Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3 June 5 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gharwali Baharwali

[edit]
Gharwali Baharwali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article's subject is a TV show that has yet to be produced or broadcast. Its notability is questionable and is difficult to ascertain before it's hit the airwaves. Suggest deletion with possible recreation at a later date if, by then, it has achieved notability. Lincolnite (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lincolnite, I agree that this page doesn't meet wikipedia's standard. I only started this topic because one of my friend said he saw the Promos on air, but just to make sure, I went back and read the articles, it seems like the show is not starting yet. So thanks for help, I will just leave the deletion tag on there and will re-create the page if the show hit the airwaves. Thanx again!!! Survir 01 June 2008, 13:44 UTC
Speedy delete per page creator's request. — Lincolnite (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted speedily as CSD G11, blatant advertising. However, it is noted that most of the comments supporting a keep were from user accounts and IPs with almost no contribution histories. Moreover, many editors received email and talk page spam asking that they make keep comments here and User:Radioinfoguy, creator of this article, says he is Joe Kleon, the article's subject. I suggest that before any deletion review, a request to checkuser be made for the many single purpose accounts which commented on this project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kleon

[edit]
Joe Kleon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Largely self-promotional biographical article about a non-notable local DJ. InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 23:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How do you know how notable he is? Are you from anywhere close to his state? The article has links to his radio broadcasts, from across the country. He also appears to have worked with many big name rock artists and produced a record by at least one. The article may need some cleanup, but I feel it belongs on Wikipedia. InDeBiz1 doesn't appear to have been an editor for very long and I feel he is making a mistake about this article. Englishliterature (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)— Englishliterature (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Not that it's particularly relevant, but I am rather familiar with the radio landscape of northeast Ohio, having been a part of it myself, at one point. --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as you have contributed to the article in question, it's not exactly appropriate for you to weigh in on an AfD discussion... particularly when your main concern appears to be that I have not "been an editor for very long." As they say (reviewing your contributions, the first of which was less than one week ago), "Pot, meet kettle." --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 00:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now you are judge, as to who can weigh in on an AfD discussion? I did not "contribute" to the article, I performed some cleanup and found some additional references to add. Try to get your facts straight, next time. As a commenter says below, I don't think it is appropriate for YOU to weigh in on this article, as you DO have a conflict of interest, claiming to be in radio.
Respectfully, my position in the industry actually makes me more than qualified to weigh in on AfD discussions related to it, as I am able to provide additional information that other "non-industry" editors may not know where to find. Also, any editing action to the article, regardless of what it is, constitutes contributing to the article. Regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Radioinfoguy, creator of this article, says he is Kleon. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pete Way put out his first album in 1968, with UFO and is sill going strong. They have toured the world many times and Pete's discography is very respectable. Bands like Def Leppard and Iron Maiden list Pete as a major influence. Kleon is known for a lot more than just working with Pete Way. His 20+ year radio career has earned him respect in the business and he was at the top of the ratings at Cleveland's WNCX, Savannah's WZAT and WIXV, and at Canton's WRQK. His work for radio networks has been heard in over 40 states. Just last week, the founding members of classic rock icons Molly Hatchet released a CD, under the name Gator Country, which was recorded by Kleon. His work in concert photography has found him working with many major label recording artists. just in the last year, recorded bands on Columbia records, Warner/Reprise records, Universal Records, and others. You call that minor? I say he is notable and the article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.67.231 (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AfD has been disrupted and broken by too many comments from editors with limited contribution histories. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was spammed as well, despite the fact that this isn't my area of knowledge or interests. (I haven't lived in Ohio in 22 years, and even then it was Columbus.) I cannot judge his notability or lack thereof from what is here, so I leave it to others to decide. But it's a red flag when email from a stranger accuses Wikipedia of "censorship" because of an AFD on an article about the person doing the emailing. Sorry. Decisions to keep or delete should be based on established criteria of notability, not personal involvement and canvassing. --Karen | Talk | contribs 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The user spammed me as well, and I replied telling him that while I disagreed with this deletion being termed "censorship," I would vote keep if I found the article to be notable. Unfortunately, after reviewing the arguments here, I have concluded that it is not, which is not helped by the only significant defense being from sockpuppets anyway. SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The justifications for his notability are weak and seem to establish his importance by virtue of association with slightly more notable people. In addition, article was made in bad faith as personal promotion, because most of the edits are from Joe Kleon (User:Radioinfoguy) himself. In addition, the images referenced at the end of the article are in a similar state and should be deleted as routine cleanup. User:Radioinfoguy seems to have written a vanity article on himself, employed sockpuppetry on its AfD, and spammed editors to save his article, for pete's sake. Such a "top-notch radio personality" has done a good job of making himself look pretty conceited and arrogant.
Mazin07C₪T 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it time to suggest closing this AfD as Delete, given that the only Keep votes appear to be coming from the same user? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW, yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so. We know that at least one (perhaps only one) person in favor of retaining the article claims to be keen to improve it and is sufficiently articulate and knowledgable to make a better article. (Whether this article would establish notability is another question.) I'd let this run its course, particularly as to do otherwise might well bring accusations of premature decision, unfairness, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A mild notability, to be sure, but notable nonetheless. And the article is absurdly well referenced, considering what it is. Ford MF (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not fully aware of Wikipedia's policies, when the article was created. Someone wrote a shell of an article, which was submitted. I then began editing the article, along with several others, after it was vandalized several times. Many reliable sources were used for the article, such as The Canton Repository Newspaper (circulation over 60,000), two largely distributed Cleveland music publications, Scene Magazine (circulation 100,000), and The Free Times (circulation 70,000), www.blabbermouth.net (visited by more than a million people each month) and www.bwbk.com, as well as Def Leppard's UK website, Alice Cooper's audio archive, Informer Magazine, radio trade publication FMQB, answers.com, Artist Direct, and others. As of this point in time, I will recuse myself from editing this article. Early on, I asked several people for help editing the article, with no results. I know I will be continually slammed by the Wikipedia "elite," and I guess I have it coming, for not fully understanding the rules. I would sure love the help of a Wikipedia admin, to make this article suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. As to the claim that all the votes to keep the article came from one person, that is just not true. You have my sincere apologies and I respectfully hope the article, with help from those more knowledgeable then myself, can somehow be allowed to stay. Radioinfoguy (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution history shows you created this article, your first edit did not come "after it was vandalized several times," but was the first. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea for the article was not from myself and the "stub" (I guess that is what you call the beginning of an article) of the article was not created by myself. It was given to me and submitted using the name radioinfoguy and since the article is about me, the user name was attributed to me, by someone I know. There are several computers, using a shared IP, in my home and in my studio. I added information and enlisted a few individuals to help edit the article, who also used the same radioinfoguy name, so that the beginning of the article was not just the opinion of one person, or just myself. Was I wrong for becoming involved with the article? From reading Wiki policies, I know now the answer is yes. I became involved, because I wanted accurate and well sourced information to be used. That is all. If you don't believe me and the article is deleted, so be it. I really don't have any reason to be dishonest, since the article is probably going to be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioinfoguy (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Do you share the same Wikipedia account Radioinfoguy with other people? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was shared with me, but yes, as explained above. Radioinfoguy (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This AfD had an abrasive start and didn't get much better. I might have exacerbated the atmosphere with some details of my own delete vote. Since we haven't already done so, I suggest that we now stop wondering about which writer is who, and so forth, and instead concentrate on the article. Although I voted "delete" I already see some value in it and am willing to have my mind changed. Radioinfoguy is (or are) as welcome as anybody else to edit the article, which I do think is salvageable. (I'm not going to edit it myself because I'm busy with other stuff.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by PametRiver (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last vote was by the person (PametRiver) who has been adding vandalism to my page. Now, they have created an account and added valdalism to this AfD page. I received a warning saying the edit cannot be undone. Can someone please undo this vandalism edit? Thank you. This person was already placed on a temporary ban, by Hoary. -- Radioinfoguy (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're mostly right. Yes indeed, this person messed around with a comment here. He's now history. You're only wrong in the bit about undoing vandalism: anybody, certainly including yourself, is free to undo blatant vandalism. Meanwhile, thank you for bringing this to our attention. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC) NB if there's any more vandalism of this AfD then I for one shan't have any qualms about protecting it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, I think the article as it is now can be kept, per Ford MF above. The article started in an unfortunate way; it's now a lot better. I don't approve of either puppetry or spamming, but for an AfD to be marred by either doesn't necessarily condemn the article. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, it's got that smell of self-promotion about it. This could be significantly reduced by a proper copy-edit (and while you're at it, please read MOS). Although there's an impressive number of references, some of them could hardly be said to be authoritative, so please audit the ref section. This is by no means an article that WP can be proud of, although I'd stop short of deleting it right now. If deletion doesn't occur, it would be wise to keep this on our radar screens. TONY (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I copied the following entry, from my talk page. I think the person meant for it to be here. If I am wrong, or it needs removed, please do so.

Radioinfoguy (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about how this page was created. I don't care if Joe wrote it himself. I simply want to learn about him, and this is the best way. Without the page, it is much more difficult to learn about this highly notable DJ. Leigh8959 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Joe Kleon is a famous DJ. I find his biography and accomplishments to be quite fascinating. Please do not delete his page. If you do, you will diminish Wikipedia considerably. If you wish Wikipedia to be successful and respected, you must keep important articles such as Joe Kleon. PHDoctorate (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — PHDoctorate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • And I note that you further state that Deleting it could have serious ramifications upon Wikipedia as a whole. Deleting Joe Kleon could destroy Wikipedia's reputation and integrity. Stunning! Would you perhaps care to explain here? (And just out of interest, do you have a PhD, and if so then in which field?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an age of 'piped in', 'satellite', 'remotely/previously recorded' media, I think it's refreshing to find a person who is wholly dedicated to living/recording/producing locally! As an Ohio resident, specifically Akron/Cleveland area, I like the idea of Joe Kleon being on our side! I say keep the guy 'keeping on' and let him keep the article to broaden his horizon! There are mentions of 'self-promotion' and being 'arrogent'....to those comments: get over it and quit being jealous that you don't have the idea/gumption to do it yourselves! Way to go Joe! Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.53.159 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — 70.60.53.159 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • The word "arrogant" (as it is conventionally, and was, spelled) does indeed appear above. But it's not used about Kleon's paid work, or even about his creation of an article about himself; it's about his campaign of spamming for retention of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if I could, I'd CSD the article, per my original nom AND all the crap that has appeared on this page from people who have made no other edits to WP except for this page, as it's pretty obvious how they ended up here. I highly suggest a checkuser and would wholeheartedly support a block if the run showed what I'm fairly certain that it will. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switch (Ashanti song)

[edit]
Switch (Ashanti song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Music. Non-notable song DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to American Idol (season 7). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asia'h Epperson

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Asia'h Epperson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable non-top 12 American Idol contestant. It's even WP:IDOL's policy. Shapiros10 WuzHere  22:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the relevant info is in a section on the American Idol 7 page. The only thing that is on the actual page and not the AI7 page is some intense POV wording. Also, I suggest we give the creator a little TLC-this article was his first edit. Shapiros10 WuzHere  23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeRedirect There's plenty of precedent to redirect articles on non-notable contestants (ie those failing to reach the top 3 or have other achievements) to the series/season. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing to merge. All of the relevant info is already in a short bio on the AI7 page. This page is a carbon copy of that, except for some non-NPOV wording. Shapiros10 WuzHere  11:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable ahoge characters

[edit]
Notable ahoge characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This does not seem to be an encyclopedic topic, it is a collection of fictional characters that have a certain hair style. This is no more an encyclopedic topic than Congressmen with blue eyes, Facial grooming habits of ordained ministers or Fictional characters that have traveled through time.

It is also a list that is no more than a collection of links containing no actual article style content. 1 != 2 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The term "notable" in the article's title is not warranted. This is a case akin to over-categorizing, as the list is not encyclopedic. Besides, the list is unsourced and may contain original research. I don't see how it could improve to become something encyclopedic. Kariteh (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL
Nice... J.delanoygabsanalyze 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete (CSD G11) by Athaenara. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Canadia

[edit]
Chasing Canadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Potentially non-notable band. Justpassin (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable; trying to advertise on Wikipedia.Renee (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Píča

[edit]
Píča (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article uses original research and is not verifiable at all, it looks like some kind of joke created by a Czech citizen. Therefore it should be deleted. Koblizek (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can confirm that this is real and it is an often source of vandalism in the Czech Republic (possibly on a level that you might have with phallic shapes in English-speaking nations). It is probably notable in the Czech Republic and the sources in the Czech Wikipedia article are fairly reliable so I'd be inclined to either keep the article or create one called Czech profanity and merge the content there. The DominatorTalkEdits 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace I can also confirm the term. The article at cs:Píča is much better; if we want to keep this article here in the English wiki we should replace the contents with an English translation of the Czech version. I honestly don't care if it's deleted here or not. Seeing it up for AfD did give me a good chuckle. Plvekamp (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge and rewrite. As a citizen of the CZE I confirm it is one of the most widespread profanities but in the half of the country it is written with short i. Still, the article is really bad and deceptive. The <|> sign mentioned can be found in virtually every country where I've been, it is not some Czech speciality. According to one documentary it was used as long ago as Before Christ in caves in Brazil. - Darwinek (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know Darwinek and The Dominator by their work in WikiProject Czech Republic, and I'm satisfied that this is a real thing. The article is a valuable cross-cultural reference, and the information in it should remain. It's like the different meanings of hand gestures in different countries. It would be more valuable if it were pointed to by omnibus articles such as "World sexual symbology" or something. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepYopie 12:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

I am a Czech citizen too and that's why I nominated this page for deletion in the first place. Yes - the word "píča" really exists but it's not the name for described symbol. This fact is not verifiable even in our country. The first sentence in Czech article says "píča is a vurgal term for female genital organs" while the English article is fully based on that unverifiable symbol.Koblizek (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only if by correcting you actually mean writing completely new article. And even then it would still use original research and unverifiable information making it a good candidate for deletion.Koblizek (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Czech article up for challenge/deletion? A2Kafir (and...?) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, by correcting, I mean writing completely new article. The original Czech article at cs:Píča is not up for challenge/deletion, and is well-referenced. Having said all that, the subject is covered quite well over there, and I don't see much need for it here. Keep or delete, I don't really care. Your statement that it is "unverifiable" is contradicted by the presence of solid references in the Czech article, though. Plvekamp (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone do a translation of the Czech article into English? A2Kafir (and...?) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is irrelevant if this article or a similar article exists in another Wikipedia. Each language has certain standards for inclusion, some more rigorous than others. The fact that this material is totally unverifiable, remains to be unverifiable, and that no one has come forward with reliable third party publications about the subject speaks much louder than a million people begging to keep. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not well-referenced - actually there is a [citation needed] tag on the second line and note that it wasn't me who put it there. Don't forget we are talking about the symbol, not just about the word. I repeat my statement that this article is unverifiable.Koblizek (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that only means that line is uncited, and could be omitted. The rest of the article is verified by the references (granted, in Czech) quoted from the original here:
REJZEK, Jiří. Český etymologický slovník. [s.l.] : [s.n.]. ISBN 80-85927-85-3. - Czech etymological dictionary
Etymologie jednoho nepekneho slova [online]. 2006-10-13, [cit. 2008-01-19]. - Etymology of several (improper?) words
DOLEŽAL, A. (Ne)pikantní jazykověda. Praha : Grada Publishing, 1996. ISBN 80-7169-333-2. - (Impolite?) linguistics
UZEL, Radim. Etymologie vulgární nomenklatury genitálu [online]. Společnost pro plánování rodiny a sexuální výchovu, [cit. 2008-01-19]. - Etymology of vulgar nomenclature of genitalia
JK. piča [online]. Encyklopedie CoJoCo, 2000-09-05, rev. 2000-12-13, [cit. 2008-01-19]. - An online Czech encyclopedia entry
Rozbor uměleckého díla [online]. White Dog, 2006-09-29, [cit. 2008-01-19].
I'm tempted to add that the symbol could be verified by looking at a bathroom stall... I'm a little suspicious that this AfD is a veiled attempt at censorship. I'm not a native speaker, obviously, but I do understand a little Czech. Plvekamp (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omitting that line from Czech article would mean omitting the whole English article (=deleting it) because it's based on that line. And what's your point with those references? All of them (some of them being just speculations) are ONLY about the word and its alleged origin, there's nothing about the symbol and the article I nominated for deletion is only about the symbol. None of those references is applicable here. Your sentence I'm tempted to add that the symbol could be verified by looking at a bathroom stall actually means that it can't be verified at all. This is definitely not an attempt at censorship, it's just an attempt to clean a mess someone made by publishing the article based on one unverifiable symbol.Koblizek (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SOFIXIT. I already stated my belief that it would be better to clean the mess by translating the better article, and a native speaker like yourself would do that much better than I could. Or delete it. My only objection is to the statement that the entire article is unverifiable, where references exist. Plvekamp (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Plvekamp suggestion I'm adding another reason for deletion in addition to the above - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Koblizek (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I think that an article on Czech profanity might be best. the article kokot (slang) was recently deleted because of WP:DICDEF too. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Kamenetz

[edit]
Anya Kamenetz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:BIO, WP:AUTO and WP:COI. The page (according to the history) looks like it was created by the subject, and it also reads like an autobiography. The history shows it was crafted mostly by single-purpose accounts and/or single purpose ips. There exist at least two books called Generation Debt, which complicates google evaluating, but the subject's book has received limited attention by people other than the subject and it has a sales rank on amazon.com in excess of 500,000. Google searches for the subject's name show the subject's articles in syndication but little else other than a few blog posts. Thus no WP:RS to sustain notability. Being a staff writer and column contributor for magazines is not notable in itself under WP:BIO. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, her book GENERATION DEBT: Why Now Is a Terrible Time to Be Young has been reviewed by many reliable sources, obtained via EBSCO library database.
    • Kirkus Reviews; 12/15/2005, Vol. 73 Issue 24, p1311-1311, 1/3p
    • Publishers Weekly; 12/19/2005, Vol. 252 Issue 50, p57-57, 1/5p
    • Library Journal; 1/1/2006, Vol. 131 Issue 1, p132-132, 1/6p
    • Booklist; 2/15/2006, Vol. 102 Issue 12, p24-25, 2p
    • Newsweek; 2/20/2006, Vol. 147 Issue 8, pE2-E2, 1/6p, 1c
    • Business Week; 2/6/2006 Issue 3970, p100-101, 2p, 2c
    • Mother Jones; Jan/Feb2006, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p71-77, 4p, 1c
    • Village Voice; 1/25/2006, Vol. 51 Issue 4, pc69-c69, 2/3p, 1bw
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am less sure about the notability of the book but agree it may be notable. Shall I change my nomination to move the personal article to an article for Generation Debt instead of the author? IE reverse the redirect? I am neutral about the notability of the book, but the vanity part of the article is not notable. One day the subject may become independently notable and a separate page can be created about her at the time. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted G11 as blatant, personal advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microchannelization

[edit]
Microchannelization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism which is not in widespread use. 5 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability; 0 gnews hits. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mood Muzik: The Worst of Joe Budden

[edit]

Why are we creating articles for mixtapes for crying out loud? Generally speaking, 99% of them are not notable, and this is definitely no exception. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of beaches

[edit]
List of beaches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a bit absurd. A list of beaches? Well, a list of what it calls "notable" beaches -- but what does it consider notable? Belongs better in a cat. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—We do have Category:Beaches by country, but what about the red links?—RJH (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article should be in the same format as List of Schools.-- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What, nothing in Switzerland? I don't see it as absurd, because beaches tend to be the destination of choice for vacationers worldwide, whether it's the Black Sea, Miami or Phuket. I can see potential for this article to do things that a category might not, with the addition of some context to distinguish a "beach" as a resort area that happens to be on the coast. Additional sourcing would be easy to find, since tourism lends itself to extensive promotion. Mandsford (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has potential as a list; no reason not to have a list and a category. "Notable beaches " is this context means what such a phrase in a list article usually does, that the individual items have an article in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great potential for an excellent geographical research list. I am confident that any notable beach will have ample verfiability to meet WP guidelines.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though it might never be complete, this list is very usefull for articles on tourism by specific countries, so you do not have to worry about editing a comprehensive list, when you do have this longer list as a support. Check the "Tourism in (country)" articles. Also, there are other several lists like this one in Wiki, and for me they have been a very good reference for a starting point for working articles. In summary, lists like this are very usefull for editors and users alike. Mariordo (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Underpants and the Brainy Bamboozle of Black Cheetah Man

[edit]
Captain Underpants and the Brainy Bamboozle of Black Cheetah Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable source indicates the author plans to write any such book. —Saric (Talk) 20:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (Note that I attempted to delete this article through proposed deletion a couple of days ago, but the prod template was removed by 59.183.8.122 without an edit summary. —Saric (Talk) 20:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As We Were

[edit]
As We Were (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:NOTFILM, only source does not mention this film For An Angel (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cookham Dean F.C.

[edit]
Cookham Dean F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable English football club. Previous consensus has been for clubs down to Level 10 to be notable, and those who have never reached at least that level have been frequently deleted. Cookham Dean have never got past Level 11, and appear to have no other claim to notability. fchd (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Luke Lutheran Church

[edit]
St. Luke Lutheran Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church. Katr67 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Editors interested in pursuing a merge are invited to discuss the matter at the article's talkpage. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Harrogate Trains

[edit]
First Harrogate Trains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL - "proposed", "plan to run", "if the application is successful, it will start running". ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep but hang on Keep at least for the time being. We need to search for sources. If the article is true in what it states, then a keep is required. Other articles like this (although better) rightly exist.Btline (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Strong Keep have looked in more detail. Keep because there is a professional website, clear proposals. There are also three other "pipedreams" on Wiki, which are similar to this one - all should stay. There is also a logo ready. This is more than a "crystal ball." [Unsigned position by Btline (talk)]
  • Keep but it needs to be watched and built. First seem to be pretty serious as they have registered on built there own website for it. Worth a look if you're not convinced. --Fuelboy (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep. This article has to be judged on its own merits. – ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with First Hull Trains. Despite the different brand name and web address, this is essentially a proposal by Hull Trains to run a new service to Harrogate. At present, that's pretty much all there is to say about it, so a subsection of the First Hull Trains article should suffice. If the proposal ever becomes a reality, then the situation can be reviewed. --RFBailey (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge RFB says it as well as I could. There's no point having articles on every UK railproposal - assorted ideas like this are floated all the time. — iridescent 21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merge could be done but what about similar articles to this one like Grand Union? Year1989 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Union Railway has the multiple independent reliable sources required by policy based on a quick look. Adambro (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Despite the name, a quick glance at the web site makes it clear that this is a Hull Trains proposal rather than a new venture. (And yes, I would do the same for Grand Union and any other proposals that are coming from an existing train operating company.) David Arthur (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep it reflects documented and referenced future plans. It should not be merged as the association with Hull Trains is purely a legal arrangement, both of these companies are part of FirstGroup, a massive company. And Hull is miles from Harrogate. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in one of the communications between Hull Trains and the ORR that I read about this, there was a suggestion that trains from Hull and Harrogate could be joined (at Selby) to share a path on the ECML to London. Hull Trains are definitely the brains behind this proposal. --RFBailey (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that rename sensible? At present, neither NatEx nor Grand Central/Union/Northern (or whoever they are) have made applications to run trains to Harrogate. Also, it's not "definitely" going to happen: the ORR has to grant permission for it, which is by no means guaranteed (especially given that they're asking for extra paths on the ECML). --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no merge- only merge if it becomes definite that it will be run as a joint TOC. Remember - it has its own website and logo and NAME (!) currently. No merge. Otherwise we would have to merge Humber coast and City railway with Hull Trains (and Glasgow Trains) Don't go there, it will end up with a huge and difficult Hull Trains article!

I would also like to say that WP allows "Prospective TOCs! Btline (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails the notability guidelines defining the base requirement for any article in that it fails the following: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Therefore it doesn't merit an article at the current time and so should be merged into Hull Trains which is appropriate since this is clearly a Hull Trains side project at the moment rather than anything completely distinct. Adambro (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of independant sources, from just one google search term: [3], [4]. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these sources seem to do anything to establish the notability of "First Harrogate Trains", the subject of this article, but rather these proposals as a project of Hull Trains and as such I remain unconvinced that it is appropriate for this to be a distinct article and maintain it should be merged into the Hull Trains article. Adambro (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my vote resoning, the sources establish the notability of a planned new open access operator to harrogate. Spreading that info accross three TOC articles, plus probably harrogate and other rail articles, is a completely wasteful duplication of information. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the argument "WP Other crap exists" cannot be applied to this AFD. This is because those other articles are valid, are notable and have been kept (and so is this as it is the same). If anything, this one is less "WP Crystal Ball" than the others! Btline (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The Grand Central/Union/Northern proposals could all be listed as subsections of the existing Grand Central article, while details about Renaissance Trains' other ideas (e.g. Grimsby, Glasgow, etc.) could easily be included in the existing Renaissance Trains article. --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the connexion between Harrogate Trains and Hull Trains is not just that they're both part of First. If you go to the Harrogate Trains and click 'About Us', the 'us' that is documented is Hull Trains, not First. David Arthur (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really is an irrelevant connection, purely a legal arrangement. If you already have a TOC entity set up, you don't create a separate legal entity just to make a bid that might fail meaning you then wind up that entity. I really can't see how people don't understand this. For all intents and purposes, the bidder is FirstGroup, barring the operational proposal (relying on which really does violate not speculating on the future), to split/merge actual train services, it realy is an irrelevcance. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it's relevant. If you read the ORR material, it is clearly Hull Trains that are responsible for this. If the proposal is successful, they may well create a new company, or they may not--that's not for us to guess now. Besides, Hull Trains is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstGroup. --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why are we going to do things differently with this one article only? Let's just keep it simple and keep. If circumstances change, then deletion or merging can be considered. This is exacltly the same as other pages. Btline (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it is not necessarily a Hull Trains invention. It is due to the fact of the success of Hull Trains (as are 3 other FTOCs - shall be delete/merge all of these?). If it had been a direct connexion, it would not have a separate section of website. Btline (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Why have you made TWO !votes on this page?) Your comment about the three other First TOCs is irrelevant; they are quite definitely separate legal entities, each holding a distinct franchise, and each currently operates trains. If you have read the ORR application, you will have noticed that Hull Trains are behind this--the separate URL is just a branding exercise. --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD is not a vote. It is the arguments and what is said that counts. Therefore there was no harm in me heading up each of my comments with my decision- especially as it changed a little. I have changed the above to "comment" etc. and struck through my original vote (which latterly changed) to please people. But to strike through whole comments/ arguments was not justifed, is a form of sabotage and I was not pleased when I saw it. I was certainly not doing any harm deliberately. I will, however, not take this further this time. Btline (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a lesson from you on how AfD works, thank you all the same. I know it's not a strict counting of votes. Nevertheless, it's considered bad form to offer your "keep"/"merge"/"delete" opinion more than once in a discussion. --RFBailey (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to take further here, striking multiple votes is standard Afd procedure, it's not like they were deleted completey. MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No! You struck the whole comment! Btline (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you find any admin that will say otherwise I will redact. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not Hull Trains are behind it, we shall have to wait for how the service is branded. If it turns out that it will be shared with Hull Trains, then merge when the time comes. However, until this is decided it should be kept - as you said it is branded differently at the moment. WP does not predict what will happen in the future. So it is still keep for me. Btline (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have no real opinion either way, but I thought I'd mention that I've done a little search and found that First Harrogate Trains Ltd was incorporated (i.e. registered with Companies House) on 14 May 2008. While it may well be a Hull Trains idea, it appears to be a seperate entity [5] Hammersfan 06/06/08, 23.01 BST
  • Exactly, it is a separate company. It does not matter who dreamt it up! So until it is clear it will be merged/run under Hull Trains, it should remain on its own page! WP does not assume/guess what might happen. Btline (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming anything. Read the application to the ORR [6], and you will see that it was Hull Trains Ltd. that made the application to operate the Harrogate services. --RFBailey (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that may be true, but at the moment they are marketing/branding it as a separate TOC. Therefore, WP observes what they are doing and keeps this page intact. I have to say, I very much doubt Network Rail will permit the Hull/Harrogate services to be split along the route, as they did not let another TOC do that (I think GC). Btline (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until such time as there are multiple independent reliable sources about the subject of this article "First Harrogate Trains" then this fails the requirements of WP:NOTE and therefore any other discussion are irrelevant. Adambro (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prospective rail operations are notable, whether they are First or whoever. This information needs a neutral article, deleting it serves no purpose, bar creating unnecessary duplication across 3 train articles, and other geo-articles. It is fully notable that a Harrogate service is planned. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that it has a website and a brand set up, AND the ORR application is not enough? They are the most reliable sources possible. Btline (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is disputing the reliability of those sources as stating the facts of the situation. What Adambro is suggesting is needed are sources that demonstrate the notability of this proposal: not simply that the proposal exists, but that people actually care about it. In response to MickMacNee, I'm not convinced that all prospective rail operators are automatically notable. Some of the suggestions put forward are laughable (although I'm not including this one in that category). And I don't see how a merge (no-one apart from the nominator has voted delete) would cause information to be duplicated across separate articles. --RFBailey (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there are three planned bidders. It makes perfect sense to 'park' the information about the planned service in a separate article until an operator is announced, in which time it can be merged into a new oprator article as a 'history' section. The fact is, there exists right now notable information about the reasons bahind this planned service, and details about the route and stock, completely independant of who might be bidding for it, or will actually get it. Far too many developments in the rail industry are documented as insignificant and poorly maintained sub-sections of existing article, often deleted when they do/don't come to fruition. It's about time wikipedia acknowledged that the railway comprises more than just company focussed articles. This is a notable planned service. MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are incorrect on a number of points. Firstly, this service isn't being offered for companies to bid for. Three, or however many it is, companies each have developed their own different proposals to operate Harrogate - London services. I am not sure that there is any one company that will be granted permission to run their proposed services, I see nothing to prevent each from being granted permission although of course the service timings may be incompatible for this and need amending. This isn't a franchise that will be awarded. I don't know in what order the ORR applications were made but presumably one company put their application in first and then the other suddenly decided they'd like to run Harrogate - London services as well. Again, this isn't a proposed service in itself, each company is making completely distinct proposals which are only related by intention to run services between Harrogate and London. Adambro (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the other two companies with Harrogate-London proposals? On the ORR website, I can only find this one. --RFBailey (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignoring the application and that, i have found these things
  1. here directy referring to it,
  2. here showing it is part of a Hull Trains proposal
  3. Company listing
Simply south (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these. As above I've changed my position to "Keep" on the basis of the notability in accordance with WP:NOTE being established. I did have a look myself for more sources but wasn't successful. It is the article from The Press (thisisyork.co.uk) that really swing it for me, which interestingly appears to have been published today. The company listing doesn't have much weight in my opinion, I'm not able to look at the Railway Herald article at the moment. I would still maintain that some of the previous reasons given for keeping this are a bit questionable though such as that they have a website. Adambro (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is more notable than other prospective TOCs. Because this one is likely to happen. And because it has its own brand and website already!

As for HC and C, it is unlikely to happen as NXEC and EMT are going to run the services soon anyway. So it seems like the AFD is on the wrong article. Btline (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For you to have a solid argument at AfD you need to base your position on our policies and guidelines, not your opinions as to the likelihood of proposals going ahead. You need to consider this when discussing articles. Having a website has no influence on the degree of notability of a subject with reference to our notability guidelines. The points you have made suggest you don't understand Wikipedia policy and so continuing to make assertions as to why this article is notable for various reasons is only likely to annoy other users who understand the irrelevance of some of your comments and ultimately therefore weaken your position. Your comments have done nothing to convince me of the notability of this subject, Simply south's comments which address the notability guidelines made all the difference in changing my opinion. Adambro (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you are right. But it is sometimes necessary to look beyond rules and guidelines and apply initiative. I would also say that a prospective rail company from First Group and Ren Trains, who have applied for an application are definitely notable enough for a wiki page - just like many others which are. But that is just me applying common sense... if more proof is needed - so be it. Btline (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, not everyone agrees with your notion of what "common sense" is. --RFBailey (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a tough one, but after checking some of the sources linked above (as well as a quick google search) it seems that the proposal is rather relevant from a business perspective; the article could certainly use some work and especially more references, but I don't think it meets any of the deletion criteria. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to First Hull Trains for now. If the proposal fails then this will be in the right place; if it succeeds then we can break it out again. Smile a While (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep the main article, no clear consensus on the other articles. As two of the keep !voters said, this person does appear to have belonged to an otherwise notable band, which is a notability criterion per WP:MUSIC, and there was no real case made by the delete !voters as to why that guideline should be ignored here. While there seemed to be some support for deletion of some individual articles co-nominated with this one, that discussion wasn't thorough enough that I'd feel comfortable deleting any of them; I think it's fair to say that there's no prejudice against re-listing any of them individually. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweedy Bird Loc

[edit]
Tweedy Bird Loc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable musician per WP:MUSIC. Also listing the following related articles:

187 Ride By (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No Holds Barred (Tweedy Bird Loc album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fuck The South Bronx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - What is this world coming to? He's notable. Well he has created at least two albums per WP:MUSIC and he has also charted with some albums with Nationwide Rip Ridaz. I clearly understand why TPH has not received adminship after 5 tries. I'll make sure to watch his page more carefully so I oppose any more tries. --Flesh-n-Bone (talk·contributions) 12:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not personal, so please do not make a personal attack against TPH for challenging the notability of these articles. Creating two albums is not a criteria in WP:MUSIC, there are thousands of non-notable artists who have released much more than two albums. Furthermore notability is not inherited, so just because he played some unclear role with another album does not make this individual notable either. In this case, notability is defined by what non-trivial coverage the person received by third party sources. The answer is none. JBsupreme (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't attack anyone. I just wanted to clear my opinion and show what I think. And yeah he is notable, just because he is not a world-famous Indie artist doesn't make him another unknown no-name guy. 99% of the delete voters have no idea of hip hop music. I can assume you that, and next time don't quote me because it's the last time I respond to anyone's comment.--Flesh-n-Bone (talk·contributions) 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have seen several recent references in Hip Hop Connection magazine which i can dig up (i believe they described him as something like "the coldest rapper of all time" which, even if you don't know rap much, you have to admit is a hell of a claim); here's his own Allmusic and also Bloods & Crips', the latter of which confirms he was actually one of onely two people behind the whole thing. Also. per Tasc0 above: yep, being member of a notable group does confer notability, as does the major label presence. tomasz. 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I ask what "major label presence" you are referring to? "Par Records" is hardly a major label. If you can dig up some non-trivial references in Hip Hop Connection or another magazine I would be willing to reconsider, but as of right now the article still has the same problems it had when it was first nominated for deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just went through all of the delete voters and realized they are all rock-n-roll fans. It's just annoying how when they have no idea about the music still come and vote. What? I hope it's no competition. And don't respond please. --Flesh-n-Bone (talk·contributions) 19:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johto

[edit]
Johto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's largely gamecruft, and as per WP:NOT, it doesn't belong here. --Fivexthethird (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is with the information being referenced by a game guide is. The game guides I referenced are the Official Walkthroughs released by Nintendo, and they accurately reference the information.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable (referenced), and I have a hard time dismissing it as gamecruft, given the number of times "in the anime" or "in the manga" appears in the text. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Didn't individual pokemon have the exact same problem? Which is why there are now, what, four articles on individual pokemon now? Manga and anime are still "in-universe". Nifboy (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While individual Pokemon articles obviously do not establish notability, the fact that all of our facts are referenced separates region articles from individual Pokemon articles. And being in-universe' does not constitute deletion.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An exclusively in-universe perspective is the polar opposite of how we write articles on fiction. Nifboy (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, being written in an in universe style does not constitute deletion, only a tag at the top of the page.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ResponseThe sources are completely reliable, these are the official strategy guides released by Nintendo making them the official source on this information. These strategy guides are officially released by Nintendo the makers of the game, they are the best possible source for this information Also I don't see what the problem is with referencing strategy guides is, the strategy guides contain the information that I'm referencing, which is all you really have to do when referencing.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide, real-world or virtual. Neither should articles related to games dwell too much on in-game aspects per WP:VGSCOPE #7. The references are mostly used to verify in-game aspects instead of real-world development or impact. The official guides are endorsed by Nintendo, hence they are either primary or secondary sources. Without reliable third-party sources (or even secondary sources) for real-world information, this article fails WP:BURDEN. Jappalang (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not written as a strategy guide at all, it serves as an information source for notable places in this region. And as for third party sources, I don't see why a game guide published by Prima isn't a third party source.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of my reasons deal with it being a strategy guide. It is a travel guide and deals only with in-game information. Prima's guide being titled as "official" and endorsed by Nintendo would mean it is a secondary source at the most (you stated "these are the official strategy guides released by Nintendo making them the official source on this information", did you not?) Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An Amazon search gives 3,527 results for books on Pokemon. A very high percentage of these no doubt cover Johto. While I doubt they are all useful, this is clear evidence that the article can be sourced. I encourage the editors of the article to look into these sources and so source the article. I will be honest enough to admit that Pokemon does not interest me, so I won't be editing the article. I am also open-minded enough to tolerate the existence of articles on subjects I don't like. Dekkappai (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter if you get 3,527 books to verify that Ash arrives first in New Bark Town, that players battle their rivals for the first time in Cherrygrove, that two towers were built opposite each other to foster friendship among Pokemons, etc. None of those are real-world relevant information. If the article had 50-50 real-world/in-game sourced information, it could be made into a good article blending two elements. This article, however, is 100% in-game information. Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I'm an old guy with absolutely no interest in Pokemon. But even I know that Pokemon is a franchise, not just a game. It consists of multiple TV series, book series, card games, and God knows what else. I have a very hard time believing that this AfD or any Delete Vote-- excuse me !Vote-- is in good faith. Dekkappai (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, it is a known franchise, but what Wikipedia needs to substantiate articles on fictional work is real-world information (development, reception, etc). If there is such information on just Johto (why and how the designers come up with Johto, the process of developing Johto, the reception to Johto) and the contributors edit them in, the article would become the kind of article Wikipedia is for, and I would never have put in a Delete vote. Assuming my "Delete is in bad faith" is a bad assumption on your part and in bad faith itself. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per Kanto and Hoenn nominations. "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". --.:Alex:. 11:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On my part, I fail to see what WP:POINT has to do with this. The user might be disruptive, but the AFD is not. The article is failing the policies and guidelines for Wikipedia articles. It is certainly not a disruptive AFD (such an AFD would be raising up trivial or nonsensical reasons to bring to AFD articles that are fully or mostly compliant). The user should be reprimanded for his disruptive intent, but the AFD is not disruptive to ensuring Wikipeida has articles complying with its policies and guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ResponseThis article meets guidelines set by Wikipedia, not only does it have many reliable and third party references (Prima), it has more of these references than many non-challenged articles. And I agree with you, on WP:Point
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoenn

[edit]
Hoenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's basicly a walkthrough! As per the Walkthrough and FAQ rule in WP:NOT I nominate thee as an Artcle for Deletion. --Fivexthethird (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep Sceptre (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanto (Pokémon)

[edit]
Kanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Look at THe AfD articles about Hoenn and Johto! Same reason. --Fivexthethird (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Axler

[edit]
Rachel Axler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:BIO and WP:COI. The page was created by the subject's husband, as someone pointed out and the husband confirmed on the talk page. This is his only contribution. Previously {{{prod}}}ed by User:Calton, husband removed {{{prod}}}. No doubt the subject is a talented writer, but the sole claimed reference to notability is in being part of a 17-member writing team that won an emmy award. This AfD is not meant to disparage the subject but WP:BIO has not been met and the page most probably wouldn't be present in the first place without WP:COI. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Good find, but that is a college newspaper article from the school that she apparently went to. Speaking at your college and having the visit covered by the student newspaper in my opinion do not meet WP:BIO. I agree that being the only female writer at TDS could possibly be notable, but that fact is not true, according to the IMDB credits [12]. The only sourced claim is that she was the only female writer when a particular emmy was awarded, but IMDB says TDS has had other female writers, even earlier than she. I do not think having a job on the large writing staff of TDS is enough for WP:NOT alone. I find the COI significant here also. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject falls behind line of notability IMO: Emmy and other noms were for the entire writing staff, not her alone; she was part of a 17-person team and it's not as if she has any individual credits such as in a serial or sitcom. Having said that, I don't see COI coming into this because AfD's not for cleanup - how hard would it be to do a little rewrite? —97198 talk 13:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anal torture

[edit]
Anal torture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has no citations, barely more than a dictionary defintion, and tells us very little, no prospect of expansion using reliable sources, it seems. All content in the current article is just a loose collection of things that don't have much to do with one another. Only Yesterday's Tomorrow (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The article is a mess and needs a substantial re-write (probably stripping down to a stub), but as a subject within the BDSM field it's valid. Ged UK (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a pain in the ass, delete Completely unsourced, with a few references to a rumor about an English king, the name of a porno film, and someone's description of how hot pokers, painful objects, and hot and cold items placed..uh, there... would HURT. Unsourced, let's hope it's not "original research". Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. Author argued on article talk page: "Come on, we don't get the big gigs - can we at least have a Wikipedia page to get some exposure?" Q.E.D. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kick Ass Tater Paps

[edit]
The Kick Ass Tater Paps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band has no stated discography, is a local band, writer of article apparently is a member of the band, see WP:CONFLICT. FusionMix 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Center for Academic Excellence

[edit]
Indus Center for Academic Excellence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

RS coverage doesn't establish notability and ghits are trivial. Despite WP:SCHOOLS saying high schools are notable, this isn't a school as much as a private extracurricular program. Disregard the article's current state, that could be fixed if there were materials from which to do so, it doesn't appear that there are. It also fails WP:ORG: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a1, in that it adds nothing to the existing article on Isaac Newton. Title misspelled and confusing to boot. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issac newton (complex)

[edit]
Issac newton (complex) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod and possible copyvio. I can't quite see a reason to speedy it as I can't prove the copyvio (author's death date not known), so bringing it here for a WP:SNOW decision. — iridescent 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earnshaw

[edit]
Earnshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable subject: a non-appearing character (a mythical god) that 'appeared' in only one episode of the show. Ged UK (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel S. Griffin

[edit]
Daniel S. Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not (or barely) claimed. Are all soap-opera writers notable? Damiens.rf 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Arkyan 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Around the Bend (album)

[edit]
Around the Bend (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources for the album yet. Release date is still a couple months away, and there's nothing substantial about this album. Only source for the track listing is Amazon, which I don't believe qualifies under WP:RS. I'm not even finding anything that says Kyle Lehning will produce it. (Will someone please make a page on Kyle Lehning already?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until reliable sources are found and album is released -- which, as it stands, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets pushed back as "Faith in You" failed to chart. Spell4yr (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. --Jamie☆S93 23:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinnucan's

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kinnucan's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was listed as db-inc. This article has been around long enough with enough people working on it that I'm not sure that a speedy deletion would be appropriate. However, there is no claim of notability beyond total annual sales figures, and the article is pretty thin. Previous attempts at finding additional material were unsuccessful; see talk page discussion. On the other hand, there are at least some reliable sources, and it seems a reasonable stub. Blatant advertising and copyright violations were removed months ago. This is basically a procedural nomination.Aleta Sing 16:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep - no delete votes (safe for nom) in this discussion, consensus is to keep. --JForget 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Kaplan

[edit]
Philip J. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Proposed delete, or merge to Fucked Company. I can not find any separate claim to WP:BIO standards in the history or on google. The page is vandalized often and the history looks like a battle between the subject and some people who used the Fucked Company message boards who do not like him. As the manager of products at a small internet-ad company subject is not notable per WP:BIO. Notoriety on a single small message board does not meet WP:BIO ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I am not either, but Fucked Company looks like it received some minor coverage in its day. I thought about adding a tag to that page but I am not confident one way or the other about the company's notability. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject meets WP:BIO being notable not just for the creation of Fucked Company, but also the subsequent book which was published, F'd Companies, and the later creation of AdBrite. If this person were notable for just one event I might be able to support a merge, but that wouldn't make sense at all in this situation. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is a good point that those too have to be considered, but after reviewing WP:BIO and WP:NOT carefully, I do not think the subject's book or his involvement in founding a small ad company is notable. The AdBrite page can say it was founded by the subject, and the F'd company page can say that too. Neither association makes the subject himself notable per WP:BIO in my understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiselfpromotion (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please assume good faith. That documentary interviewed 75 mostly non-notable people and was already a link on the subject's page. I am not attempting to trivialize anyone's achievements. Notability is not about achievement. I nominated for AfD because the subject is not notable per our guidelines. I have nothing against the subject and am in favor of a merge. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your user name is "Antiselfpromotion", I'm not sure how much good faith you're expecting here. Furthermore, to call AdBrite a "small ad company" when it is the sixth largest ad server in the world is most certainly trivializing, and inappropriately so. RFerreira (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep - Anyone who has 116 mentions in legitimate news outlets is notable. End of discussion. And that's just the ones that use the middle initial, which is probably 20% of his total press mentions. Source: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22philip+j.+kaplan%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.195.109 (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy keep. I'm assuming good faith on the nom's part, but there's no question that universities are inherently notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shandong Agricultural University

[edit]
Shandong Agricultural University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Firstly, this page is extremly short. This school isn't that notable, I think! Maybe it should just be moved to the chinese Wikipedia. It has no refs either. StewieGriffin! • Talk 15:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection - You don't know much about China and you don't have the right to say that this university is too unimportant to be known. Because everything has its value. The article is short but it needs time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiguanhao (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey song)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly-named duplicate of I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time that's an unlikely search term (otherwise, I would just have made it into a redirect). I tried to make it a speedy but couldn't find any criteria that fit.... SKS2K6 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, actually they aren't. Maybe I'm being harsh but, duplicated means the content would be the same. It isn't. It is however, an article about a subject that is already covered. Both articles have good elements which combined make a better article than either one currently does on its own. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity which bit is thought to be an unlikely search term. I think not capitalising things or using the ' correctly are likely to be common errors if searching for information about this song. I grant you most people won't include "(Mariah Carey song)" in the search but, I thought this was pretty standard as part of the article naming conventions. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People won't search it with the parentesees, that's why its an unliky search term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes search with parentheses, especially if it's for a band or a song name that I expect will take me to a redirect page. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the vast majority of searchers would not. And besides, this title isn't exactly a common one. And it's not capitalized correctly. Nor is there a space before the first bracket. :P SKS2K6 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contributors to this debate seem to be underestimating how very very very cheap redirects are. I'd have a redirect just for the handful of people who may have watchlisted the article we're discussing. AndyJones (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A line has to be drawn somewhere. Every single article can have tens, if not a hundred, different possible search terms. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Savin

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

(Still) not noticeable Eiland (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was going to mention that it had already been tagged but, I didn't really look at who tagged it or knew of a way to verify whether it had actually been done by someone that had both copies for comparison purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How true! Savin has gone on the run from the Ukraine, sneaking back into to desecrate a monument to the Ukrainian nation on Mt Hoverla. (The incident had already been added to that page). This was big news in the Ukraine, even if certain environmentalists are embarrassed about how easily he infiltrated their organisations. It is a shame that rather than learning from their experience, they go into denial - even to the extent of trying to have the interesting page about him deleted.Harrypotter (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which is notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of people. Paki.tv (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete His notability is marginal at best. He is not the leader of the movement and only is one of the members. He was charged with public mischief for vandalism along with 2 other accomplices and is not being singled out as someone special. My fear is that this undue attention to petty criminal makes him out to be more important than he really is. His achievements are next to non-existent: a cleaner and a journalist. He is not featured prominently even in Ukraine, where he is charged with mischief for vandalism. The improvement over the last deleted version is very insignificant and does not change his notability per WP guidelines.--Hillock65 (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is a leader according to their own website, which is linked on the page, where it says quite clearly under a picture of him : Начальник Сумской Сетевой Ставки ЕСМ Леонид Савин Paki.tv (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says he is the leader of regional Sumy chapter of a very marginal organization in Ukraine. One of many chapters. Why all of a sudden he is more prominent than, say Crimea or Kharkiv chapter leaders or the other two accomplices in the vandalism case? Are we planning to write articles on them as well? At least that will prove why an absolutely insignificant person is being elevated to someone deserving mentioning in an encyclopedia. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing his leadership makes him notable - it is you that are claiming that he is just a rank and file member rather than someone in a position of authority with in the organisation - what i am arguing is that his position combined with a variety of secondary independent sources on his activities are what make him notable - as per wikipedia guidelines. Paki.tv (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per Billboard charting. Black Kite 23:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm So Hood

[edit]
I'm So Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested redirect. Song is non-notable and should redirect, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Restored AfD tag after nearly three days down. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete by User:PeterSymonds per CSD G1011 - blatant advertising. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CeraSport

[edit]
CeraSport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:ADVERT »xytram« talk 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Update: This may not be required as someone has already tagged it for SPEEDY[reply]

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

The result was delete and restore redirect to The Midnight Cabaret. --MCB (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Cabaret

[edit]
Midnight Cabaret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable theatrical group, run by students at a college. The whole article reads like an advert. Users User:Doctorniatpac and User:Divinebovine have both reverted edits made by myself and User:WilliamH. WilliamH originally added the prod tag to the page, before it was removed. I've discussed this article on William's talkpage in terms of the way forward. I originally created the article as a redirect to the film The Midnight Cabaret. I ask that if the result of this AfD is delete, that the closing admin restores the redirect. Lugnuts (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close. This is a legitimate redirect to The Midnight Cabaret, and not a matter for deletion. If User:Divinebovine restores the theatre group info again, he will most likely be blocked for a WP:3RR violation. WilliamH (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why has this been closed? I don't see any resolution. I do, however, see that the article is, right now, one about the theatre group again. The argument that this problem is covered by 3RR is wrong since clearly it's possible to edit-war without breaching 3RR. Can I propose that we simply re-open this discussion? AndyJones (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...And just to clarify, we don't need to worry that a delete consensus here would prevent the article being a redirect (even a protected redirect) to another legitimate topic. That isn't a problem. AndyJones (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman or Chief

[edit]
Chairman or Chief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and original research. Not substantively edited since its creation on 2 October 2005. Scolaire (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect (non-admin closure). Article already merged and redirected; can't delete per GFDL after merge. --MPerel 01:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion Forum

[edit]
Compassion Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Orphaned article, now merged completely into Democratic Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008#April 13, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EDT - Grantham, Pennsylvania with content preserved in full. Viriditas (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no need for an article if the same info exists in other articles. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since info is already merged, Delete. Pointless Redirect, not an expected search term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No point in having the info twice Ged UK (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't delete merged content: doing so is a GFDL violation. If this material has been merged elsewhere, the right course is to redirect it to the merge target. It doesn't really need an AfD at all. AndyJones (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably went about it backwards and should have waited to merge after the AfD. Is it acceptable to redirect then, and may I ask if someone will close this AfD? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I'd have done was just gone ahead with the merge then the redirect myself without brining it here, at all. I doubt anyone will object if you make this a redirect, now. Everyone above supports not having a separate article. If you do that, a friendly admin will no doubt come along and close this AfD. AndyJones (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wanted to get consensus on a low-traffic article. I seem to recall that proposed merges were once brought to AfD for discussion. The redirect is now in place and this discussion is ready to be closed. I think the process should be named "Articles for Discussion" and all the relevant noticeboards (RS, NPOV, COI, etc.) rolled into a centralized location like this. The fragmentation in article noticeboards, RfC's and all the rest is ridiculous. One location, one process, and one discussion is all we need. Deletion sorting can use categories to alert the proper people. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose I agree there's far too many policies and procedures. You can't ask for an Admin's help nowadays without someone lecturing you about the other noticeboard that you should have put your request on. Just a pet peeve of mine. My point here, though, is that you didn't really need any kind of discussion or consensus at all. You could have just been bold and done it. The surprising thing is that three people voted here without realising they were voting for a GFDL violation: but then that isn't really that surprising, is it? Wikipedia has changed over the years I've been involved with it: the deletion process is far more prominent, vandalism and self-promotion are far more noticable (as befits such a high profile website, I suppose). But being bold and just plodding on with the editing seem to be a far less prominent aspect of the whole exercise. That's what I think, anyway. Now, before I started rambling like this I'm sure there was something I wanted to say. Oh, yes... AndyJones (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... SPEEDY CLOSE NOW if a nice admin would oblige? AndyJones (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DarkGDK.Net

[edit]
DarkGDK.Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Currently a copy of DarkBASIC »xytram« talk 13:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add WP:NOTMANUAL it is now turning in to a HOWTO guide. --Triwbe (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, as the article violates the policy against the publication of original research.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Interval Locality

[edit]
Proper Interval Locality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely unreferenced OR apparently by the author of a website of the same name, so the article may also be falling foul of WP:COI SpinningSpark 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, provisionally. A quite long, unreferenced article claiming to have solved some of the basic problems of physics. I cheerfully admit that I lack the qualifications to address the merits of the hypothesis, but it certainly seems like original research, and if this hypothesis has any degree of currency, sources should be added fairly easily also. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, this is a duplicate of another website placed there by its author. The article has no references and no notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails basic notability guidelines. Scientific hypotheses should be peer-reviewed or have significant media exposure to be considered notable. I see no evidence of either. As it stands now, this is pure original research. Nufy8 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted (criterion A7 - Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance) byUser:Redvers (non-admin close). Guest9999 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarbjit sohal

[edit]
Sarbjit sohal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CITE, possibly WP:OR »xytram« talk 13:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and rewrite, as there is no consensus on whether to delete the article, but there does appear to be consensus that the article in its current form is unacceptable. It appears that rewriting has already started. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image conversion

[edit]
Image conversion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was PRODded as a "non-notable phenomenon", but since image conversion happens all the time, I'm not so sure. Consider this a "25% delete, 75% merge to some topic somewhere" !vote. I'm a little bit confused - would this topic be too self-explanatory to be needed at all? And if not so, is it merge-worthy to some more informative article, or should it stay until we have something substantial on document conversion in general, or what? I'm sorry I can't make a too coherent argument for or against... and moreso, I'm even more confused because I myself instructed the article creator to work on "general" topics before tackling ReaSoft Image Converter, so I may have dug this hole myself and I don't know, in my current mental state, how to handle this. So I honestly think something should be done, but I'd definitely want to hear what the community has to say. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral As stated above, in it's current form it is a how to. Rewrite it to something more encyclopedia like and I think it would be good. Tabor (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have made some updates to the article, specifically fixing the how-to feel in an attempt to make it more encyclopedic. I think it has enough merit to save it, unless there is another article that has the same information. HatlessAtless (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The user who started this article did so as a way to back-door his "ReaSoft" spam articles as "examples" of image conversion. If this topic is notable as a means of explaining how images are converted between formats (without being a section of a broader topic), then it can be recreated from a much more broad and useful beginning than the current incarnation. ju66l3r (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently in a different incarnation per my attempts to change it. It no longer has any content related to ReaSoft. Any suggestions on other content to include to improve it? HatlessAtless (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While a good article of the same title could be written, I don't think any of the current content could be useful for that (other than words such as "a" and "the", of course ;-) --Itub (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per basically a "unanimous vote" from legitimate editors.--JForget 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Dylan

[edit]
Heather Dylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

None of the references provided are valid. A google search only brings up headlines with no stories, links to nowhere and forum discussions. There is nothing to support the claims. Daffidd (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had also forgot to mention in my comment above that this particular article has been created and deleted twice in the last two or so days and that if the outcome of this discussion means that the article is deleted, I request that this article be salted also. AngelOfSadness talk 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, convinced revising is worth a shot.~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say-Maybe if anything, it could find it's place at wikipedia, perhaps as a stub.Kittenzrctexox5 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see a solidly sourced article on a living person in here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and lacking in reliable sources. I'm not even convinced that the subject of this article exists, or that any sentence in this article is completely true. I note that the supporters of this article have been trying to edit the article by deleting the more poorly sourced statements, but if they keep that up, the article will be completely empty soon. (For example, the citation to a Rolling Stone issue refers to a cover date for which the magazine did not actually publish an issue.) On a separate note, I am concerned that there may be a situation in which the same person has submitted more than one "keep" recommendation in this discussion using different usernames. If that has happened, it would be a gesture of good faith for such a person to strike out any of their duplicative recommendations, because submitting multiple recommendations in the same discussion under different names is a violation of policy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My beef with this article is that they have not proven to me that Jakob Dylan adopted a daughter. Fixing up the article, etc is immaterial if they cannot prove this. Each day I read the official Bob Dylan and Jakob Dylan websites, and search for any article or interview I can find. There has never even been a hint of such an adoption taking place (let alone a musical collaboration). This is clearly a hoax in my opinion. Daffidd (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment- I feel sorry if you think he needs to broadcast his personal life to the world, and his adoption much like the jolie-pitts or madonna. As a true fan, you should know the entire family is very top secret. So naturally there isnt going to be a plethora of sources.( i'm sorry if that remark was out of line. It needed to be said). In my opinion, this article would fit best as a stub. Really short and to the point.And I know I've already posted on here. Jjonjonjon (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think you are missing the point if you think that Daffidd expects Jakob Dylan to broadcast his personal life to the world. You say that the family is "very top secret", but you created an article about someone who you describe as Jakob's adopted daughter, even though she has never been in the public eye. So even if this article were verifiably true, the article might still warrant deletion to respect the privacy of the subject and her family. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- ok I understand the reason why it might be deleted due to privacy concerns. But I can't take someone sitting here telling me she isn't real when she has been on Bob Dylan's radio talk show numerous times. So, if it may be deleted, let it be because of privacy. I didn't "create" the article though. I reestablished it once. that's all. I did not make it in the beginning.And I still vote that it works best as a stub article, with little information. That is more private. I thought I was doing a good thing by defending a person who deserves credit for things she has done. Sorry, don't bite my head off. Jjonjonjon (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This appears to be a geneological entry for a budding or would-be starlet. I feel that the subject fails WP:BIO, having no achievements of her own. It also fails WP:NOT, which states "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not... [2] Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." Having potential is not a valid 'keep' argument, as it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She has been on Instant Star and has written songs for them. How isn't that an achievement? Jjonjonjon (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhat is that? That is not an official site for instant star wake up!. YOU ALL CAN GO SUCK ON SOME ASS WIPES!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjonjonjon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You need to get improving those references, then. I clicked on the citation for that assertion, and that was the site I found. Please don't tell me to wake up when you are the one who's asloop. ;-) But then, as this appears more and more like a hoax, even you wouldn't be able to manufacture the citations to satisfy the AfD. You would be well advised to desist with the personal attacks. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Jjonjonjon warned for the comment above and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jjonjonjon filed. Iagree with letting this play out to be sorted once and for all. Suggest it then be salted. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete! I know I have already spoken about this topic, but I have changed my mind. Heather Dylan just does not have enough references that are accredited. This article is in violation of the various terms of conditions like others have stated above. I believe, she also is a possible future starlet, but in the present, a page for her is not necessary.Wikipedia does not act as a family tree, and until she does something newsworthy she should not have an entry on wikipedia. I have tried improving this article, but seeing how the Dylan's are a family very concerned with privacy and safety, my search hasn't brought up many sources. I also second the fact that since they are so low key, they might not appreciate an article written about one of their children( which , also may explain why they haven't told the public they've adopted[to the poster above]) I am now in favor of deletion of this page. (I must apologize for changing my opinion the wrong way, for some reason my previous post didn't show up when I clicked edit, so I started a new one at the bottom). Thanks for reading what I think!Kerrylionberry (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references given support the facts they are linked to - except TV.com which is editable by anybody. -Hunting dog (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: In reference to Jjonjonjon's claim that Heather Dylan has appeared on Bob Dylan's radio show several times. I've listened to each one of them. Many of them more than once. No one by the name of Heather Dylan has appeared on this show, nor has mention been made of her. If you have the title or date the show was aired, I'd be happy to check again. Once again, I maintain this to be a hoax.

Daffidd (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. No notability demonstrated. Black Kite 23:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Wars

[edit]
Eternal Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability (WP:N), no references independent or otherwise (WP:V). Web search shows the usual bevy of directory entries and forum discussion; nothing to satisfy notability guidelines. As a browser-based game it may qualify for speedy A7, but I wanted to give it a chance here. Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge to Sonny Terry for the time being, alloweing recreation if/when sources can be found. Note that I've fixed the title by removing the quotes to prevent a double redirect.Black Kite 23:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Jabo

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

Editor removed prod tag with "unreliable proponent" - odd, since three people had prod-2'd it. Anyway, here we are at an AfD, then. Non-notable song, unsourced, appears to be original research. Tan | 39 15:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the Google hits. I never would nominate something like this without doing at least a moderate amount of research first. I should be more specific above - by "non-notable", I meant that I didn't find that it met the applicable part of WP:MUSIC: "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." If this song can be shown to meet the above criteria, of course this AfD should be closed as a speedy keep. Tan | 39 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True that. We just need someone with a book or something. I'll alert WP:Music Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect titles. This was easier than I thought it was going to be. The consensus here is strongly in favor of deleting these three articles, but maintaining the history and merging the content. The three articles will no longer be stand alone articles, the basic information has already been moved over to the "List of..." After closing this, I will be redirecting the three articles to the List, keeping the histories intact for mining info, and per GFDL. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chianti (Case Closed)

[edit]
Chianti (Case Closed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As an editor in the Case Closed series, I don't consider this character having any off-universe notability in the foreseeable future. A short summary of this character already exists at List of Case Closed characters. Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate two similar articles for deletion due to the same reason:

Korn (Case Closed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tequila (Case Closed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cian Hughton

[edit]
Cian Hughton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:BIO Athlete. Hasn't played a professional game. Govvy (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD should always be the last resort to any article you deem is unencyclopedic - if you can do anything else of use (such as edit the article to make it encyclopedic, mark it as a CSD, mark it as a prod, mark it as a transwiki, etc.) then you should always do that first. In this case, the guy's dad is clearly notable, so instead of taking this article, which very obviously fails WP:ATHLETE, through the AfD process, it would have been easier for you to just redirect it. ugen64 (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

He recently played for Lincln City, 2 games in a row —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.160.125 (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2009 (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. There was no support to retain this article since the information contained here is available elsewhere. Further, it is wholly unsourced. TerriersFan (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First basketball league

[edit]
First basketball league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article's content is duplicated at Nba#History in a much better fashion and the two leagues mentioned also have their own articles. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN, most of the information already in the basketball article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of the 1898 professional league would be worthy of an article, and the NBBL is described in Neft and Cohen's Encyclopedia of Pro Basketball (and no article seems to have been made). This one has a title that nobody would search for, and virtually no information, and so I don't see any reason to keep it. No prejudice to recreating an article entitled "National Basketball League (1898)". Mandsford (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - as per unanimous vote it is delete --JForget 23:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot100Brasil

[edit]
Hot100Brasil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These charts show up on countless album and song pages, yet it is completely unofficial and is created by some anonymous person. The article is unreferenced and does not assert notability as far as I can see. Article itself states, "It is important to know that it is an amateur site, unofficial and according to most chart experts, not realistic at all. The charts are compiled and published weekly by an unknown amateur." Huh? How would this be more notable than any other music fan's personal chart thrown onto a website? Thoughts/opinions? - eo (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating
List of year-end number-one hits (Brazil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 2001 (Brazil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 2002 (Brazil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 2003 (Brazil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 2004 (Brazil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 2005 (Brazil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 2007 (Brazil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 2008 (Brazil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment : The Hot100Brasil page was created by InternationalHit2. The version as of March 3, 2007 said : "The official Brazilian music charts are currently compiled by Hot100Brasil on behalf of the Brazilian record industry and are published weekly." Apparently, the page has been vandalized several times by anonymous users who absolutely wanted to say that this chart was not official and not realistic. Who is right ? Europe22 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Arguments for deletion are made more convincing because both sources utilised include fairly trivial references to Blake, therefore I'm forced to assume she fails "significant press coverage". Dweller (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Blake

[edit]
Judith Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. Contested prod. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable politician - compare to deletion after AfD for Elizabeth Shenton, also current councillor and previous parliamentary candidate, though in high-profile byelection. PamD (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POLITICIAN as former Deputy Leader of Leeds City Council [19] As well as meeting the notability guideline for this subject, the article also satisfies our core policies through the use of reliable sources. Catchpole (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She doesn't actually pass WP:POLITICIAN, which would require sginificant press coverage, namely "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". Apart from that, being a former deputy leader of a City Council doesn't confer notability in itself. On that basis, any postholder in a City Council ruling group (and that's a lot of councillors) would be notable. This is the reason why even mayors of provincial UK authorities aren't inherently notable. Black Kite 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Kite and WP:POLITICIAN. Qworty (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As the creator of this article, it was originally put in place to link to and from Leeds North West. However, on review of the notability guidelines, the bio should be in a list of Labour party candidates, per WP:AFDP. I don't think such a page is yet in existence though. LNWWatcher (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even ordinary members of major city councils have been held notable, at least for those in the US. At 750,000 population, Leeds is probably sufficiently large for the purpose, though we have no agreed cut off, many of the ones kept have been considerably smaller. DGG (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Tryl

[edit]
Luke_Tryl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This person does not (yet) deserve an encyclopedic entry. The only noteworthy thing he has done is described in the Oxford Union article already. Being a president of a student society is not very interesting per se. Delete this article. Especially the stupid bit about coming 10th in the country in A-level politics, I mean, who cares? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeBofSportif (talk • contribs) 2008/06/03 11:50:08

Not sure why he'd deserve a page - he was President of a student society which has 3 Presidents a year and the only notable thing he did is extensively covered in the article on the Oxford Union. If a page was to be made for every President of the Oxford Union after they left office then we'd end up with a very unencyclopaedic list very quickly. Delete. 129.67.10.100 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Fox

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

Extremely dubious article, possible self-promotion. No evidence on Google or IMDB that this person, supposedly an actor, even exists. Strangest of all, the vast majority of the article does not appear to be about a "Martin Fox" (or even a male) whatsoever. Rather, it is completely plagiarized from the Stacie Orrico article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obamania

[edit]
Obamania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable neologism. --Mass147 (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Bryan

[edit]
Victor Bryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person has not been in any movies released to the public as of yet. Mblumber (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Tikiwont (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadrakali High School, Gokarna

[edit]
Bhadrakali High School, Gokarna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (schools) Triwbe (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Really? Not according to Wikipedia:Notability (schools). --Triwbe (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
which is a a proposed Wikipedia guideline, and above is one of the discussed points.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not sure what you mean with 'testing' but this particular article has problems. My own Google search barely convinces me of its existence, and WP:SCHOOLS can of course be quoted and provide advice for cases, namely pointing at an alternative editorial solution if there isn't anything to write about, so I'd say redirect to Gokarna for now. Whether presumed notable or not, WP:V is still an applicable policy here. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there have always been major sourcing problems with schools in India and the surrounding region since, in the main, they do not have web sources and we therefore have to rely on local searches since it is important to avoid systemic bias. However, I agree that to meet WP:V we need to confirm the existence of the subject and I have added a source to do this. I have also found a notable alumnus. TerriersFan (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I even declined speedy for one of the notable alumni without making the connection.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Orrico

[edit]
Tobias Orrico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Like another AfD article created by the same user, this appears to be a test, hoax, self-promotion, etc. In any case, it's non-notable and, like the aforementioned other AfD article, is nearly a verbatim duplicate of the Stacie Orrico article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Does it count as copyvio if it is a copy of another wiki article? Either way this is a definite Speedy Delete as misinformation (i.e Hoaxes) are speedable as vandalism. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen van den Broeck

[edit]
Jeroen van den Broeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arturs Vaiculis

[edit]
Arturs Vaiculis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatesy1988 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 4 June 2008


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gallacher

[edit]
Scott Gallacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 so keep. These articles have improved, but they still need work. Bduke (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Wiatt

[edit]
Elizabeth Wiatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant conflict of interest advertising. Also included in this nomination, her friend and Fashionology LA partner Jamie Tisch

This is a biography of a living person most likely created by her or an employee (possibly a PR firm) for publicity purposes. The charity activities are wholly ordinary for the wife of an entertainment industry executive in Los Angeles as are blurbs in the local glossy press. While the article makes some modest assertions about jobs she once had in the publishing industry, past employment at mass market magazines is not in itself notable or encyclopedic. The article is wholly unsourced and after skiving off the not-sourced and the un-notable, there is nothing left but blatant advertising linked with this thrice speedily deleted and now salted attempt to promote her new fashion/clothing store on Wikipedia with this nifty slogan as the article's content: n. Where it's cool to be u. Glamorous fun :)! Express yourself. 4 real. Fabulous. Fashion Freedom. You! Gwen Gale (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep as I've said in multiple places now, here for one. I don't think a rush to delete is necessarily warranted. Elizabeth wiatt is salted because Rdeluca doesn't or doesn't want to understand that it was moved to the proper spelling. That said, Wiatt and Tisch and their work in fashion have been covered in reliable sources. I don't think poor current quality of the articles is a reason to delete them right now as there are no BLP issues and there's material from which to write a proper article. Even the brand is starting to get some coverage and will likely be notable once it launches. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't think those links show them as noted for "their work in fashion" at all. I see passing mentions about LA society wives and a publicity plant or two about a retail store in Beverly Hills. One even calls them "Hollywood wives." I have yet to see anything approaching the wide coverage mentioned in WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, that's why I said weak. Lord knows I spent enough time trying to track down the source of the current articles because they're copyvios of something, it just happens not to be online or Google hasn't found it. The summary for this said she co-hosted a fashion show, founding member of NRDC Action Forum (no idea what it is, couple others mention her in that context as well). For Tisch: a previous small store, another calls Tisch a boutique owner. Neither is strong and they may well not be notable, but there's some RS coverage of their actions apart from society functions. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the effectual added content that might possibly matter are 2 articles in Variety. FWIW, The Luxist ref. is the only one about Fashionology, saying May 14, 2008, that, "This summer in Beverly Hills, two Hollywood wives, Elizabeth Wiatt and Jamie Tisch are launching Fashionology LA, " so the company at least is not yet notable.DGG (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the company is notable, it seems that she is at least somewhat notable herself. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least do some more cleanup? It's still quite weak, reeks of the society columns, and remains pathetically in need of wikification. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - still requires some serious cleanup, but seems like a reasonable article - could be re-examined in a couple months. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no longer an ad, but still not notable --T-rex 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Elizabeth Wiatt - I simply don't see the notability - founding a nn company certainly doesn't do it. Perhaps the most important claim "raised over 15 million dollars for environmental and student education causes" is unsourced. Frankly, it looks promotional. TerriersFan (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (both), while I appreciate the efforts by T.Cari and Le Grande Roi, I feel compelled to agree with DGG and TerriersFan. This article got off to a bad start, has definitely been improved, but in the end, just feels very much like a non-notable entry. I'm convincible, but not convinced. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jamie Tisch - also promotional. What seems to have happened is that a series of routine positions have been strung together to try to produce a notable whole. It fails. TerriersFan (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per secondary sources via Google News. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - hits exist to show notability; I wish they weren't concentrated in Variety and Hollywood Reporter, but that doesn't mean notability isn't there. Having said that - the article definitely needs attention.  Frank  |  talk  00:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 5 Delete Opinions (4 normal; 1 weak; TerriersFan's two opinions, one about each of the remaining nominated articles, were counted as one) / 5 Keep Opinions (2 normal; 3 weak). All with argument. Deleters point to tone and COI. Keepers point to notability despite those issues. Cleanup and long delay didn't alter consensus. New opinions continue to be 50/50. I'd say this should close as no consensus to delete. (I am not participating in the discussion with an opinion, only attempting to put my finger on the pulse of consensus.) I am considering a non-admin close for lack of consensus to delete. Any objections? AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I say go for it.  Frank  |  talk  01:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacine Cherif

[edit]
Lacine Cherif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing but original research and a picture gallery. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Supercar

[edit]
Japanese Supercar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Largely POV essay on Japanese sports cars. tgies (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Attacking" the article? Perhaps I just want to improve the encyclopedia. Seems to me you might be skirting the edge of not assuming good faith yourself. At any rate, if an article's topic is inherently inappropriate, I don't see anything wrong with AfDing it. And it's not as though an AfD is a death sentence for an article. It generates discussion about the article, it inspires attempts by interested parties to improve the article, and eventually a consensus on whether or not the article should stay. It's just process at work. I think it's fallacious to assume an AfD listing is necessarily a Bad Thing. tgies (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And WP:AGF doesn't mean what you seem to think it means: assuming good faith (i.e. assuming that users are not acting maliciously in the absence of actual cut-and-dry malicious activity) isn't the same thing as "showing good faith in the creator of the article". tgies (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), this is clearly notable and meets WP:MUSIC. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunpilots

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

Band does not meet WP:MUSIC. Two awards mentioned appear minor. Only one album release. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject of this article does not meet WP:BIO. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbie Nice

[edit]
Bobbie Nice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable softball player. Google search for "Bobbie Nice" + softball yields only one non-Wikipedia mention, which is a list of Senior Softball teams and players. Gr1st (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The criterion in WP:BIO refers to "the highest level in amateur sports," not "the highest level in amatuer sports for the person's age bracket." Play in a senior league isn't relevant to meeting this standard. BRMo (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manifestations of a giant (album)

[edit]
Manifestations of a giant (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm pretty sure this is a hoax due to the complete absense of any google hits apart from one forum post from yesterday. Even if it's not a hoax the information looks to be speculation for which reliable sources will not be found. Guest9999 (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was history merged. Article deleted and restored as part of a history merge with the new article. The original article could not be deleted as it was at some point used to create a segment of Minor places in Arda and its retention is necessary for GFDL compliance as set out at Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Door of Night

[edit]
Door of Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was previously a redirect to information on a page. An article has been created on that information, but the article uses an incorrect name. The article needs this namespace. J.T Pearson (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the parent band does not satisfy WP:MUSIC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Decade (band)

[edit]
Art Decade (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced band article with very tenuous claims of notability. The article claims they "made it onto the initial ballot" for a few Grammy awards, but that sounds to me like something anyone can do if they fill out a form or two. They've made a few records, but at a glance they appear to be low budget/self-produced/MySpace affairs. The Googling wasn't promising. This appears to be another band that isn't there yet, but thinks Wikipedia can help get them there. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think I will be. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Inch Deep Oceans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Androgyny Is In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Perpetual Motion (Art Decade Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Innocence/Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enson Sakuraki

[edit]
Enson Sakuraki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy due to assertions of notability. However nothing on Google (a poor test but a quick one). On review seems to fail our notability guidelines Pedro :  Chat  08:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry hall every career goal

[edit]
Barry hall every career goal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant to Barry Hall John Vandenberg (chat) 08:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Armory

[edit]
Hudson Armory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable building --Gimlei (talk to me) 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are not judging architecture here! In two years this building will have housed a national guard for 100 years. Non notable?. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. National Guard of Massachusetts is indeed notable, but that does not make notable the building that has been hosting various units thereof. At best, this should be merged into the article on the National Guard, but I think that the building itself, without reference to the guard, is not important enough to have its own article. --Gimlei (talk to me) 08:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a merge can be supported. The building itself may indeed be notable (I never disputed that), but the extremely limited information available about it, combined with the current sparsity of the Massachusetts National Guard article, leads me to the opinion that they'd be better off combined, with a redirect. I agree that a delete is not justified, yes, but a merge seems perfectly reasonable - without prejudice to a split in future if it's warranted. ~ mazca talk 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barring the outcome of the AFD, a merge could be discussed on the article's talk page. However deleting the article and its history for the purposes of a merge would not be constructive. MrPrada (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope nobody's suggesting deleting then merging, because that isn't possible under the GFDL. I would take "merge" votes to mean "merge and redirect", which keeps the history intact. ~ mazca talk 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Rare Trax

[edit]
Ultra Rare Trax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unofficial bootleg album. Not notable Nat Miller (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NIRVANA Ultra Rare Trax Volume 3

[edit]
NIRVANA Ultra Rare Trax Volume 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unofficial bootleg album. Not notable. Nat Miller (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus as to whether the article meets the WP:WEB guidelines. All very unsatisfactory I'm sure, but such is AfD. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter Fan Zone

[edit]
Harry Potter Fan Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable fan site. There is nothing here that satisfies WP:WEB.  Asenine  11:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singularity 05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not one of our garden-variety Harry Potter fansites. HPFZ has won the jkrowling fan site award in 2007 - source. This makes the website meets WP:WEB criterion 2 because (a) it's an independent award (given by book author - J.K.Rowling) and (b) it's an arguably notable award (winners are reported by the media e.g CTV Newsnet - source) Also, I think the site satisfies WP:WEB criterion 3 since its content was "selected for preservation by the National Library of Australia" - source (see also the Pandora archive). (Sorry for commenting late and for troubling the original closing admin forcing them into relisting ;))--PeaceNT (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the awards that PeaceNT found. I'm glad he thought of doing the work to find the information, and I wish the nom had actually checked, intead of nominating as "does not seem to be notable". DGG (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no substantial coverage, still fails WP:WEB as the JK Rowling is not a publication or organization. And it's not very notable, only getting a slight mention in that interview.--Otterathome (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment G’day all. My name's Andy and I'm the founder of said "non-notable fan site". I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia protocol, but would like to offer my two cents in regards to why this website is in fact noteworthy. These are just my comments – if you still feel so strongly about the article's hasty removal, then so be it. Harry Potter Fan Zone received the J.K. Rowling fan site award in 2007 – one of only a handful that the author has given out (source). At the same time, the author answered questions from an open letter we at the site wrote on her official website (source). As mentioned above, the site was approached for inclusion by the National Library of Australia where it is now regularly archived (source). In terms of mentions by a "reputable publication", both the site and I were profiled in the Canberra Times in February of 2007. You may or may not be aware that Canberra is the capital city of Australia, and the Canberra Times its main publication. The article was featured on the front-page. A copy of the article was available at the paper's website until literally days ago (what fantastic timing), but I have a copy archived on the fan site (source). Secondly, both the site and I were profiled in the Sydney Morning Herald in July of 2007 (source). This was the time of the launch of the seventh Harry Potter book. The site helped host a launch party at Dymocks' flagship store in Sydney (source), which received significant media coverage. The site has also been mentioned in passing or as a reference by ABC News (source) and various other publications, though I'm afraid I don't have source information for any of these minor mentions. We've also been invited by Warner Bros. to cover the red carpet premieres of the last three Harry Potter films, and were invited to a day-long media visit at Leavesden Studios earlier this year. I can provide links to coverage if necessary. Whilst I understand the article in question does not mention a number of these facts, a quick Google search would have revealed much of the above information. I therefore submit that the site is in fact notable and not just another run-of-the-mill fan website. If necessary, I would be happy to do a complete rewrite of the article to conform to whatever standards Wikipedia obviously demands.--AndyHPFZ (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (At least weak) keep per PeaceNT and AndyHPFZ and because I fear a little (unconscious) systematic bias against an Australian website (local Australian news are hard to get by for an American and all). It would probably be safer to add the sources and their encyclopedic content to the article. – sgeureka t•c 19:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability demonstrated by PeaceNT, and a bucket of thanks to him for putting in the elbow grease to dig those links up. Ford MF (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NovaPDF

[edit]
NovaPDF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable software with no reliable secondary sourcing establishing notability. Also, article was created and maintained by user named for the software developer responsible for the software (huge COI problem). ju66l3r (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as patent nonsense. JIP | Talk 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy osborne

[edit]
Timothy osborne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a hoax. Editor has used false edit summary to remove a prod tag. (I realize this isn't grounds for deletion, but it does indicate bad faith on the part of the creator.) External links lead to unrelated pages and article is internally inconsistent. (ie It's impossible for a composer born in the 1900s to have been part of the Classical era.) Gimme danger (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately hoaxes do not fall under the WP:CSD and the editor removed the prod tag. (as well as the afd tag several times) Gimme danger (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Bduke (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Moss III

[edit]
Otis Moss III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reverend Wright is notable, Barak Obama is notable, is the pastor hired after the last guy quit notable? Only mentions I can find of him are in conjunction with Wright and Obama...notability is not conferred by relationships. Perhaps a merge into the article about the Church until more is written about Pastor Otis outside of the Presidential race? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article about church. No independent notability as yet. May be in the future, but not yet.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject hasn't received substantial independent, and seems to fall into Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event guideline. Mentions such as this in the Wall Street Journal, and this in the Washington Post only mention him tangentially as part of Obama's relationship with the church, and do go beyond trivial coverage. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Chetblong. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. No non-trivial references in reliable sources. Dweller (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Richard De Saint Sauveur I

[edit]
Richard De Saint Sauveur I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

French noble of dubious notability. Article cites "He is known to his family as being a man of "Great Renown" for his deeds of service to the Pope." Just because he's notable to his family doesn't make him notable to us. Also, article makes no mention of what his deeds were. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After a quick perusal of various sources, it's not clear the existence of this individual is reliably attested; this may be just an artifact of dubious genealogy striving to give the de Lacys a distinguished ancestry. Choess (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hakkyokuseiken

[edit]
Hakkyokuseiken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional fighting style from a video game series. Fails WP:Note and WP:RS...it caught my attention as the author started it with the fict tag at the top...but it doesn't show as a recreation in the logs. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Cuddy

[edit]
Christopher Cuddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person does not seem notable. Not mentioned in secondary sources and his books are not reviewed. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Consensus is that in the absence of reliable sourcing to verify, this subject does not meet notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESLARED

[edit]
ESLARED (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. This article was originally tagged for speedy deletion, then the CSD tag was removed, and then it was nominated for PROD. The author has contested deletion, so I'm bring this here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. No evidence of notability for this particular branch.. Dweller (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Islamic Research Academy

[edit]
Islamic Research Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable  Chzz  ►  03:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So since when is it offensive to speak about pork front of muslims, then?
  • Weak delete The first paragraph has simply been copied from ISRA website. There's nothing notable about the article. It is blatantly promoting the ISRA. Their might be some significance we are not aware off but if the article remains as it is then it should be deleted.Ziphon (ALLears) 04:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The article is badly written without assertion of notability. However, Google news reveals some (although not very reliable) sources, and it seems to be mentioned by a lot of websites. — Wenli (reply here) 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the news mention the islamic research academy in egypt. But in the wikipedia article, is only about the IRSA in London. I'm not to sure if there's link between the two.Ziphon (ALLears) 02:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that any article on the practice should more properly be located at crurifragium and that this term, "crucifrature" is insufficiently notable for a stand-alone. Retitling is not a solution, given the current state of the article. No merge is necessary, as the best current target for the article (crucifixion) (now) includes a more verifiably sourced reference to the proper term. After deletion, I will create a redirect, as Dhartung quite properly points out that it is commonly used enough to constitute a possible search term (and it is specialized enough that someone might be searching). As a personal note, Lima, I've looked very hard for some reference to support your theory so that I could incorporate that into crucifixion also. I've failed so far. It sounds quite persuasive to me. Notes and Queries is over there. :) If it publishes, let me know, so I can use it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifracture

[edit]
Crucifracture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a phrase from a passing mention in a single book; I don't see notability here, and find it hard to imagine this becoming a constructive article  Chzz  ►  03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to crucifixion. Google Books shows it in use, but always sourced to a 1965 paper, and I can find no classical uses of the term. (On the other hand, there are a handful that use the term crurifrangium.) Although it could be sourced, I just don't see this as a separate enough topic; it's just one way to terminate a crucifixion early (merciful, punitive, and merely efficient instances are all attested). --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not have access to the one original source that various derivative sources, possibly copying from one another, quote for the existence of the term in the sense given to it in the article: they all quote it in exactly the same way: Barbet P: A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Out Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon, Earl of Wicklow (trans) Garden City, NY, Doubleday Image Books 1953, pp 12-18 37-147, 159-175, 187-208. Nor do I have access to Barbet's original text in French. If "crucifraction" is indeed found in the Doubleday edition, it must surely be a misprint for, at best, "crurifraction", or possibly for the technical term in Latin, "crurifragium", which I think Barbet will certainly have used. "Crucifraction" would mean "cross-breaking", while "crurifraction" would mean "leg-breaking". For use of the term "crurifragium", see for instance the Britannica article on crucifixion and The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. ("Crurifrangium" in Dhartung's comment is a simple typographical error). In summary, it is out of place to have an article in an encyclopedia about a word that seems to be certainly a misprint. (Yes, I know there is an Irish heavy metal band that has taken the name "Crucifraction"; but I do not think it is at all notable.) Lima (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What Lima says above I do not dispute. But crurifragium as a search term reveals a cornucopia of 19th century theology revolving around the implications of its use on the thieves but not Christ (or something like that). I now suspect that a fully sourced article on the correctly spelled term is possible. On the current name, however, we are at best perpetuating what Lima appropriately characterizes as a likely misprint. Since it's used by reliable sources, though, I still think it's worth retaining as a search term. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Too many problems with reliable sourcing.-Wafulz (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bucknell Pong

[edit]
Bucknell Pong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This variant of beer pong has 5 Google hits, 3 or 4 of which are on or about Wikipedia. The citations on the page are not really about Bucknell Pong. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a google search of articles where both "Bucknell" and "pong" both exist gets over 7,800 hits. Of course not all of these are about pong as played at bucknell, but a sizable number are.LedRush (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the term "Bucknell Pong" is not a defined term, just like Dartmouth Pong. That there is a different form of pong, that Bucknell has played a prominent position in it, and that Bucknell's versions are influential (more than any school other than Dartmouth) are the important factors. Using google search doesn't really address this, and it seems largely superfluous to the question of whether this deserves its own entry.LedRush (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a drinking game, and it has no sources to show it exists, not even blogs. "Dartmouth pong" has 443 Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except, of course, the sources that say it exists. And the ones that say it was instrumental in the formation of other forms of pong. And the sources that say it was very popular by the mid-80s. Except for those sources, yea... LedRush (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't say it exists as a special variant. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. "Stubby, however, supposedly admitted that he adapted the game in 1983 from a form he observed at Bucknell." If he adapted Beirut from a form of pong that he observed at Bucknell, it means that Bucknell's version was both different and influential.LedRush (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more cites to show a different version of pong was played at Bucknell and that it is notable.LedRush (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with beer pong if proper sourcing can be located Two of the sources in this article mention Bucknell University trivially, one doesn't mention Bucknell at all, one is a Bucknell message board, and the fifth source is a dead link. The existing beer pong article has a Bud Pong section and that could be reshaped into a variants section. Townlake (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the broken link, and all the cites back up the information as they should. Please see the previous discusstion on why this article can't be merged with Pong at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NawlinWiki/Archive_22 , but basically the idea is that the rules of this game are too long, and the inclusion of Bucknell Pong would dominate the article. Right now people can go to Beer Pong to learn about the general history, and then go to the Dartmouth or Bucknell pages to learn more about specifics (for example, if they wanted to play the game themselves). That can't feasibly be done in a "variants" section. However, I think a variant section is a good idea for brief intros that will point people to the detailed rules and histories.LedRush (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah, I made up one of the most ridiculously complicated set of rules on a lark, and went back in time to plant articles about that made up game. As per Wikipedia rules, please assume good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith .LedRush (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bucknell Pong obviously exists, and the citations prove what the article says. Don't delete the article! We just played it at our reunion! Cmourikis (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The following was left on the discussion board:

Bucknell Pong was already a long standing tradition when I was introduced to it in '94. Rules have only been formally documented recently which would explain it's lack of Google hits. For most of Bucknell Pong's existence, the rules were just passed on from player to player. It created such a following that tournaments have sprung up in PA, NJ, NY, and CT. I can't see how something with such a wide spread following doesn't warrant a Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.204.234 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to agree with that anony saying that I have participated in tournies as far away as Shanghai China. Of course these events are not documented in newspapers, but the article does have enough cites to withstand deletion suggestions.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I have added another two citations to the article which demonstrates its notability as a distinct game. I really believe that this game is something that traditionally wouldn't have showed up in written works as "Bucknell Pong" but as "Pong" or "Beer Pong", and so it's harder to get cites. While I believe that the article has enough cites to prove that the game exists and is notable, I have already found more cites in just the last couple of days. If we give it more time, the article will continue to improve, both in language and citations.LedRush (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two of those "sources" are links back to the Wikipedia article itself. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, they cite to the article saying that this was how they played the game that they talked about. You seem to be under the false impression that sources need to be exclusively about a subject. Of course that is not right. Sources are used to back up specific statements. In this case, the sources are proof that Bucknell Pong was mentioned at the radio show's website. They clearly do that. Because they link to the Wikipedia article, it is an independent verification that they played this particular version of the game. Given the popularity of the show and the website, that link buttresses my argument that the subject is notable.LedRush (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article should stay. It is well written, it describes the game exactly as I remember it, and it is a legitimate variant that I have seen played even outside of Bucknell's campus. The fact that it doesn't get a lot of hits on Google may reflect that it was popularized before the internet existed and was passed down by "word of mouth." Now that this Wiki article exists, I think that more people that played the game will back up what the article says. Give it a little time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I61164 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. I will be able to use this to help reduce the number of disputes that I can run into during an evening of pong. I would get some dirty looks if I carry the rule book with me next time I play, so instead I will email them the Wikipedia link afterward to prove my arguments. Great work. I'm curious to learn more about variations that developed from the Bucknell pong. Thanks. 69.143.11.1 (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Super[reply]

Why would anyone want to delete this article? It's a real game (I played it at Kappa Sig at Bucknell for 4 years), and it's a perfect documentation of it. Let them play, and let it stay!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.33.188 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Vote to keep the article, I went to Bucknell and this is the game I played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.3.144 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the rules of the game cannot be verified, that the game exists has been proven by several different sources and has survived scrutiny on the Dartmouth Pong page and the Beer Pong page.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bucknell's pong was instrumental in the formation of beer pong...this well-accepted and cited. There is no long list of rule sets, just this one. In contrast, the Dartmouth Pong article, which has escaped deletion, is basically a list of many types of pong.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was not around when the Dartmouth pong page was up for deletion, but I probably would have voted "delete" on that as well, or at least merge into a page on variants of beer pong. Spell4yr (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Could you respond to why the cites concerning the importance of pong at Bucknell in the formation of beer pong (the most popular beer game in the US) are not suitable for you? Or are they?LedRush (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links have proven beyond doubt it exists. It is mentioned as having been well-established by the mid 80's in one citations, it has been mentioned as being the popular version of the game on Philadelphia's leading morning show, and there are sources that credit it as the progenator of beer pong. I don't understand how people can still claim it doesn't exist in the face of all the evidence.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per Spell4yr below, you still have not addressed the WP:NFT point raised. I am not doubting that the game may exist; I am curious as to whether the game is verifiable by reliable sources and notable in some form. The links as I last saw them do not appear to support that the game is the progenator of beer pong. In addition, wikipedia is not a place for instruction manuals on games; it is a encylopedia. Fraud talk to me 22:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference on the page that relates to Bucknell beer pong is a reference to a portal site, which links back to wikipedia. Could you please inform me of what sources credit it as the source of beer pong, other than a link to the article itself. Fraud talk to me 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have provide a list of what the sources say below. Two of them credit Bucknell as the source of beer pong.LedRush (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I realize that the game has been around for a while, but there's no need to collect the rules here. Put the rules on a personal web page and let people find it out that way. Wikipedia is not a collection of rules of obscure games that people outside of Pennsylvania have never heard of. Spell4yr (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At first you want to delete it because it's made up, but then you concede that it's been in existance for a long time. I'm confused. The version of pong played at Bucknell is not obscure, in fact it is mentioned in many sources as influential in the formation of beer pong.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to convince me to change my mind. Take away the rules, which is the vast majority of the article, and you don't have much of an article left. Put this on a personal page, hell, put it on Userspace, but I still see no reason why this should be given its own article. Notice how I said "made up one day," not "made up last week." Whether it was made in 2008 or 1958, I still see no notability for this article. Spell4yr (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed that you have said that you cannot be objective on this issue. I could easily make an article on this without the rules, though I don't see why I have to. The notability here is that that beer pong at Bucknell is widely credited as being the progenator of beer pong. The game is still played by a large number of people.LedRush (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I would not be objective. After an objective analysis of the page and sources, I do not see notability. That's all. Please assume good faith and don't put words in my mouth that I never said. Spell4yr (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I have offended you, I am sorry. However, you said that I am "not going to convince you", despite the fact that I have provided indisputable evidence of the existence of a unique for of pong at Bucknell that was instrumental in the creation of beer pong and you have not allowed me to provide more. If no amount of evidence will convince you, to me, that means you cannot be objective. Perhaps you can prove me wrong by addressing my comments on the merits.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean (and this is my fault for not articulating this more clearly) is you're not going to convince me to change my mind based on the sources provided. If you can provide a reliable source (not a student newspaper or non-notable website) detailing this game and attributing this version of pong to Bucknell, I may be swayed. But with the evidence currently provided, I'm not going to change my mind. That's all I mean. I apologize if it seems I've not been acting in good faith, but I have tried to -- things don't always come out as intended when typed. Spell4yr (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this game has been played mutliple times outside of Pennsylvania. There is an annual tournament the weekend before Super Sunday, 3 years running, in Danbury CT. People outside of Bucknell have been exposed and have continued to play this. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmourikis (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't add anything to the discussion. I could attack obscure characters from 1990's video games as being stupid for a number of reasons, but if people are interested in reading about them and the info is well-cited, I don't see the problem.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you don't see the problem. You made the article. And no amount of meatpuppetry will distract us from this fact. JuJube (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what meatpuppetry is, but I assume you are again ignoring the issues and making personal attacks. Thanks.LedRush (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppetry is basically registering additional accounts to tip the scales of a debate such as this one. Considering there are three accounts and one IP whose sole edits are on this page, this is strong evidence of meatpuppetry. I'm not accusing you of doing it -- I'm assuming good faith -- but this would suggest that one person is responsible for each of those votes. Spell4yr (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: What Spell4yr just described is actually sockpuppetry. Meatpuppetry is similar except that friends or other like-minded individuals are recruited to support or oppose something. —Travistalk 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having people with different IP addresses and usernames is not evidence that one person is responsible....it is evidence that this article has generated interest in Wikipedia among people who usually don't have an interest. I assume their opinions will be discounted per Wikipedia policy, but suggesting that I am dishonest doesn't sound like you are assuming good faith. Your insuation doesn't make sense on a couple of levels: (1. how do you fake different IP addresses...perhaps it's possible, but I can barely figure out how to make my text bold on Wikipedia and still have troubles making correct citations; 2. If I had multiple accounts, wouldn't I have built up their credibility by editing other articles? Wouldn't I make them make some of the arguments that I am making here?) Your proposition doesn't assume good faith and fails the plausibility test.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the other "keep" votes don't help your case, and that's not your fault and out of your realm of control. Users without a vested interest in this article, with "Keep" rationales beyond "I've played it!", would strongly help save the article. And again, I am not accusing you of meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, or any other form of puppetry. But the other "keep" votes seem like they're from the same person, or the same group of people -- not you, but somebody or some group. I strongly suggest you move the rules and whatever to userspace or onto a personal webpage. Spell4yr (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am surprised at the personal nature of the attacks against this article. I am also surprised that people are condemning it despite apparently not really understanding it or its sourcse. I will try to address your misinterpretations and misunderstanding individually so that you (and others) can make more informed decisions about a game that had been proven to be both unique and influential in the formation of other variants of beer pong and of obvious interest to many people.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ok, here's a concern. Unless I'm overlooking something (always possible), the last two sources in the article don't mention "Bucknell Pong" at all. I didn't look at any of the other new ones, but for our benefit, can you tell us how many of those sources specifically reference "Bucknell Pong"? With respect, the fact that those last two are Bucknell-focused sources and don't use your term doesn't really support the idea this is a known game - quite the opposite, in fact. Townlake (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not missing anything: the last two sources were entered to show beer pong (and root beer pong) tournaments occur, not to prove the existence of a version of beer pong unique from others. I have other cites for that proposition. To be helpful, I'll list the cites (by number) and tell you what they're intended to demonstrate:
1. Show that pong with paddles started at Dartmouth
2. Show that there are different variants of beer pong (also shows that bucknell MAY have been a place where a new variant started.
3. Show that beer pong started in the 1950's (also shows that it was at dartmouth and that there are distinct variations on it.
4. Show that beer pong was played at bucknell in the late 1960's.
5. Show that Bucknell was well established at playing beer pong with paddles by the mid-1980's. It also shows that one especially popular form of beer pong was an adaptation of a version played at Bucknell. This proves, beyond doubt, that there is a "Bucknell Pong" and that it is highly influential.
6. Again, it shows that there was a unique form of pong played at Bucknell and that it was influential.
7. Show that the rules in the article are acknowledge to a wide audience of people as being those of "bucknell pong" and that it is notable enough for the listeners and fans of Philly's number one radio show.
8. Ditto 7, though I think the news article may have been pushed from the linked page....will search for later.
9. Demonstrates that international pong tournaments are held.
10. Show that pong can be played with root beer for underage players.
11. Ditto above, plus that the American Cancer Society doesn't find it necessary to distance itself from a pong tournament.
I hope that this list is helpful in alleviating your concerns about the article.
I would also like to say that the Dartmouth article survived deletion (and the beer pong (paddles) article is unchallenged) despite being a similar topic with similar sources.LedRush (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The sources I looked at just don't seem to establish in my mind the objective certainty they establish in yours. I have no doubt your intentions are good here, and I'm confident the game exists, I just don't see where it's gotten the level of independent and objective coverage necessary to support an article. Perhaps other editors will disagree with me; I'd certainly have no problem with that. Townlake (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I could provide literally dozens of sources to demonstrate that the game existed at Bucknell as a unique variant in the early 80's and was influential in shaping the more modern and dominant version of beer pong. However, I make the claim only once in the article, use two proofs of it here, and felt that it would be overkill to cite the same premise multiple times. Nor do I believe that wikipedia policy dictates that I do this. The cite is verifiable and suffient under wikipedia standards.LedRush (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources (the ones from the radio show) are simply links back to the Wikipedia page. That's not "sources" or "references" for any of the content in the article. When I go to grad school for meteorology, I will not be able to write a research paper on tornadoes and use as a reference my paper on tornadoes that I'm writing. Spell4yr (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You analogy falls a little flat. If you had a draft (yet published) report on tornados, and another, independent and verifiable source claimed that one of the facts in there was true, you could use that source in your new, final draft. The real problem with citing back to here is that someone could change the rules and it would look like the people at the most popular radio show in Philly referred to a game they didn't. However, for the purposes of our conversation, that is not relevant.LedRush (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the thread and the article before voting. I have explained several times that the game is notable both because of its wide use and because it is the progenitor of the most popular beer game in America. If you are going to discount my well sourced article, could you please explain why you think my explanations and sources aren't adequate? If beer pong is notable, how can the type of pong from which it was derived, and a game still widely played, not be notable?LedRush (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One - Please do not assume what I have or have not read. Two - I did no such thing as voting, I expressed my opinion. Three - It is not "your" article. Please read WP:OWN. Fourth - It's not that the sources in the article are inadequate, they do a fantastic job of sourcing information regarding "beer pong" and "Beirut". Fifth - Of the citations listed in the article, not a single one uses the phrase "Bucknell Pong". Claims that "beer pong" is a derivative of "bucknell pong" are extremely unteneble considering many of the sources discuss "beer pong" but none discuss "bucknell pong". Sixth - Being combative with each person who does not agree with your assessment of the situation is not helping to advance your position any. Arkyan 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for at least trying to address my points, though your condescending and personal attacks would be better omitted. 1. Ok, but I can only go on what you provide. If you give no reasons for ignoring sources and previous arguments, what am I to think that they are? 2. You voted for "delete" without stating why. No you are stating why, but becoming very picky with words. 3. Thank you again for being overly picky with words. I have not prevented the many edits to the article since I made it. It would reflect on you better if you could address my points and not red herrings. 4. We agree on one thing. 5. This type of statement again makes me think that you haven't read the enitre discussion. The term "Bucknell Pong" doesn't exist elsewhere because it is called pong there. Two sources (and many others available) say that "Stubby, however, supposedly admitted that he adapted the game in 1983 from a form he observed at Bucknell." If he adapted beer pong from a form of pong that he observed at Bucknell, it means that Bucknell's version was both different and influential. Without using the name "Bucknell pong", this proves that there was a unique form of pong which was developed at Bucknell which later morphed into beer pong. 6. I have not been combative, despite that people have called me "stupid", accused me of lying, and ignored my comments. I have tried only to get people not to attack the article just based on the title and to honestly address my points. Please re-read above.LedRush (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did give a reason for my original recommendation, and that was due to the fact that the sources do not establish notability for "Bucknell Pong". None of them do. What you are doing here is a classical case of synthesizing a new concept out of different sources, a type of original research. The fact that the term "Bucknell Pong" is not used in the sources indicates that the authors of the article have "invented" the term themselves, yet more original research. This is not acceptable. In order for the sourcing to be considered reliable and for notability to be established, the sources need to unequivocably deal with the subject at hand. That the sources given require significant interpretation in order to come to the conclusion you have reached is, again, indicative that the article is essentially a form of original research and unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Arkyan 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not original research and does not use synthesizing. "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." (from synthesizing). I am using only one source (though there are many, many others) to demonstrated that there was a unique form of pong at Bucknell from which beer pong was invented. When a source claims that "Stubby, however, supposedly admitted that he adapted the game in 1983 from a form he observed at Bucknell" it leaves no doubt there was a form of pong at Bucknell from which beer pong came. This cannot be disputed.LedRush (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "evidence" containing phrases like "supposedly admitted" leaves no doubt and is indisputable, as you state, then we clearly have very different definitions of what is and is not a reliable source. It is my opinion and observation that this article is indeed drawing conclusions from multiple sources, is indeed introducing original research, and does not meet inclusion criteria. I am not required to convince you otherwise, and your argument fails to persuade me that my position is wrong. I leave the rest up to the closing administrator. Cheers, Arkyan 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I have stated many times, the proof of a unique form of pong at Bucknell is massive and can be found on numerous of sites that claim to know the history of beer pong. Perhaps this quote from one of the article's cites is better for you: "However, according to an email written by Stubby, he had actually discovered Beirut in its incipient and crude version at Bucknell University in 1983." This is ONE source which proves that verifiable sources indicate that beer pong was adapted from a form at Bucknell. I guess if statements of fact made many, many cites don't convince you, nothing will. And I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am trying to make sure that people passing judgment on the article have a fair assessment of the sources and don't make assumptions or listen to unsupported statements.LedRush (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the deal. This article is titled "Bucknell Pong" there are no reliable sources that use that term, thus this is original research. If reliable sources say that beerpong did indeed evolve from a game played at Bucknell than a brief history should be included in a history or origin section in the main beerpong article. Just because there is a unique form of beerpong played at Bucknell does not mean that we need to cover its rules here. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. "Bucknell Pong" is just a name for a type of beer pong, because "pong" already has a page. Instead of looking at the name, look at the substance of the article. Also, if you think the rules of this version are too much, why don't you suggest just putting a history of Bucknell pong (or Pong as played at Bucknell, seeing as that gets more google hits) article up.LedRush (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that Bucknell Pong is a type of beerpong, it does not need its own article, there are thousands of regional variants. What makes the version played at Bucknell a little different is that some people point to it as the origin of modern beerpong (although this is disputed). That is why it should be mentioned in the beerpong article which it already is. It does not need its own article, and neither does Dartmouth pong, which I imagine will be deleted shortly. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dartmouth Pong has 2 orders of magnitude more Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People should be able to go to the main beer pong article to find a general history and then go to the specific articles to find out more about the specific games. Every variant doesn't need a page, but ones from which pong was derived do.LedRush (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Strong delete per the fact that it's something apparently either made up one day or simply non-notable, and to offset the rather obvious meatpuppetry. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So anything "made up one day" can't be here? Does this include all games, sports, inventions, etc...? Your real point seems to be that it is non-notable, though it is the origin of the most popular beer games in America. Finally, please don't call me a liar, especially when I have addressed the issues above. It makes you look ignorant and malicious, though I hope I am misjudging you.LedRush (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think replying to every single comment is going to get this article saved, you've got another thing coming. JuJube (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your helpful comments. I am merely trying to ensure that an administrator will see the counters to some of the comments here, many of which seem particularly personal or not particularly accurate.LedRush (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe you are misjudging me. I have not called you a liar, and accusations of ignorance and maliciousness fly in the face of WP:AGF. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have called me a liar. You said that I was engaged in "obvious meatpuppery" despite my comments above. That means you called me a liar. You cannot engage in ad hominem attacks while making statements about the article which are false and then accuse me of not assuming good faith. People who have made polite comments have gotten polite comments from me. I would like to think that you could afford me the respect that you believe you deserve.LedRush (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most contributors that vote to keep this article seem to have a vested interest in keeping this article, and have edits that are solely focused in this AFD. Since it is from several different IP addresses and users with varying textual style, it appears clear to me that this isn't sockpuppetry, which would mean it is solely you. It appears instead that several people have been asked, as friends, to support you, and were told what to say. That is meatpuppetry. The fact that all but one contributor to this process that has voted to keep the article have very, very few edits other than those to this AFD is pretty damning evidence of meatpuppetry. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can answer this more completely than I have above. Anyway, thanks for calling me a liar in a more polite way this time.LedRush (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:V, WP:N, and probably others. Googling "bucknell pong" -wiki generates exactly two links, and one of them is a WAP interface to Wikipedia. I have little doubt that the game exists, but it doesn’t come even close to meeting the guidelines for inclusion in this encyclopedia. —Travistalk 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and per the article author’s own admission, “The problem is that the term "Bucknell Pong" is not a defined term,”[24] this article flies in the face of the notability and verifiability guidelines. —Travistalk 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are ignoring my point. The sources are clearly verifiable under Wiki-guidelines. I have given numerous examples of the game's notability. I believe it is disingenuous to cling to the claim concerning "Bucknell Pong" as a term without addressing the common sense explanation I have provided.LedRush (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entirely missing the point that many people are trying to get across to you: Take away your first source (NYT), which doesn’t even mention this specific variant of beer pong, and you are left with student newspapers, blogs, and other websites that do not meet Wikipedia’s policies for independent, verifiable, reliable sources. Like I said, I have little doubt that the game exists, but it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in this encyclopedia. —Travistalk 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I don't believe you are correct. The sources are independent, verifiable, and reliable by Wikipedia standards. The standards state that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The college newspapers may not be reliable to investigate Watergate, but surely college reporters' knowledge of beer pong are more authoritative than any other! On verifiability, the standards state [t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Anyone can easily find my sources and see that respected college newspapers have reported on a college subject on which they are authorities.LedRush (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. Notability looks marginal but there was no consensus to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SoccerProject

[edit]
SoccerProject (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable  Chzz  ►  03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising, by Athaenara (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 08:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarryn Hoff

[edit]
Tarryn Hoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tried several google searches. Looks like a self-bio, cannot find any of the individuals. I am unfortunately not convinced WP:ATHLETE is met Fraudy talk 03:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bunny Boy

[edit]
The Bunny Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed PROD. Article and reference both admit that not much information is known on the album yet other than a title and that there will be 19 tracks. No other available information, including no available release date other than sometime in the fall. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Redfarmer (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The County

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete content as unverifiable. Will make redirect to discourage recreation until such time that a standalone article is warranted. Shereth 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to redirect after discussion with the nominator. As there is a decent chance the single will be released I will undelete the history, but unless and until the single is actually released the redirect should remain so as to avoid crystal ballery. Shereth 16:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up, What's Happening

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
What's Up, What's Happening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It does not give any citation that it "is the first official single" from Paper Trail (This is nonetheless impossible since "No Matter What" has already been released as an official single). The article doesn't even show any notability for this track. Also, the last line "The song is expected to be released soon." is pure original research. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no · 02:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant, whoops. I agree with you, though, that it should not have a page on its own at this time, due to the reasons you mentioned. Spell4yr (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete for lack of context. The article does not even identify or define the topic itself. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future chinese big plane

[edit]
Future chinese big plane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

vauge, no title, no set date, no information Samuell Lift me up or put me down 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete. Complete bollocks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto eanes

[edit]
Gilberto eanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Copyright. michfan2123 (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean 'Copyright violation' - from where? And if so, AFD isn't really the place to go; speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Copyright problems are better choices ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grindersparks

[edit]
Grindersparks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm nominating this article for deletion for lack of notability. It appears to be a neogolism or slang, and is not in common use. I don't think this is an encycleopedic article, and the term doesn't appear to be in common use (a google search listed 810 hits, most on wikipedia or other sites that duplicate wiki content). Additionally, the article cites no references and has been a stub for a long time without much activity (over a year and a half). Spark could be an appropriate place for the content, or perhaps Snipe hunt.Iepeulas (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. While all of the criticisms of the current article (unreferenced, POV, OR, peacocky) are legitimate, none of those is a deletion rationale. Frank makes the case that, well, other stuff exists, and there was no real reasoning presented as to why a policy-compliant article on this subject couldn't be created. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Arizona

[edit]
Culture of Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is full of broad, sweeping generalizations that are horoscope-like in their vagueness and unverifiability. I do not see how this can be taken seriously as an encyclopedia article. CosineKitty (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know that other stuff exists is a poor reason to consider keeping an article, but I'm providing this comment nevertheless. I agree that this article - as it stands - is peacocky at best, and it is not sourced. However, there do exist articles on similar subjects that are more substantial and encyclopedic: Culture of California and Culture of Texas are two states near Arizona, for example. Perhaps this could be tagged for improvement instead?  Frank  |  talk  02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn see Eco's comment below. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Padilla

[edit]
Michael J. Padilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability is presented Withdrawing nomination In view of changes to the article (and I even pitched in a couple of edits), the notability is now confirmed and this nomination can be withdrawn. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article does assert notability ("the leader in middle school science education in the U.S."), but nom is correct that references to back up such a claim are lacking. However, from what I can just find via google, he seems notable — a reasonable number of hits in google scholar; author of at least 25 books available from Amazon.com; 11,000 ghits. To me, it looks like a case of needing to get good references as opposed to a good candidate for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate and respect your defense of the article, but I should point out that the statement that Mr. Padilla "is the leader in middle school science education in the U.S." is not currently backed by any source. Can you please verify who said that? Many thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The reasons for deletion were not compelling, and nobody !voted delete after the sources identified by David Eppstein. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Padgitt

[edit]
Steve Padgitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not give evidence or explanation of notability Ecoleetage (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep no consensus to merge or delete, the band also does indeed seem to meet WP:MUSIC #6. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Painface (band)

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

Non-notable band Ecoleetage (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It appears as though this band was the precursor to Slipknot (band) which is notable. Iepeulas (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would it make sense to merge this into the Slipknot article? Ecoleetage (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universal School

[edit]
Universal School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable grade school. Fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising, by Daniel J. Leivick (talk · contribs). (But note this was a re-creation and a completed AFD would have allowed for a WP:CSD#G4 in future.) Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Lichtenstein

[edit]
Kim Lichtenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable person, fails WP:BIO. Article is written like a resume. Author has no other contribs. [29] Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harold C. Pachios

[edit]
Harold C. Pachios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not obvious in this article Ecoleetage (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Checking google, he appears to be notable through the Clinton administration. I might possibly have time to add a few sources later tonight. — MaggotSyn 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there is enough to establish notability. So delete I suppose, for now. — MaggotSyn 03:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's his bio at his law firm[30]. Don't have time to evaluate it.John Z (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. I personally find the WP:NOTNEWS argument persuasive, but apparently it was not persuasive enough to sway consensus. I would also like to draw attention to the suggestion to merge brought up by Ohconfucius, as it may be more relevant in the context of the broader topic of Protests against the Iraq War rather than it's own article, and that compromise is likely to prevent the need for future nominations on this subject. Shereth 15:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

[edit]
March 19, 2008 anti-war protest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't really rise to a notable level. Only brief and local coverage (or first-party), and, as the article admits, a "small" action. No impact on policy, of course. Some anti-war marches are notable - the January 27, 2007 anti-war protest, for example. This one was on a far smaller scale and its article should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These events did receive significant news coverage, but this article needs a LOT of work to bring it up to standard. If it sounds like news, that means we just need to go through a few more rewrites. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as a follow-on, the article is also currently incomplete. There were many different demonstrations that day, and this one only covers one of them. There's a photo of Funk the War 3, but no text about it. Additionally, there were other marches later on in the day that have received no coverage at this point in the article. The article has been tagged for expansion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Debate (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not impressed by the current state of the article, but it seems to me that it could be improved so that it would be worth keeping. The March 19, 2008 protests were a break from demonstrations on past anniversaries of the invasion of Iraq in that civil disobedience replaced the mass march completely as a strategy. If the article included some of the context, the debates in the antiwar movement leading up to the demonstrations, IVAW's call not to distract from Winter Soldier, Cindy Sheehan's unsuccessful attempt to put together a unified march, etc., I think it would go beyond a news piece and be worthy of an encyclopedia. Kalkin (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepSTRONG DELETE i'm also not impressed by the current state if the article however, as we try to host the sum of all human knowledge, i say we need to take a look at history and these protests will be researched in the future. a cleanup tag will do for now. This article has serious OWN issues and some contributors are clearly trying to make a WP:POINT and get on a WP:SOAPBOX there are way too many WP:HOPELESS arguements that are entirely baseless (baseless in wikipedia policies not the editors' personal or group rationales) Transwiki to wikinews.Myheartinchile (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Myheartinchile (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The protests in D.C. and other cities absolutely merit an encyclopedic article. The main protest took place on a weekday (3/19 was a Wednesday) and the traffic disruptions, demonstrations, and police arrests drew enourmous attention of people who work in D.C. including House and Senate members. The Iraq war and the protests are VERY significant. Since the protest many Congress members now appear reluctant to be seen supporting the war. On May 15, 132 House Republicans even voted "present" rather than "yes" for supporting war funding. This is unprecedented since the war started 5 years ago Astuteoak (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)— Astuteoak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • comment, you don't seem to understand that whatever effect this event had on the people of DC is as you stated it wholly irrelevant. wikipedia articles includability is measured by WP:N and protests fall under WP:EVENT, you should also see WP:NOTNEWS, if your article does get deleted it will definitely have a place at wikinews. arrests don't make for notability, also there is no states verifiable correlation between your protest and the allegations you make about the u.s. congress' voting patterns. wikipedia does not pubish the truth. it publishes the verifiable facts available.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Your opinions are well stated, nevertheless the protests in D.C. and other cities are profoundly notable. It is very uncommon for the U.S. to be in a war which last 5 years, and a 5-year anniversary war protest is historically significant. I agree congress' voting patterns is speculation and that's why its not in the article. Only history will decide if the protests had a political influence. I have two children and as they grow up they should be able to go to Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia and be able to read about the Iraq war, related politics, and the war protests. Relegating this to "news clips" would be a disservice to future generations. Any encyclopedia which neglects to mention these events would be woefully deficient.Astuteoak (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Momentary headlines do not make for Encyclopedic notability. Just another anti war protest. It is not notable, and putative usefulness of the information is not sufficient to have an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are an encyclopedia, not the Anti War Movement Archive/Annals/News. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one-time news event. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would appreciate one or more of the editors who believes that this is a "one-time news event" commenting on my suggestion that the article include background not mentioned by news articles. Kalkin (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Did you see my comment above? I am not proposing that we include general antiwar-protest background information, but background information to this specific protest. I believe that for a number of reasons - because of the role it played in the antiwar movement, because of new features, because of its position on the fifth anniversary of the war - this protest is more notable than your average antiwar protest of equivalent size. Kalkin (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The subject lacks stand alone notability. Perhaps content from this would be better suited as a brief mention in protests against the Iraq War. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Protests/demonstrations of this scale take place regularly around the world which aren't notable. The article also reads like a news article. To address Kalkin's concerns just because the protest happened on the 5th anniversary does not in itself affect the notability. Benon (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge I believe that this should be merged back to Protests against the Iraq War. There appears to be a complete lack of perspective when a subject is allowed to develop on its own, like this one has. The event seems not substantially different to any of the protests which have gone before; its scale is also not great; currently, there is a lot of superfluous detail which would only appear in news articles but is not otherwise encyclopaedia-worthy. Having the content back inside rthe 'Protests' article will serve to refocus it, and allow for judicious pruning. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming good faith. I am also assuming that you are aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We do not need 3200 pages on every pro-peace and pro-war rally in (or out) of the country, especially when each camp presents what is essentially the same bull at each rally. One or two articles can more than adequately cover the entire movement for peace and for war. All I see here is an attempt to justify having a minor pro-peace rally article when other articles already on here are better built to handle this sort of material. Now, if this rally had presented some new and interesting angle that no one had heard before I might reconsider, but no new angles are presented. So I say delete. Now I will meet you half way and say that if we do delete the article we salvage whatever usable material we can and shove it in to one of the better built anti-war articles here, but my descion to vote delete stands. I do not ask that you like it, but I do ask that you respect it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. I have stated my position on the matter based on my interpretation of the above policy(s), and you have disagreed with my interpretation, as you are free to do. I doubt either of us are hot change our opinions on the matter, and I have things to do elsewhere on the encyclopedia. I will not be returning here again to reply, so let it be. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A SUGGESTION for those so passionate for documenting all the minor protests (or whatever adjective you would prefer "fantastic" "awesome" "major" "noteworthy" "radical" "important") you would have a much easier time and a lot more support if you began a wiki based on that objective at wikia where anyone can create a wiki if they want to around any purpose. how bout that? And if you want an already existing project, try wikinews, this article is not a history topic it is news topic, so at wikinews you can cover that and every other protest you want! But at wikipedia this particular event, can only fill no more than perhaps a sentence at say Protests of the Iraq War the year 2008 or things that have occurred on March 19. You can even copy and paste this article buddy!Myheartinchile (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC) and a compromise? perhaps someone could write, war on terror protests in: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. I think that if you break it down by year you could have a lot more useful historical content, not have an overburdened article for all the protesting (that one one could be clipped down or split into protests in favor and against) and each year article could be broken down by month. I think that would satisfy notability and could be an excellent compromise.Myheartinchile (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Sestertius --JForget 23:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sestertium

[edit]
Sestertium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dicdef accompanied by a series of irrelevant calculations involving various seeds and units of weight. (The sestertium was a monetary unit of account and never embodied in any physical form.) The use of the term to refer to an amount equivalent to 1000 sesterces is discussed in the article Sestertius, and I can't see how this could be, once the nonsense is subtracted, anything more than a dictionary definition. CSD G1 tag was declined, so here we are. Deor (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. There are valid arguments on every side of this discussion but clearly we have not come to a consensus on how to handle this article. I would strongly urge editors interested in keeping this material to engage in some discourse on how to improve the content to prevent future AfD nominations. Discussion on whether it is more helpful to merge/split/redirect this article should continue elsewhere. Shereth 15:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homunculi of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga

[edit]
Homunculi of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet the WP:GNG general notability guideline, since there are no reliable sources that can assert the notability of this article that are independent of the subject itself. Randomran (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having no suitable merge target is no reason to keep, and their being different is also irrelevant. Differences should be covered in a single place, same as with any other series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, this article does not violate policy. Last I checked, WP:N was not policy. The article provides information of interest to FMA readers, and I see no reason why its information should be removed from Wikipedia. I would be inclined to support a merge should an appropriate article exist -- but it doesn't. --Goobergunch|? 07:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It violates WP:N. N not being a policy is not relevant, it is a guideline and relevant one. However, if you'd also like a policy, it violates WP:PLOT. It has no real-world notability, and is pure plot regurgitation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite and not a guide to anime series. Excessive detail on the fictional components of a series belong over in the FMA wikia or an anime wiki, not here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N not being a policy is quite relevant. If it violates no policy, then obviously the deletion argument that it does is hot air. Jtrainor (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Failing WP:N and failing WP:FICT are very valid reasons for deletion. Something does not have to only violate a policy to be something that shouldn't be included here. It also fails WP:PLOT (which is policy). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The question of whether WP:N is a policy or not is irrelevant--it is a content guideline that has roots in both WP:V and WP:NOR and is thus used to determine what is and is not suitable for inclusion. More to the point, although I loves me some Fullmetal Alchemist, I can find no evidence (in English or Japanese) that this topic is notable in the real world, and so I would suggest that it be either deleted or transwikied to a more suitable location. As an interesting aside, it seems that the list of FMA characters on ja-wiki is having the opposite discussion; one of the banners at the top suggests splitting out part of the article into a list of anime characters :P --jonny-mt 02:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that's true. A "Character outline" is nothing more than a character bio written with an out-of-universe perspective. The homunculi have appeared in the FMA video games, so that covers the "Appearances in other media" section. And as to "Reception": we just need reviews that mentions how a reviewer likes or doesn't like any given character ("IGN noted the duality of Kakashi's serious persona in combat and his laid back, apathetic counterance when dealing with his students, but accepted that he is one of the most popular characters in the series"). "Creation and conception" can always be put together from notes found on the tankobon, DVDs and interviews. I don't that the article's problem is "lack of notability", the problem is that is an in-universe mess. Separate articles would be easier to handle since we already have some GAs to use as models.--Nohansen (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize what is supposed to be put into such articles considering that I wrote most of them. The models exist, but the question is whether such information exists. I very much so doubt that there's sufficient conception and reception for every homunculi to have their own individual article. Unless you can show here (and literally, here within the scope of this AfD discussion) that such coverage does exist, then they shouldn't have their own articles, as they wouldn't pass NOTE, and neither would this article, as this is a very specific subset of characters. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete; article about a real person which doesn't indicate importance/significance (WP:CSD#A7). PeterSymonds (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result for the albums was delete as non notable albums from a non-notable person. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Att Will

[edit]
Att Will (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of reliable sources; does not meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. I am also nominating the following related pages:

Just Another Day In Compton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Do It Att Will (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Articles about a single and an album he released, and also do not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia articles. --Snigbrook (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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






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

The result was Delete speedily. Checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Barbaro

[edit]
Aldo Barbaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was created by a known hoaxer and sockpuppet. The three Ghits for the subject's claim to notability come from Wikipedia and a mirror. [31] and they're not mentioned on the altitude record page. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. It has been pointed out that an existing article covers what is essentially this topic in a properly sourced and verifiable version at Illyrian emperors. Early suggestions to move this to another name would have helped address the issue of original research but again, that suggestion has been rendered moot by the existence of the other article. Shereth 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Emperors from modern Serbia

[edit]
List of Roman Emperors from modern Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was created on the 4th of May this year, and I only happened to come across it fixing a typo a week later. It came to my attention again when the user User:Keep it Fake began arguing that the title was misleading as there was no Serbia then and moving the article. User:PajaBG, who created the article in the first place, moved it back arguing that the article title referred to "modern Serbia" and was as thus not misleading.

And me? I don't understand why this article exists, and I can not see anything that would merit it's existence. There are no other similar lists of Roman emperors by territory, and if such lists were to be created, surely they would go by the Roman names and boundaries of the territories of 2000 years ago.

The single reason I can see for why one would create such a list: some nationalistic desire to prove one's country's valor and strength, or something. Judging by User talk:PajaBG, this does not seem all too unlikely. Therefore, I argue that this conflict be resolved by deleting the battleground. Plrk (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable junction of territories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not real fond of lists of this type which represent WP:OR and are generally hard to maintain. Presumably this one's a bit easier since the Roman Empire hasn't had much activity lately. Nevertheless, there's lots of original research, and only one reference, and it does seem to be a fairly nationalistic list. I always get comments when I suggest a WP:CATEGORY instead, but...I think that's the way to go on this one. It acknowledges a commonality and allows the interested reader to navigate through without being obtrusive and looking like it is pretending to be complete (as an encyclopedic list almost must by definition).  Frank  |  talk  02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above; I can't see that this is a valuable list to have. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to List of Roman Emperors from Pannonia; alternatively, merge to Pannonia; during the last couple of centuries of the Roman Empire (up to AD 476), the province on the other side of the Adriatic did have a significant influence in the Empire, but I agree that the title is misleading. Mandsford (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessary. We already have an article on emperors from this region: Illyrian emperors (this covers Pannonia). --Folantin (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move to List of Roman Emperors from Pannonia, which was the period name of the region; a useful two-fold cross-categorization that could have other similar, useful counterparts. Celarnor Talk to me 04:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessary. We already have an article on emperors from this region: Illyrian emperors (this covers Pannonia). --Folantin (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the modern Serbia is not coterminus with an ancient Roman province. Serbs were not even the occupants of the area. 70.51.8.112 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move to List of Roman Emperors from Pannonia. Though note that it would need some addittions if we do. Dimadick (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessary. We already have an article on emperors from this region: Illyrian emperors (this covers Pannonia). --Folantin (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding Pannonia: what is now called Serbia includes parts of the Roman provinces Pannonia, Lower Pannonia and Illyricum. Plrk (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a silly title which seems to imply time travel, or merge to List of Roman Emperors from Pannonia as a then-existing political/geographical entity. Edison (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I decided to create this page after an article (cited on the page) about Roman emperors born in these areas. Also, in the future, historical tours are planned which will connect the remains of all the major Roman settlements, including the birthplaces of the emperors. Article was accompanied with a nice map of the Roman monuments and markers pointing to the emperors origins, presented by the coins they coined (those who did). I didn't know so many of them were born just 100 to 150 kilometers away from my hometown so I wanted to share the info. I am sure that not many people know that either, some participating in this discussion obviously know even less (or the lack of knowledge is deliberate because the reasons listed are not really serious), so I think it is a good source of information. I hoped that in turn, a general article dealing with the regional origin of the Roman Emperors might develop out of this.
So what if there are no similar lists? How would Wikipedia develop if only what already exists can be added...it even sounds childish. And how something that you didn't know and then learn it should be deleted? It is a valid historical information about real people. It is not serious asking to delete such information when Wikipedia has thousands and thousands and thousands of pages dealing with video games and TV serial's eposodes, fictional characters from those games and episodes and all those invented TV "universes", legion poke-digi-something-mon animated characters, hundreds of porn stars of all kinds and lists accompanying them... So it does not seem all so unlikely that something else rolls from behind.
I agree that the title is not good. Giving the full explanation in the title would make it far too long and I couldn't come up with a better, shorter one. Maybe someone else can and that would be appreciated. But I don't understand why the article should be deleted because of the silly title? Shall we shoot all the people with funny names? Shouldn't the course of action be to fix it and to help to make it better? Let's delete the article cause I don't like the title...what kind of attitude is that? If you see a dwarf trying to pick an apple from the tree would you help him fix the problem or trip him cause he is short anyway?
Pannonia/Illyricum info is not correct. Pannonia (Lower/Secunda) actually occupied very small portion of what is Serbia today (but with at the time important Sirmium). Majority of it was, in different times, part of Moesia (Superior) while other parts made sections of the provinces: Dalmatia, Dacia (three of them, Traiana, Ripensis and Mediterranea), Thrace, Dardania, Praevalitana..It does not seem all so unlikely that someone don't know where Serbia actually is.
Even if it wouldn't be for the biased reason (more on that below) for it, moving this article to the Emperors from the Balkans is incorrect in every way. First, this list doesn't deal with the emperors from the entire Balkans and second, Sirmium, where most of them were born, is not on the Balkans at all. Should I also mention that the area was not called the Balkans until a millennium after the Romans? How come that is OK? Additionally, Serbia existed for centuries when Roman Empire was finally conquered by the Turks in 1453. For those who don't know, Byzantines called their state Roman Empire and themselves Romans.
There is no original research. All biographical info on the emperors, minimal as they are because I think that is appropriate for such article, are taken from the already existing separate pages of the respective Roman emperors. What original research?
I will repeat it: it is nowhere said that emperors where Serbs or that they were born in then Serbia. It is clearly stated in the very first sentence. That is the only mention of Serbia in the entire article and Serbs as a nation are not even mentioned once. Serbs did not live in that area at the time, but they didn't bring the territory with them when they came either, it was already there and those people were born there. It has nothing to do with Serbs, only with the territory. I can't even immagine why is this nationalistic (!?) so since there is no rational reason for that (especially repeating it even though it is not written in the article) it does not seem all so unlikely there must be something else.
Now, after the facts, maybe I should say something about the perspective behind all of this. Someone bothered to check my talk page but didn't bother to check KeepitFake's list of contributions. Even just a glimpse would be enough to point out the staunch anti-Serbian attitude so it does not seem all so unlikely that we have a case of an obsession of an ardent Albanian nationalist who roams the pages and removes Serbs from them. It does not seem all so unlikely that we maybe even have a case of allergy on every mention of Serbia so it must be removed, replaced or shown as the worst fascist nation everywhere. You don't need to be a doctor to recognize the symptoms, but I am neither allergist nor psychiatrist to help him. And person with such body of work brings an attention? But he is not a problem. I don't understand people who wish to be involved and then basically say frivolous things like: yeah, yeah...it doesn't mention Serbs but it's nationalistic, yeah...it's already in Wikipedia but it is OR, yeah...silly title, who cares what's behind, let's kill it....
Talking of obsession, I also removed that nonsensical flood of boxes added to the article by KeepItFake or whatever number he is now. It may not be here for long, but it doesn't have to look like a circus. PajaBG (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Much ground is covered above. I will not presume to answer all of it but only a few points:
  1. The article, as it stands, is almost entirely original research. There is only one reference for one item on the list. Wikipedia itself is not a valid source, so even if the rest of the information is contained within Wikipedia, it must be properly cited.
  2. I agree the the poke-digi-tv-episode craze exists, and we must realize it is here to stay. However, I don't think that having a page for every episode of Friends is necessarily the same as creating this somewhat artificial list. This list tries to cover a topic that is clearly open to interpretation. The number and titles of the episodes of Friends are clearly knowable and known. Same goes for many poke-digi-tvshow-whatever. Not so a list of emperors from...somewhere that didn't exist way back when...see discussions above.
  3. It's true that just because something doesn't already exist isn't a reason for it not to be created. No disagreement there.
  4. It seems to me that if there cannot even be consensus on what the article's title should be, perhaps that's a good indication the article doesn't need to exist. Perhaps the information belongs elsewhere, in different articles. Or, perhaps a category (or series of them) would be useful for this? If the page is really a re-hash of information that is elsewhere, why not provide a category to simply point to existing pages? For example, see the Friends episodes category, which has only 15 entries but could be automatically expanded when someone adds an episode - just by adding the category to that new page. And, there's also a List of Friends episodes.  Frank  |  talk  21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The original published article doesn't just give the number, it lists and fully names (at least fuller than their names are given on Wikipedia) the emperors. That means I could tag it as a referrence to each name but to what purpose? Also, sourcing every of those few data given for each emperor, when they have their own, referrenced pages, also makes no practical point and only complicates things.
  2. I am not going around deleting episodes, obscure toons, etc. I am against deleting any information from which I can learn something, that's the difference, especially when they are simply factographic, like this list. And we are back to the same point: that somewhere existed back then, it just wasn't called that way.
  3. OK.At least one :o)
  4. It is not a valid reason. For example, NATO bombed Serbia in 1999. We call it NATO agression, NATO calls it Operation Allied force. So, we will never agree how to title it, but it doesn't mean the article shouldn't be there, that it didn't happen or that it is not important because we can't decide how to call it. Drastic, but plastic example, though it could be applied to almost every conflict everywhere. As for the category, it could work, but with this reaction I have no reason to believe the category would fare any better than the article is. Maybe even worse cause there would be no place to explain anything (you know, Serbs the emperors and stuff) though that, apparently, doesn't help either. PajaBG (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have created such an article. Serbia has nothing to do with ancient Rome, Serbs didn't occupy the area, and the area was not politically divided into an area that is now Serbia. If you had wanted to create Emperors from the Balkans, atleast that would have a proper geographic basis as an argument, instead of no basis whatsoever for Serbia, except Serb nationalism, which violates NPOV 70.55.88.25 (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding User:Keep it Fake: it does seem that this user is bent on proving something, but that does not mean this article shouldn't be deleted. Keep it Fake brought the article to my attention by simply editing it, as I earlier had corrected a typo in the article it was on my watchlist. Plrk (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You edited the page, you put it on your watchlist, and only then KIF, in one of his bending efforts, brought it to your attention, as if it was hidden. PajaBG (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of writing, I have 678 pages on my watchlist. At the time of my semi-automated WP:AWB-assisted typo correction, I had about 1,200 pages on my watchlist. And as you surely know, pages don't show up on your watchlist if your edit was the last one - KIF happened to make an edit, which made it show up.
However, how the article came to my attention is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the topic of the article is anachronistic - it makes as much sense as a List of Serb politicians from ancient Pannonia. Plrk (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apart from the bizarre time travel implications of the title mentioned by Edison, the concept of Serbia has no meaning within Roman history. More importantly, we already have an article on emperors from this part of the Balkans: Illyrian emperors (which covers Illyricum and Pannonia). That's a term in use by scholars (there's a Britannica article under this title). We don't need original research in the cause of modern nationalism. It would be really absurd to distinguish between the "Serb" Claudius Gothicus and the "Croat" Diocletian. --Folantin (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Folantin. We have an article already - would this be considered a POV fork of that? I love the bit about planning some tours. Any regional articles on Roman Emperors should not use modern nationalist regional names. Doug Weller (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Folantin and Doug are correct. I'm sure this is valid content but not under this anachronistic title: send it elsewhere (Illyrian emperors). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Folantin. --Dcfleck (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webster Lake Estates

[edit]
Webster Lake Estates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability - Speedy Delete? - House of Scandal (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_4&oldid=1081073507"