Quantum Archeology a challenge to your own beliefs.ELDRAS (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new & therefore weak at wiki protocols and apologize if this may be better as a stub...if you think that move it there? You may be reacting to the enormity of the idea which most people seem to at first.ELDRAS (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tipler's argument is much more theoretical, and extending his theory to this is a very considerable extrapolation. Thee is not really any support for this from reliable sources at present, at least none that has been cited here. Possibly an article can be written on it, based on what real sources there may be, but the first step would be to delete this one. DGG (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Reply I dont accept that the internet hasn't changed the way ideas are discussed and emerge. If an idea has support it should be listed in some form or wiki doesn't represent the real world. Online forums are used by the scientific community much more than peer reviewed papers now:-you cant just ignore then and not accept them as popular culture. Also this is an idea not a science thesis and wiki does list ideas. I dont think deleting it would help the idea be referenced: acceptance is a subjective thing I'm on no campaign. The idea stands or fails on it's own merit.

But clearly more than one looney thinks it notable! I cant accept there's a protocol for deseminating an idea which is different from a scientific theory and including it IS consistant with wiki policy.ELDRAS (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having listened to arguments presented by various people, I have become increasingly convinced that Quantum Archeology as described here represents a substantial fork from the more notable idea by Frank Tipler, albeit one apparently not covered in reliable sources. While Wikipedia is not limited by conventional constraints on the number of topics it can feasibly cover, it is also not a publisher of original thought; an idea that's locally popular among a few members of an online forum can not assert notability by that property alone, even if it does draw inspiration from areas which are suitable for encyclopaedic treatment. --Sturm 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Sturm you are NOT neutral on this now editing out stuff on the page you want to delete. I mean you are not judging this on the idea current and not the substance of the idea which I understand you may not like & of course I respect that eg you've voted against it but just deleted some now...including the Notes ref to the originator of Omegta Point Theory who is crucial to the debate: you're edit says it's not relevant. You clearly haven't read it.

It's pivotal & it's where Tipler extracted it from. FYR: de Chardin though progress would evolve to a focal point in the future by evolution, where everything possible would happen. That is Tipler's argument for Simulation, and Nick Bostrom's argument for multi imulation...both of whom are indisputably famous & world class scientists, one of whom supports this.ELDRAS (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I removed two references which appeared to have been tossed in at random. Tipler's and Chardin's respective usages of the term "omega point" were not precisely the same thing. And Vlatko's talk on "Quantum Archeology" was likely not discussing resurrection. --Sturm 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply' you miss my point. Why are you editing the artcle at all if you propsoed and still seem to believe it should be deleted?

I didn't say Vlatko was talking about resurrection but about Quantum Archeology.
Here are some refs of his work:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/

I draw your attention to one at random that is specifically relevant:
arXiv:quant-ph/0407151 Title: Thermodynamical Cost of Accessing Quantum Information Authors: K. Maruyama, C. Brukner, V. Vedral Comments: 3 figures Journal-ref: J. Phys. A 38, 7175 (2005) Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Your post at the other site looks like you may be changing your mind on dleting this article, possibly because I'm tidying it up and editing it. I dont really wish to go to a tribunal/appeal thing as I'm seriously involved in stuff.
ELDRAS (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that article relevant? It doesn't talk about resurrection or quantum archaeology. It talks about quantum information retrieval which looks like a perfectly valid topic within quantum information theory but something completely different from resurrecting or simulating people. On the positive side, Pickover's book surely seems to be about the topic; on the basis of that I lean towards keeping the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'll tell you specifically how it's relevant: the methodology of quantum archeology. You are describing a human being as a description of information. Memories involve electro-cehmeicla impulses that Penrose thought preceded quantum calculation in the brain in 'tubules'. I dont agree with hium and briefly discussed his idea with prof Susan Greenfield in a lecture, though she awaits evidence of his idea. That's irrlevant really, because it;s still about reconfiguring the past using quantum information retrieval. This paper is specifically about that. There are loads of papers on this area.

The whole point that is NOT roicket science is that resurrecting people is NOT different from resurrecting information. Tipler has shown that you can describe a person as computation.
He should have got a nobel prize for his work in my view. I reemeber I had a physical reaction when I yook up his book by chance in the bookshop, bought it and stamped back the next day yelling THIS DOES NOT TELL ME HOW TO RASWE THE DEAD I WAMT MY MONEY BACK. They coughe up, but some of his work haunted me and I rebought it. It does say that and quantum archeology is an easy not a revolutionary deduction from it.
You are information...that is, the universe is the set of veents i the world and the laws that govern them. That includes a Man and Tipler's profound work shows man is not only just like an animal, as Darwn had, but now is just like a bunch of atoms...which is information ( I prefer to call it 'data theory' to get rid of the subjective description), but it's just terminology. Thanks for your lean Jitsea Niesen.ELDRAS (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of work, but it does contain a lot of material that can be salvaged.--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Incoherent conflation of random half-understood ideas and references, almost certainly an OR synthesis. For example: "There are always more variables in the cosmos than there were is history allowing enough information to be gathered to reconstruct any historical event down to the quantum particle" - say what ??? And why call it Quantum Archeology when it assumes a deterministic universe i.e. the complete opposite of quantum physics ? I guess someone just thinks Quantum makes the article sound sexy. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply By variables I mean as seen by genetic algorithm tanks where an event is an algorithms. THe number of events in the presnet universe is unidsputably greaterr than at anytime in history even discounting the multiverse.

The arly universe was relatively simple. to back tace is MUCH esier than forward predict. Surely that makes siense to you? It's called quantum archeology because that's the name that emerged, thogh loads were tried. and it sort of invokes quantum computing which will be the prefered method of using it as the computaion capacity at 20 qubits is more than we dare imagine!ELDRAS (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply ...'there are always more variables in the cosmos etc' what;s the problem there? 'Say what?' isn't an argument/objection.

Ho! Quantum doesn't mean something is non-determinist Gandolf! Everett sorted all that out...quantum colloq. means very small -or in physics (wiki) the plural of quanta 'an indivisible entity'. The point about QA is that it's been well thrashed out on different disciples and the fact it's grouped post Tipler now is hardly that big of a surprize. Quantum in Quantum Archeology has been in use from about 2003 (5 years s a long time in physics) because it involves quantum computation which is also an emerging field. I dont blame you attacking it, because it is radical when you first come across it, but it HAS been out there for a while. As for OR I wish I was that bright. You might tyr reading it up on a wiki search under it's various names.CheersELDRAS (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply it is called Quantum Archeology or Quantum Reconstruction/Resurrection because the method of reconstruction is the simulation of Hilbert Space- specific or general states corresponding to the brain/body/environmental states of intelligent observers would be extracted from the bulk computation of Hilbert Space [it is axiomatic in QM that all possible observer states lie in Hilbert Space]- determinism is NOT opposed to Quantum Mechanics- every quantum state is absolutely deterministic- while all quantum histories are non-deterministic and established by the Born Rule- so specific states of observers in an Ancestor Simulation are deterministic and computable- the Born Probabilities of the past histories of such complex states are also determined due to the nature of causality/entropy- again Quantum Archeology can only be dismissed if some supernatural aspect of mind makes it different from all other quantum systems- there is no legitimate basis for deletion- the article needs only to be refined- not removed! --Setai (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: The tell-tale sign is that most of the references are admitted in the article to not be about this subject as such. Wikipedia has far too much text on fringy stuff as it is, but at least we have some proof that there is some persistent belief in it. A discussion on a forum is insufficient proof, and other than the discussion in the article, that's all there is. This is a textbook-ready example of the sort of thing WP:NOR was intended to forbid.

While I'm at it, I'll note that User:Setai has only participated in this AFD. Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply this is incorrect- I have edited several science and electronic music entries at wiki over the years- including a section in the old Quantum Immortality discussion page [see which survivor-states are more probable?] about how Ancestor Simulation has implications for QI in that it is far more probable that an observer at death will awaken as an archeological reconstruction than in a quantum history where they miraculously survive [which is the standard QI conjecture]- I just happened to register before posting in this AFD discussion- before I simply edited and signed my name without a log-in- and I am very glad ELDRAS gave me a heads-up- this subject is tremendously underreported- since the dawn of rational thought and the discovery that Man is matter subject to physical laws and not magic- we should have realized that death was technologically reversible in principle and that our primitive notions of observer oblivion don't work in a materialistic universe with consistent rules- --Setai (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to say "reply" -- we can tell that. And while I see a couple of edits from you as a bare IP address, the evidence still says that you are someone who is in Wikipedia as an advocate for these ideas, and not as an editor per se. Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I'm only interested in the policy of deletion here & not at all in any politics you may perceive:
Wiki's policy for deletion involves 4 heads:
1. Violation of copyright.
2. Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia.
3. Content not verifiable in a reliable source.
4. Unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons
1 & 4 are definiately not in breech.
2. is not deletable, as there is MUCH public interest in the area, and I reiterate, lectres, publications, debates. There are already well established entries in wiki dealing with it under different names...have you READ the page? It is a KNOWN an area of study with references in the Notes.
3. The sources cited are verifiable but few by the specific name which has only formulated from forum groups since 2002/3. see eg ancestor simulation

To successfully delete this you would have to argue the second point sucessfully.
Although it's subjective, the fact there are published, verifiable sources means that it is a notable.

BTW one of the commonest responses to newbies to Quantum Archeology is emotional rejection!
This page was only meant as a stub and I have already and again apologise for not knowing how to have set that up. Happy to have this renamed 'quantum resurrection' or reduced to a stub, but to delete it would need to fail on better grounds than you suggest.
The first book I can find dealing with Quantum Resurrection was only published in 2006 and cited in New Scientist in 2007 (see Notes on wiki page).
You may find that an encyclopedea is a list of 'fingey stuff' that becomes 'common stuff' as people read it! Maybe you would be kind enough to post of list of 'fingey stuff' you think people shouldn't read, and also a list of probable secret conspiracies that should be investigated. And finally why the amount of volume of wikipedia is an issue for anything being deleted, and what you thinki the memory capacity of the internet is nd at what parts it is bursting with web pages floating out of the telephone exchange into your interesting world?ELDRAS (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC) ELDRAS (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment

I'm new to wiki and I guess people have assumed I'm putting some peice of science wroting up here. I'm not. I also I guess thought wiki was a repository of ideas current. It isn't it's an encyclopedia.
Ok but just like the printing press changed the world, the www has changed the world.
There is a real problem about articles being deleted on wiki I have heard and I canm see some eg a baseball team entry that is deleted for being unnoteworthy???
If wiki is to sutrvive and it may or may not...may because people get a kick out of entering our posts, may not because machines will carry that task soon and the personal kick wont be there, also the semantic web is coming fast, and like the WWW no-one knows how to understand what it does.
May not unless it adapts...the world is different today from what it was 3 years ago.
In two years time it will be different.

1000 people on average are reponsible for editing wiki by category.
More and more work is done on forums, chatgroups, IRC's that are not really documented and email.
THe mobile indstry is going to boom like nothignwe've seen and there have been drawing board systems for thought control of keyboard action and wearable computers eg hardbands.

The issue is data communication but at some stage it will no longer be cool or necessary to input data at all, intelligent software will manipulate any sequence you need, and ....er I'm just wondering who I'm talking to here??? Apart from pleading ignorance I mean.
It;s a great kick to get a web page you made on wiki but I wonde if the kick's wearing off.
Oh yep, wiki HAS to move with the pace or it's be o=vertaken.
That sounds not possible?
Consider the semantic web.... You type in a search tems like you do to google and wiki combo, and the semantic web brings RELEVANT summarized calibre information for you.
Sounds impossible but it's about to explode on the www and Tim's been on it for years.
The other info sourcing is by topic like CYC.

wiki WANTS to be an encyclopedia that's alive.
But everything is on the semantic web and the relevancy focus is better than wiki potentially.
Wiki is a community as i see it, and sometimne I get an article that is so bad I wonder how the hell this got there...same with any book.
But the futrure of the web is NOT the book form...and to insist on peer reveived articole sfor an idea that's new and buzzing in forums or discussions off and on the web is quite limiting.
THat forces people off wiki and into chatgroups, because the knowledge on wiki isn't current enough.
I dont wnat to wait until a paper is peer reveiewed eg in my own filed A.I.l...I want to get it as soon as the boffin knows he's cracked a problem.
And I'll take it in a raw state if that's where he's at.
Usenet was the foreruner of wiki & wiki solved the problem of flames and tons of junk articles by a sort of moderator sensor.

That was a big improvement.

But what if like me you are soecificially interested in the edge? the very front of subjects?
Does that need a 'wikinew' category that is not yet TRADITION.
No No there is knowledge but ideas are alspo important.
Google and not wiki sorts out popularity by use because almost noone (at a guess) searches just wiki for a subject as it often doesn't list it, but the semantic web is going to dwarf that and anyone not evolving....and I'm arguing wiki has to allow debates in groups as notable...wil be history.
freinds reunited had a god run. As soon as facebook came it doesn't exist. That wasn't in 5 years, it was in 5 months.
This is virtual machine evolution and there can be a cambrian explosion OR a wipe out.
I urge you to relax wiki's draconian constraigns to allow emerging technologies be sourced in forums and groups.
THe only thing we all agree on is that there are a lot of fools aboutELDRAS (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I agree is that a long disquisition such as this is evidence against your position. Wikipedia is not for emerging ideas; it is for emerged ideas. My personal opinion here is that this is a lot of philo-babble, and if I had my way this sort of thing would have a big sticker at the top were it included. The important problem is that I cannot see that it is well-documented babble. From what we can tell, it's just something a few of you guys got together in a blog and made up one day. It needs to have a bigger impact on the world before we say, "yes, we need to document this." Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Wade
[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Not really any notable ghits and no gnews. No sources. Seems like an auto-bio from tone. MBisanz ^talk 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online Sexual Activity
[edit]

Online Sexual Activity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible violation of WP:NEO - though I'm not sure. No claim of verifiability, no sources quoted. CultureDrone (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC) The article was PROD'ed, but this was removed by the author with no explanation. CultureDrone (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to cybersex. It's a catchall term used in psychology, but doesn't need a separate article, although it's possible down the road there could be one that looks at that angle. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cybersex. OSA is just another term for cybersex.Nlm1515 (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Undeath (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kamen Rider Kiva characters
[edit]

List of Kamen Rider Kiva characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable list. Pure listcruft. I know it's a new aticle, but it is non notable, and will probably never be notable. Undeath (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The show itself has a Wikipedia page, and it's a remake of a popular TV series. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be a valid summary style subpage of its main article Kamen Rider Kiva. It would help if the lead were edited to reflect this, and per WP:SS the list of characters in the main article were trimmed, and this article correctly cited as the main one -- but no doubt the editor got distracted by having the AfD slapped on his work-in-progress 3 minutes after the article was created. In the future, I might suggest to the nominator that it would be more fruitful if you have notability concerns to bring this up in the article, either with tags or on the talk page, and see if they can be addressed before bring it directly to AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason I nominated this so quick was it did not fit a speedy. Second, I do not believe it to be a notable list. For one, no sources. Also, most of the characters listed are non notable stock characters. It is almost like creating a list of all the pokemon/digimon/yu gi oh characters, or creating a list about all the characters in a cartoon. Undeath (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The program that this page is related to has only aired two epsidoes. All of the characters here are not stock characters, but are regular characters (everyone on this list has appeared in the show so far, and have appeared in promotional materials for the show). It is currently only a copy of the "characters" section from the primary article, but that will change once more material shows up to be sources and the show progresses.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw the nomination then. But, if this article goes nowhere, as some lists do, I will re-nominate it in the distant future. As of now, it's just a copy of the main article. Undeath (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more. I've removed the content at the main article and placed it in the secondary article. In the near future, I will be adding an abridged section to the main article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian st. cyr
[edit]

Sebastian st. cyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fictional character of book series. However, neither the author nor the book series have articles so it does seem pointless to have an article about the character. Note also the lack of content beyond plot summaries. Pichpich (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fictional character with zero notability outside of their own fictional world. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Lake County
[edit]

Miss Lake County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:V. Non-notable and unverifiable beauty competition. I found two different beauty competitions in this name [27] [28]. But they are do not have any relation with this contest. Moreover, it seems that (as per this article) it is arranged only for the teenagers and there is no further significance such as moving towards a next national or regional round or such. Because of all those issues, nominating this article for deletion. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...but - it's a core event in the Trout-o-rama! :) Weak delete. The article doesn't cite reliable sources to establish notability; for the same reason it fails WP:V. Majoreditor (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Anerousis
[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:BIO. Though it seems that he is a famous researcher in IBM, but that doesn't pass him at WP:BIO. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be particularly notable within IBM, either. Pburka (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Not notable as an researcher with just 12 publications. as for patents, hehas10, which isnt that much either as applied research, unless any of them are particualrly important. Only "adjuct assistant professor at the department of Electrical Engineering at Columbia University" so he'snot really an academic/. Is he important within the company? He is "managing the service engineering research department." I havent the vaguest idea where that fits within their system.DGG (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Google scholar finds more pubs than DGG notes, with an h-index of 9. The citation record looks decent but not quite enough to base a keep vote on, and I don't really see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kros
[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Kros (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Krosork

Articles for deletion/Kross

Articles for deletion/Kross (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Krossinc

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

Delete as per WP:OR. I was initially thinking to tag it for Speedy but couldn't mange an appropriate section. Thus, nominating as for AfD as per WP:OR. But, that is for sure, this article in noway deserve to be here on WP. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found an appropriate one. It was deleted twice in past. So, tagged it as per G6. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the speedy tag. As near as I can tell, no article with this title has been deleted through AfD before, and the last one to be speedied, at least, was wholly unrelated to this article. (It's definitely not a G6 per your tag, since that tag's for articles with an AfD close of "delete" that somehow have not been deleted.) Nevertheless, delete as nonnotable school project. Deor (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not as original research. The article is about an organisation that isn't notable, and provides no reliable sources, nor are there any in evidence when searching. Did the nominator mean to indicate WP:ORG, the guidelines for notability of reorganizations? -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant WP:OR as this article doesn't talk directly on this organization instead it describes its project and activity from a personal view. Even if we consider it as an article on that particular organization, it fails at WP:ORG as you mentioned. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question. My understanding is that articles are intended to describe or explain an organization or project, and since this is a student-driven project, is somewhat a work in progress. We are a team of teachers that have been working on this for nearly two years, and accompanied by the joilearning.org/sea90e website, have brought students into understanding how to start and develop projects. We have our Gifted and Talented students working on articles that are likely of interest for learning about science and technology. thank you for you comments and we will do our best to proceed in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorywilsonis (talk • contribs) 02:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Students are currently editing updates to this article and it will be updated and linked to related sites, including references within the next 2-3 weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.179.6 (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I admire the fact that is a student driven project and you all have been working on it for two years, the article current fails WP:ORG. There needs to be some verifiable, external news article with information on the group for the article to be notable. Ank329 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G7, author blanked the page. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Anderson NDP (candidate)
[edit]

Stephen Anderson NDP (candidate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:N and WP:BIO. He was nominated to represent the Alberta NDP but failed to win. He is not notable enough to have an article as an opposition leader. Note that, opposition leader or candidate who failed to get elected can be notable but this person doesn't match in anyway. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — appears to have WP:COI issues as well (author is subject). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator without dissent. Non-admin closure per speedy keep guidelines. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olgivanna Lloyd Wright
[edit]

Olgivanna Lloyd Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:N. Having a relation with a notable person doesn't assert someone's notability. Though this article claims she had a crucial role in the life and achievements of Frank Lloyd Wright but failed to clarify how. Moreover, its verifiability is also very narrow. Taking all those issues in account, nominating this article for deletion. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: As other fellow Wikipedians are thinking she is notable and some third-party references have also been presented to support her notability, I think it is clear that right now notability is not a problem with this article. Though when I tagged this article, it was completely unreferenced (also hard to find online references by Google search as well) and the only claim that tries to make her notable was - she had a crucial role in the life and achievements of Frank Lloyd Wright. But, gradually it is revealed that she is notable on her own right. Second issue was copyvio which is also fixed. Thus, I am withdrawing my nomination and thanking everyone who have participated in this discussion, specially its enthusiastic author who is new but promisingly active. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIAL NOTE:Article edition/addition is still in progress. She introduced Wright to Gurdgieff, another figure with whom she had substantial and well-documented involvement. The first third or so of the recent critical biography The Fellowship is almost entirely devoted to her and her involvement with both Wright and Gurdgieff. To have been involved with two such daring figures, and have introduced them to each other, in a notable accomplishment indeed--not to mention that her grandfather is also especially famous (in Eastern europe); and she is certainly worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The very fact that she was a woman in those days meant that her contribution and role was not necessarily documented as well as her male counterparts. Additionally, she is extensively referenced in the Frank Lloyd Wright article and other Wikipedia articles. This would provide a link for those references to go to. etc. etc. Mr manilow (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it appears to be a copyvio - I have nominated for speedy deletion via {{db-copyvio}}. Jeodesic (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As copyvio is sorted, I see no clear reason for deletion. Jeodesic (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note on the article's talk page. Anyone linking titans like Gurdjieff and Wright, some of the biggest names in their respective fields, certainly should NOT be deleted! As for the copyvio, I'm still trying to edit this article, and it should be easy enough to reword the 3 lines or so that are claimed copyvios so as not to be that, even though their content is straightforward enough. Please re-consider deletion, she was one of the main female students of Gurdjieff and clearly one of the main influencers of Wright, considering most of his work was completed after her introduction to the picture etc. etc. Mr manilow (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be deleted as a blatant copyright violation. But Olgivanna is sufficiently separately notable for her role in running the Taliesin Foundation, which did not just oversee her husband's works and legacy but included the Taliesin Fellowship, a working architectural firm. There were elements of controversy during her quarter-century tenure. While notability is not transitive -- not even from two different directions -- she was an active participant both during and after her husband's lifetime. --Dhartung | Talk 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is no longer a copyvio so I have removed the speedy tag - by the time I reviewed it there was only one sentence that appeared to be copied from the cited page so I rewrote it. nancy ^(talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mild plagiarism (apparently a small portion of one sentence) has been removed, though the remainder could use some expansion and cleaning up. — CharlotteWebb 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do I get a vote too? (as article creator) Otherwise you can just delete this line, of course. Mr manilow (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seem to be sources for notability with relation to his work. The assumption that she was ncessarily insignificant is perhaps a little old-fashioned. DGG (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable person with interesting connections. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics
[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Articles for deletion/European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics (2nd nomination)

European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Consists largely of WP:OR and speculation/'what if', based on a comment from one man. Also falls foul of WP:NPOV as presenting such statistics is clearly pro-EU; furthermore it's clear that despite Prodi's wishes the EU will not be competing in Beijing 2008. See also WP:Articles for deletion/2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization. Paulbrock (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Strong delete — I fully agree with Paulbrock's comments on OR and NPOV problems. Additionally, I am convinced that this article was initially created, and survived AfD previously, solely because of WP:ILIKEIT reasons fueled by nationalistic pride at the time of the 2004 Games. Around the time of the first AfD discussion, Romano Prodi's quotes were added to the article, nominally to justify the article's existence, I suppose. However, now we have undue weight given to those comments. I think the existing referenced sentence in the 2004 Summer Olympics medal count article is wholly sufficient to include Prodi's comments in this encyclopedia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, someone's speculation. Punkmorten (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Proposal motivated by anti-EU attitude, while there is nothing original or POV in that article that is a compilation. This has been quite clear in the previous debates that concluded with a keep. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)--Pgreenfinch (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the sections tagged as OR actually have sources, can you provide them please? Furthermore the old discussion had votes that were literally WP:ILIKEIT or WP:NOHARM, which were not written at the time of the previous AFD (closed as no consensus, not keep). Looks like Wikipedia has moved on in the last 2 1/2 years and a re-nomination is appropriate. I also refute the suggestion that I have an agenda in nominating this article, and I alerted both the article creator and WP:EU to this AFD.Paulbrock (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - look everyone, I'm voting delete at a sports-related article. Who would have thought we'd see the day. Anyway, the article is just generally patently misleading and relies on hypotheticals. The European Union itself did not field a team, and the results of the European Union member states are very well covered already. If substance comes about besides Prodi, I could be convinced otherwise, but at the moment, I can't see much purpose for this. matt91486 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and particularly per the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization (second nomination). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - complete WP:OR. There was no EU team, and it's not really relevant to add results of different teams together. - fchd (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreation of previously deleted material WP:CSD#G4; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meenakshi Sundaram. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sundar
[edit]

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

This article is about a real person who does not seem to be notable. This might be an autobiography, but it is hard to be sure. Either way, it seems to fail WP:N. It says he founded a company, but gives little explanation on how that's notable. Soxred93 | talk count bot 15:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you looked, even in Google? If you told us what you found (or didnt find), it would help us decide.DGG (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirected to LOE Will ^(talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Torchwood episodes
[edit]

(View AfD) WP:CRYSTAL - no sources exist for any of the titles, writers, directors, or cast, and are thus entire speculation. Will ^(talk) 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated articles:
~~A Day in the Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

Something Borrowed (Torchwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From out of the Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adrift (Torchwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fragments (Torchwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Exit Wounds (Torchwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I say kill with fire until the titles can be confirmed by a credible source. I did strike the first one as I withdrew nomination for that article less then 24 hours ago. They probably turn out to be the correct title, but as you said, there is no reliable source of any kind, and we need to weed out unsourced material at the root. — Edokter • Talk • 17:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Torchwood episodes until broadcast- not enough to say till then. We don't have articles on DW series 4s, nor did we have Torchwood season 1 until broadcast. OZ OO 17:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Torchwood episodes per above. Simply south (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all - It may be easy to change these to the correct titles, and they may be the correct titles, but without a source for the title they simply do not belong on wikipedia. Stuart DD _{contributions} 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Torchwood episodes. Titles now sourced from Brief History, but they should be redirected till we know more about the episode. Stuart DD _{contributions} 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure how Brief History sources their information, but if they can be trusted, I recommend withdrawing the nomination. — Edokter • Talk • 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Serenade Surrender
[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC; unsigned band, only reference material I was able to find (besides MySpace pages) were brief mentions in local newspaper articles (e.g. [29]). Already speedied once under title The serenade surrender.
Also nominating:

Back To The Basement

an article about the band's only and self-produced EP for basically the same reasons; unable to satisfy notability and verifiability guidelines. ~Matticus ^U_C 14:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, recreation of deleted material Doc Strange (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GET OFF THE BANDS BACK!!!! THEY ARE JUST A BUNCH OF BROKE KIDS TRYING TO PLAY MUSIC!!!!
What's the point of being able to update Wikipedia ourselves if you guys just want to constantly delete our pages because you can't verify the bands info??????— Preceding unsigned comment added by Modup118 (talk • contribs)

You've answered your own question there - because the information is unverifiable. Please read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. ~Matticus ^U_C 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...so my crappy little band bothers you. Thats my whole plan...Im gonna bring down Wikipedia by posting innacurate information about my local band. Come on guys...I told our story like it is. I didnt embelish and say we were signed to some major label or touring in huge million dollar buses. Why would I make up the story that we are a crappy band that's broke and just trying to get by? What kind of lie is that? Why would I want to make up that story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modup118 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only the non-verifiability of the information, it's the non-notability of it. Make it big, win some Grammys, become a major influence in the music world, and the band becomes worthy of a Wikipedia entry. But right now, they are not. Sorry 'bout that... Marjaliisa (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wikipedia get off TSS's balls for the love of all things !!! I played bass for the band for a short stint and these kids are busting their asses to get their name out there and for you to take this bulls@#t action against them is lamer then the crap in high schools.
For real give some kids a damn break and look beyond the fact they are a newer unsigned group and maybe help them get out there not take your power of the "interweb" and piss on their fire.
Get off their backs and just leave them alone and if they make it big you can say you were there for them but if not you can say you gave them a chance.
Respects,
George "Dark Soul" Wiggins Team Apocolypse Fight Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.9.225 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you guys rent a cops for Wiki here? This site is a reference site not a site for you guys to deem what is and what is not worth searching for. TSS would love to win Grammy's but w/ out Wikipedia's help I don't know if we can do that...Im kidding of course.
Note this....if you guys shut this posting down when the day comes that you want to make a page for TSS we will block it and tell all our fans to edit with words like poopie and crap. Is that you guys want? The biggest band in the world to have the words poopie and crap all over their listing? Yea...I dont think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modup118 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, please read WP:MUSIC and see if you qualify. I'd say you don't. I wish you the best of luck in a very tough business, but right now, the band isn't notable... Marjaliisa (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - obviously. Rarely is there a more clear-cut case of a band coming to promote itself without realizing that that's not what Wikipedia is for. I wish you guys luck, but the bottom line (not just for bands, but for any subject) is that you have to prove the subject's importance before it qualifies for a Wikipedia article. --Hyperbole (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There hasn't been any notability established, therefore it should be deleted. Remember, Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information about a small high school band that no one has ever heard of. Like other users have posted, get around, win some important awards, have a big hit, do something notable, because there's thousands of other high school bands out there just like you guys, and their simply not notable. I'm also saddened to see the blatantly hostile attitude towards Wikipedia's procedures and that you would vandalize articles for no apparent reason, other than the fact that your band isn't recognizable, nor does it have an verifiable facts. So, once again, my advice is to go out there, sing, have fun, enjoy life, and hey, if one day you make it big, or even just partway there, and I'm confidant that Wikipedia will be waiting there with open arms. Heck, I'll even write the article myself, but for the time being, my opinion is that the article should be deleted. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as non-notable per WP:BAND. tomasz. 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say wikipedia is filled with deusche bags. You guys are like the internet gestapo, but worse. I'd really like to know how much space this little page is wasting on your server right now. And you know, this "talk" page is probably wasting more space than our band and album page combined. What's the harm in letting us have a 2 measly little pages. I think you guys need to go to our myspace and listen to our cd, because obviously you haven't. If you have and you still don't like us, then you guys must be freaking deaf. I hope you guys enjoy making 8 bucks an hour, sitting in a hot, stuffy room deleting peoples pages for kicks and giggles, you interet fags.

Delete This a highly un-notable band and higly un-notable album, both should be deleted as soon as possible.TheNextOne (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, if you are able to provide a reliable source for this article, then you are free to recreate the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary McFeeders
[edit]

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

Seems like a vanity articles. It provides three references, but none suffices to confer notability: one is his own website, one is of a Christian stunt riding group of which he is a part, and one is a tae kwon do website. This last one may seem to demonstrate notability (it's used to prove that he was an Olympic medallist), but please note that there were no Olympic Games in either 1986 or 1993, so he can't be an Olympic medallist. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was attempting to coach this editor with this article, but the article never really improved. I declined the Speedy on it originally, because of the Olympic medal claim, but as pointed out in the nom, Tae Kwon Do was not in the Olympics until 2000. I was giving him a week to improve it, or I would nominate it for AFD myself, which was 5 days ago. Now, he has another 5 days to improve it before it gets deleted. I'm okay with that. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article states 1986 Olympics. That wasn't an Olympic year. But that although Tae Kwon Do was not an official medal sport until 2000, it was an Olympic demonstration sport for the 1988 and 1992 games. Being a demo sport was part of the path taken to becoming an official Olympic sport. -- Whpq (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is spammy, and the claim for notability, an Olympic medal appears to fail verifiability. As I stated in my earlier comment, 1986 was not an Olympic year. Assuming that was a typo, then he might plausibly have won a medal when Tae Kwon Do was a demo sport. Checking Taekwondo at the 1988 Summer Olympics and Taekwondo at the 1992 Summer Olympics, I cannot find him in the draw much less in a medal position. I realize that wiki articles aren't reliable sources, but I suspect these are probably okay, and I'm open to be being shown reliable sources supporting the medal assertion if the wiki articles actually are wrong. -- Whpq (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendojo
[edit]

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

contested prod; No reliable sources to verify notability. Author has repeatedly removed notability tags and prod-notability tag without providing refs. I haven't found any RS myself but if someone else can find good refs I'd withdraw the afd. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. One of coutless video-game websites. Primary claim to notability is that some of the people who contributed it went on to contribute to other sites. For comparison's sake, present Alexa rank is 290,802... IGN and Gamespot are 148 and 109. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Starblind. Does not rise to WP:WEB at this time. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1) is well-known and often cited in the gaming community -- by other sites, on message boards, etc... a simple Google search shows this. 2) Alexa is a dubious judge of site traffic, as it is based singularly on self-selected Alexa toolbar users; as Wikpedia community has noted, there is no fair study of bias factors (in contrast to Nielson, whose sample users are much more carefully regulated). 3) Nintendojo is a pioneering website; established as the oldest Nintendo-specific fansite still in existence and one of the first gaming sites in the "pre-commercial" era, before the advent of sites like GameSpot and IGN, 4) other fansites like NintendoWorldReport, Gamestyle, ToTheGame, and Gamezebo (many of which are less well known than Nintendojo) have Wikipedia pages. 5) Refs to site notability are included on Wiki page. 6) Is included in numerous notable meta-reference sites such as GameRankings and GameStats -- joshofstl —Preceding comment was added at 13:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Additional external notability references added.--Joshofstl (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete: no reliable sources that give significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Sancho 01:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Education Mixtape
[edit]

Physical Education Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article on a planned mixtape. Per WP:MUSIC mixtapes and future albums are not notable without substantial reference in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC specifies that mixtapes are not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes. скоморохъ 13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amman Valley Comprehensive School
[edit]

Amman Valley Comprehensive School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no context; no idea where it is, what levels it teaches, anything. Pairadox (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, how about now? скоморохъ 13:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom - Much better. Pairadox (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Tax Deduction
[edit]

Ad Tax Deduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references and my googling didn't turn up any evidence that this practice actually exists. It doesn't make sense that you would pay $50 less in taxes after getting a gift card from Macy's, and it seems bizarre that Macy's would give away gift cards just for the sake of you going to shop there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I'm thinking scam/hoax. Does it surprise you that I've seen this mentioned on MySpace pages? Duncan1800 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, actually. :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entry is very misunderstood because it is poorly written.
The point is- you work somewhere and you pay income taxes. now what happens is, an advertising company is teamed up with your employer or is just in understanding of the following - instead of 'for example' $50 being taken out for your income tax you get it back as earned money in the form of a gift card. You just pay that $50 less in that time period and get a gift card of the $50. Now, the ad company pays the IRS that $50 for you. So it's like the ad company is being taxed a part of your income tax. I guess the gift card can come from your employer who is participant with this ad tax deduction. So, the ad company just paid your $50 of income tax for you so now you get that $50 back in the form of a gift card. The ad company does this to advertise to you for other brands. The gift card is from a certain store for example. As the recepient of this gift card you must use it in a certain amount of time or you lose it. What this does is provide a physical ad to you in your hands and makes you shop at a store, probably a store trying to promote itself. So you shop there and you may spend extra dollars over the $50 amount and you might be a future customer. These stores, brands pay the ad company to advertise their brand. Hope this is understandable.
However, this tax deduction seems sort of flawed. It seems like the ad company can just give you the gift card without dealing with taxes. But, I think there is a certain advantage to doing this with taxes like making sure only working people receive this, people that earn a certain amount, the idea that you're paying less taxes. Some other stuff I'm sure.
Also, this technique of advertising may or may not be at all effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennytim (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The (well, one) problem with this scheme, however, is you are being double-paid... Macy's is giving you $50 and the IRS $50, so they have given away $50 in cash and $50 in merchandise, just in the hopes that you will be a customer later? This makes no sense so unless a reliable source exists that documents it, I am skeptical. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, you are not getting paid twice. you personally pay $50 less but the money is still owed, which the ad company will pay. (you owe $3,000 in income tax. you have a choice to get $50 back in the form of a gift card. you get it somehow. the money is still owed which the company will pay. it's kind of just a cycle. i'm no really sure who does what and how and the numbers aren't set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.147.97 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of notability and a complete lack of reliable sources (or any sources at all). The proposal would make sense only if giving out the gift cards inspires people to spend several hundred dollars at the retailer in question. In other words, it might make sense if the gift card were really a $50 off coupon on a purchase of $1,000 or more (depending on the retailer's markup). If customers use just the $50 or if they simply accept the $50 tax reduction, this proposal would result in a large loss for the retailer. As it stands, it is most likely either a poorly thought out proposal or a hoax.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, although more reliable sources could be helpful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manimal (band)
[edit]

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

Unsigned band, no sources to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding out the record label, and will start posting sources soon. Thedragon5000 13:25, 8 February 2008 (GMT)

Keep. Label - Toulousain Jerkov; Sources - http://www.french-metal.com/chroniques/manimal.html is the main source, although it's in French. There are few English language sources, although I could translate this page and host the translation on a seperate website. Thedragon5000 13:31, 8 Frebruary 2008 (GMT)

Keep for now. Have a discography, if sources are provided it should be fine. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krahu i shqiponjës
[edit]

Krahu i shqiponjës (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:N and WP:V. I tried with Google but could not manage to find any reference. Article itself also doesn't contain any citation. It looks like a non-notable article on a magazine that almost passes for Speedy. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Proclaims to have also been printed in English, but I can't find any source for it. In fact, i'm leaning toward it being possible hoax article but I am unsure right now. Anyhow, if it isn't it never asserts notability and has no sources Doc Strange (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to satisfy notability or verifiability. Edison (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with an additional consensus of Clean up, as it will be tagged. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grinning Man
[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE and to some extent WP:V. A vanity article on an imaginary character. A google hit returns almost nothing[30]. The only link talks about this character is a discussion forum (which is also used as the only reference of this article). -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak Keep. No evidence of notability found from a google search. --Michig (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I helped this new user flesh out this article because it had been tagged for a speedy (and rightfully so) in its original form. My Google turned up the discussion on the forum which I listed as a reference. The phenomenon warranted an entire chapter in a book by a notable author. While I have no interest in the subject, I am of the firm belief that Wikipedia is not paper and that there is more than enough room for something this esoteric. There is something truly wrong here when single-sentence nanostubs are allowed to stay and a fleshed-out article like this is not. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keel did write about The Grinning Man, but I can't find any evidence of any other significant coverage. One unreliable author writing about a supposed character isn't enough.--Michig (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whoopie. Some kids saw a strange looking man over 6 feet tall wearing a green outfit. You'd have to lower the bar for notability to atomic dimensions for this to qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this article because I have noticed a LARGE amount of cryptozoological articles and many people are interested in them. I have also noticed that there are MANY articles on wikipedia that are completely idiotic and they are not deleted, and some contain vulgar language which is why I do not understand why my article should be deleted. I included a lot of information, and I can also include much more which I will. I study a lot of cryptid phenomenon and I found this story very interesting, not to mention unique. Look at the wiki article for the Dover Demon for example. Why is that not deleted? It is just as "silly" as what I posted if not more.

Also, to the person calling "John A. Keel" an unreliable author, you need to do some studying yourself. Not only has Keel investigated personally almost ALL of his topics in his books, but he has traveled the whole world cataloguing and searching for cryptids, ET's, and other unexplainable phenomenon. Keel is a real life "Mulder" from the X-Files, and a real life Indiana Jones. Do not call an author unreliable if you do not know anything about them.

As for the sarcastic comment "Whoopie, some kids saw a strange looking man," there are many other sightings that have happened all over the world regarding "Grinning man" like entities, just because something is out of the ordinary then should we automatically disregard it? Even if it is fake, and it is a figment of the occult imagination, it should then cause us to study why our minds would think of such things, there is much to be learned about the mind that we still do not understand.

The Grinning man is ALSO mentioned in MANY OTHER BOOKS, not just "Complete Guide to mysterious beings" written by the previously so called "unreliable author" John A Keel. The Grinning man and his kin is also mentioned in the book Mothman and other curious encounters written by well known Cryptoozological investigator and author named Loren Coleman. It is mentioned in chapter 7 on page 133 and 146. If you are familiar with the Mothman phenomenon from the 60s, then the name Indrid Cold definitely rings a bell. Cold was also mentioned in the hollywood movie The Mothman Prophecies. Indrid Cold is actually a "grinning man". Grinning men are a sort of entity that is described in a lot of occult literature, ranging from aliens invading bedrooms, and demons invading bedrooms. Some of these cases deal with a "grinning man" looking entity that stares at you while asleep, then disappears when you try to make contact.

For those of you who do not have any understanding of occult, paranormal, or unexplained phenomenon litarature, do not set up my page for deletion. For those of you who do not read paranormal literature, then you will not know what the grinning man is WHICH IS WHY I MADE THIS ARTICLE. And those of you too close minded to realize that sightings such as this happen more often then you think, then do not read my article. Once again, keep in mind that this was a well documented account that has happened numerous times throughout history as part of occult and paranormal literature, not to mention it is mentioned in about 3 well known books (Complete guide to m. beings, mothman and other curious enc., and mysterious america)...It seems that most of you who are setting up the page for deletion have never read these books so you do not know what the grinning man is, well what if i went to an article that you created and i didn't know what it was or it sounded silly to me so I put it up for deletion??? Thats what you have done to me, and i tell you that there are thousands of other people like me who like to bundle up with a nice book about the paranormal at night and are very interested in the grinning man and other similar entities that belong in the unexplained, cryptozoology, and UFO wiki pages. --MTSPEED

Comment. If you have these books that discuss the Grinning Man, please add references to the article - the links to discussion forums are not good enough.--Michig (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment I'm sorry but I do not know how to add references to books, since I'm rather new at this. If you wouldn't mind posting them for me, here are the references.

"The Complete Guide To Mysterious Beings" by John. A Keel. Mentioned in chapter 14 "The Grinning Man"

"Mothman and Other Curious Encounters" by Loren Coleman. Mentioned Chapter 7 "Keels Children" on pages 133 & 146.

"Mysterious America" by Loren Coleman mentioned in chapter 20 "Mad Gasser Of Mattoon and his Kin"

"Mothman Prophecies" by John A Keel. mentioned throughout the book as an entity named "Indrid Cold"

--MTSPEED

Has Jerome Clark ever written about the Grinning Man? He's probably the most reliable source for UFO-related topics. Zagalejo^^^ 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if there is a Clark cite it would be gold. - perfectblue (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even by UFO standards, there are no real sources here. "mentioned" is not substantial coverage. Integrate any worthwhile material into Mothman.DGG (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO COMMENT "..no real sources"??? So you consider legitimate, published books as unreal? There is a whole chapter related to this phenomenon in the book I mentioned earlier written by John A. Keel. And by "mentioned" I do not mean that the grinning man is in one or two sentences, I mean it is mentioned as a large majority of the chapter. Once again, you obviously do not read UFO or occult literature, so you have not heard of the grinning man.

What you people are doing is prompting a deletion on a subject simply because you have never heard of it. That I find very close minded, this is a case that has happened many times, which is why it is mentioned (remember what I mean by "mention") in 4 books, and most likely many more books. But then again, its easy for people to ridicule what sounds strange and discount things that they have never heard of. I'm really getting sick of the close minded individuals going around prompting deletions on topics they have never heard of. Once again, look through wikipedia and you will find numerous things that shouldn't even be on here for people to see, at least the topic for the page I have created is strange, interesting, different, and worthwhile to read.--MTSPEED

Keep: This entry can be sourced to both Keel and Coleman. Both are notable sources with a slid history of reporting on this kind of topic. When you have notable individuals considering a topic notable in notable publications, there is no other answer than to say that the topic is notable. I'm getting two vibes from this AFD. Firstly people with no actual interest in the subject matter are calling for its deletion on the grounds that they've not personally heard of it, and secondly people think that it should be deleted because they believe that the story is a myth. To both of these kinds of people I'd like to say that the grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia are relative notability and contextual verifiability. This means that something must be notable within its field, and that it must be demonstratable that something wasn't invented by Wikipedia editors. This entry passes both criteria easily. Keel and Coleman both reference the topic within the context of the paranormal which confers notability on it, and the fact that they have referenced it at all confers verifiability on it. Hence this entry should stay. It doesn't matter whether actual subject matter is real or bunk. - perfectblue (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bravo! Only one correction, however: I had no interest in the subject matter, but I was able to verify that it was doucmented by a well-known author, hence the fact that I tried to fix the article. I just don't understand this site anymore. A new admin just "declined speedy" on another article that's a single-sentence, clear-cut link spam because some "notability" was established. This is a real article with real notability and here we are discussing this real article's future. No wonder I've quit this site before. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have one author (Keel) who has written about this character, and another who has written , it seems, about Keel's writings on this character. The article states "Grinning Men are catalogued in many books and paranormal literature" - where's the evidence for this? Certainly not in the article, and nothing significant is found from a Google search. If the article included evidence of more coverage, it could pass on notability grounds. The article would need trimming down, to those statements that are backed up by sources, however.--Michig (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok, I've verified that the topic is covered in books by at least 2 authors, so I think we can keep the article, but if it stays, it will either need properly sourcing or cutting down considerably.--Michig (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A little less "interview" and a bit more "encyclopedia" is in order. I'd become concerned about the tone as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY COMMENT: Thank you to those who checked and saw that there ARE notable books by notable authors written on this subject, rather than just right off the bat call the article false or imaginary without any knowledge of the topic in the first place. I've see a few other wiki articles on similar creatures/cryptids/aliens that dont have even HALF as many references that I posted, and not even half as much information.

Anyways, thank you again for those who originally believed by article to be fake but then realized and understood, doing their own information checks on the subject matter to see that it is real/documented. If you would like to edit the article please do, and please help me make the article's text more "encyclopedia" style, rather then the interview style that I incorrectly wrote it as. (since i am rather new at this) Thanks again for those who helped (MTSPEED (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Keep. If Keel and Coleman have sourced this then a press trail will exist. Its a bit too long and needs a big clean up. Google search and Wiki now have a partnership so for the public this Wiki entry will be an asset. Vufors (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as WP:OR has been addressed by the article creator. If there's anything else that needs to be brought up about the article, you are free to start another AfD, but it's definitely does not fit WP:OR anymore. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phototool
[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NOR. Clear case of original research though he meant really well. But unfortunately WP doesn't publish original researches. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR Doc Strange (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion below indicates that the group is notable within American politics. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 07:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HillRaisers
[edit]

HillRaisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article should be deleted or moved to the wiktionary. Its a non-notable neologism which will not be remembered after this election or possibly presidency. Possibly merge into Hillary Clinton campaign, or Norman Hsu, and if theres no room there and its not important enough. delete altogether. Definitely not its own article. This is just silly for an encyclopedia. delete it.Boomgaylove (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not here to describe a neologism, but to describe a group of fundraisers for a political campaign. Thus it is directly parallel to the Bush Pioneer article, which is not a neologism at all. (If you wish to delete that one too, you should mark it as a joint AfD with this one.) Who finances American political campaigns is a very important topic. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres another article like this one is not a valid argument (according to the guidelines). Whether it is important or not is up to opinion. Wikipedia is not a database of who raises funds for political campaigns. This term is a neologism. The people who raise these funds are not notable. Enycyclopedias attempt to document history and important news events may be history but is not news. (WP:NOTNEWS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The point of both his and the Bush article is to document significant actors in presidential campaigns, which is part of history and is encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nah uh its gotta go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.64.177 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam, CSD criterion G11. Had the author of this page not deleted the speedy tag (which of course is not allowed), this article would have been appropriately speedied in the first place. Nice work User:Spinningspark. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MR Gems
[edit]

MR_Gems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Largely consists of a statement from the Director of the company and thus fails WP:COI. The short remainder of the article is based on this statement, so is devoid of any other contents and all the external links fail WP:SPAM. Fails notability per WP:CORP or at least does not cite any references showing notability. SpinningSpark 09:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that there was a previous similar article MR Gems Company which was nominated for speedy deletion. It appears to have avoided the speedy by deleting the tag and redirecting to the new article. SpinningSpark 21:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. --Itub (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torsion field
[edit]

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

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Torsion field

Articles for deletion/Torsion field (2nd nomination)

The article presents pseudophysics as though it were actual physics. The sources in the article, which are quite numerous, are nearly all from dubious publications. The subject of the article is obvious pseudoscience, and yet the article fails to present its subject as such (taking into account WP:UNDO and WP:FRINGE). The article fails to present sufficient reliable third-party sources (in English) demonstrating that the subject is a notable pseudoscience. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - looks like obvious properly tagged pseudoscience or fringe science on first impression I get at the article. If the tone needs further clarification that can be done without deleting it. I support active pursuit of cleaning up such articles, and properly noting/tagging pseudoscience, but see no justification in the article or above to actually delete it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is referred to as being pseudo scientific and there are 179,000 google hits on the subject so notability is not a problem.

Deleting this article would be censorship pure and simple. Censorship is bad. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google returns only 12,500 hits for me. The lead refers to the article correctly labels it as pseudoscience, but then the rest of the article (prior to my cleaning it up) referred to the "findings" of torsion field theorists as completely factual. And without any kind of references in reliable sources. 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silly rabbit (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment, After nomination, the bulk of the article was deleted, parts of which were perfectly V and RS within its scope. While the subject itself is not V (it does not exist in reality, not in a measurable way anyway), it exists in the imagination of a huge number of people, and that imagination has developed specific and somewhat fascinating details which are published and cross-published by all sort of sources. Those sources are not RS in terms of proving the torsion fields exist, but they are RS in terms of what the adherents of the theory think about them - same as with any other pseudoscience. I don't want to revert 10k of deletions, a lot of which was indeed crackpot mumbling that the fans of the theory have added (and will re-add, no doubt), but I will try to restore what is more descriptive of it when I find time. --Cubbi (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also my comment above. Indeed, the sources are reliable as primary sources for ascertaining what torsion field proponents views are. (The lack of secondary sources is another issue altogether.) However, the article made no attempt to differentiate the views of the primary torsion field sources it cited and those of the scientific mainstream: a textbook violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. For instance, one of the more egregious (now deleted) offenders was this passage:

“ These simple generators proved to be a powerful tool for a wide range of experiments:
Transfer of inebriating quality of ethyl alcohol to pure water with none of the toxic effects of actual alcohol[20][21]

Increase of hardness of pearlitic pig-iron.
”

Most of the article was similarly dedicated to substantiating the nonsense put forth by proponents. Silly rabbit (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This could be a good example of where cleanup would be better than deletion -- Some proponents claim that... -- those two references (which led to the articles in a crackpot journal "Free search") were good to show that "axion field" is yet another name in use for the same thing. Plus, together with the shameless NIH application that you've kept, it shows that the idea of torsion alcoholic water wasn't just made up by one guy for a grant here, it crossed continents. --Cubbi (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. The topic clearly merits an article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After removing the more serious policy offenses there does appear to be salvageable content. I would like to withdraw the nomination, or close with keep. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep--Filll (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article does discuss psudo science but clearly calls it that so it is informative and NOT deceptive. CaptinJohn (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGAF
[edit]

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

Non-notable group fails WP:MUSIC. Promotional with no WP:RS coverage cited or found. TexasAndroid (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I prodded this for the reasons above.) The petition section is borderline WP:CSD#G11 spam. The rest of article is premature at best. Further searching since the prod found a Billboard link confirming a record due March 2008.[31] Very little else is independent of label and its associated acts. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I shamelessly cut&pasted your PROD reasoning to here. They were acurate about the situation, and summed up the problems better than I could have done myself. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon for this group to have an article here. Perhaps after their "rumored" tour—if verifiable references from reliable sources can be found—the article can be re-created. Fails WP:MUSIC as is. Precious Roy (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naseba
[edit]

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

Contested prod, non-notable business. Roleplayer (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, looks like I was preparing the AFD at an identical time to the nominator. Delete per my prod concerns - non-notable and borderline WP:CSD#G11 advert. Pedro : Chat 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:CORP, and the article itself is very spammy. I would expect more coverage for a public listed company (Euronext: MLNSB), however, there appears to be no coverage from reliable secondary sources; all the Ghits I have found relate back to press releases from the company itself. My only explaination is that it is relatively new company with a small capitalisation. Notability to come? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no point in article.Superscoop (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, if you are able to provide reliable sources, you may recreate the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forms forms forms
[edit]

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

Unsigned band with no reliable secondary sources to back up the claimed notability JD554 (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(taken from the talk page: I'm not sure where you are from, but Stool Pigeon would certainly be considered a very authoratitive source in the UK, as would God Is In The TV. The YouTube ref is present because it links to an influencial documentary on the New Cross music scene, and links the band to this.

As for them being unsigned, that is inconsequential- in London, unsigned bands sell out large venues. Part of the article, which mentions them selling out a venue and playing a second set outside is surely testiment to this.

I suggest an Admin that knows about the music industry should look into this matter of deletion.

Surely Wikipedia should be a comprehensive a resource as possible, on all subjects? --Soapboxrallyy (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it (Stool Pigeon) is, but it also has to be verifiable and as you've only provided the name of the publication. You need to provide the more than that so the source for you assertion can be looked up and checked. --JD554 (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(taken from the talk page. Please use this page for the discussion):What do you think the reference at the bottom is?!!! --Soapboxrallyy (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a link which takes you to Stoolpigeon's main page which doesn't mention anything to with Forms Forms Forms. If you have a link to a page that does that would be better as it would then be verifiable. --JD554 (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly does not come close to meeting WP:MUSIC. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:RS, no evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nomination withdrawn) Non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethica thomistica
[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK, notability not asserted, tagged since Nov. Lea (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Amazon page indicates that the book in the original edition (now 25 years ago and so outside the Google event horizon) was multiply reviewed in theological and philosophical journals, and that it has been multiply cited by other academic books. The publisher claims it's a classic in the field frequently used as textbook, and while that of course cannot be treated as reliable, it is suggestive -- as is the fact that it came back into print in a revised edition. Taken together, I suspect it meets WP:BK, if marginally. Perhaps someone from the Philosophy wikiproject would be able to shed some light on this matter; I withhold making a recommendation either way pending further information. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google Scholar says it is cited by 15 online papers/books. скоморохъ 11:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have gone there as well. This and GRBerry's result below are enough to make it clearly notable by WP:BK. Valid stub. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Checking Worldcat, it is in a lot of university libraries. In fact, it is in 12 such libraries located within 5 miles from me. Clearly a significant work, and the reviews exist for when someone gets around to improving this stub. GRBerry 03:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 812 libraries in the US-based worldCat is sufficient to show widespread notability. There were undoubtedly reviews, which can be located in standard sources available in most libraries. They should be added. It's carelss making a nomination of material from this period without at least checking GS. DGG (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn; sorry I didn't check more carefully! -- Lea (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 03:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aéroport-Trudeau (Montreal Metro)
[edit]

Aéroport-Trudeau (Montreal Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Plan for possible future expansion - virtually nothing in google in either french or english. No timeline as to when this may or may not happen or even whether it's reached that point. At the very least, it could be condensed down into a line and merge into Montreal Metro which doesn't even cover this. Travellingcari (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a proposed map? Have the papers been talking about the route? Has anyone discussed how much it will cost? DGG (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply nothing that I've been able to find in either language. This is all I find (I know, not independent -- but it shows how little it's even been discussed by the metro). Half the google results are the circle of Montreal Metro wikis -- circular discussion of the line. Only thing verifiable is that it was talked about once. See here especially, which is a search on the route that was discussed. There's nothing concrete, WP:RS or not. Travellingcari (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remember there were politicos speaking about the final destination being as Dorval Airport... but I don't remember any plans extending further than Montreal West commuter train station. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment and noise:signal ratio is high with blog chatter, but there's some minor discussion. Nothing substantive which is what prompted my AfD nomination. Travellingcari (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the answers to my questions.DGG (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be perfectly valid to discuss an expansion proposal like this in the parent article Montreal Metro. But a proposed station really shouldn't have its own article until at the bare minimum it's moved from "proposed" to "approved and actively in development". Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and a lack of any verifiable sourcing. I should also point out that this, in effect, recreating the article Montreal's international airport high-speed access which was successfully prodded (by me) back in the fall. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar's fall
[edit]

Edgar's fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Youtube video, has been begging for reliable sources for over a year, survived an AfD several months ago, but nobody has improved this article since then. Corvus cornix_talk 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, does seem to have significant coverage in Hispanophone media.[32][33] Search terms: Edgar se cae (Edgar falls, I guess) and la caida de Edgar (Edgar's fall). --Dhartung | Talk 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Dhartung. Previously nominated for deletion, resulting in a Keep. Why not respect previous concensus? Vicco Lizcano (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ^{(Hey! Listen!)}[reply]
Consensus can change. And besides, there are still no reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable internet/TV phenomenon, at least in Mexico. --Itub (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Striking through my !vote. While I think this is a notable web phenomenon, the reliable sources are nowhere to be found. I looked and looked and the best I could find were a couple of links on local newspapers or magazines, plus one TV appearance. There are a gazillion blog posts about it, but unfortunately they are not enough to satisfy the WP:N. --Itub (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Ok, so some sources could be found after all. --Itub (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to es.wikipedia. Entirely foreign langage content, foreign langage references. --Salix alba (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's that, Salix? The article is in English; if we can't cover things in other languages, even the Bible is unworthy of coverage. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a fad, fails WP:N Beach drifter (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relevantSuperscoop (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep El Universal, La Jornada, and Reforma, Mexico's three biggest newspapers have all talked about it. I added sources from El Universal and La Jornada, but Reforma's a paysite so I didn't add them, here they are though [34][35]. --Solid Reign (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, if you want to discuss a merge please open a merge discussion, since sources can be found for the subject, it passes WP:BK, if not barely. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine: The End
[edit]

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

Only plot; fails ~~WP:FICT~~ WP:BK. Lea (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No encyclopedic value --DerRichter (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not a fictional object, but a work of fiction whose objective existence can be confirmed, so WP:FICT does not apply. Perhaps the nominator meant WP:BK? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewritten to address concern of nominator. Suggest not using afd as a cleanup tool. Hiding T 18:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect As per comments above, the issue has been addressed. While the article may no longer warrant being deleated, in its current form, I have no problem with its deleation. If push comes to shove, merge with the Wolverine article given that this is a plot line about him or create and merge with "The End" series article. We must be careful with deleating something that just has plot too quickly because it would, for consistency, warrant the deleation of the majority of articles dealing with comics, which is not an optimum solution. Thanks to Hiding for rewritting. Also please check the third edit of the article: it was much much longer and it is this article I encourage to be merged, as opposed to the three sentence article that currently exists. Furthemore, at a later date, I've personally redirected the article to Wolverine main article (see my edits). It is only later that the redirect was taken down. The redirect was in place from August 5, 2006 until May of 2007, almost a year. It was another user who decided to imput the plot overview. This issue has been discussed previously, I think in 2006. --RossF18 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End. I propose redirect to here.--RossF18 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hiding's fixes, or redirect per RossF18's input. BOZ (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant WP:BK of course, and no I didn't intend to use AfD's as clean-up tools. :-) I don't believe the book meets the notability guidelines (and certainly notability isn't asserted in the article), so I'll go for (merge and) redirect. -- Lea (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between an article and a section in a list? Hiding T 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That the article would remain a stub forever, whereas if it's a section, it has the context of a larger article (and greater chances of being properly maintained and sourced). -- Lea (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute your points. As an article it remains easier to link to, easier to categorise and I can see no reason why it would be easier to watch a list article as opposed to this article. I also think it is impossible to prove that it will remain a stub forever, so it is perhaps unreasonable to make the assertion. It is entirely possible reviews of this work in the comics press exist which would allow further expansion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not paper. Therefore, what does it matter that some encyclopedic articles are shorter than others? What is the benefit to us as an encyclopedia to gather short articles into a list since we are not made of paper and therefore do not have publication demands made of us. There is no need to limit our page count. Hiding T 18:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about limiting the number of articles; it's about the fact that this article exhists almost verbadum at Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End. That is why the move for redirect. What is the point of having a three sentence article, even if there is a chance that it will expand in the future if this entire article already exists at Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End. You're talking about duplication here. Wolverine: The End is not a series that invovles a team of characters. It's a series that involves one character and only had one single arc. Only 6 issues. It fits pefectly into Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End. Encyclopedia or not, there is such a thing as pure duplication. This article has been a redirect for almost a year and then expanded to the description found at Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End. Only recently has it been limited to 3 to 4 sentences. Given that one can find a discription of these 6 issues at Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End, why would this article expand? Why would people spend time expanding this article if they could just expand the section found at Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End. This is about consistency. There are no articles that consider only 6 issues. Just like there is no separate article devoted to Wolverine: Origin, there shouldn't be anything but a redirect for this article: redirect to here: Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End. --RossF18 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not exist verbatim at Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End. What appears there is a large summation of the plot of the comic book series. As for duplication, what happens when we also have List of Wolverine comics? Or List of The End comic books? Or many other lists. Duplication is part and parcel of Wikipedia and is not discouraged, and there still seems to be no solid argument not to have an article here. We are not paper. We do not have to act as if we are. We can duplicate and we can have separate articles which act as standalone referemce points in addition to other short list entries which would refer back. However, this is not a debate to be held at afd, but rather at the article's talk page. Hiding T 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't want duplication; it makes maintenance a lot harder. Please read WP:DUP. Also, the article still doesn't assert notability, which is required for any subject to have its own article. -- Lea (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a requirement for inclusion since Wikipedia has no rules. The duplication mentioned at WP:DUP is not the duplication referred to above. Hiding T 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR applies for individual cases. Your arguments seem to pretty generic about comic book notability principles, so if you want to change that, please try to change the guideline (or add a specific guideline for comic books). Otherwise, please tell us what makes this article different so that we might ignore the notability guidelines. "I don't like the rules, so let's not apply them" is not a valid use of IAR. -- Lea (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be misreading me. My statement is that this article improves the encyclopedia, therefore IAR applies. Do you believe we should follow the rules even when they act contrary to improving the encyclopedia? As to comic book notability, at WP:COMICS we use WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT for our inclusion criteria. Hope that helps. Hiding T 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding, you claim that there are no solid arguments for not having the article, and yet you do not read other people's posts in their entirity and repeat same things over and over again as if repetition will convince people (similar to what you want Wikipedia to become). As far as there not being notability requrements, you are just demonstrating that you really are not familiar with Wikipedia. Wikipedia does in fact have rules and as far as notability, see: Wikipedia:Notability. Also re-read my post again. I make several points.
(Note to Hiding: Please, in particular, read Wikipedia:Notability (books), which is relevant in this case. -- Lea (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
(Note to Lea: Please, in particular, read Wikipedia:Notability (books), which states it is irrelevant in this case. Hiding T 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

First, I mention the duplication. The article at Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End is the only thing that this article can become. Check a few posts before the current version of this article. It was just a summary. The summary was moved to Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End so to attempt to move the summary to this article again, would, in fact, be duplication. Unless you want something here that is not a summary, which would be difficult to do because of notability requirements. Your arguments that duplicates are good make no sense and neither does your constant repeat of "we are not paper." We are not paper what? Paper encyclopedia? What does that have to do with anything? Does being on line gives us an excuse to have 20 repeat articles dealing with the same thing?

Second, notability. All existing X-Men related articles that deal with story arcs, are story arcs invoving a team. There are not story arcs that have their own articles when involving just one character, like the case here.

Third, the are no articles dealing with just 6 issues of a series. Unlike X-Men; Uncanny X-Men; and hundreds of other comic books that go to 50, 100, or 500 issues, this series only has 6 issues and will always have 6 issues.

Fourth, this is a limited series dealing with one character. The practice has always been that limited series dealing with one character would be described on that character's page. Check any X-Men page: Storm (comics), Gambit (comics), Rogue (comics). All of the mini-series with 6 or even 12 issues are described there. What you're suggesting is totally out of practice with what has been happening since the Wiki came into exhistance.

Fifth, that said, you are, of course, free to disregard everything said here and do what you want. That's the freedom of Wikipedia, not that there are no rules. Know, however, that the rest of us are free to edit too. That's also in line with freedoms of Wikipedia. --RossF18 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ross. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for nearly three years now, and helped to draft Wikipedia:Notability, WP:WEB and the current disputed rewrite of WP:FICT so I hope I'm a little familiar with how Wikipedia works. I am reading what everyone is writing, I merely want to point out that Wikipedia:Notability is not a rule. It does not have to be obeyed, and in fact if Wikipedians decide the encyclopedia is improved by doing otherwise then the community is allowed to do that. I'd like to dispute the point that "the article at Alternate versions of Wolverine#Wolverine: The End is the only thing that this article can become." To my mind that version is overly reliant on plot against WP:PLOT to the detriment of the whole list, unbalancing the whole page and somewhat biasing it in favour of that storyline. It also appears to me to contain original research. With regards your second point, we are not discussing any other article in this deletion debate, we are discussing this one. It is not considered useful to discuss other articles in deletion debates, since we tend to judge each article on its merits, potential or otherwise. Therefore other articles have no bearing on this debate. As to your third point, it's worth bearing in mind that we are discussing a standalone story rather than "six issues". This is a story. It will always be a story. It's a stroy publiched by a major comic book publisher during a crossover event. It will likely be referenced in more than one article, as I have pointed out above. Therefore, as I have already stated, it may make more sense not to merge this article, since it is unclear where the merge target is, and regardless, this is not the correct venue to have a merge discussion. To address your fourth point, I am unclear where it is stated that publications are always discussed on the character page. We also have examples where publications are discussed on the page of the overall arc the publication is a part of, so I think this contradicts your point somewhat. Lastly, I am well aware that everyone has the right to voice their opinion, and am staggered by the assertion that I have stated otherwise. As to their being rules, please review our first rule. Hiding T 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What cross over event was this story published during? This story is more than 2 years old now. It's one possibility of how Wolverine might die. In the last 2 years, there have been no reference to the arc as anything but a alternate plot line and thus belongs in alternate Wolverine article. This discussion might have started out as a deleation, but I'm suprised that a person who says there are no rules is so hamstrung on limiting this discussion only to deleation and only to this article. This discussion has not been about the deleation since the second post. The first post mentioned notability and the second post made changes to the article to make it notable enough, so by your "rule", the discussion should have stopped there. From then on the only thing we're discussing is whether to merger or redirect the article. There hasn't been talk of deleation for awhile now, regardless of how the article started out. So much for reading all the posts. We can not judge the article by what might happen in the future. We're not phsycics. We can only judge the article as it is now. And now, it does not warrant it's own description but needs to be redirected. If, and when, articles discussing this 6 issue story appear, you can make the changes then. This publication is not part of some overall arc. It's not part of any cross-over. It's a 6 issue story that's all by itself and not part of anything, but one possible end to Wolverine so saying things like "publications are discussed on the page of the overall arc the publication is a part of", doesn't apply here becuase there is not overall arc that this publication is a part of. It's a 6 issue story that's in a vacuum right now. When someone besides the original author decides to link the story to the main universe, then you can edit to your liking. As of now, this article can only exist in relation to Wolverine and doesn't apply to anyone else since it's something like 100 years into the future. If you have problems with the Wolverine: the End entry in the Alternative Wolverine article, make your edits there and make that article better, but abandoning that article to just create your own here just makes for a grand all edit war. As far as rules go, you seem intent to lay down "rules" that go along with your point of view, but when someone else cites normal proceedures, you ridicule and say that there are no rules. Then, in the very next sentence, you lay down your own rules. If there are truly no rules, what's the point of this discussion. Let's finish it and commence editing like crazy. Back and forth, back and forth. --RossF18 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ross. I'm not looking to lay down rules and I'm not looking to ridicule anyone. I'm simply looking to discuss what's the best way to improve the encyclopedia here. I haven't created this article and I very rarely edit war. I seem to have irked you somehow, and for that I apologise, but I still think that as there are possibly three valid places for this article to be merged too it makes sense just to leave it be. Hiding T 19:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to quickly summarize, after the long discussion, that notability still hasn't been established. (The discussion seems to be mostly about whether we should use the notability criterium at all. Which I think we should. ^^) -- nominator Lea (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin's close deletion debates with reference to policy, not guidance. Notability is guidance. It is up to us to find an area of agreement in this matter. Currently I would suggest we are all agreed this article should not be deleted. Anything else is a content dispute. Hiding T 19:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, I don't think we "all agreed this article should not be deleted". The only one who "agrees" is you, with BOZ saying "keep or redirect". All others are merge&redirect or delete, as far as I see. -- Lea (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I was saying is that I don't feel strongly about this one so I can go with the flow, but I do like most of Hiding's reasoning so I would support him in a Keep. :) BOZ (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you must have a different definition of what merge or redirect means to me then. To me it means keep, because the article is not deleted. That's the standard definition for keep on Wikipedia, that the article is kept in some form or other, even if in name only. Hope that clarifies, Hiding T 14:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Failing that, merge with The End (comics) (along with the other Foo: The End articles). Notability guidelines specific to comics have not been established, although there has been discussion of such in the past. Personally, I'm content with things as they are; I'd prefer not to be too bureaucratic about it. In my opinion, all publications from Marvel Comics and DC Comics are inherently notable, much in the same way that all television programs produced by the three major American networks are. This doesn't mean that having a standalone article is necessarily the best way to feature the content. The suggestions to move the content to another article have merit. It could always be split back into a standalone article if and when its size becomes too cumbersome. I don't agree that it should be deleted outright, however. The comic concerns a notable fictional character (whose exploits – although not this particular story – have been turned into a motion picture, one of the criteria of WP:BK) and is published by a notable publisher. To my mind, it's a question of where is the best fit for the content. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve using some reliable sources. Three minutes of google news searching turns up [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebel block
[edit]

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

Dictionary definition, notability not asserted. Lea (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its been over a year, and no more than one sentence has been written. --DerRichter (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aerated autoclaved concrete (jeez we have articles on the most obscure things ;) ) This article all ready has been suggested as a merge target on the page, and we may as well keep the original as a plausible search term. Xymmax (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect this dictionary definition to Aerated autoclaved concrete per Xymmax. Jfire (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as above. --Salix alba (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect as above, it seems to be logical Travellingcari (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cry On
[edit]

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

Nominating after a contested prod. This is a speculative article about a piece of vaporware. Since initial announcement of this project back in 2005, no significant details have emerged. I couldn't find one press release or interview that confirms its release, and I assume that it has been canceled or postponed indefinitely. There's no utility in maintaining a placeholder stub without any references to back it up. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, RPGGamer[41] said that at an AQ Interactive conference, it was announced that Nobuo Uematsu would be composing the music and Kimihiko Fujisaka would be drawing the characters. IGN says it was released in Japan on December 31, 2007 (or maybe that was a tentative date)[42] Here IGN interviews Hironobu Sakaguchi.[43] Here is an article from GameSpot about the game.[44] Interview with the composer[45] Mention in 2007 interview at ComputerAndVideoGames.com[46] 1UP.com says there was an interview with Hironobu Sakaguchi in the June 2007 issue of EGM magazine[47], which may mention the game. Supposedly Famitsu360 magazine reported the game was being developed by Cavia but then development was passed on to Artoon[48] and the new graphical designer is Manabu Kusunoki. More information can be found with a Google search for "sally bogle mistwalker." --Pixelface (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've referenced the initial announcement, a tentative release date which has come and gone, and several trivial mentions. I'd err on the side of an actual release date or editorial coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the article is "speculative", then remove the speculation. AfD is not about housekeeping the nom could have done themselves. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sans speculation there's nothing there, so I see no need for an article. WP:CRYSTAL. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no reliable sources, doesn't meet WP:ORG. Ѕandahl 03:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Holistic Health Centre
[edit]

Darwin Holistic Health Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references supplied or found to support notability. Does not meet WP:ORG NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please read the talkpage before nominating for deletion. It is my opinion that this article is a viable stub, nothing more, nothing less. I have provided sources on the talk-page. Someone familiar with the subject should be able to incorporate these into the article. Koert van der Veer (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do these sources provide information that meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Listing of company services don't qualify. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presently a copyvio from their home page. no reasont hey're notable enough for a immediate rewrite--if someone wants to do a proper article, let them, and we can then try to judge notability and sources.DGG (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is not wrong to add factual items to Wikipedia. I created the article, and I belive that those with cancer/know people with cancer should warn them about the dangers of chemotherapy and other radioactive treatments. In fact, I believe even those without cancer are better off with holistic diets. Θ Sean gorter Θtalk 15:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean gorter (talk • contribs) [reply]

Please see WP:SOAPBOX. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines, and the article creator has admitted starting the article to push their POV. No reliable sources turn up in a Google search of 'Darwin Holistic Health Centre'. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe the subject is notable, and appears to have a hint of self-promotion Murtoa (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that the organisation meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)--Matilda ^talk 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, in fact fails WP:BAND, so it could have been A7'd. The disambiguation page located at Squish need major cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squish (Rock Band)
[edit]

Squish (Rock Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTE and WP:V Wisdom89 (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't care. I only created the article because it was sitting fully formed on the disambiguation page, where there should not have been an article.Jm307 (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that it was sitting on the disambiguation page for 3 months, and no one complained.Jm307 (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 18:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun doiron
[edit]

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

Obvious hoax. Prod was removed. L. Pistachio (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crap. "Sources" are just links to front pages without any suggestion of where to find articles on this supposed Bermuda Triangle hang glider. Just junk it. JuJube (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax per above, no relevant hits on Google, no hits on source websites. Xymmax (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if he were a celebrity and the first person to hang glide the Bermuda Triangle, there'd be some coverage. There isn't. Travellingcari (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks like a hoax. Cleverly written, perhaps, but still a hoax. —Travis ^talk 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was mistakenly posted on the talk page, so I'm copying it here. --L. Pistachio (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've known the guy since we were 8 and went to high school with him, complete hoax.AristosRietze (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to Die: or The Good Gatsby
[edit]

How to Die: or The Good Gatsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod tag removed. Article is about a novella, but does not assert its nobility, and does not seem to be published by a major house, nor is the author notable (redlink). RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 07:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry, could only find one review, and that from a minor newspaper. Not quite there yet for notability. Shoessss | Chat 12:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bride Adorned
[edit]

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

Article/subject currently fails WP:MUSIC/WP:BAND. Their independent label isn't notable enough as it doesn't have a large roster of notable bands. Article has no sources to prove notability either. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 10:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - not an area of interest for me, but if they have a page at Librarius Metalicus then would seem to pass WP:BAND. A lot of sources are in Japanese, which is not untypical for cult metal bands. Last release in 2004 tends to suggest they may have broken up, but I'd like input from the sub-group on this one. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is Librarius Metalicus a reliable source? This is just a general question, I honestly don't know. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 15:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would say that yes it is a reliable source - or at least as reliable as they get for that genre.Jellogirl (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 15:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not established here, and I'd prefer to delete the article (which has basically no content beyond the very basics) and let someone who does find sources build a good one if they exist, than assume that they do absent any proof for an apparently obscure band. Mango juice^talk 15:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 07:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete discounting the self-produced debut, their only release was put out by a small production studio that doubles as a label. Without record sales data, significant touring, or a verifiable record contract, there's nothing to indicate that this band is notable. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, unless somebody comes up with some better refs. Jellogirl (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wardrobe malfunction
[edit]

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

'Glorified' dictionary entry, offering little value, especially given that there is a Wiktionary entry for same (please correct any errors in this process, my first AfD) Achromatic (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stupid though it is, the use of "wardrobe malfunction" has become somewhat universal to describe unintentional public nudity (that, in itself, sounds just as stupid, but there you are). The article definitely needs more sources than just Language Monitor, but the term has gained widespread use in the media. This could easily be a useful and relevant article with some work. Duncan1800 (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article contains more information than may properly be put into a dictionary entry. Certainly a notable expression. Why would we NOT want someone to be able to find this factual and notable information?Halfmast (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is already an article on the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy; the term "Wardrobe Malfunction" is best relegated to that article and Wictionary. There isn't enough material to merit its own article. Majoreditor (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is correctly noted as the first instance of the term "wardrobe malfunction", to be followed by many others. And I disagree about the lack of material. Like I said, it's stupid, but there's a lot of coverage out there to continue adding examples of notable wardrobe malfunctions. The concept has also been parodied in various ways, thus proving its durability. Duncan1800 (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional ~~delete~~ redirect. I don't mind using the Global Language Monitor as a source, but it certainly is not a reliable source to meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. And Halfmast's subjective assertion of importance does not constitute notability in the Wikipedia sense. My personal sense is that the necessary reliable sources are not out there and the article should be deleted. But if someone does come up with reliable sources - and quickly - then they deserve a chance to meet the notability criteria and make this an article worth having. Ipoellet (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to make much of a distinction in my mind between deletion and reducing an article to a redirect. Probably bad of me in general, and certainly bad in this case. I stand corrected by Verdatum. Ipoellet (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. It's a term that would reasonable be searched on WP, doesn't appear to warrant a separate article. -Verdatum (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Although I put this up for AfD, I'm inclined to go with Verdatum here and suggest a redirect to Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. Achromatic (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep Last year the article contained a fairly full, if not comprehensive, historical survey of the phenomenon. The entries were not fully supported by citation, but there's no reason to think they couldn't be; just requires work. A restored version of the fuller article, which actually discusses the subject, would be worth keeping. Reduced as it is to a dictionary definition and a comment on the Superbowl incident, it is not. I suspect the heavy cutting of the article is prompted partly by distaste: it just needed input from editors in terms of citations - as many articles do.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Conditional Keep. If there was a fuller version of the article, it should be restored. Even so, the term has come into widespread use since Jackson, in much the same way that collateral damage, although the term existed previously, didn't come into wide public use until the 1991 Gulf War, or how the term political correctness came into vogue in the 1990s. 23skidoo (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term is increasingly used for a fairly wide range of episodes, accidental and otherwsie. There's enoguh for an article. Another example of first removing material instead of sourcing it, and then trying to remove the article. DGG (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only material I removed was tangential, at best - "upskirts" - if anything, that's a "genre" of papparazzi/celebrity photographs, than anything claimable as a "wardrobe malfunction" Achromatic (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think DGG's assertion is quite fair to Achromatic. The rule about referencing information before removing it applies to the community as a whole. If any one user doesn't believe a piece of information or an article belongs, then they are invited to be bold and do something about it. If other editors believe that information is referencable, well then, that's what AfD discussions are for. End result if referencable: referenced before deletion. Meanwhile, it would be nice if DGG and others who insist that "Wardrobe malfunction" is referencable would start actually inserting some real references into the article, because I am still skeptical that they're out there. Ipoellet (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters who cut what. One editor seems to have removed an enormous quantity of material (compare these versions[[49]]). Take only one example: Sophie Marceau at Cannes 2005. Why be sceptical it can be referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casting the runes
[edit]

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

Read the article before you say an automagic keep. No doubt that there is a notable use of this term in the sense of Runes but that's not what this article is about. Dicdef or neologism, take your pick. It's hard to find anything about term origin due to the numerous hits for Runes, but the entry admits it's from a dictionary. Travellingcari (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Neologism. Halfmast (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The Jargon File itself is certainly notable, but all its individual entries do not merit an article of their own. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Nothing to add. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, I suggest nominating these articles one by one, notability just varies way too much for this discussion to be useful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India International Trade Center
[edit]

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

Stub with no references or assertion of notability. Violates WP:Crystal, has been tagged as unreferenced and tagged as needing expansion since early 2007, around a dozen edits since Feb 2007, and from my searches, appears to be unverifiable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they all show the same lack of verifiable sources, their main source is self-referencing skyscraper websites Emporis and Skyscaperpage.com, very few have notable and verifiable sources, I went through the category and left out those which do show verifiable sources out of these afd, and even added some sources myself:

375 East Wacker Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No verifiable article sources.

Aeropolis 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No verifiable article sources.

Arch of Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and International Shrine of the Holy Innocents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No verifiable article sources, apparently dead project since 2001.

Ben Ali Apartments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No verifiable article sources. Dead project from 1985.

Center of India Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No verifiable article sources. Apparently never left planning stage and never built.

Grollo Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Only verifiable article claims it is going to be built in dubai. Perhaps redirect to Grollo Tower (Dubai) if that is true.

India International Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No verifiable article sources.

Lotte World II Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No verifiable article sources. Project cancelled.

Millennium Tower, Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No verifiable article sources. Dead project from 1989.

Torre Bicentenario II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No verifiable article sources.

Keep all, nominator doesn't appear to be looking at these articles. Crystal Heights has had multiple references from the first revision. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had mistaken the Crystal Heights article for the Crystal Island one, I have since removed the Crystal Heights from the AFD. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not the only error, I check the Millennium Tower and the Ben Ali and both seem to point to references, in spite of which you've labeled them as lacking sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Ali has an unverifiable newspaper article from 1985 as it's sole source, and perhaps the Millennium tower as vanity, due it only really existing as a webpage by the company who designed it years ago?Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Millennium has a book reference that seems unrelated to the designer, and how in the world are the Ben Ali newspaper articles "unverifiable"? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Admittedly they're all about structures, but these articles don't have quite enough in common for deleting them all via a group nomination to seem appropriate. They'll vary widely in notability, regardless of how much work the articles need. Doczilla (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I tend to side with WP:PAPER, so I'm leaning more toward a general Keep. Keep those which link to official websites and tag with {{refimprove}}. For those with links to Skyscraperpage or Emporis, I'd tag with {{notability}} and {{refimprove}} -- I'd hate to delete something which could be a notable building when all the article needs is a little love. For those with nothing at all, I'm neutral on the subject: I'd be fine with {{notability}} and {{refimprove}} or with deletion. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 06:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - re Grollo Tower and Burj Dubai only, with possible redirect. Achromatic (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. (Why do I get the uncomfortable feeling that if these had been projects of similar notability in the US, they would not have been nominated for deletion?) Halfmast (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 375 Wacker is in New York, I'm Australian, and have included an Australian building in the list. This has nothing to do with where the buildings are. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom. None of these articles have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. This is real estate-cruft which falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Some of these are potentially notable, as mentioned above. Majoreditor (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Millennium Tower, Tokyo as it does appear to be sourced (being an offline source does not make it a bad source, indeed adding offline sources should be encouraged). Probably close whole discussion as trainwreck and nominate individually any which do not have any sources. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many to most of these are non-notable. They aren't sourced and they don't google. If the article creator isn't gracious enough to provide sources, and we can't find any sources, what else is there to do but assume that these proposed projects are simply not anything important enough to be covered in the media? Indeed, many seem to be projects that were abandoned a long time ago after very little planning. For every large building proposed there are many that never get beyond the concept stage. Any 60 or 70 story building in the world is probably notable, but not every plan for a 60 or 70 story building. Nevertheless, some of these do appear to be notable. We can't realistically deal with all of these as a group, so I would suggest closing this discussion as a "keep" then carefully nominating any seemingly non-notable buildings one by one, and preferably not all on the same day. Wikidemo (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and renominate as per Wikidemo --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Emporis.com is a reliable source (see the Emporis article, and so is http://skyscraperpage.com The information displayed on those sites goes through the same editorial review process that information in a printed encyclopedia does. --Eastmain (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Emporis might be reliable, but it does not instantly give an article notability to Wiki standards. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above comment - Emporis aims to be more comprehensive than we do on unbuilt proposals. If being in Emporis or any other directory automatically made an unbuilt structure notable we would potentially subsume all of the content there, which is probably unsustainable. Wikidemo (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it laid out how comprehensive we intend to be in this area? Surely this is determined by our general content policies, and can achieve whatever level of comprehensiveness the reliable sources support? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nomination withdrawn) Non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education
[edit]

Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I speedied this as a blatant copyright violation, which it was. User removed the speedy and advert tag and cleaned up the text enough that it's no longer a blatant copy/paste. However I still see no evidence that it meets WP:ORG. The results are primarily press releases, and notes on other orgs that certified by ACCME. The article's "sources" are the org's own website. Travellingcari (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Merge I still don't think it warrants an independent article, but a good case has been made below for a merge. Travellingcari (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC) A google search for the acronym ACCME will show mentions on numerous websites, including those of universities/medical schools, and even in some peer-reviewed medical journals. If this isn't enough for WP:ORG, then perhaps it should be subsumed under the Continuing Medical Education (CME) page, maybe as a United States section. --Conor (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. You're joking, right? This is the primary body of its type in the USA as even casual research will show. Try this search: [50]. It's pretty definitive.Halfmast (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Duh! The body that accredits CDC and Johns Hopkins just might be notable :) Jellogirl (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no I wasn't kidding. The organizations that it accredits are notable, but I don't see any coverage of the organization that indicates that it is notable on its own right. I don't think that being an accrediting body passes WP:ORG, but that's why I brought it here for discussion. Even though it's no longer a copyright violation, it's still little more than an overview of what the org does, not an encyclopedic article and where are the sources that make it encyclopedic? Primarily secondary, independent sources? I didn't find anything other than "X is accredited by the ACCME". There's a discussion on the talk page about whether merging into the larger article would cover it, which I would definitely support failing to find the above mentioned sources. Travellingcari (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"it's still little more than an overview of what the org does" is not an argument for deletion. It's an argument for improvement.Jellogirl (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's an argument for deletion/merge when there don't appear to be any independent reputable sources from which to get that information Travellingcari (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search on Google Scholar [51] gives over 9,000 hits, most of which are highly-reputable secondary sources detailing the fact that the ACCME is not just a notable body, but one of the most important parts of the US medical system. Jellogirl (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACCME has abundant secondary source coverage available. It is an integral part of the U.S. medical establishment. I looked at cleaning up ACCME before, but considered it over my head. The whole family of medical education articles needs cleanup and independent sourcing. The articles need improvement from competent editors, not deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I'm not a member of wikipedia I understand can't vote, but as an MD I do have a comment: Are you people all nuts? The ACCME is one of the most important and respected medical organizations in the United States. What's next for deletion? The AMA? According to the British Medical Journal the ACCME is the "main medical education accrediting body in the United States." I found that online reference in about ten seconds! [52]. 212.71.37.74 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominator's Google News search got only 9 ghits because nom did not select all dates or search for "ACCME". • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~Submitter's edit history contains virtually no recent contributions to WP, just deletion nominations, many of which are questionable.~~ See subs contributiuons and draw your own conclusions. Halfmast (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Travellingcari (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply not fair at all and completely untrue, I've contributed substantially, look back to all dates. Recent significant contributions: 2002 European floods, Indian Pacific, The Ghan, Backpacking, and Good Samaritan Hospital. I've withdrawn nominations where people have proven me wrong and made a very good case for some which have ended up deleted. Travellingcari (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Not selecting all dates was an honest mistake, but the vast majority still is a lot of PR stuff. I still think it's a better candidate for merge since I don't see encyclopedic content possible here, but I'm going to withdraw and focus my efforts elsewhere. I don't think the topic is over anyone's head but rather beyond the scope of what many want to tackle. I still agree with the merge comments and resent the untrue comments above Travellingcari (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge While the ACCME is clearly important and loosely fits the WP:ORG criteria, I reckon there is actually very little usable information from the searches that would make for a subtantial article. Given that Continuing Medical Education is clearly a bona fide article (and one that could do with fleshing out), I reckon that a merge would be most appropriate.--Conor (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on what the previous comment said since "the ACCME is clearly important and loosely fits the WP:ORG criteria" then its a keep. We just need to look for more sources. There will be in the appropriate journals. It's distinct from the general subject--CME applies to other countries besides this one. DGG (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worthday
[edit]

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

A disputed PROD - listed here, generally, because Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up one day; specifically, because none of the sources are reliable, and this doesn't seem to have received sufficient national-level attention to be notable Accounting4Taste:talk 05:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a Festivus for the rest of us. JuJube (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from an early revision, " "Legend" has it that on September 13, 1981, a very special woman was born and the date was chosen by one man to honor her.", borders on G3 of Speedy. -Verdatum (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merr
[edit]

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

Article about a nonnotable neologism, only source given is Urban Dictionary, prod was removed by author. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 05:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --L. Pistachio (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's stupid. Delete it. JuJube (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duck face
[edit]

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

Comedic, unencyclopedic subject and content. No sources. No sources on google (this may be a neologism). Lambton ^T/_C 05:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect. The article on Gurn that this one links to is more complete and already includes the term "duck face" as a localized name for the same thing; I see no reason for two articles. However, the Gurn article could use more sourcing. Duncan1800 (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gurn. It does talk about it. Doczilla (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gurn. This would be the best source of information for someone that wants information on the topic. Jd027^chat 17:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to keep. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer prank
[edit]

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

Unlikely to ever be sourced. Λυδαcιτγ 05:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer pranks (2nd nomination). Λυδαcιτγ 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking at the external links, barring some page refactoring, it looks like is already has sources, doesn't it? A stronger argument could convince me to change this vote. -Verdatum (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. The article has only primary sources, which are not "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I have checked a couple of times and never found any writings on computer pranks. Λυδαcιτγ 06:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it would probably be better rewritten as a sourced list. Prose style is not always the most suitable. Its been over a year since the deletion of the list article, and i think it would in fact stand up if re-created with proper sourcing. DGG (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Mu Alpha
[edit]

Kappa Mu Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems like a prank. No google hits for Kappa Mu Alpha. Kingturtle (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If "nothing else is known about it", then why is it important enough for WP? Duncan1800 (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, probably Speedy Delete based on a Google search (which I should have tried first). I will refer you to the KMA Home Page, which purports to be a humor site. No other references appear to exist, which suggests a Google bomb. Duncan1800 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that Cedarville University does appear to have an actual Kappa Mu Alpha fraternity, and the only ref I can find to the Washington University frat purported by the article is a MySpace page. Duncan1800 (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely hoax. Doczilla (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article text speaks for itself. JuJube (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 07:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun foist
[edit]

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

Information lacks NPOV and poor use of words (note: "tender age of 10", "beating his own drums", "molding his own very versatile style", "joined forces", "unstoppable combination of talent"), and is unsourced. Information comes from pages that are not credible (note YouTube video, Universal Music Publishing Group link out of date, Yahoo! Answers) and does not assert importance of Shaun Foist. It sounds more like a biography promoting the subject rather than an encyclopaedic article. <3 bunny 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google comes up with nothing but MySpace entries, YouTube videos, and various blog posts. Duncan1800 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This individual is a credited drummer sponsored by 3 of the largest drum companies in the world. Plus the band is all over radio in their home town in cincinnati ohio. Sounds more like you are just being too damn picky as to some articles i have seen

Whats wrong with this article?

links are pretty notable if you ask me, looks like he is playing with national acts. just my thoughts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allennewman52 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Allennewman52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
ive defiantly heard of this guy. whats not notable??? very very good drummer! youtube links or not, people know who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenkins2112 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — User:Jenkins2112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: The main problem is lack of notability. Got sources? Can you improve that article and find references to the acts he's played with? Can you provide info on nationally-released albums or tracks by Mr. Foist? If so, get to it! Duncan1800 (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please also sign your comments. And I have a hunch that Jenkins2112 is a duplicate account since it has only 1 edit in en:Wiki and it is here. <3 bunny 17:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not as clever as JuJube, but my thoughts exactly. This dude has no notability. Jmlk 1 7 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moon of Soul
[edit]

Moon of Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC by a long shot. Google searches yield nothing notable. The metallum page even lists no reviews and says no record label. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has been untouched by citations for long time.--DerRichter (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Hyderabad Act, 1974
[edit]

The University of Hyderabad Act, 1974 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability. Entire article is a reproduction of an Indian statute Nightkey (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Agreed this has been copied from somewhere.--DerRichter (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It even says at the bottom, "Copied from..." Duncan1800 (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per above -- Anshuk (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copied articles cannot be here Nagaraj007 (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio Doc Strange (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably not a copy vio as public records and the like don't carry copyright protection. Certainly not an encyclopedia article, no assertion of notability. Xymmax (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to writing a real article about the act. I haven't a clue about the copyright status of Indian statutes; a US statute is fair game, though. But still, it's entirely a source text. It belongs at Wikisource if it belongs anywhere. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely non-notable law; not every statute is per se notable. Possibly, this is a POV fork, to make a point that the said University may be doing somethinbg of which the creator does not approve. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably worth a mention in our article on the University of Hyderabad but not as a standalone article. It certainly has no value as a copy. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article lacks reliable sources, which means that it will fail WP:N. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MinGW Developer Studio
[edit]

MinGW Developer Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub with no references or assertion of notability. Article has had less than 50 edits since creation in Dec 2004, and no discussion that is relevant to the subject or article. Has been tagged with Template:Notability since Sep 2007. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, it has minimal content and not an ad.--minghong (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has minimal content because it is non-notable. I did not claim it was advertising. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable software, and the article does not have any reliable sources. Users have had ample time to fix the problems. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In terms of software, "notability" begins with the fact that it exists, is ready for download, and has official uses. Lambton ^T/_C 04:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Per Wikipedia:N#Notability_requires_objective_evidence just existing is not enough to satisfy the Notability criteria. It has to be shown through reliable sources. Also please do not reorder comments in a discussion. Per Wikipedia:N#Notability_requires_objective_evidence always add new comments at the end. meshach (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB... Point three would apply to one of the download locations (Simtel), rendering your point void. I apologise for moving my comment late, but this was required due to the fact that it was above the relisting line, and had to be placed chronologically above yours. Lambton ^T/_C 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB does not apply at all to this AfD. We are not discussing a website or web content. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing that satisfies WP:RS, no links to indicate that it meets WP:N. The site listed in the article says their has not been a release of this software since 2005. meshach (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above comments in favor of deletion. Unless you have non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources you don't have a case for keeping this. WP:WEB has nothing to do with this and trying to apply it here is pure wikilawyering. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both the website and software qualify as web content, which has specific notability guidelines under WP:WEB. Those guidelines clearly state a criteria for notability that satisfies this article. And who exactly would I be lawyering for? Lambton ^T/_C 20:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". This is not satisfied by this article. If that was me then probably everyone here would change their mind. meshach (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And directly before that quote that you took from the first inclusion criteria:

"...is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria" (my emphasis).

So to be simple, the only arguments for deleting this article have so far come from a) Ignoring policy for web content and b) Paying attention to said policy, but taking it out of context. Lambton ^T/_C 21:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Buchanan
[edit]

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

Database manager for a project of minor but continuing interest, but without cited evidence of notability outside that project (WP:BLP1E), and also without decent independent sources; the sources which are cited are promoters of remote viewing and almost exclusively uncritical. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a google search contains a few minor mentions but nothing that meets WP:RS. meshach (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Although the !vote count was rather close, the arguments for deletion were countered and overridden to my satisfaction by valid counter-arguments that were solidly based on the consensus formed in other related debates, the article talk pages, and the relevant polcies and guidelines referenced herein. I really liked (but did not rely upon) the 7-day recap... that's a neat idea. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kid Nation participants
[edit]

List of Kid Nation participants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List includes personal information identifying 40 minors, ages 9-14. Each child is said to be notable as a contestant in Kid Nation reality show currently running on CBS, but this assertion is directly challenged by WP:BLP1E. This list is sourced ~~exclusively~~ to a promotional website set up by CBS, with the occasional listing at IMDB thrown in for good measure. ~~There are no secondary sources.~~ Secondary sources are used to back up trivial claims like winning spelling bees or competing in local beauty pageants. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Added here later, after some of the below comment(s) entered: Related AfD for group of individual participant articles, closed as redirect to Kid Nation: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guylan_Qudsieh --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Delete per above statement.--DerRichter (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the policy linked applies to single people. This article identifies a group, and is well sourced. Lambton ^T/_C 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a collection of articles on individual people. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Adjusting opinion to Keep and Merge with further recommendations; see comments under VigilancePrime's response - I don't see why a lot of this info couldn't be incorporated into the table, listing all the participants, on the main Kid Nation article. But there's no need for a whole other page. In addition, should the show be picked up for a second (or more) season, the table (or the info in it) could be split out. Until then, I still say merge. Duncan1800 (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add-on note. I'm adding some detail to my delete !vote, because my use of "per nom" was challenged in a comment below. I used that phrase because the nominator's statement covered the bases. But to make it clear - I support deletion because the show's participants are not sufficiently WP:Notable and the information about them is not WP:Verifiable, in that it comes from promotional materials by CBS mostly, with a bit of IMDb, a marginal quality source in general. The TV show is what got the press coverage, not the individual participants. The TV show is notable, the participants are not. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BLP argument for deletion is faulty. WP:BLP1E does not prohibit articles about TV stars. The network TV series had these individuals as its stars. Without their on-screen activities, there would have been no show. There was multiple coverage of the cast collectively and of some members individually, in reliable sources other than those discussed above. The show is notable and the cast is an important part, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The entire article could be merged to the article about the show, but I see nothing wrong with having it as a stand-alone article, which is preferable to having individual stub articles about each cast member. Edison (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy KEEP - This is particularly straightforward. Here is why.

"List includes personal information identifying 40 minors, ages 9-14."
Age is irrelevant. If it were, we wouldn't have articles on Emma Watson, Dakota Fanning, or Hilary Duff when they were young, but the all did. Age is irrelevant. We have articles today on all ages, such as Brenna Tosh, Bronwyn Tosh, and Kara and Shelby Hoffman. Additionally, there is nothing personally identifying that is not available elsewhere, as indicated in the sources and references.

"Each child is said to be notable as a contestant in Kid Nation reality show currently running on CBS, but this assertion is directly challenged by WP:BLP1E."
As has been pointed out, WP:BLP1E specifically aplies to articles on individual people. From WP:BLP1E: "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person."

"This list is sourced exclusively to a promotional website set up by CBS, with the occasional listing at IMDB thrown in for good measure. There are no secondary sources."
This is an error of fact. The references include CBS, IMDB, news sites in Texas, CBS Primetime news, an orienteering site, pageant sites, and many others.

(edit conflict) "Secondary sources are used to back up trivial claims like winning spelling bees or competing in local beauty pageants."
True that the secondary sources are used to back up additional, non-KN statements. How is this information "trivial"? Consider, randomly, Katee Sackhoff: "participated in swimming and ballet until her right knee was injured, which led her to begin practicing yoga, which she continues today." That is a sourced, "trivial" statement. Consider, randomly, Sean Connery: "A football fan, he is rumoured to be a supporter of Rangers F.C". That is a sourced, "trivial" statement. How about, not randomly, Jimmy Wales: "He attempts to use his mobile phone in Europe sparingly because of the high rates charged." Trivial? Absolutely. Sourced? Absolutely. Legitimate content? Absolutely.

(edit conflict) "This is essentially a collection of articles on individual people."
And what is the policy problem with that? There is none. In fact, it is because of policy that this article exists as it does.

As Lambton said, "Keep, as the policy linked applies to single people. This article identifies a group, and is well sourced."
Absolutely correct. The policy must be applied appropriately.

As Duncan1800 said, "Merge - I don't see why a lot of this info couldn't be incorporated into the table, listing all the participants, on the main Kid Nation article. But there's no need for a whole other page. In addition, should the show be picked up for a second (or more) season, the table (or the info in it) could be split out. Until then, I still say merge."
This information was actually extracted from this article long ago to prevent that page from being too large. There was an AfD of individual pages that resulted in those pages being merged together into this article (as the article's talk page clearly mentions). The main Kid Nation page already has two large tables, and another one would make that page even more unwieldy.

As Jack-A Roe said, "Delete per nom."
See WP:PERNOM. Specifically, "adding nothing but a statement in support of the nominator may not contribute significantly to the conclusion" and "Also, this response should not be used to hide a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position". — VigilancePrime — continues after insertion below

Cherry picked essay quote. - that quote is from an essay, not a guideline, and, it's cherry picked. The same essay paragraph states this:

In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient.

Someone below wrote "per VigilancePrime." as their reason for their "keep" vote - should that person's vote be ignored because they did not add arguments to what you wrote? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, yes. The force of weight is in the rationale and not the "vote". There is still no policy reason to delete the article. That was the point. And yes, it is only an essay, which is why I said "see" rather than "violates" or somesuch. I recognize that it is an essay and only provides advice or comment. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (part 1)[reply]

[interrupted original comment by User:VigilancePrime continues here]

(edit conflict) As Edison said, "Keep The BLP argument for deletion is faulty. WP:BLP1E does not prohibit articles about TV stars. The network TV series had these individuals as its stars. Without their on-screen activities, there would have been no show. There was multiple coverage of the cast collectively and of some members individually, in reliable sources other than those discussed above. The show is notable and the cast is an important part, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The entire article could be merged to the article about the show, but I see nothing wrong with having it as a stand-alone article, which is preferable to having individual stub articles about each cast member."
Absolutely correct. The policy cited in the deletion nomination simply does not apply to this article.

Finally, a few side notes. This page is used as one of the examples on the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists page to show how every participant in a TV show should not have their own page.

This page has had and (assumptively) continues to have consensus for being a collective page rather than individual pages. Some of the kids have enough notability to be apart from the KN page, but not necessarily enough for their own individual page. This page is long already, but has sourced, accurate information, and would vastly increase the size of the KN page were it to be merged there.

This page was designed exactly to prevent AfD issues in the same manner that List of Survivor contestants was created. This is a good solution to notability concerns about individuals and groups their total notability together, meeting (however minimally) WP:N and the sources, while perhaps minimal, meet WP:RS and WP:V easily.

In conclusion, I believe that this was ~~absolutely a good faith nomination, but~~ very much misdirected. The policy reasons for deleting this article simply do not exist and the notability and precedent reasons for keeping the article are quite evident.

VigilancePrime (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

and here I was trying to have a few days of wikibreak... but the last _fD ended before I was given a chance to contribute, so I didn't feel I could wait any longer...
Changing opinion to Keep and Merge. I apologize for not seeing that on the talk page - I was looking more at the article(s). If you already feel the main article is unwieldy with the current table, it's only going to get worse when you add another one for season 2. I would then suggest that the table be moved over instead and sized to incorporate the bio details, so that those interested in more specific information about individual cast members won't get bogged down unnecessarily.

Kid Nation is perhaps unique as a reality show in that there really are a lot of people to keep track of. I don't think there's an easy solution here; I'm just calling it as I see it. Duncan1800 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Comment There's no reason or plan at the moment to expand the Kid Nation article if and when there's another season. Looking at the articles in this category. Many of them are lists of participants from a single season. Also, since much of what is in this article is about what the kids did on the show, then this is more like a List of characters from TV show, like List of characters in Heroes. The reason why there would be a separate list for each season of a reality TV show is that, unlike a regular show like "Heroes", the characters don't change completely from one season to the next. For An Angel (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these are notable, one event, keep them in the main show article and only those that actually win or something Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"win or something"? This wasn't a reality show like Survivor or Big Brother where the person who makes it to the end is the "winner". The only people who left early, left on their own (they weren't voted out) because they wanted to go home. So, in a sense they were all "winners". For An Angel (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per VigilancePrime. Maxa megalon 2000 17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the existence of the CBSNews site [53], and IMdB, concerns about privacy are misplaced. The material there must have been approved by the CBS lawyers and the families. Whether this sort of show is a good idea is not our concern. DGG (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If CBS is displaying the bio info, then I might change my vote to keep, but when I checked that link, I found this text where the individual kid's bios were supposed to be: "This widget has been disabled, for more information on Kid Nation, please visit http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation" - that page also has its bio widget disabled. Could be a technical glitch, or other reasons, but the result was there was no way to view the info at this time stamp. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the short cut links that used to appear at the bottom or the right hand side of the Kid Nation site on CBS.com (I'm guessing that's what they called the "widget") have been disabled but you can still access each kid's bio from the toolbar at the top under "Kids" (for ex. here's Alex's bio. Also, the CBS links in the List of Kid Nation participants for each kid link directly to their bio's and those still work. For An Angel (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked that. The bios on CBS do not reveal personally identifying information about the kids. CBS does not include the kids' last names and does not tell where they live. The last names and some other personally identifying information in the article appears to be taken from the IMDb website, and, even there, they tell where the children were born, not where they live. These are children on a reality show. Now they're considered actors in that they have representation by an agency, but they are not part of a sophisticated career machine like child actors usually are with built-in privacy protections as part of their career planning. If the article is kept, all personally identifying information should be removed, especially last name and city of residence. If that is not done, the article should be deleted. I will consider annotating my !vote to indicate this. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cities listed are not the cities where they currently live, they are the cities that they were born in. As you said, the cities in the article were "taken from the IMDb website, and, even there, they tell where the children were born, not where they live." Doesn't that sound like a bit of a contradiction? Obviously, if the cities in the article were taken from IMDB, and IMDB only tells where they were born, then the cities in the article are not their cities of residence. Their last names as well, were taken from IMDB. And you'll notice that not all of the kids in this list show their last names. Only the ones that had their last names listed IMDB have them here too. Since IMDB doesn't include the last names of all the kids, I think it's safe to assume that only the ones that wanted them made public are the ones that are public. Why should any information be removed if it's also found on CBS.com or IMDB? For An Angel (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After further consideration, I don't see a reason to change my delete !vote. The actors on the show do not meet WP:N or WP:V sufficiently to have an article. The list should be merged in to the article about the show, and should only include information that has solid WP:RS supporting. Personally identifying info that is not reliably sourced per WP:V should be omitted, and IMDb is not a reliable source for that, they don't do fact-checking other than on the most important elements; much of their content is written by fans. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable group. The list also supports the article well. The Transhumanist 21:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or remove personal identifying info re any minor without their own article. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHY should we remove any personal identifying info re any minor without their own article? Your welcome, For An Angel (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squeak, is there a policy reason for removing personal information from that article, or for removing the article altogether? If so, sure we can trim the article. But there isn't, right? And what sort of precedent does that set? Remove all articles on all children? The simple fact is that Wikipedia does nothing in the way of personally identifying that the referenced sites don't already do. Speedy Keep as there is no policy reason whatsoever to delete, and WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N (though minimally) are all satisfactorily met. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (part 2)[reply]

(Side note, with the Squeak reasoning, I could see a bunch of individual articles cropping up and causing even more AfD's and ultimately another "merge" consensus, which would land us right back where we are, at the best solution, where the consensus was and continues to be.)

Delete for lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Most of these kids are essentially non-notable: if each had an article to themselves, almost all of them would (rightly) be speedily deleted. Combining them into one long list doesn't make its individual components any more notable. The show Kid Nation is notable; but virtually all of its contestants are not. So: delete. Terraxos (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, most of these kids are not notable enough to have their own articles, and you're right too about the fact that combining all of them into one long list doesn't make any of them more notable. At one time there were seven separate articles on individual participants and it was decided at an AfD that none of them were notable enough to keep their own articles. They were all merged and redirected into this List. Later, when more sources were found, Laurel's article was recreated and survived another AfD. But we're not arguing here about the notability of any one of them in particular. We're arguing about a List of all 40 participants, and logically speaking, you should be able to see that a list of 40 people will have an inherent notability of 40 times the inherent notability of the average person on that list. It was already decided that one of them (Laurel) is notable enough by herself to have her own article, so don't you think that the notability of all 40 participants combined will be enough for their own article? You said, "The show Kid Nation is notable; but virtually all of its contestants are not", but that is very misleading because when you say "all" you really mean "each". The participants as a whole are virtually as notable as the show itself because without them the show would be nothing. For An Angel (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The kids are not notable as individuals or as a group, they're just contestants on a reality show. The Kid Nation article already has a section for the participants, there is no reason to have a separate article about them. If any of the kids is notable enough to have a separate article because they have references for that, that would be a different question. But as a group they can fit easily in the main article about the show. It doesn't make sense to have a separate article about kids that don't have references making them notable. --Linda (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use that same logic and delete List of Survivor contestants and all other similar lists. No, the contestants as a groups are plenty notable. See all the above policy-based comments... especially those referring to the meeting of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. This should be a really simple thing... VigilancePrime (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the statement about " List of Survivor contestants and all other similar lists" ... that has nothing to do with this article. Maybe those other lists meet WP:N and WP:V; this one does not. WP:Other stuff exists, linked in that same comment, is not a basis for keeping a page; each topic must stand on its own and meet policy requirements. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBS is absolutely a reliable source.

OSE is precedent. The point is that Wikipedia has set precedent for this sort of article. Like consensus, precedent can change, yes. Correct that OSE is not a basis for keeping a page; OSE shows consistency across the Wikipedia project, in much the same way the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" gives common outcomes in order to enhance overall discussion and consistency.

I don't know where the IMDB is not reliable comes from as it has always been seen as a good source in articles I've seen. Granted, I have not seen "most" articles, but I don't know I;ve ever heard of IMDB being challenged like that before.

That's all. The base argument seems to be "They are, as a group, notable" versus "they are not, even as a group, notable". Fair enough. I and some believe that their grouped, total notability is clear and apparent. Others believe that their notability together is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Personally, I think that looking through Wikipedia pages of people (stubs in particular) will demonstrate that the standard for inclusion is really, really low. Others may respond by saying that comparing pages is inappropriate (which is a poor, attention-diverting argument) or that the other pages ought also be AfD'd (which I would in many cases support). There seems a pretty even numerical split on this issue, but I don't think the argument to delete is strong enough to overcome the default-to-keep mentality that Wikipedia (usually) has. At worst, I could see a "keep as no consensus" finding.

That's all. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]
The list doesn't satisfy either WP:N or WP:V. All the rest are details that don't rise to the level of those policies, though of course, WP:Consensus is policy as well and will determine the result. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your original phrasing, "I don't find the list satisfies..." is more accurate. I put my beliefs as my beliefs, and did the same for the opposition. I think you should/could do the same. We disagree, and we both feel justified. I don't think either of us is particularly "wrong", just have different interpretations and threshholds (and motivations). The point is, what I feel is what I feel and what you feel is what you feel and we're both justified in those. Ultimately, I truly believe that this will end with no concensus. That's a default keep, but never really answers the questions and concerns raised by either of us. Pretty unsatisfying for us both, huh? VigilancePrime (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

After reading through your comments, Jack-A-Roe, I don't see where you are providing any arguments. All you are doing is stating your opinions as if they are facts. You've said over and over, "The actors on the show do not meet WP:N or WP:V sufficiently to have an article." That's YOUR opinion, we disagree. Explain WHY they do not meet those requirements. We've compared it other articles that have relatively similar notability and you've said other articles are irrelevant. They are not irrelevant. Notability is relative and if the subject of this article is at least as notable as most of the ones in the categories Lists of actors by television series or Lists of television characters or the most obvious comparison Lists of reality show participants then the only honest reason why you would still want this article deleted is because youi just don't like it. For An Angel (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lists of reality show contestants seem pretty routine. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe on obsessive fansites, but I've yet to find any in a dead-tree reference source. No offense meant to the contributors who work on these articles, I realize that such dismissal may come off as a harsh value judgment. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minors and not famous. To comment on "WP:BLP1E does not prohibit articles about TV stars" above, no it does not, but kids like these are hardly "stars" whatever else they might be. If they make other programmes or films then just maybe they'll get on WP, but they haven't enough claim to fame in any way yet. --AlisonW (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they're minors is irrelevant, Wikipedia has many articles on minors. WP:BLP1E irrelevant because it only concerns articles on individual people, and this is an article for a list of 40 people. If they make other programmes or films then just maybe they'll get their OWN article on WP, so until then there is no reason why this list can't exist to compliment the article on the show. There is also an article for List of Kid Nation episodes... is there a question of notability regarding the episodes that is separate from the show itself? Of course not, because without the episodes the show wouldn't exist. And likewise, without the participants, the show would consist of nothing but Jonathan Karsh staring at tumbleweed in Bonanza City. Both of these Lists naturally grew from the main article on Kid Nation until they were split according to WP:SIZE. For An Angel (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can almost smell the ephebiphobia here. Lambton ^T/_C 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're under the impression that several editors hold higher standards when it comes to biographies of children, then you are correct. Parents and legal guardians have varying expectations of privacy for their children, there are real-world reasons to approach this issue carefully. Television appearances should not become an excuse to compile any and all personal details on minors when notability is not well established. Reality show contestants are ephemera. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't we delete all the articles in Category:Lists of reality show participants? For An Angel (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, but you should realize that the "all or nothing" argument is a commonly discounted fallacy in deletion discussions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should probably stop making statements such as "Reality show contestants are ephemera" implying that all reality show contestants are unworthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia. For An Angel (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
?! ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Page. No pages link to this article, other than Kid Nation and redirects of a few deleted articles about the individual kids (deleted presumably because they were found not notable). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that now, since all the other deletion arguments have been debunked, the sole remaining argument to delete is that Wikipedia doesn't link to it much? That's the weakest rationale yet. Please tell me you have something more substantial than that, cause that being the only remaining "reason" would qualify for a speedy-keep. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

Also, "redirects of a few deleted articles about the individual kids" is factually in error. Laurel McGoff links to the list and is not a redirect. In point of fact, it already survived an AfD pretty handily. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]
My comment does not state anything like what VigilancePrime wrote. I do not consider that the arguments for deletion have been "debunked"; the kids are not notable other than being on that TV show, so they should be part of the TV show article. If I missed one article that survived group of AfDs and links to this one, this one is still only linked from two pages. That's useful information for this AfD, to note that the page in question is not connected to other articles on Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It sounded, I thought, as a "in that case this is why". The ultimate question is still "they are notable as a group" versus "they are not notable as a group". I accept that "ultimate question". VigilancePrime (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many similar pages (like List of characters on Zoey 101) that were split off from a main article once it got too big also have few links pointing to them that don't come from the main article. The main article for Kid Nation however has many articles linking to it and the link to List of Kid Nation participants is displayed prominently on that page. Besides, being orphaned has never been a valid reason to delete any article. Even having only two articles link to it is more than the literally thousands of articles that have NO incoming links. Those pages are tagged with an {{Orphan}} tag so they can be improved. For An Angel (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the same as any other list of people bound by a comonality, and the information is all available elsewhere already, in reliable sources -- which means that it's already available to the public, and not just to some specific "in" group. So this article doesn't create some new threat to minors. Any information that's not in reliable sources can and should be removed, but the list itself should be kept. I suspect this is the result of a split from the Kid Nation article when the list became too large, in which case it doesn't necessarily need to meet article notability criteria, just WP:SERIES, or maybe WP:SAL. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:21, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Seven-Day Recap
[edit]

In Favor Of DELETE

anetode

DerRichter

Jack-A-Roe

Macktheknifeau

SqueakBox

Terraxos

Linda

AlisonW

In Favor Of KEEP

Lambton

Duncan1800 (with merge)

Edison

VigilancePrime

For An Angel

Maxa

DGG

The Transhumanist

Phil Sandifer

Equazcion •✗/C

Basic arguments for deletion

People in list are non-notable by virtue of WP:BLP1E.

Page contains personal information that violates the privacy of minors. WP:NPF

Much of this personal information is either unsourced or sourced to unreliable sources. WP:RS, WP:V

Contestants are already discussed at the main Kid Nation article, this amounts to an unnecessary laundry list of trivia. WP:TRIV

Basic arguments for keeping

WP:BLP1E does not apply to group pages (clearly stated in the policy).

Age is irrelevant; we have many articles on minors.

Page contains much referenced information available elsewhere and most of the information is not contentious.

Note: The above has nothing to do with a vote. It's a peek at consensus. The only reason to remove it is because one fears the truth. We're one week and multiple pages into this; collating data is logical and useful for all readers. If you find the above non-neutral, voice that concern. If you simply don't like the facts that have been expressed thus far, too bad; express new ones. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]
I don't understand how one can look at this and say you're imposing "your interpretations on the comments of others". It's just a list of facts with no commentary whatsoever. For An Angel (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor did I. I understand both sides of this and think that I could even argue either one fairly. I don't see the problem with factual summarizations unless one fears the truth. Prior to summarizing this, I had believed that the consensus was toward Keep... turns out it's more of a No Consensus. This will have to default to evaluations of the policies in question. TMOTSI the summary helped me even see this better and should be a standard practice in long-term _fD's. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

NOTE: Unilaterally removing comments from a page like this is generally termed vandalism. "format-wise" is not a good reason to simply delete whole sections of discussion. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Since the impartial recap above was POV-ed, I adjusted it. I would like to point out that anetode removed the notability part and thus it seems safe to infer that there is no argument made that the list is non-notable. That said, the WP:BLP1E "argument" was summarily debunked (plainly does not apply). There is nothing against pages on minors whatsoever and the so-called "privacy" concerns are total red herring as nothing in the article is personally identifiable that is not available elsewhere. Finally, much of it is sourced and most of it is not contentious, and sourcing policies specifically state that contentious material must be sourced but sourcing is less strict for non-contentious information. Take a look some day at the littany of articles with the {{Unreferenced}} tag! Seems to me that the un-neutral-izing of the above summary ultimately serves to give credence to a Keep argument. VigilancePrime (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too far into this, but lets just say that you are the last person one could expect to frame an impartial recap and you shouldn't be surprised when someone who disagrees with your appraisal corrects the arguments for deletion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Others felt it was neutral. Can you be specific how it was biased? It was a factual summary. If I missed something, you could have added it, but instead you added new arguments that hadn't even been put forth yet. How is that a summary? You're a little bad-faith-ish in your "you are the last person one could expect to frame an impartial recap". It was totally meant as an impartial recap and it succeeded in that. I didn't even place any comments during that edit. Personally, I thought that the recap worked against my personal belief/desire/viewpoint. Funny that you would be anti-me instead of anti-article. Weird. VigilancePrime (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Count the total number of words in this deletion discussion, now consider how many of them are yours. Sorry, but it is unfair to let you act as your own sounding board. I really want to avoid getting into a tedious argument about personal biases, this is why I merely corrected what I thought was a misrepresentation in your recap. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying "Delete - VP wrote too much"? Much of it was mine, yes, and some others have reiterated those statements. In other words, I got here early and voiced the concerns of many. And that is bad how? (Also, I was quoting a good deal, eh?) Not seeing how word count is relevant... the words themselves are usually more important. Anyway, I stand by the original summary and it's likely outcome. (As opposed to the current one, which lends toward Keep instead. Hey, whatever works.) VigilancePrime (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

Note for closing admin. User: VigilancePrime is the creator of the page currently under discussion, following the deletion by AfD of the various individual kids articles based on consensus of non-notability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin. As indicated on the article's talk page, the consensus was clearly to merge. ~~Next poorly-contrived argument?~~ VigilancePrime (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an argument, it was simply a statement of fact for reference. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. VigilancePrime (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Jack, did you miss the part where the closing admin said, "Whether or not this content is merged to Kid Nation or a future List of Kid Nation participants article is up to editorial discretion. --- RockMFR 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)" ? For An Angel (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist (Internet)
[edit]

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

Dictionary definition; no coverage in reliable source, therefore fails WP:N. Lea (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no article. --DerRichter (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Lambton ^T/_C 04:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Doczilla (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Achromatic (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Issaquah School District. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maywood Middle School
[edit]

Maywood Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails to establish notability and is already mentioned here: [54]. In addition, it cites zero sources and much of the content is unencyclopedic. DerRichter (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No outstanding reason to mention this school. It's a shame people put effort into this kind of thing. Lambton ^T/_C 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Issaquah School District per precedent and WP:SCL. TerriersFan (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Issaquah School District. Any useful information should be merged. Once independent notability can be established, the article can be recreated as a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and rename to Noam Kaniel. Invalid/unsupported deletion rationale and fair assertion that article was under construction. Great WP:HEY improvement while under discussion, as well. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noam (band)
[edit]

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

Not a band (Noam Kaniel is a person) and not notable. Nhjm449 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Article fails to show how this is notable. It is really not an article at all.--DerRichter (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small, no sign that it will eventually be sourced as notable. Lambton ^T/_C 04:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move to Noam Kaniel. Noam isn't a band, but is Noam Kaniel, who has a substantial enough article on the French Wikipedia, which should be translated and added here, and has sufficient coverage. I've added the content from the French article - it's an automated translation, so needs some tidying up, but it's a start.--Michig (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to proper page. The translation is horrible but it talks about 20 million something being sold. Ridernyc (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep >_< Guys, It was UNDER CONSTRUCTION! You are not supposed to put on a deletion tag yet. -Karaku (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is useful for communication with other users: {{underconstruction}} . --DerRichter (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was on the page.. then someone removed it, likely a vandal -Karaku (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This shouldnt have been even listed for an AfD. READ. "do not tag with a deletion tag unless the article hasnt been edited in several days". Therefore, this discussion is pointless. -Karaku (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your poor understanding of the process and a simple line in a tag won't invalidate the discussion. Instead of trying to derail it, improve the article like Michig did. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DUDE. >_< I don't have all my time on Wikipedia- I have a forum, school, sleep, voulenteer work, so on, so forth.. I can't be on Wikipedia every second. That's why it had a construction tag. This discussion=pointless -Karaku (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B3D
[edit]

B3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:JNN and WP:WEB. It's just not notable. Lack of sources and google hits confirm this. Undeath (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Original research? and per nom Thin boy 00 @185, i.e. 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nomination uses (and links-to) arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. So it, and the "per noms" must be thrown out, leaving this afd with no valid participation. I will relist it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:32, 8 February 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 ^talk _contribs 02:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article sounds like original research, COI, or just something they made up. Any way, it still is not notable. Soxred93 | talk count bot 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I stick to my decision to delete, not because of my first reasoning, but for the same reason as Helenalex. Soxred93 | talk count bot 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Fails WP:V. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article contents changed drastically during this AfD, even the above newer comments seem to be discussiing the old article. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem notable. Might be if it was widely used or had been used to create something popular and/or significant, but there's no evidence of this. --Helenalex (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after work done by Jerry this article now seems to be encyclopedic. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Blitz Research - there seems to be a family of stubs developing, where one good article might do a better job. dramatic (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing administrator is willing to userfy. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marmayogi
[edit]

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

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The film's been confirmed. Has millions of sources on the web. Highly expected. Most Expensive Indian film ever. Cast confimed. Crew confirmed. Shooting date announced. SHOULD STAY. There's no point having to create it all over again. If it had to be deleted, it had to be done nearly six months ago, when the film was only in discussion. Universal Hero (talk) 22:28, 31 January 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 02:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Lots of ghits, probably no question of notability when complete, and "most expensive" claims make it notable as future film. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 13:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the notability guidelines for future films are clear on this matter. Considering that this film has been a possibility since 2001, this hardly is a reason to disregard the guideline but instead actually follow it. Such films can linger in development hell with their articles being perpetual stubs. If the film begins production, which has been a possibility for the last seven years of the project's existence, the article can be revived. A heads-up to all -- just because a headline recently says that production may be imminent does not mean the headline will be right. Headlines dating back to 2001 had said the same thing, but nothing happened. There is no guarantee that the trend will all of a sudden be broken. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Erik. Just as with Robot I am willing to userfy this article here so that someone who edits in this area can bring it back once the film begins production. The policy isn't arbitrary - look at the article, its filled with speculation. If someone boldly removed all the unverifiable comment you would have nothing but a stub. Leave this wild speculation to the tabloids until the film actually is being made, then we can have a proper article with facts instead of gossip about (just to pick an example) which prominent actresses have been approached to play the female leading role. Xymmax (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, I've mentioned before. These are concrete films, the two biggest films ever in ASIA to date. There will be several thousand people who search for this. Universal Hero (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until they start rolling, they are only hypothetically the biggest films. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a shame to delete this, but it is in violation of guidelines so userfy and delete and recreate when shooting starts.--The Dominator (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Confirmed project, and the entry will evolve as the news becomes more available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redindian (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever You Are (film)
[edit]

Wherever You Are (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be mostly speculation. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:56, 7 February 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 02:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced speculation about a future film. 17 hits on Google for "Wherever You Are" & "Robert Margolies" - and none of any real value - strongly suggests a lack of notability. PC78 (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable film which has finished primary filming. Gets 4600 google hits, including NY Times. Pburka (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you're getting that many hits, but even so it's still not a lot. The NY times link is of very little significance. PC78 (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon of the Cambodian Civil War
[edit]

Weapon of the Cambodian Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Weapons used in a war. Doesnt cite any reference and sources. UzEE 02:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP is not for lists, nothing notable about this particular aspect of the war. JJL (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I realize I'm invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but there are several similar articles on other wars, including Vietnam and the US Civil War, as well as those for specific US military branches such as the US Marine Corps. I have concern that this one is on the chopping block because its a Cambodian war and not a North American one, thus falling victim to systemic bias. I will also readily admit that it currently suffers from a WP:V problem, but I believe that can be rectified with research and is not a good basis for delete in this case. (It also needs a rename to be more grammatical.) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs a move/rename, as ShinmaWa points out, and does need references and sources per nom, but considering the article is a mere two hours old, it seems a bit unfair to delete it during inception, since per ShinmaWa's comment above precedent exists for such lists. And since en.wikipedia features lists, it seems presumptuous to say they have no place in the pedia. BusterD (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the makings of a worthwhile and highly sourced article. Lambton ^T/_C 04:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, renamed (perhaps) as "List of weapons used in the Cambodian Civil War", and perhaps add some context to the list where necessary. Duncan1800 (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just performed a little bit of cleanup editing; as lists go, this one is pretty well organized. Duncan1800 (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It's a wretched stubby article at the moment but has potential to be much more than a list. Majoreditor (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the reasons for deletion are it "Doesnt cite any reference and sources." I think these claims are largely invalid as the article was nominated 2 minutes after its creation, time should be given for the article to grow before it becomes tagged for AfD unless it is obvious spam in the mean time I suggest a tag suggesting the article be sourced, etc, etc. --Sin Harvest (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to withdrawal. This is a Non-Admin Close. UzEE 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CPF Building
[edit]

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

~~I dont think its notable as there are no references towards notability.~~ UzEE 01:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am sorry for leaving out the under-construction tag. As creator, I will do my best to expand it. References will also be added by me. Thank you. Angcr (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also add references to assert the notability of the article. Anyways I think this AfD should be closed? UzEE 02:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would agree too. I have added the fact that it houses the headquarters of the Central Provident Fund Board (Singapore's mandatory saving and social security plan). Angcr (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: Seeing that the article has a great extent and is notable, I withdraw the AfD with a Speedy Keep. UzEE 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep simply based on creator's history. Unfortunately, the AFD placed on this article five minutes after it was created trashes its hopes at DYK (where I encountered it), but it's just as strong a contender as the other five DYK features Angcr has created. It's unlikely that an article at AfD will be selected for DYK, even if it is well-written and interesting. Horologium (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Was nominated five minutes after creation and has now got references to establish notability. This AFD should be closed early to allow the article to be selected as a Did You Know. Davewild (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Merge to Sanford-Brown Institute. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanford-Brown Institute - Iselin
[edit]

Sanford-Brown Institute - Iselin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I didnt A7 it as I wasnt sure. There is no secondary source of reference. Therefore AfDed under notability. UzEE 01:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought schools were automatically notable per WP:OUTCOMES and precedent? At any rate, here's a mention that the school was under investigation by the state of NJ. Not sure whether that makes it notable so I'm neutral. Travellingcari (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to a merge to Sanford-Brown Institute. S-BI is inherently notable as an accredited (Associates Degree) tertiary school.[55] Parent needs to be sourced too. BTW schools are now excluded from CSD#A7 criteria. I suggest settling any merge issues outside of AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sanford-Brown Institute. Every school in the chain offers the same programs so there's not much that makes this New Jersey campus different from the others. Nate • (chatter) 22:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And while we're at it, merge Sanford-Brown College and Sanford-Brown Institute into just Sanford-Brown. The articles are both pretty much duplicates of each other, and both names are used interchangably for each campus so it would be easier for each article to be one. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as just suggested. DGG (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oviedo Marketplace
[edit]

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

How is the mere existence of a shopping mall notable? superβεεcat 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This mall is, at 950,000 square feet (source), and thus a super-regional mall; most super-regionals are considered notable. However, I'm not turning up any good sources yet... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- The page was just created and it should be given time to develop. There is some notability. --Taxman214 01:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good grief. wikipedia's aggressive deletionists are at work again trying to erase an article that was only created hours ago. Let it develope. Maybe the editors have something to say. Hadrianheugh (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Belknap
[edit]

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

Delete unsourced bio about a nn podcaster. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article isn't notable and seems to fail WP:BIO. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability policy. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 01:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- little info, no sources, no nobility. Taxman214 01:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (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 Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 07:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Head Shot
[edit]

Bang Head Shot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This article isn't more than a non-notable Neologism. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page is about a neologism, and I can't find any way that it is notable. Google results 253K results, but none seem directly related. Soxred93 | talk count bot 01:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- it is a definition not an article for a encyclopedia.--Taxman214 01:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

Redirect to Headshot and source that article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every contribution of this editor is vandalism. This is unsourced WP:OR at best and nonsense at worst. MKolt now 03:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Bang Head Shot" would seem like an unlikely choice as a redirect. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment good point. I was looking at the bottom part of the article and just thought that this might be a variant. Then again I don't frequently play FPS--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary of failed neologisms. -Verdatum (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User has been blocked for vandalism and disruption. David Fuchs^(talk) 01:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The discussion below indicates that the subject fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements, and the article has been further expanded since discussion began. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 06:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Garrett
[edit]

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

Delete a guy's a correspondent for a news org, but so nn that we have no sources, no date, place or year of birth, red flags of non-notability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Obvious to anyone who performs even a cursory amount of research. Major Garrett is a correspondent for Fox News. Many, many other correspondents have articles (Uma Pemmaraju,Amy Kellogg,Phil Keating, etc). I assure you that he is not in fact, so non-notable that he doesn't have a date of birth. Nom should be made aware that AFD is not for articles that need clean-up/expansion. NiggardlyNorm (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Then it should be easy for you to find a few sources and add them to the article.
Done. Couldn't this have been solved by discussing this article with me and allowing me to add the information rather than immediately putting it up for AFD? NiggardlyNorm (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources and some content are added. Torc2 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and comments have been added. Is this adequate for you to change your !vote?NiggardlyNorm (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Should eventually deleted if the article is not expanded upon with sources. The subject of the article is notable. --Taxman214 02:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete under reason A7: the article does not indicate "why its subject is important or significant." A one sentence article that said "The Beatles are a quartet from Liverpool" could be deleted for the same reason, and whoever restarted this article is just plain lazy (pardon the namecalling). UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a correspondent for a major news outlet is a reasonable claim of importance. --W.marsh 02:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Importance is not notability, and notability isn't established just by being a news correspondent. Why should this subject have a separate article, instead of just redirecting to FOX News? There is also the issue of WP:Verifiability. Torc2 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying this doesn't fall under speedy deletion criteria. --W.marsh 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is not notability? Could you elaborate on that? NiggardlyNorm (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the first graf of WP:BIO, or User:Uncle_G/On_notability#Notability_is_not_fame_nor_importance. --Dhartung | Talk 08:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've seen this individual on Fox. He handles the Washington beat. Plus, I hear him on Fox News Radio every so often; a local station carries it at the top of the hour. However, this is not an article. It's a declarative statement. This is a clear-cut A7. The original poster should have done his/her homework and done a good stub instead of a few keytrokes. Frankly, we need to enforce A7 a LOT more for things like this regardless of the subject. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So after admitting that this person is a regular correspondent on several major media outlets, you maintain that the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"? How could this possibly be a clear cut A7? NiggardlyNorm (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that's a speedy delete vote for me under A7, especially after reading the user's talk page and his rather clever way of skirting the username issue. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how a users name could have any bearing on whether to keep an article or not. Could you explain? NiggardlyNorm (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Major Garrett is notable~~, but this stub offers almost no information. Unless it can be expanded with some reliable sources, I can’t see keeping it.~~ —Travis ^talk 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A really quick search turns up this bio. —Travis ^talk 03:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article shouldnt stay here if its a bad article. You can always make a new one later with a sandbox and some research.--DerRichter (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. A major reporter is inherently notable. --B (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Changing opinion to Keep based on recent changes; see later comments. Not sure why an article that short needed to be posted; it's obvious that only minimal effort went into its creation. There's reams of data available about Garrett and his career; an hour or so with Google (at the very least) would have created the basis for a pretty good article, so this one doesn't have any justification for existence. Duncan1800 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... would you like me to mass delete everything in every stub category while I'm at it? One person creates a stub. Another expands it. That's the way Wikipedia works. --B (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that I ought to have been more clear. It's not the size of the article so much as the size of the research that went into it - we all agree that Major Garrett is worthy of an article, I'm just saying that a bio article (on an easily notable subject) with so little information didn't have any business being posted in the first place. And no, I'm not saying "delete all stubs" - it wouldn't make a difference even I had said that, since the reason for AfD is to determine consensus. No need to be so reactionary, thanks. Duncan1800 (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but I don't follow the reasoning here. If we all agree that Major Garrett is worthy of an article, why is it on AFD? There are many ways to encourage expansion of an article without deleting it. Am I missing something? NiggardlyNorm (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See comments below. Duncan1800 (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article when it was nominated was garbage, failed all the major policies, and didn't give any indication of being legitimate. The fact that it has been improved since the AfD doesn't make the nomination wrong. It is relatively easy to create a stub that has at least enough information and references to make a case for having an independent article. The initial article did not, not by Wikipedia's most lenient standards. I would expect any article purportedly about a living person that included only one sentence and zero references would be nominated as well. Torc2 (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep and close early. This is a bad faith nomination by an admin who nominated the article 5 minutes after creation, and when questioned about that, he then blocked the editor writing it, a block up for review on AN/I. This is such a bad faith nomination that it needs to be closed and revisited in a week, once the editor's natural block period would be up and he'd have reasonable time to expand it. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said this on the ANI thread, but it bears repeating here: this was clearly not a bad-faith nom. The article was one sentence long, and it wasn't even a particularly good sentence. The nominator speedied, the article was re-created, so he took it to AFD. He's got five days now, that should be plenty of time. -- Vary | Talk 05:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "bad faith" part was putting the article on AFD and blocking the article's creator instead of discussing the issue. NiggardlyNorm (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Bad faith nomination' has a very specific meaning, and it's not a term that should be thrown around lightly. It implies that the nominator is trying to make a point or otherwise looking to cause trouble by bringing the article to AFD, and doesn't actually think that the article should be deleted. There is no reason to think that that's the case. Any actions on the nominator's part after the AFD began don't enter into it. That discussion belongs at the ANI thread, not here. -- Vary | Talk 06:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vary is exactly right. Whatever you think of the judiciousness of this nomination, it is very clearly not "bad faith". That harsh and accusatory term is thrown around way too much in AfD discussions lately. — Satori Son 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If some people think that an unsourced one sentence article of "X is a correspondent for Fox News" is WP-worthy, so strongly that if anyone were to nominate it for deletion must be doing so in bad faith, their position is way out of the mainstream. But they have the right to state their piece because the accusations of bad faith are cheap around here - more so by fringe factions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's now procedure to nominate artticles and block your opposition? If you really felt the AfD would go your way, you wouldn't have immediately blocked the creator of the article. Nominating and using buttons to protect the nomination has as much bad faith behind it as a POINT violation nomination. I'm not some fringe idiot when I use that term, and the idea that there is only one kind of Bad Faith nomination is nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're overdramatizing this. It wasn't an immediate AfD-and-block like that. Clearly the block came after the snippy exchange over the AfD, not with the AfD itself, which was totally proper. Why are you assuming bad faith on the part of Carlossuarez46? Torc2 (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a bad-faith AfD - I think it's a sloppy mistake. And I think it's the end result of an overly aggressive deletionist philosophy. One should always *at least* run the title of an article through Google before they submit it to AfD. Carlos is an admin - he should know better. So, no, the AfD wasn't an abuse of power in any way. As for whether the *block* was abusive - well, that's not an issue for AfD. --Hyperbole (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article can be improved with the bio material cited above from Fox as cited by Travis. Deletion is not the proper course for bio articles which are stubs but for individuals with sources to provide improvement. I sought references to flesh out the article, but there are so many "Major Garretts" with paper trails. One fought in the Civil War, one fought in World War 1, one fought in World War 2, and then one started in as a newspaper reporter around 1990, and has been a featured reporter for several major news organization, and a frequent guest on National Public Radio while a reporter for the Washington Times. The most recent on (the reporter) seems to satisfy WP:N. There is no rule that bio articles are automatically deleted if they do not contain the individual's place and date of birth. We have kept numerous articles about porn stars which do not even contain their real name, let alone place and date of birth. Edison (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep. It's now expanded beyond a basic, incomplete sentence. However, I agree with Vary. This wasn't a bad faith nomination, the original author is not inexperienced and there was a wealth of information he could have referred to in order to make this a basic stub. It would have taken all of five minutes. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also changing to Keep based on recent changes. The article is now closer to what it ought to have been in the first place, and I will compliment the editor(s) on their diligence. No hard feelings, I hope? Duncan1800 (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely no hard feelings. It just seems like a lot of people said, well this should be an article, but it needs more info, so delete it. Apologies if I was a bit incredulous. NiggardlyNorm (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!. Surely a no-brainer. And an article with little content is not grounds for deletion. It's called a stub people. Jellogirl (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies as well to NN. As for the above content, it was a single declarative sentence in its original form, not an article. It might have been a borderline "keep" in its original form if not for the fact that there was so much info available on the guy. It seems to me as if NN was planting the seed, as it were, in good faith. Just kind of a small seed, though. However: Now it's an article. The point of the discussion wasn't the content or subject but the lack of content. This one turned out nice and I'd like to move to close the discussion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough, being a correspondent for a major news network and having published multiple books. --Itub (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What started as a nearly content-free stub has now been expanded somewhat. The subject, as I said before, is notable. —Travis ^talk 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable. This whole things seems to stem from a gross overreaction by User:Carlossuarez46. Honestly, I'm kind of concerned about that. --Hyperbole (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reasons given for deletion are non-issues that can easily be fixed and have nothing to do with non-notability. -- Fyslee / talk 06:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources that have been provided are sufficient evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Lucas
[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Tony Lucas

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

He isn't really that nortable. Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is not notable. no source, little information. --Taxman214 02:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, no way to verify. Doesn't really assert notability either. Torc2 (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is no article. No notability. --DerRichter (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless he's related to george; delete. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not notable, shows no sources. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~no evidence that he even exists!~~ Travellingcari (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try using the right word. -Verdatum (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops' that's all I can say there. He exists but I still don't see evidence of notability so my vote stands Travellingcari (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delorte - article makes no assertion of nortability. --Hyperbole (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 significant coverage on independent reliable sources has not been demonstrated. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking Dictionary
[edit]

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

Product promotion which violates the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING policy on behalf of a client who wants entries for company products. Written by a conflict of interest single-purpose account:

User Susan E Webb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After being nominated for speedy deletion as spam, it was deleted, as were XS2TheWorld B.V. Speaking Dictionary, Mobile City Guide, and a company logo which was deleted three times.
The article, little changed, still sourced only to the company website, was re-created by another user. The second version was likewise nominated for speedy deletion; the second {{db-spam}} nom was removed.
In the absence of independent sources which verify the product's notability, the entry is not an encyclopedia article. I'm nominating it here for wider discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasoning above. — Athaenara ✉ 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ditto. Articles about tech and services businesses or products need to be independently sourced at the beginning. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely fail to see what the problem is here. Could someone explain both how this is considered spam, and what they would prefer as citations? ǝuɪuǝsɐ ^(ʞɿɐʇ) _sʇdpǝ 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability guidelines for businesses and commercial products spell out what we are looking for. Basically, we need significant coverage in verifiable edited media, preferably not Internet-only, for a product or business to become notable enough to warrant an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last week, User:Asenine opened a discussion on User talk:Athaenara/Archive 6#Speaking Dictionary, where I explained the policies and guidelines which apply, as you have done here. I don't know what is not clear to the user. — Athaenara ✉ 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Postscript] Your explanation, like Accounting4Taste's on the COI editor's talk page, was better and more thorough than mine, IMO. — Athaenara ✉ 23:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements as currently written Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At one point in the past I tried to advise the SPA-creator, who was frank about having been assigned the creation of this article as paid employment, about writing to avoid spam issues, infringement of COI, notability, verifiability and other policies. I guess I didn't do a good enough job; this seems to have no reliable sources and borders on, if not infringes, WP:SPAM. I'd like to see this properly sourced but perhaps that will only be possible as a small part of a generic article about such inventions, and there's nothing un-spammy to salvage from this, I estimate. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely any sources, these kinds of articles do not belong. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ see below I removed the speedy tag from the article, as it seemed to have a core of non-advertising information-- I trimmed a good deal of what was advertising. But there is no information to show its notable. If it were, the article would not be too aspammy. Aren't there any product reviews for it?DGG (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. Suggest someone apply WP:SNOW at this point. --Hyperbole (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Folks, I just can't see that it makes any sense to delete this article. The problem is not the topic, which has had international coverage (and is incidentally quite clever, although that's neither here nor there). The problem is the article's bareness of citations. So: I found a substantial piece in De Telegraaf covering the company, the founder, and this service. Also a mention from 2007 in the Sunday Express (London). I've added both. On the company's website are readable facsimiles of articles in Shanghai English language papers and others. [56] There's also coverage on Dutch news TV--Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, which the company posted on YouTube. Per AGF, unless we have good reason to suspect that the press facsimiles and the TV news show are elaborate forgeries, they bear on this subject's notability as well. I know if I were going to China I'd want to look this thing up in Wikipedia. Regards--Wageless (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly an improvement. I found an Internet Travel News citation (author-less, hard to know if it was a press release). Anyone know what categories the article should have if it stays? — Athaenara ✉ 05:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still going to have to go with delete - I fail to see any assertion of notability, even given User:Wageless's edits. Is this product actually important by any objective standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperbole (talk • contribs) 07:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly sounds like a nifty product, but this is an encyclopedia, not a what's new gee whiz blog. I can't find neutral third party information about it in sources which are "reliable, and independent of the subject" (WP:CORP primary criterion) which I can read. I don't read Dutch and I'm not going to subscribe to the internet edition of the Daily Express in the hope that I'll be able to find out whether it had a real article about this product or merely passed on info from a press release it received. — Athaenara ✉ 08:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources are present., sources in any language will do, and newspapers are available in libraries. it would help to have some idea of the extent of the coverage. DGG (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wageless cited De Telegraaf in the article. I found (here) the piece he cited. It's clear in translation that it merely relayed info from the company. That's not notability: that's marketing. I won't be surprised to learn that's what the Daily Express had, too. — Athaenara ✉ 08:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper's decision to cover something constitutes a datum of notability. I think if you start trying to figure out whether a given article was "merely relaying" information about the company or not, you wade into a morass of intentionalism. Much of what newspapers and TV do begins with press releases--how else would editors and reporters find out about anything heretofore uncovered? With company materials in hand, and a sense of what their readership would want to know about, they make the decision whether to assign an article to a reporter and print it, with a photo or not, etc. That's what De Telegraaf did. Our job as I see it is to look at the independent press and say yes, this constitutes genuine, indeed wide, coverage, in a number of languages, around the world. The fact that the company actually made this easy for us, by collecting facsimiles on their website's press page and linking to TV and radio shows, shouldn't disqualify these sources. (Link again here.[57])--Wageless (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per the primary criterion section of WP:CORP:
The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: * Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company... and other works where the company... talks about itself... whether published by the company... or re-printed by other people. [underlining added]
— Athaenara ✉ 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good guideline, but as you know, it isn't intended to block coverage in which a reporter uses info from a press release in writing a newspaper article--otherwise most business, entertainment, and travel coverage would be frankly unciteable.--Wageless (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that the only sources for this are the company and those outlets which relayed its press release info. That combination, in and of itself, in the absence of independent third party reliable sources, is not sufficient to establish encyclopedic notability. — Athaenara ✉ 09:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, thank you for sharing your thoughts on my article. Accounting4Taste, I did try to incorporate your suggestions on notability and competition into the article a few drafts ago. I've added those sections in again (as "User Feedback" and "Competition") for consideration by all of you, although I believe that the feedback one was previously tagged as being too much like advertising. "Competition" describes some similar products (this info. was provided to me by my client) in order to provide balance. I also previously had some links posted from other newspaper articles, similar to De Telegraaf, listed on the company's website. Best regards, Susan Susan E Webb (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. A non-notable company. Jehochman ^Talk 21:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps the article should be renamed XS2TheWorld, which seems to be the product's actual name. The basic point is that this mobile application--in which you can use your cellphone or pda as a speaking phrase bank--has gotten significant coverage [58] and ought to be in WP in some form because people are going to be curious about it. I've deleted the unsourced "user feedback" as irrelevant.--Wageless (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify, the actual name of the product is "Speaking Dictionary". Susan E Webb (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite some published source to back that name up? The press says XS2TheWorld or the prior product XS2China. I don't even see the phrase "speaking dictionary" on the XS2TheWorld.com website--what am I missing?--Wageless (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A google search for the phrase "translation software" specifically excluding XS2 yields over a million hits. Similarly, a search for the phrase "speaking dictionary" without XS2 yields nearly 300,000. Using Wikipedia to gain legitimacy may be a bit of a problem; the article is written as if the XS2 company's product dominates the field, which it apparently doesn't. — Athaenara ✉ 07:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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