Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 28

< March 27	March 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - This is a WP:Neologism, the only reference provided to the article name is to an unreliable source. Interestingly this article was previously deleted via a WP:PROD in September 2006 as a WP:Neologism for an entirely different usage of the term (Anthrosexual = attracted to men). Although the history of Greek sexuality is notable, it is covered, or should be, elsewhere and lends no support to the usage as the term was never used by the Greeks and there are no reliable sources provided where this is used to refer to Greek sexual beliefs. Although Google searches are great, contrary to the creator's assertions it's the contributor's responsibility to source his or her contributions not the community's to research outside the references provided; furthermore, a Google search provides only unreliable sources, including numerous blog results which beyond being unreliable indicate a lack of an accepted definition of the term. Additionally, identifying this as a peculiar phenomenon is WP:OR absent reliable sources. If the Greek history sources were removed, the only remaining sources relate to homosexuality and two references of questionable notability where notable persons have identified themselves as of undefined sexuality but without any explanation in the references to what that means to them.
Procedural history: this article was created with the title Undefined sexuality on 2008-03-27, tagged for CSD#A1 by User:Undead warrior here and CSD declined by User:Victao_lopes. The article was then proded by User:Undead warrior per WP:NEO and WP:N with this edit; Prod removed by the creator here, and was nominated for AfD on 2008-03-28 by User:Undead warrior with this edit. On 2008-03-30 the article was moved by User:Cooljuno411 to Unidentified sexuality with this edit. The article was then copy-pasted back to Undefined sexuality with this edit, AfD tag and all. On 2008-03-30, User:Cooljuno411 moved the article to Anthrosexual with this edit and removed the AfD tags from the article with this edit; User:Undead warrior replaced the AfD tags here resulting in a new date. Although this article remains the subject of a 2008-03-28 nomination notwithstanding the date on the current tag, it has been five days since the tag was replaced, nonetheless. (BTW, although unrelated to this decision, this was improperly partially closed by User:Cooljuno411 with this edit which made closing a pain as I searched for where {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} had gone, so this was not categorized for the last few days). I note all of this because 1) I needed to sort it all out for myself, and 2) in case there is a DRV, due to the cut and paste, the article Unidentified sexuality contains history related to this article which would need to be restored and the histories merged if this article is ever undeleted. Unidentified sexuality and Undefined sexuality are both being deleted per CSD#R1. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post closing note: While deleting articles and redirects, I additionally identified the page Anthrosexuality which was changed to a redirect to Pansexuality in Oct 2006 and which User:Cooljuno411 changed to a redirect to Anthrosexual. Because there was discussion and consensus in 2006 to have this redirect to Pansexuality, I have reverted to that version rather than deleting the redirect.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined sexuality Note: this article has been retitled: Anthrosexual

PROD tag was taken off, but notability is still not asserted. The one source cited is a dictionary. I think that the information is trivial, and online searches, both Google and Yahoo, yield a wide variety of strange topics, but none of them cover Undefined Sexuality. Delete under WP:N. Undeath (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Article does not assert notability, but it may have potential. The Google and Yahoo! Searchs really take us to strange and/or unrelated links. I think we should remove most of the unsourced and irrelevant content, no matter how small the remains of the article will be. Merging to a related article also sounds great. Victao lopes (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd suggest a merge/redirect to Asexuality (I suppose Bisexuality would be better), but this article's title "Undefined sexuality" seems an unlikely search term. I see no evidence of "Undefined sexuality" used in the sexology literature, and very little in the non-RS blogosphere etc, at least not in the sense used in the lead section. This article has one paragraph in the body, and I really don't see how its related to the material in the lead. There's no WP:RS, and I've looked for WP:V, and find none, which makes this look like WP:OR. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is bisexuality and asexuality the same thing? No, neither is this.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Asexuality - not notable enough for its own article but what can be sourced should be merged into the Sexuality or Asexuality article--Cailil ^talk 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asexuality is NO sexual desire or attraction. This is an undefined sexuality. Did you even read the article or doing any background research on this topic before you posted? For future reference, you are supposed to read the article and do major background research before you voice your opinion on deleting an article.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ancient Greek sexuality is clearly a notable topic (we have, more narrowly, Ancient Greek eros and Pederasty in ancient Greece). But interpreting it as an example of a cross-cultural sexual category is original research, and the term "undefined sexuality" seems to be a neologism. EALacey (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bisexuality. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a form of Bisexuality, did you even read the article or do any background research on the topic before you posted here? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no encyclopedic content. That does not mean that a proper sourced article could not be writen on the subject. DGG (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty reffed. to me. And besides, your supposed to do background research on a topic before you post an opinion on deleting it. Did you even go to google? Cause if you did you could find many things on this topic.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Also insufficient references. Stifle (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, can you please link to that, when i search DRG, i find a disambiguation with no wiki guideline article--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important to history and today. The Ancient Greeks are a perfect example, see article. Not to merge with Bisexuality because it is like mac and windows, both OS but have different rules and bases. And is not a form of Asexuality, it is how sexuality was contemplated in the ancient and more recently in the modern ages.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that User:Cooljuno411 is the article's creator. Also, to Cooljuno, comparing this article to bisexuality is nothing near like comparing Mac to Windows. Anyway, you only provided the one source for the article. It fails WP:V in that aspect. Undeath (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided additional sources. And for your future knowledge, you only have the right to speak your opinion about deleting an article if you do your own back ground research as well. And i don't know about you, but when i hit google i founds lots of things of this subject.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remain civil when discussing AfD debates. Your comment, above, was very un-civil. And for the record, I did many google searches on this subject, and when I come up with things like the Urban Dictionary or other various non notable online sites, I nominate it. This term is non notable for it's own article. Being merged is the best option for it, other than delete. Undeath (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and rename-to somthing more in line with a term in actual use for this demographic such as "unsure sexual orientation" or "questioning" or "anthrosexual" —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAtThis (talk • contribs) 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick google search, I agree that the article should be renamed to anthrosexual, and i will do so, thanks. I knew this concept wasn't new, or "neologism" or whatever, but i just couldn't get a name on the concept so i just titled the "undefined sexuality" but you have proven the power of wikipedia, that sharing knowledge is a great tool. AND TO ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO JUST SIMPLY SLAPPED A NEOLOGISM ON IT, maybe you should of did a quick google search too, cause its obvious you didn't. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - not sure that masters being screwed by their slaves is mentioned elsewhere. Maybe a rename to something like Sexually Deviancy In Ancient Society, if not keep then aim to merge. -- BpEps - t@lk 11:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article was moved to Anthrosexual at this point.

ResolvedThe article was renamed to anthrosexual. And for future reference, please do research before claiming WP:N because this case proved that many don't. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AFD remains open until April 2, per the usual five-day rule. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UrbanDictionary.com does not establish notability. Fireplace (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add additional refs. but for your future knowledge, if you are going to post here you are supposed to do your own background research as well. So please don't base your opinion on one ref. and also, why should it be deleted? I don't claim a sexuality, so that would make me a living reference. And others don't either, so why should the article be deleted? Not everything has to fall into the western culture fashion of hetero,homo, and bi-sexual.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Google Scholar turns up not a single hit on this term. I conclude, therefore, this is a neologism and it should be deleted forthwith as such. Eusebeus (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that chat rooms, online groups, and other organizations that have been formed around Anthrosexuality is a good enough RS for me. By deleting this article, we are simply denying it existence, but we have to own up to it, it does exist, and i don't think we have the right to deny its existence just because it doesn't turn up a search in google scholar. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if this doesn't exist, then please tell me how sexuality was highly practiced in the ancient world especially in ancient Greece? Lets see, a system of passive and active, which is a form of athrosexuality because they do not claim a sexual orientation. You know the term homosexual and heterosexual were invented less then 200 years ago. Did google scholar tell you that? In addition, if i claim this would it be true? if others do wouldn't it be true? It's the 21st century, people don't have to choose one of the three common sexualities placed in front of us, when can chooce to be like many ancient cultures and not claim an orientation and simply go with what feels right.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoolJuno411. This is the last warning to remain civil. Your comments are becoming more and more offensive and disruptive. Please stop making sarcastic comments directed at other users. Undeath (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that i offended you. But i think i have every right to questions peoples motives on why they made that opinion. People should place opinion and reason for opinion. I only reply to people who do not completely justify their answers.

They do justify their answers, you just do not always understand their justification. Don't badger the other users. Undeath (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please ref. where i do not "understand their justification", when i respond i am generally telling them that their justification is insufficient and that they need to go into more detail why. Or i have been asking if they even read the article, because saying this is a form of asexuality or bisexuality, which has been the two most common suggestions, just makes me think that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article or even googled the term.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there you go. "...that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article or even googled the term". Just because they state something that may seem vague to you, does not mean that they did not do any research. Most AfD debates will have a simple delete with a simple explanation. Having the article's creator badger them over it is bad, and it also shows a bit of article ownership. Undeath (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said it "makes me think that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article..." and if people have the "right" to say it is a form of asexuality, then i should have just as much right to think that they didn't read the article and question their motives on their answer. And i don't have a sense of article ownership i am try to protect a legitimate article form being wrongfully deleted by people who i think haven't even read or researched the article. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done arguing this with you. Just stop attacking other users on wikipedia. Let the course of AfD take it's own route. Undeath (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a section in either Sexual orientation or History of human sexuality. This term is in use, but not commonly enough to merit its own article at the moment. Delete section 'Anthrosexual and Undefined sexuality in popular culture' since there is no evidence that the examples given use the word "anthrosexual". David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. It appears to be in moderate use, but the mentions I've read through google seem contradictory to its exact definition, and at least one does call it a neologism. Any article that relies on a LiveJournal definition as its primary cite has problems, and it would appear that much of the article are the opinions of the page creator, who has decided which definitions she/he likes, and which are "confused". Perhaps this doesn't belong on Wikipedia until a more authoritative definition can be sourced. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please ref. sites that have a different def. please, i would like to see them.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm continuing to endorse deletion. The term "Anthrosexual‎" turns up zero hits on ISI, which indexes Archives of Sexual Behavior, Journal of Sex Research, etc.. This term seems unknown to science, there is no evidence that this term is used by sexologists. More relevant to WP:N, I see no evidence of the extensive use in reliable secondary sources required to meet the criterion of WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What about Pansexuality? From where I'm coming, that seems to be do the most similar thing to what the article describes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BUt there is a major difference that does not allow them to be similar. Pansexual is an active sexuality, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Anthrosexuality is an unclaimed sexuality. See article for more information, there is a whole sub portion on the difference between the two.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection you added yesterday has no references, it's hard to evaluate the supposed difference between these two topics on the basis of a section that appears to be WP:OR. Your concept of "active sexuality" seems quite different from the examples that turn up in the first few pages of hits on Google Scholar, and appears -like this article- to be Original Research. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pansexuality, which also deprioritizes gender. It says, "Gender doesn't matter much - therefore we can be attracted to any and all genders" whereas Anthrosexuality, if I am to believe CoolJuno, says "Gender doesn't matter much - therefore we are not particularly attracted to any or all genders." So it just inverts the same meaning, which perhaps was what CoolJuno meant by it not being active. Even if it is merged, however, the content needs serious work. It seems to contain sections which have no inherent value, and are just uncited responses to the discussion on this talk page. I thing the whole thing could be boiled down to a sentence in Pansexuality. --99.231.118.172 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with "if I am to believe CoolJuno", and "perhaps was what CoolJuno meant by", which is that an encyclopedia is supposed to be a compendium of reliable information, not a compendium of CoolJuno's opinions. Without reliable sources to document the veracity of the claims made in this article, the article is worthless.

Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, Pete.Hurd. I wasn't intending to defend the article's validity, nor CoolJuno's authorship - I think it's pretty apparent that they aren't acceptable for Wikipedia - but to clarify my proposal of a parenthetical sort of inclusion of it in Pansexuality, saying "some individuals self-identify as anthrosexual, which may be a similar construct"...a little like we've done with omnisexual, which is treated as synonymous. That said, I understand the argument to be had in waiting for anthrosexuality to be documented in reliable sources before including it in anything, period. I've been in the mindset of giving it a mention, because it cropped up in the pansexuality article - in the form of a disambiguation note saying "not to be confused with anthrosexuality" at the top. As a result, I was under the mistaken impression that anthro had more of a general presence on wikipedia - until about 2 minutes ago, when I just checked and realized it was CoolJuno who added it. --99.231.118.172 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely fails to satisfy WP:N let alone a stronger standard of WP:V/WP:RS. Putting Livejournal as a source in the first paragraph was a nice touch, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not cite reliable sources that actually speak to the existence of this term and concept. WillOakland (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the fluidity of sexual roles in Greek and Roman cultures is reasonably well documented, the use of the terms "undefined sexuality" and/or "anthrosexual" to describe this phenomenon is not. (LiveJournal community profiles are about as far from reliable sources as you can get.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to sexual orientation or pansexual. --Alynna (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zetawoof. We've got a concept, exemplified by but not limited to, Greek and Roman understandings of sexaulity, that was actually pretty common in a number of cultures until recent centuries (see, especially, Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality which deals with this concept in detail). The problem is that it doesn't have a name. CoolJuno has gone and made two titles for this Wikipedia article which return very few hits, and the only refs that can be found are non RS. So we're seeing (understandably), a pile of delete !votes. I'd ask others to reconsider, given that this is a genuine concept, which was synonymous with Greek sexuality (but not limited to these - Venn diagrams would be nice to demonstrate this). Definitely do not merge to pansexual or sexual orientation, which are separate subjects. I suggest that CoolJuno accepts a delete (which will be the likely outcome of this AfD), moves this to userspace, and finds more references, starting with Foucault. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is important to get an opinion from someone who belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have messaged the users who currently belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, if for some reason this AfD is about to end soon, please allow the people who specialize on these subjects to have time to voice their opinion. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of messaging over 30 people about this AfD, it would probably be best (and save you time) to post a topic at WT:SEX. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality I reviewed this article as well as the current Wikipedia article for pansexuality as well as doing a google search on the topic. Generally, I feel this term is ill-defined. Just when I thought I understood its meaning the Urban Dictionary article on the topic turned my understanding up on its head. There seems to be a confusion and conflation between the terms "gender" and "sexual orientation" between the anthrosexual entries themselves. It is true that there is a history to the creation of what we know as "sexual orientation," and particularly of people not assigning meaning to their sex acts under the rubric of an identity or orientation. One needn't go back so far as ancient Greece for the evidence. You can find references to this in Chauncey's book Gay New York going back to the not so distant past. However, 1) as this viewpoint of defining one's sexuality by sex acts rather than orientation was never a phenomenon that was historically and particularly named (par for course considering what we are discussing, yes? In this sense the term "Undefined sexuality" is actually more appropriate.) And 2) The term does not seem to have a definition that is currently used and understood by those in the field of sexuality. I feel that the *information* raised here should be moved to a different article if it hasn't already been highlighted elsewhere. Perhaps if appropriate with a note that an emerging term with small usage, "anthrosexual" is beginning to emerge in pop culture to describe this way of viewing sex. As it is, this article seems to be more of the beginning of the creation and legitimization of a term rather than the definition of a term that is already understood. Also the definition given is a quote on the users page and the definition is a Livejournal article. This does not suffice as references. Links to recognized organizations, activism and social movements, terminology used in sexuality documents, academia or other verifiable research, would be convincing. That is my opinion as of now. I will return if there are any amendments.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References such as LiveJournal, other WP articles, and a movie review on a blog are not RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: If this is indeed the technical definition for this type of sexuality (or lack thereof) - considering that the dictionary reference pans out - then the article is worth keeping. However, it definitely needs to be expanded, and more detailed sourcing is a must. Also, a good portion of the material relating to Ancient Greece and Rome doesn't seem to belong there, and likely needs to be cut. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as stub - it looks like this concept does exist, but right now the sourcing is atrocious. One of the "references" is Cooljuno's userspace. As others have pointed out, blogs are not considered reliable sources either. This should be turned into a stub and then rebuilt using real sources. Aleta ^Sing 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly this is an academic term and clearly it is new. Fine. No problem there. But it must be sourced from academic sources or other highly credible sources such as New Society. Otherwise it's just somebody's internet theorizing. This is no place for Original Reseach. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without prejudice for recreation if notability can be established as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. John Carter (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither Google-news nor Google-scholar returned any hits for the term anthrosexual. Aleta ^Sing 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No scholarly sources found in journal databases.-Wafulz (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE EVER KEEP, this is an encyclopedic article that should be included here. Concept exists (see above). Dusti^{talk to me} 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: With such a strong keep, can you give any sources to improve the article? It's sorely lacking in them right now. Aleta ^Sing 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- Aleta ^Sing 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whether notability exists or not, I feel that this article should exist because as long as people identify themselves as this; this article should exist. User:Lighthead ^þ 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it needs RS to exist on WP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that chat rooms, online groups, and other organizations that have been formed around Anthrosexuality is a good enough RS for me. By deleting this article, we are simply denying it existence, but we have to own up to it, it does exist, and i don't think we have the right to deny its existence just because it doesn't turn up a search in google scholar. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well strictly speaking we do. Without proper sourcing of articles Wikipedia perpetuates something that might not be properly defined and thus becomes the source of other peoples definitions Self Perpetuation. I can't say strongly enough that Wikipedia just doesn't pre-empt scholarly debate. -- BpEps - t@lk 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno, that comment indicates to me that you need to read and seriously consider WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. Aleta ^Sing 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whole paragraphs (if sections) need to be deleted for sure; but that's apart from deleting the whole article. User:Lighthead ^þ 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, possible merge~~ Weak keep, possible merge: The subject does appear to exist, and as such I believe an article on the subject should exist as well, although the present article is obviously in need of some work. Is anyone here familiar with the Pomosexual article? That article could use some work as well, and seeing as they are both terms for people who choose not to identify with any particular sexual orientation I think a merge between the two articles might be in place. —Mears man (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing to light the article on Pomosexual, i can see these articles having a strong relation in the future. I also believe that this article helps debug the argument of a deleting Anthrosexual with the argument that it falls under as neologism. I don't know exactly if this word is a neologism, but i know indefinently that the concept of anthrosexaulity isn't anything new. I feel that this article has every right to be on this site, even if it is a neologism. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But can you find some more reliable sources? I would love to see it stay - properly sourced that is, and blogs don't cut it. Aleta ^Sing 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giving things another look, my position would probably be better defined as "weak keep", and I've changed it as such. There definitely seems to be historical evidence that the concept exists, and I'd hate to see the article go, but there just isn't a whole lot out there about the actual terms "Anthrosexual" and "Anthrosexuality". Because of this, it's going to be hard to confirm that the term itself actually describes the mindset being discussed. I've continued searching for references, but I'm just not finding much. If the article is deleted, hopefully someday there will be more published works about Anthrosexuality out there and the article could be recreated. —Mears man (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a discussion at Non-western concepts of male sexuality about including perspectives of sexuality and sexual orientation that are outside the western, American Psychological Association-style mainstream. The discussion is currently focusing on, e.g., the Native American two-spirit phenomenon, but there's certainly room for a larger-scale (and well-sourced) discussion about incorporating alternative sexual concepts into WP's sexuality and LGBT articles. But a crappy stub of an article is not the best way to have that discussion. Fireplace (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article seems is largely held together by what appears to be original research with little in the way of encyclopaedic information beyond a dictionary definition of a neologism. The subject described by the term appears to be covered in several other related articles and any relevent encyclopaedic information (although I do not think there is currentky any in the article) could be transferred. If - as suggested above - Wikipedia were to have an article on everything that exists the project would be MySpace by the end of the month. Guest9999 (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not orig. research. Concept proven in ancient greeks. Did you even take a look at the article and read the history section?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read the article. Whilst there are bits which are sourced and may be factually accurate they largely do not directly related to the subject of the article and are likely covered elsewhere in other articles on sexuality and/or ancient history. Most of the sections which link all of the information together and with the article title are tagged as "citation needed" and without sourcing I think it is likely that this linking of the subject matter is original research. To me it seems like these sections are fundamental to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly original research, and the only source that even defines the term is an online forum. No evidence that this term is more than a "proto-neologism." If we merged only the quality content in this article, there would be nothing to merge. Nick Graves (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not orig. research. Concept proven in ancient greeks. Did you even take a look at the article and read the history section?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume that nobody has read the article. If I invent a concept called "frizzigiggy" and say it refers to the Ancient Greek practice of creating olive oil, that doesn't mean it's been "proven". Existence is not the same as verifiability or tertiary research.-Wafulz (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno, people have read the article, and are making their critiques thereon. Even though some related ideas are discussed relative to the Greeks, there is nothing in the article that shows that "anthrosexual" is used to describe the situation in the Greeks. For you to combine the two ideas constitutes synthesis, which is considered a form of original research, and not allowed on WP. Aleta ^Sing 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - House of Scandal (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to share why you feel the article should be deleted? —Mears man (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to, but since you asked, I advocate deletion per almost all of the above comments. While I don’t necessarily doubt the existence of the phenomenon described in this article, it is not verifiably defined as "Anthrosexual" or "Undefined sexuality" to my satisfaction. The meat of this article is original research. The article seems to be an attempt to coalesce ideas and attach them to these terms rather than showing that these terms are actually strongly associated with the concepts discussed or even that these concepts have been concretely identified. It is, in short, putting the cart before the horse. The most solid ideas in this article might already be found in History of human sexuality and other articles. I’ll add that although it’s not a factor in my vote, I feel that Cooljuno411 could better advance his or her viewpoint through the consistent use of a more polite tone. Few flies are caught with vinegar in AfD debates. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hazarian

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steven Hazarian (2nd nomination)

Contested PROD: Non-notable footballer, does not seem to have played professional football at any level. Article was included in a previous AfD of football bios that demonstrated no notability, most were improved this one wasn't. It still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN English peasant 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 21:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plays in a professional Premier League which allows Champions League Qualification. Needs references badly though. Porterjoh (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and couldn't find any reference to the fact that he had actually played a game. In the case of Premier League or La Liga, players articles about players who have never actually played get deleted on a regular basis, I can't see why it should be any different for the much less notable Armenian Premier League. English peasant 10:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any evidence that there is an Armenian footballer by this name. There is a Gevorg Ghazaryan, but I can't find any other Ghazaryans or Hazarians that match this one. Even if there is a real person by this name, if he had played in the Armenian Premier League, there should be sources for it (like there are for the other players on this team). Jogurney (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, he exists (Stepan Ghazaryan) and has played for Banants ([1]). I'm a fool. Jogurney (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, played for the Armenian national team. Stifle (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the identity of the player has been established I would support the speedy closure of this AfD and a move to Stepan Ghazaryan. English peasant 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Both Speedy deleted as patent nonsense. I read both of the articles three times through and could not get even the slightest sense of what they were saying. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governor and Company of the Mattachusetts Bay in Newe-England

Article lacks any context and comes off as nonsensical. Presumably this is an excerpt from the Charter of Massachusetts Bay? If so, this information would be better off in an article on the Charter as a whole, which provides context and sources. Fullobeans (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to user maybe you should have a chat with the editor who created this, Amovrvs, they seem to be contributing usefully. Their user-page is in the same sort of gibberish format, and they evidently have several users on the go, but a look at their contribution logs shows good edits (for the most part, haven't looked in-depth). Take a look at Praedictus_Juratus as well, it's related and seems to have been added in the same go. Maybe Amovrvs (Amourus with latin letter-forms?) can be convinced to clean it up. BananaFiend (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to~~ Massachusetts Bay Colony, which the editor appears to be duplicating with archaic/historic names and spellings. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He's posted this same text on Massachusetts Bay Colony as well, but once again without context or explanation. Curious. I'll leave another note on his talk page encouraging him to enter this discussion. He's definitely up to something, and it could conceivably be something worthwhile.Fullobeans (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both (change of vote). Mattachusetts is an obscure fork on Mass. Bay Colony. Even if Praedictus Juratus were correct, it would be obscure trivia (WP:DICDEF). Delete as an unsalvageable mess. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps "Mattachusetts" is a misreading of "Massachusetts" as spelled with the long s (which usually is misread as an "f", not a "t"). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps transfer to WikiSource? Fg2 (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever this is supposed to be, it's not an encyclopedia article. I've taken the liberty of adding Praedictus Juratus, by the same author, to the nom, since it is complete balderdash. "Praedictus Matthaeus Cradocke Juratus est …" at the bottom of the Massachusetts Bay Charter simply means "The aforementioned (praedictus) Matthew Cradocke has been sworn (juratus est) …". "Praedictus Juratus" is not a title equivalent to "governor", as the article claims. It looks to me as though a lot of this editor's work will need to be scrutinized. If I've overstepped by the addition to the nom, let me know, and I'll create a new AfD for that article. Deor (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete both: as nonsense; this is WP:BULLSHIT country. RGTraynor 03:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Deor. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, and given the example Praedictus Juratus, which is a complete misunderstanding of the Latin appearing incidentally in the charter, I'm not so sure I would characterize this editor's contributions as "useful". --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to give the impression that this stuff was useful, merely that the editor has been involved in useful edits before. BananaFiend (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vukcevich Super Cup

AfDs for this article:

Tournament does not appear to be notable. Speedy deletion had been requested but I don't think that any of the speedy criteria are applicable. AFD had been attempted before (almost 2 years ago) although it looks like the AFD page was not completed properly - with only a "keep" from the user who created the AFD page - and the AFD tag was removed from the article, so I decided to list it here again. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article establishes the notability. SyG (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Bubba73 (talk), 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't a free web host. Stifle (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an article requiring citations. It has not been marked as such and contributors have not had an opportunity or may not even be aware of the requirement to correctly add citations. As such raising an AfD does not seem appropriate procedure. Comments above 'Wikipedia isn't a free web host' suggests in some way that the info is not legitimate. A check on search engines shows this Cup is recognised by United States Chess Federation, so clearly it's a real article about a real award. Whether it can meet notability I'm not sure, but I'm not going to make a subjective claim that it can be deleted without an opportunity of citations to be brought forward. ChessCreator (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's nearly three days before this AFD closes to come up with some citations. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there is no deadline, there's also no reason the article can not be recreated once notability improves. - Owlmonkey
Delete - Fails WP:N I did a search for citations and found no one discussing the cup or award as a secondary source. plenty of notability for its chess champion namesake, but the tournament itself seems not very well commented upon yet. Maybe time will change that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. - Philippe 03:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic flag

The article violates WP:Verify and WP:Notability for the reasons explained here --George (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [2] This article in an Egyptian newspaper attacking the idea of the flag counts as coverage in a reliable source. There may have been cover in other Egyptian newspapers as well. --Eastmain (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. FusionMix 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One article in an Egyptian newspaper isn't significant coverage, especially if it calls the flag's creators separatists. I think if we're going to keep this article we should say that the creators are separatists since this is what the only reliable source says, but I don't think the article is notable enough to keep it. Also, the Background section is full of unverified claims. --George (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have enough sources as far as I can see. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The flag has widespread acceptance among many Copts and Coptic organizations. In addition, it has drawn much public attention within Egypt (see Masrawy portal [3] Akhbar Al Hawadeth official newspaper [4], Secular Studies and Research Center in the Arab World [5], the site of Copts in the Holy Land [6], a Cambridge-based survey on Copts [7], Coptic Canadian Organization alluding to an article in the Egyptian magazine Rosa Al Youssef mentioning the Coptic Flag [8], this is in addition to the other links already mentioned within the article itself). For all these reasons, I believe the article is very relevent. Finally, I do not see any unverified claims in the article. Please point out what you're alluding to. --Lanternix (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- there is no proof that it "has widespread acceptance among many Copts and Coptic organizations", the links 2,3 and 7 are against the idea of the flag and call the creators separatists, the 4th link does not represent an official organization (only the view of the site's owners), the fifth page is a copy of this link (The Coptic Flag, Meanings and Colors) which is already in the artilce, and the sixth page is a survey asking wether you have heard of the flag. The links 2 and 3 prove that the flag has drawn some attention in Egypt, but it isn't enough to have its own article in wikipedia and the fifth link belongs to the "Coptic Church in Nazareth-Isreal" which does not represent copts at all (according to our article on Copts the number of copts in Israel isn't significant enough to be mentioned, the same argument applies to the link to "the New Zealand Coptic Association"). The article in the "Free Copts" site (The site that introduced the idea of the flag) is written by the creator of the article on wikipedia. (NB. the "Free Copts" isn't an official organization, and they "do not claim to represent the Coptic people as a whole politically or otherwise in any official capacity"[9]).The unverified claims I was pointing to were the first and last paragraph of the Background section as a whole.--George (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from the source George pointed out it looks like Lanternix (talk · contribs) is directly involved with one of the sources cited to claim notability. Not necessarily a WP:COI but for me at least draws some of the claims above into question as potentially non-neutral. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the article since it appears to enjoy some notability, and instead focus on improving the article if you feel that it needs balancing. I realize it's a sensitive topic that seems to generate strong reactions from its opponents, but this is not exclusive to the flag. George and Lanternix, you appear to have reached consensus to remove it from the infobox at Copt, so please just continue to work out the details of the article itself on its talk page. Some of the issues raised in the links supplied by Lanternix can be pointed out in the article, for example, but this is an issue for the talk page not AFD. — Zerida ☥ 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the idea of the flag, but this isn't why I nominated the article for deletion, I really think it isn't notable, most copts have never heard of it (I am a copt and I first saw it on wikipedia) and it isn't recognized by the coptic ~~orthodox~~ church (~~the only organization that represents copts in general~~).--George (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mere fact that the Coptic Flag is a subject for controversy is a good enough reason for me to consider it as both notable and verifiable , if it is not notable so why the controversy!? and if it is not verifiable so how come people are arguing over it, agree with it or not , I don't think that there is enough reasons for deletion--Ghaly (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I think the article is very notable. The fact that you have not heard about it does not mean much. I am sure there are many people who don't know about things that relate to them in one way or another. For instance, I am sure you have not heard about the flag of the Coptic Orthodox Church itself. There is a large Coptic community in Israel/Palestinian territory, this is why they have their own Coptic Metropolitan (who is hierarchly second to the Coptic Pope). Furthermore, the Coptic Orthodox Church does NOT represnt the Copts. There are hundreds of thousands of non-Orthodox Copts. The Coptic Church only has dominion over spiritual issues, NOT over political and secular stances. I agreed to remove the Coptic Flag from the infobox of the article Copt since most people deemed this appropriate. I will however compose a section in this article about the Coptic Flag, at some point. I will try to address further issues when I get some more time. --Lanternix (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention that I've seen hunderds of Coptic youths posting the Coptic Flag on their facebook profiles. I think this says something about how widely accepted the idea is among Copts. --Lanternix (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, I am a copt, I asked my friends, my relatives (from Egypt, USA, Canada and Italy), and a priest and they all said they have never heard of it (But you're right, it doesen't matter, see WP:IKNOWIT). I haven't heard of the flag of the Coptic Orthodox Church either and their is no flag in its article on wikipedia. What I meant was that there is no church in Egypt (or other countries with a significant coptic population) that does recognize the flag (not necessarily Orthodox). According to our article on Copts, a copt is a native Egyptian Christian, I think this means that the coptic church is the organization that represents copts officialy. (maybe I'm wrong)--George (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Other statless peoples, or national liberation movements have such pages Palestinian flag and this one has gotten at least some attention from the press. Thomas Babbington (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]
Delete.

The article is almost a carbon copy of page, and is written by the same person.
The current sources are the above link, the article from Akhbar El Yom, the "New Zealand Coptic Association" and an internet forum. The internet forum can't be cited as a source (see this), the "New Zealand Coptic Association" does not represent copts in New Zealand (whose population is unknown / less than 1000), and the link to the site of the "Free Copts" who, according to the article in Akhbar el Hawadeth are the ones who designed the flag (not independent of the subject), they are also called "separatists" in the same article (see this). The only source left is the article itself (the newspaper article) which isn't significant coverage.
The Background section does not cite any sources (except for "Egyptians are not really Arabs"), and isn't in any way verifiable. The section claims to represent the views of copts in general. (see WP:Verify, WP:SOAP/Opinion pieces and WP:NPOV)
The article was changed/reverted many times to equally non-notable versions and a POV tag was removed from the background section. (see the article's history page, and WP:CIVIL)

--George (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Seems like a wonderful flag and concept generally, but not worth including in an encyclopedia until it has more notability established by secondary sources. But if it really does become a well discussed and commented upon symbol in the future then re-add the article. Having the New Zealand subgroup and the free copts blog adopt it does not in my mind make it an established symbol either, and if it really does become popular with youth then at a certain point that will attract comments and notability that way. Or if it became officially adopted as a predominate symbol, that would cross into notability for me or perhaps have it merge with the copt article. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus --JForget 01:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin chronicles

Comic book released three days ago; no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability, no sources in article to show notability. Gsearch comes up with lots of blog mentions (many by the creators of the comic), but not much solid evidence of notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delete depending on whether those reviews mentioned actually exist. If they do, they should be linked to and ideally summarized. If they don't, delete it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links to third-party reviews by popular and reputable comic book news sites have been added. I believe this entry is note worthy as it is a published piece of work which has been positively reveiwed on serveral reputable comic book news sites. It is also the first "all-ages" fantasy genre comic published by Ape Entertainment, which has been publishing comic book for over 5 years.Trollx (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Links provided seem to provide notability. Article and links need wikification. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AICN and Broken Frontiers are pretty reliable reviewers (the former notable, the latter link seems to be redirecting at the moment despite being listed on their review page) but Ape is currently scraping by on notability and none of the creators are as yet notable. That said Ape have got some interest in some recent series and as this is only just starting and has some good reviews already I err on the side of keep but it does need more sources - I'll keep an eye out for interviews as they can help add extra real-world context to proceedings. (Emperor (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, does not appear to have been out for long enough to have developed any serious notability. Stifle (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Stifle. Eusebeus (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional proof of notability to the article. Two prequel stories featuring characters from The Goblin Chronicles minieseries have been published prior to the release of the miniseries. The first prequel story was published back in May 2007 for Free Comic Book Day. The second story was published in the Fablewood Anthology, which was published in Feb 2008. Two links to interviews with the creators were also added.Trollx (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Make my above statement a keep then. AfD isn't supposed to be our way of improving an article, but that's the result in this case. Close as no consensus this time if you must. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily kept. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taourirt

Possible hoax, no references, or coordinates, may not exist, short 1 sentence article. Simple stated does not meet WP:V NewAtThis (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A hoax? And this is an accusation by an editor who has never had a message posted on his talk page. A quick google search shows numerous settlements under this name in Algeria and indeed Morocco . Does it strike anybody as strange than an editor with less than 40 edits is suddenly interested in afds? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A simple Google search would provide enough sources to prove its not a hoax, [10] for one. Mr.Z-man 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search under Taurirt also reveals countless more populated places often in Morocco too. A search at Maplandia shows there are at least 100 places with the same or a similar name, most of them in Morocco. I suggest to the nominator in future he learns to use google as a search to identify settlements. Other than this if he is rightly concerned about lack of verification, I might recommend he kindly asks the article creator to amend it and improve the article before taking it to afd. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, per above. Izzy007 Talk 22:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete; default to "keep". - Philippe 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gounder (caste)

Prodded as All attempts to find reliable sources failed, Patent Nonsense. The template was in fact removed once and put back so the deletion was not perfectly according to the procedure. After a complaint, I am putting it here. Check the history of the article as well. No opinion from my side. Tone 13:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Delete I don't know which side I want to take either. Nothing 444 15:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a reference which may help decide whether to keep this article. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the Kongu Vellalar disambiguation page, it looks like both the Gounder (caste) and Vellala Gounder articles are content forks about the same subject. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Gounder (title) also appears to have overlapping content. I'm not making any specific recommendation because I just can't get my head round all these articles on South Asian castes/clans/tribes/surnames etc., but it does seem to me that we have too many articles covering the same ground here and that some merging should take place. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agreeing with Phil Bridger above - there's a good article in here somewhere, but it needs to be sorted out. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kongu Vellalars. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There appears to be some good referenced information in the various articles about these castes/families. A suitable expert is required to sort out a consistent set of article titles and merge/re-arrange the material appropriately. In the meanwhile, perhaps some preliminary merging could take place where there is obvious overlap in material. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gounder is a major caste in Tamil Nadu. Gounder (title) may be merged with Gounder (caste). Within the Gounder caste, there are many subcastes exists. Vellala Gounder is one of the prominent among them. --Salih (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a Vellala Gounder article. Moreover Gounder (caste) could not be merged with Vellala Gounder as it is poorly sourced. Hence, it is better to delete the article-Ravichandar 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antagarich

Prodded because of "can not meet WP:FICT notability: no real world info". After a contested prod, I am nominating it here. No opinion from my side. Tone 13:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into article on all fictional places in Might and Magic. As it stands, no notability is claimed for this fictional place.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NOT#PLOT. There is hardly a sentence with real-world content other than the first which mentions this is a fictional world. Other than that, it is downhill all the way: original research with an in universe perspective. I think this is a sympthom of there being no reliable secondary sources to provide real-world content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no other reliable sources. --Starionwolf (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per established norm. Articles for Enroth and Erathia (two more continents in this same world each with games set on them) have already been deleted. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 09:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partscaster

Original research, orphaned page since 2006. Looks like very narrow, local term or term invented by page creator. GreyCat (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No, its not a term created by the author; however, there are no hits referring to this particular make of guitar. Rather than just leaving it there, the article should either be improved upon or deleted. The former is rather impossible however, as there are very little, if any, sources of information about this guitar. Thus, deletion is the way to go. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is just a slang term for a guitar built from parts, doesn't belong here. Izzy007 Talk 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to improve the article as much as possible to save it, but I just can't see this article staying. Izzy007 Talk 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable --Starionwolf (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. e.g. not a single google book search or amazon book search hit; i see it in use sparingly on the web, not sure if even qualifies as a neologism yet though. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Minds

Non-notable game. I went to the publishers site and it isnt even listed in their publication list, i google searched it and only found a company called Pop Minds Salavat (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Salavat (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-There're a couple of problems rearding this article. Number one, its not sourced. Number two, it is not notable (zero hits on Google, the only ones are completely unrelated to the subject). Number three, its been orphaned since 8 October, 2006. I don't think we should leave it unattended any longer. I say we delete it. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's listed at Amazon.de, but it's a German-only game. It might be possible to locate some German reviews on it. Gazimoff (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds of WP:V and WP:N. If a single reliable source can be found, it may be worth a mention on Jamie Stevens. Marasmusine (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or least merge into Jamie Stevens. A version of the official site on the Wayback Machine lists reviews on TLZ.de, Doppelpunkt.net, VIVA TV Switzerland, etc. --Pixelface (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, in spite of the claim of "receiving rave reviews" on the Jamie Stevens article. No citations currently on either the english or german versions of stevens article about the game though. If citations are found though in german, perhaps extend the description on his article about it and put the citations there. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion point out that the article is unsourced. The one reference for the article says that she was a chorus dancer in a movie, but there are no other references to tie the rest of her life together. The article could possibly be a hoax. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa jennings

Doesn't seem to have notability. — scetoaux (T/C) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a claim for notability in the article as a popular child actor in Japan. The current sourcing in the article is very weak but the article is very new. It should have been tagged for reference imnprovements (now tagged) and given a chance to be worked on before being taken to AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Lisa Jennings. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Neier (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found. I tried, and came up empty; which is odd for the supposedly most-googled child actress. No ja: wikipedia article that I could find; and there are issues with the name (Asrari is not Japanese, afaik), and other parts of the article that make me suspicious. Neier (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an extremely minor non-notable actress/model. I can find no references on the web in English or Japanese linking her with Ito-en. --DAJF (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There really does seem to be some notability here, but the article has problems with references. I think it probably ought to be kept because notability is present, but it really does need work with citing the statements. I would support keeping this article if proper refs were able to be found (which, after Googling her name, looks like a hard-pressed task). --JamieS93 01:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are found to confirm notability. There are claims that she was a notable child star in Japan, but I can find no evidence of that. For all I know, this could be a partial hoax.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found to confirm the child TV popularity claims. The rest is non-notable if that does not stand scrutiny. I looked for some sources to confirm the TV claim and failed, but I'm guessing someone would need to find news commentaries in japanese pop mags from that era and we won't find much already in english. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete; default to "Keep". - Philippe 03:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'Neill's of Puerto Rico / O'Neill's of the Fews

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/O'Neill's of Puerto Rico / O'Neill's of the Fews

Contested prod. This is genealogy and unencyclopedic and, per WP:NOT, does not belong here. Eusebeus (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep They seem notable enough historically. Sourcing is of course needed. DGG (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as it stands but, individually, many of the members of the family would easily be notable for articles in their own right. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 08:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral (and sorry for the late return to this dicussion) The article could be split, with articles about the notable members of the family, but would still need to referenced and sourced to reliable sources. Certainly Don Tulio O'Neill O'Keffe, the Governor of Spanish West Florida and Don Arturo O'Neill de Tyrone, would merit articles in their own right, on notabilty, and for lack of a better word, importance. However, I have concerns about the notability of some of the later generations. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split~~Delete~~ - into articles on the notable people therein. They can be linked together where appropriate, and have ancestry and relationships described. Some content is speculation, and other content could go into a history section of St Croix. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "delete" would preclude reusing/merging the content elsewhere. – Zedla (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Aye, there's the rub, all right. While many of the earlier notable members of the family are covered by existing articles, there is the potential for several articles here: for example, Don Arturo O'Neill de Tyrone, the Governor of the Yucatan was also the commander of the Spanish forces in the unsuccessful attempt to annex Belize at the Battle of St. George's Caye, the anniversary of which is now commemorated as the National Day of Belize. While of course the article isn't referenced, there's no doubt that family members were important participants in Spanish, Mexican, Central American and Carribean history and if the author of this article were to create stubs on the notable members, there would be something to work from. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's claim is specious, citing a policy that's intended to keep people from putting their family trees up as articles. This is a discussion of a noteworthy clan that is ready for improvement. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if some of the members of this family are notable, the article would still need a complete rewrite. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split - i think there is salvageable material, but i don't think an article covering the entire clan makes sense before having the most notable people established. Better to focus on the key people, list their genealogy if useful on those articles, and perhaps draw connections between them ultimately if that shared content is sufficient to warrant a common article. That's my two cents at least. But the article as it stands today appears questionable to me. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, still. No valid reason for deletion ever asserted (nomination was specious), and the argument that a clan can't be notable doesn't hold up. Why the obsession with deleting this when there's so much nonfactual content you could address? The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has been userfied at User:Stephiebleyer/Christopher Wangro. The user had blanked the Afd notice before the discussion was closed. --JForget 01:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wangro

While he seems to be involved in some productions, doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO. ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't think he is notable. AndreNatas (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources. Only notable site that I found that mentioned his name is on IMDB. --Starionwolf (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher (a.k.a Chris Wangro) is currently producing the Pope's visit to the USA. There are hundreds of articles about him on-line including several in the New York Times.

Over the last 20 years, Christopher Wangro has made significant contributions to the art and production of live spectacles. Wangro is a legend and impresario in the live event industry.

Among his many contributions, he

Created the World’s Largest Chicken Pot Pie
Was the last person to ever fly a hot air balloon over New York City
Produced the largest political arts festival to ever take place in the United States
Oversaw 3 largest events to ever take place in Central Park: “Earth Day '90,” “Paul Simon's Concert in the Park” and “Pavarotti's Concert In The Park.”
Recently brought the World's Largest Pumpkin to Grand Central Station
Produced the first post 9/11 tribute (nationally televised)
Has shut down Times Square several times for various events
Has produced events with every living President —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephiebleyer (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - doing things in and of themselves is not sufficient, for verifiability we need secondary sources, basically other third party people commenting about those activities and that they were notable. therefore, an accomplished person if they maintain their privacy might be notable but unverifiable here. (also i just fixed the formatting of your list for readability. hope that was ok) - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cannot find sources verifying anything in the article nor establishing notability. Did find a source for his age and birthday, missing from the article, but that was it. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Ty_Parsec#Wirewolf. - Philippe 03:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wirewolf

Unknown notability, and everything here is already on the Ty Parsec page Piemanmoo (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or Merge with Ty Parsec if this information is deemed worthwhile. It's not enough to sustain an entire article. Verkhovensky (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ty_Parsec#Wirewolf. This will still allow readers to easily find the info, and satisfy the requirements of WP:FICTION.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ty_Parsec#Wirewolf per previous. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn and concerns expressed by only delete-voting editor have been addressed. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seizo Suzuki

~~Contested WP:PROD, doesn't look like it passes notability to me. Questionable notability tag's been up since April. Wizardman 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)~~ ...and look how easy that was to fix up. Nom withdrawn. Wizardman 00:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah...I was thinking about buying one of his roses...should have noticed this before. All's well that ends well, as the noted rosarian Professor Calculus says in Red Rackham's Treasure. Novickas (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No improvements to the article since the initial stub a year ago. No references or assertions of notability. Fails WP:BIO. —BradV 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—There is some indication of this person's notability.[11] The French and Japanese articles have more information, so perhaps a translation request would help?—RJH (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have added some refs. Novickas (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs now in article show notability to me.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's arlready done sufficiently demonstrates notability. A translation request on the Japanese article would definitely be in order. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of characters in the Mortal Engines Quartet. - Philippe 03:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Natsworthy

Brought this here to discuss per DGG's request. A search is heard because it brings up coverage of the author and mentions the character but I don't find any evidence that the character itself is notable in an out-of-universe sense and the article is basically plot summaries of the character's role in the series. So discuss. :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters in the Mortal Engines Quartet. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters in the Mortal Engines Quartet. Not enough information for it's own article. Undeath (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of characters in the Mortal Engines Quartet as per WP:FICTION. Gsearch not showing notability, no notability claimed in article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. --Starionwolf (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Order of the Gorgon's Head, article is a duplicate with no extra info - Nabla (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgon's Head

AfDs for this article:

Gorgon's Head is about a non-notable secret society. It deserves to be deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothing444 (talk • contribs) 16:11, March 22, 2008

Keep ~~on the condition that it can be referenced.~~ I take that back, keep regardless. It's fine as a stub. There are certainly articles on other secret societies Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD was malformed, I fixed it. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 00:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The members of this society have done such a good job of keeping it secret that it appears to have no internet presence outside a reference to 6 inches of shelf space for its records in the UNC library [12]. Notability is regularly questioned for Student Unions which represent many thousands of students at large universities, so I don't think we can say that a small secret society has any claim to inherent notability. On another point if this is kept it should be moved to Order of the Gorgon's Head, and either way Gorgon's Head should be a redirect to Gorgon, which is far more likely to be what a reader is looking for when typing this phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As soon as I saved my last edit I noticed that Order of the Gorgon's Head is a blue link - we already have another article on the same subject. Should that be added to this AfD? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Order of the Gorgon's Head, which has more information and more references for notability standards. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Order of the Gorgon's Head, which covers the same topic anyway and contains more information and refs. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I guess the best temporary solution is to redirect this, but I don't see any notabilty for this subject whatever it is called. It's too late now to add Order of the Gorgon's Head to this AfD so I'll open one for it as soon as this one has been closed. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flumen solum

Delete as fictional element in unreleased book. Google search shows 4 results, two of them here. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fictional items from an unpublished book cannot possibly be notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - encyclopaedic and not notable. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 21:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FICTION/WP:WAF, and what JohnCD said. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. Can't find any evidence the unpublished book is notable, let alone a fictional place in it.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable yet. --Starionwolf (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails too many tests to list here, could always be recreated after the book (or television special) is published. - Dravecky (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:FICTION - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play Pirate

According to the author, this is a recently created neo/protologism. Unsourced original research, no assertion of notability. Acroterion _(talk) 20:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Plunder~~ Delete as unsourced neologism with no significant usage as of yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or even db-nonsense. Beach drifter (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:NEO, WP:NFT... JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFT was what I couldn't put my finger on, thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or keel haul. Can't find significant usage in this sense; article says term was coined within the last three months, so hardly likely to have widespread usage.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources --Starionwolf (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to innosense. (I did a brute force merge, please help cleanup) See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Finn (3rd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Latona (2nd nomination) - Nabla (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danay Ferrer

AfDs for this article:

Non notable, fails music guidelines on wikipedia, article doesn't make a prima facie case of any significance of its subject whatsoever, should have been a CSD Adam Pirolo (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge to article on group. Can't find any evidence this individual is notable in gsearch, article isn't claiming notability. Even sources in article on group aren't mentioning this person. --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to innosense. Single-line stub. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Merge) & Redirect as above. No independent notability established. Eusebeus (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the group article. Callelinea (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to innosense. (I did a brute force merge, please help cleanup) See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danay Ferrer (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Latona (2nd nomination) - Nabla (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Finn

AfDs for this article:

fails wp:music, not notable, no significant musical pieces. makes no contribution to society, poorly written, appealing only to the under-12 set. Adam Pirolo (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to innosense, or delete. Finn by herself fails WP:Music, at least by the sources quoted in the article. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment: Please keep the discussion polite. In a previous discussion some rather impolite words appeared, which made some doubt the nominator's good faith.)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to innosense. Most of the ghits for Finn come from her relationship with Justin Timberlake; not finding any notability on her own.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to innosense. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to innosense.Callelinea (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to innosense. (I did a brute force merge, please help cleanup) See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Finn (3rd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danay Ferrer (2nd nomination) - Nabla (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Latona

AfDs for this article:

fails WP:MUSIC, non notable. Waste of space. No significant hits. Adam Pirolo (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Not my field, but an interesting question, if I understand things right. She seems to be no significant recordings, she was a member of a group only during the period before they became important, and the main aspect of notability is being the subject of a NYT article discussing the efforts of her managers to promote her into an important career, which have apparently not succeeded? If a RS writes a major human interest article to demonstrate how thoroughly a person is unimportant, do we include that person? DGG (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep based on NYT article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the NYT article Callelinea (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD#G12 (blatant copyvio). —Travis ^talk 14:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bidyut Khan

Does not meet the WP:MUSIC notability requirements as there are no references. Also, as a side note if you search for "Bidyut Khan" on google.com you only get 303 hits. Ctempleton3 (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio of http://asia.cnet.com/music/0,39058993,42020600p,00.htm -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete; default to keep.. - Philippe 03:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter Berry

Unnotable college player, fails WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Freshman All-American from two of the highest-profile college football web sites outside of ESPN is a fair approximation of notability. From the looks of the box at the bottom of the page, it's apparent that someone plans on writing articles on every member of last year's Fiesta Bowl winning squad. Even as a loyal Mountaineer, that's going to be a tall order getting everyone to pass notability guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a Freshman All-American (if he were, notability would then be questionable). He was only "All" in highschool, and that wasn't All-American either. His college career - so far - isn't remotly notable. The ghits that you get are just every sports websites templated profiles that they have for every single Division I college player. ~~And yes, the creator does have plans to create an article on each player (I have attempted to talk him out of it, to no avail). So we might want to nip his plans in the bud.~~ --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a freshman All-American that started on the WVU defense that ranked in the Top 10 nationally, and he is going to again be starter on the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Deadeye (talk • contribs)
Delete, I PRODed this one for the same reasons. I don't think the sole claim to notability is enough and/or a differentiator between any other college player. I don't think college ball, despite being DivI is the highest level of amateur or enough to pass WP:ATHLETE TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freshmen All-American on two decent lists. Because an editor plans to create articles for the entire WVU roster is not a valid reason for deleting. While I agree there are many non-notable college football players, making a freshmen All-American list is nothing to sneeze at. MECU≈talk 12:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Are there are any sources backing the claim that he was a freshman all-american?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's your source.[13] I hope the discussion concludes now. John (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P. J. Phillips

Query hoax article. The dates don't match up. The guy's supposedly an English bassist but goes to school in Ohio whilst maintaining a career as a session musician? Somehow I don't think so. --WebHamster19:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems the article was vandalized at some point to make the dates wonky. ~~I'll try to revert the vandalism.~~ Vandalism reverted. With that in mind, this guy still doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any reliable sources writing about him. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Stifle (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Wings (Carrie Underwood album)

Non-notable demo album, only source is a blog. Article claims that the album was "never released officially", and was only a demo album, so I doubt that it's the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Demos are rarely notable, and I'm not finding notability for this one. No professional reviews found at metacritic, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrictramp (talk • contribs)

Delete Argh, I hate to agree with this but, delete it. It fails notability even for WP:MUSIC. σмgнgσмg ^(talk) 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. --Starionwolf (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article is pretty close to WP:CSD#G11.--Kubigula (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Parthapratim

The article fails WP:RS, WP:V, and is entirely WP:PEACOCK for the subject. Admittedly, I can't find anything on this guy - not even his first name. I tried a number of searches and can't come up with anything. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Iamblessed (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simple case of {{db-context}}. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Salih (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, also for this to meet Wikipedia's standards would require a re-write from scratch. (EhJJ)^TALK 16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clark University Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program

Fails to satisfy general notability guidelines by providing zero secondary sources that are reliable. In a basic web search no sources were found that could potentially be cited to satisfy the notability criteria. Additionally, academic departments are not notable unless they are exceptionally unique or prominent. This department is not. Noetic Sage 18:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. tim.bounceback 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no secondary sources. --Starionwolf (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Track PCs

Fails WP:CORP. Has not been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Nv8200p talk 18:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability. BJ^Talk 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable --Starionwolf (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow. Can't find anything on this. Not notable, and fails WP:CORP - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CHO'ZEN

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/CHO'ZEN

Non notable rapper, not sure if this should be speedy so put it here Harland1 (^t/_c) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Doesn't assert any sort of notability. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect as proposed. Sandstein (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menara-e-Noor

There's no indication that this meets notability guidelines. "Menara-e-Noor" Shahi hits 19 unique pages, almost entirely wiki mirrors. That the author is a little-known religious figure who ticked off the Pakistani government isn't enough to overcome the lack of secondary coverage and justify a Wikipedia article. — Scientizzle 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. Book isn't notable enough on its own. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. --Starionwolf (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect as proposed. Sandstein (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deen-e-Illahi

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Menara-e-Noor

There's no indication that this meets notability guidelines. "Deen-e-Illahi" Shahi hits 30 unique pages, almost entirely wiki mirrors. That the author is a little-known religious figure who ticked off the Pakistani government isn't enough to overcome the lack of secondary coverage and justify a Wikipedia article. — Scientizzle 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. Book isn't notable enough on its own. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. --Starionwolf (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Czehmester

Fails WP:PORNBIO. No clear explanation of notability - has simply appeared in a handful of non-notable (and red-linked) films. Contested PROD. SilkTork *^YES! 23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep La Sopa Boba is a notable program in Spain, and i think in the search to amass the sum of all human knowledge people would like to be able to look up an actor from such a program who also has a notable career in television in addition to porn which is verified.Carritotito (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Stifle (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO, and article doesn't assert anything otherwise. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HelloAnnyong. Stifle (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. - Philippe 15:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Davis (prostitute)

Single-event coverage does not meet notability criteria; she isn't even the prostitute Spitzer frequented - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of this WP:ONEEVENT she's pretty much a non-notable....no not going to say it, but non-notable anyway. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article was just created. Let's wait a little to see if the story giver her long-term notability, just like someone else that started off as a WP:ONEEVENT. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and [maybe] redirect, absolutely unnotable in herself, only notable in connection to the wider scandal. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find evidence she herself is charged with prostitution[14], so the name should probably be Kristin Davis (alleged madam). --Dhartung | Talk 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently she "serviced" him as well. But I agree that a move might be in order per Dhartung, or maybe to Kristin Davis (madam)--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's already been discredited. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I moved it to Kristin Davis (madam). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: Isn't a madam a women who runs a brothel? TheScotch (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. In this case, an "escort service". Again, she is charged with money laundering, not with being a prostitute. --Dhartung | Talk 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I'd like to re-direct this whole scandal to the circular bin, (the scandal itself, not the WP article), I don't think that's an option. So, merge per BLP1E/ONEEVENT, she's a n-n working girl. Relationship does not confer notability and nor does fun for hire TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is in the news as a service provider to a public figure, and will continue to be for a little while. Although I think she should be listed under her name as "Kristin 'Billie' Davis" and not as "Kristin Davis (big-time ho)" or however she has been recently redirected.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erxnmedia (talk • contribs)

Comment See people naming conventions. Use of middle names to avoid a disambiguation is deprecated. Articles should be titled as the subject is commonly known and a disambiguator added, in parenthesis in most cases, which permits use of the pipe trick. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or failing that keep. (This is one of the rare instances where I will call merging worse than either outright retention or deletion.) This is not a complete biography, and pretty much only covers one negative aspect of the person's life. Her role in the controversy is also fairly minor. I am strongly opposed to redirecting this to the prostitution ring, or scandal article, because that ties the person's name irrevocably to a negative article, and gives no opportunity to say anything else about her. It is far more respectful to the person to have a biography which can be expanded or rewritten to something beyond the current article, than to tie the person to a scandal and only the scandal. Still, I agree with the WP:ONEEVENT comments above, and prefer outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or , of course, pretend we don't know what's going on in the world, or what is likely to occur there. Right, nobody is ever going to hear of her again, or want know anything, and there is no material to expand the article. DGG (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I really can't identify the "one event" the nominator is referring to. It looks to me like this individual has received significant coverage. --Pixelface (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gross BLP problems. --18:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bora

Despite the huge quantities of text in this article, the subject's only claim to fame is a local arts award and a movie that went straight to video. The movies that he claims to have had 'small parts' in don't list him in the credits, so they must have been very small parts indeed. The blue links to his movies are all links to something else with the same name. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: His only IMDB activity stems from an obscure indie flick which he wrote and produced himself. He claims to have won an award from a local alternative weekly paper, but there is no evidence that he actually did, or of any other of the grandiose claims made of the stars and big shots with whom he allegedly worked or the commercials and movies he allegedly made. Given the amazing puffery of the article (for instance, Bora is described as having "lost" the role of Zorro in the recent eponymous movies to Antonio Banderas), I'm not surprised that in the 85 unique G-hits Bora elicits, almost all are from wannabee celeb-watch websites into which Bora seems to have inserted his name. RGTraynor 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Despite all the lofty claims made in this article, IMDb thinks otherwise. I'd almost consider this a WP:HOAX. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. --Starionwolf (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HelloAnnyong. Complete mess of an article. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curanderos (band)

Reason: This article does not list reference and asserts no notability. C. Williams (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The external links function as references, and having released four albums, once of which is decribed as reciving "critical attention," is an assertion of notability. Whether they actually meet WP:BAND is another question. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesnt necessarily meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Albums have to have been released on either a major label or a well known indie label which i dont think applies here. However they do seem to have some mention in second party sources though the reliability of these is in doubt in some case. Regardless the article needs a clean up. --neonwhite user page talk 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete due to lack of referencing. Not clear that this band meets WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alia Novack

Not notable fictional character who was only in three episodes. Philip Stevens (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Izzy007 Talk 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is already more than enough information about her at Quantum Leap Iamblessed (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into section (or spinout) on characters in Quantum Leap as per WP:FICTION. No individual, real world notability is claimed in article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Fabrictramp's idea --Starionwolf (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peucinian Society

AfDs for this article:

Was nominated for deletion on March 26, but the resulting discussion degenerated into a train wreck. The nominator's first contribution was to start the discussion, and all participants had no or few edits outside the topic. The only way to resolve this was to close and relist the discussion. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Blueboy 96 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a few alumni like that, seems notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable. More references would be nice. Izzy007 Talk 17:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Seems notable?" Errr ... is there any reason to think that it is notable, or that there are any reliable sources about this obscure society other than an archival note on the Bowdoin library website stating that it existed? Did this group have any influence other than that it purportedly had members who became famous later in life? (Emphasis on "purportedly;" there is no evidence on offer that any of those blue-links were actual members.) Almost all the work on this article comes from two SPAs who've slipped Peucinian references in to other articles. RGTraynor 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although importance seems a bit limited, due to a handful of biography-friendly alumni including Longfellow and Joshua Chamberlain, there are book sources published up to the present day. For the most part these are side references rather than in-depth coverage, but combined with the other material on Google Books including personal reminiscences and primary sources, there's enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge on main articleKeep Let's check the sources for this, shall we? First hit on google: [15] An archive, by the college of the minutes and info of the society. The National Library of Australia cites this [16], looks self published though. And more important, the book that is the main source for Literary Societies refers to this society. Making it notable by WP:N, covered in a reliable secondary source. And I didn't even check Google Scholar. But the article needs serious improvement. On a side note, why the revert war to put it back to stub or the other version? Samuel Sol (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the other comments for delete and checking a bit more of the sources, I'm not convinced that this can't be made into a an article. In fact, in think it can make a good one. Although it is far from that shape. With that in mind, I vote for the best compromise to redirect the article to the College one, and merge this info there. When it comes a time when that section makes enough size to become a full article I think we can revisit this AfD. Samuel Sol (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version was a cut-and-paste copyvio of the society's Website. Blueboy 96 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. WP:V is not satisfied by trivial mentions. Are there any reliable sources out there about the society? RGTraynor 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The fact that the college has archives is not dispositive; the college also maintains the minutes of the Bowdoin Student Government[17], but nobody would defend the notability of that organization. Admittedly, the Peucinian Society is mentioned -- in footnotes and parentheticals -- in several secondary sources, but only by way of acknowledging that a few historical noteworthies used to belong. Not every organization with which a person of historical interest has been affiliated is, ipso facto, notable, and there's little reason to think that the Peucinian Society had any significant impact on its important alumni (among whom Hawthorne DOES NOT number). This maybe deserves a couple of sentences in the entry on Bowdoin College. WilliamPitts (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)— WilliamPitts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The Society seems fairly obscure and became defunct long ago. Seems fairly trivial. (Cowan50 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC))— Cowan50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep as there seem to be sources to expand the article. The 19th century college literary societies were often as important educationally as anything else taking place at the college. And I wouldnt say the main student goverment there is likely to be non-notable either. DGG (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The student government has the power to make limited alterations to the college's student life policies (and, which is the government's true area of expertise, its own rules of procedure); only an ultra-inclusionist would argue for this group's notability. WilliamPitts (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have said: seems to fail WP:V - and even if it were verifiable, unnotable. --moof (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to meet WP:V. I also consider any article to be suspicious if a sock/meatpuppet flood derails its AFD. Stifle (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Maine-based anon IP that has contributed heavily to the page has been blocked twice for vandalism in the last several days (including just by me), suggesting article is not one we would keep in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fine to add a mention and citations on the college's article, but doesn't warrant its own article unless scholarship has significantly discussed the society itself and the impact it had explicitly, in my opinion. And I'm not seeing that, just footnotes to show that it existed or had notable alumni. That may imply that the society had some significant impact on those people, but if it did then we would be citing scholars commenting on its impact. Without that there's not enough verifiable notability for the society itself in my mind. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Rock

Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and there isn't even enough content here to merge into Central Park#Climbing. Vagary (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is easy to improve the article as I am demonstrating Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search turned up many results. Someone add references and clean it up a bit. Izzy007 Talk 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The New York Times coverage easily establishes notability. --Oakshade (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several Google Books sources beginning in 1994 attest to its notability over time. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are already a couple good references in the article, and Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) seems to be doing some WP:HEY work on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geographical places are usually considered notable; this article has a good start to it. Just needs some expanding.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand the article. --Starionwolf (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Goodness (band)

The result was KEEP. Opposition to deletion is overwhelming, sources were presented, and there is no indication that this fails WP or WP:MUSIC guidelines.. Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed prod. Other than the usual rock band directories, there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability during the life of this now defunct group. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The Rolling Stone article is a fairly detailed profile, not a "rock band directory". Apparently nominator didn't bother to do any research before nominating, because there's plenty of additional significant coverage easily found in Google news: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Jfire (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above. Since the band recorded a cover version of Electricity, Electricity for Schoolhouse Rock! Rocks, I'm sure that they get some additional bit of press coverage in reviews for that as well. As one reviewer here [26] said "The only [cover] I halfway enjoyed was Electricity, Electricity by a band called Goodness." Might be somewhat trivial, but at least he also said why he had this opinion. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ghits and trivial mentions are not evidence of notability; every touring band gets them. What is needed is substantial content about the band's music and its development; information about sales and billboard listings would be good too - see WP:MUSIC for details of what is required. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider the Rolling Stone article (link provided in the article before you AfD'ed it) trivial? If you do, why? --Craw-daddy | T | 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you know, websites like this cannot always be classed as reliable, and have lower thresholds for inclusion of articles that Wikipedia. It is not clear who the author is, what the sources are, whether the article has been peer reviewed or if it was just a publicity piece commission by the band's promoters. I would expect there to be some reviews for a band in the publilc domain, but what little coverage there is seems to me to be trivial in nature. The band cannot inherit notability from its name being published in a magazine; the coverage needs to be substantial and not self-published. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Websites like Rolling Stone? --Maxa megalon 2000 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thought, exactly, Maxamegalon. Gavin: if Rolling Stone is not citable about a rock band, what would be? Are you saying that there are no magazines that are citable on this topic, or what? - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Carrie Akre, who fronted Goodness, has been one of the most prominent female vocalists on the Seattle rock scene for over 15 years. She also fronted Hammerbox; she's done background vocals for the likes of Mark Pickerel; the Goodness lineup heavily overlapped the Rockfords, which also included Pearl Jam guitarist Mike McCready. See also Akre's Allmusic bio. She's major enough that any group she fronted for years deserves an article. Further, the band had major-label releases: Lava (which released their first) was an imprint of Atlantic Records; their second album was on Epic. Seems to me that this should more than suffice. Not even vaguely borderline, probably not even in the bottom third of notability for rock band articles on Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a rule, I would expect that a nominator would make at least a cursory 2-minute Google search before taking up far more of other people's time with a deletion proposal. Was that done? - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, by the way, is a rather substantial article from the Seattle Weekly about Akre's decision to go back indie after her problems with major labels. - Jmabel | Talk 17:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Preview of Akre playing at Bumbershoot 2000. I think the other names on the list make it clear what league of performer we are talking about. (Sorry that these last 2 examples, found with a quick Google search are for the vocalist rather than her band; "Goodness" is a hard word to search on, and I don't feel like putting in a ton of research time right now, I'm not trying to write an article, just demonstrate notablility). - Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment I have searched, and could not find any material worth quoting. What is needed are reliable sources that cite non-trivial content about the band itself, but I could find none. Notability cannot be inhertited from the band's record label, management or even the fact that its members have done other stuff or have sucessful solo careers. Self-published sources such as fansites are not reliable. The fact that the band went on tour is not significant, unless it was the lead band and major ticket sales have been reported. If you can find some worthwhile material, add it to the article by all means. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I take it that means you still consider them non-notable. Let's start a work area below to gather evidence that they meet at least one of the WP:MUSIC criteria. - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of that said, if we wanted to merge and redirect to Carrie Akre, I would not object, but that is not how I've ever seen something like this handled. - Jmabel | Talk 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have two major-label albums, members of other notable bands, and they're the subject of multiple reliable third-party sources, as Jmabel (talk · contribs) has clearly highlighted above. Therefore, I think that they pass WP:MUSIC quite easily. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is this open to debate? Two albums with major labels exactly fulfils WP:MUSIC #5, making this band clearly and unabiguously notable per guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mentioned in a major magazine (Rolling Stone) plus individual notability of band members. Also signed to a major label. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{I push my hand up to the sky} 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC criteria

C1: subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent and reliable
- Abovementioned Rolling Stone article
- Goodness on AllMusic
C2: charted hit on any national music chart.
C3: record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
C4: national or international concert tour
C5: two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels
- Album on Epic, album on Atlantic
  - I would think that would settle the matter - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
C6: At least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable
- Heavily overlaps with the Rockfords
- Carrie Akre also led Hammerbox, plus solo career
C7: Most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city
C8: Nominated for a major music award
C9: Has won or placed in a major music competition.
C10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc.
- "Electricity" for the Schoolhouse Rock tribute
C11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
C12: Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

Keep Pretty clearly notable, I think. Maxa megalon 2000 06:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone close this? The nominator seems to be alone on this. - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Kids

I believe that this is an non-notable facet of a notable internet portal. Yahoo! is indeed a very notable company, however, one of its projects, isn't. In additon, this article seems quite a lot like and advertisement. Marlith (Talk) 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the merge of Yahooligans! into this article, it should pass WP:WEB. Potentially, it could then be merged into Yahoo but it is a portal of it's own which passes WP:N and WP:V. --Pmedema (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree to merge Yahooligans! into this article. (To be honest, I'm surprised Yahooligans! is so short - I used to use the service when I was younger and so was the web.) Gary King (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There should be no problem finding more sources. I think a merge with Yahooligans! is optional. The really major [projects of a really important company generally are notable enough. DGG (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bintang 12

Notability not assesed in article. Been around for nearly a year and didnt want a speedy shot down. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC. No professional reviews found at metacritic, no hits in googlenews. Gsearch shows lots of blog entries, but no notability in first several pages of hits.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable band and non notable album. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; simply because it is also a sales location does not negate the other notable properties. - Philippe 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz World

However much this is rewritten it just serves as an advert for Mercedes and a location in the UK where one may buy the cars. It's a glorified vehicle dealership. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about whether the article gets deleted or not am I am not anyone involved in created in article. However I feel I should put something right! MBW is not a car dealership, it's more a museum with old and new cars shown, with other chances for visitors to interact with, like driving cars for themselves. More a a family day out than a car showroom. -- Arriva436^shout! 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not a car dealership, why is it chock full of car salesmen? Why is there a huge car park labelled "Sales Car park" reserved for the sales team? The duck test says it is a dealership, and a rather grandiose one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I meant that is isn't just a car showroom, the is more other stuff. Last time I was there, there was a line of cars for sale along a wall no one really noticed, insignificant to the majority of visitors who were looking at people driving on the track. In fact, no one was looking at these cars that were for sale. The other areas are away from where people go. -- Arriva436^talk 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree the article currently comes off as an advertisement, but that can be improved. It has tons of hits on google, and their were plenty of google news hits as well regarding it's opening. I think it meets wp:note, but just needs improvement. Gwynand (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it does need independent sourcing that's easily come by (more's the pity it's so well footnoted but not to reliable sources). It is also misleading in that there are three facilities -- Brooklands, Surrey, and Stuttgart. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have decided that while the article does currently sound like an advert, but it can of course be improved. It just takes an experience editor to do it. -- Arriva436^talk 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is quite clearly more than just a car dealership. It is also quite clearly covered in secondary sources. If it is an advert, then we must delete legoland too. MickMacNee (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claus Moller

Non-notable person. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{I push my hand up to the sky} 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real claim of meeting WP:Notability in article; gsearch not coming up with notability for this Claus Moller in first half dozen pages of ghits; Googlenews not coming up with any hits for this Claus Moller. (There is also a cyclist with the same name who seems to have a better claim of notability, but is still marginal.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Fabrictramp above, I had a look online, and his best-selling book is also the only one I could find any information about, it seems popular with the customers on Amazon, but I don't think that's enough to ensure WP:N. The page looks like a resumé, and should be treated as such I think. BananaFiend (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a person, a non-notable one at that. Marlith (Talk) 16:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait until I have first completed the page I thank you for your comments and respect your views so far. However, I have not had the opportunity yet to even complete the first page, and references as evidence. However, since your comments, I had started to add substantial TV and Publishing House references. I expect to complete the page within a couple of days. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronyoung99 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of now I don't see what further edits may establish Notability, but I suppose we could wait a few days to see what comes of it Wjw0111 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of any reliable sources to back up the claim of notability - the sole reference on the article is the subject's own promotional website & my own quick trawl for anything better has not come up with anything. nancy ^(talk) 11:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now substantially rewritten the article, based on my understanding from your comments, on the criteria for Notability. I have quoted the new and unique work contributions and, over the next 24 hours, I will now add the external references and links to support the sources. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronyoung99 (talk • contribs)
Deletethe rewritten article is worse in some respects than the original) "A complaint is a gift" is the only book with substantial holdings in WorldCat, but that's probably because his coauthor for that one, Janelle Barlow, (not a regular coauthor) is very notable in this subject, much more so than he.DGG (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider this Just one of the references in this article is Professor Tony Bendell, Professor of Quality in the UK. His referenced paper 'The old masters never fade away' undisputably recognises Moller and his work alongside two other most notable Quality gurus contributing to Western thinking, Philip Crosby and Tom Peters. The UK Government Department of Trade and Industry recognised and published Moller as one of 8 Quality gurus in the world. Is this not notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronyoung99 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE! I agree with Ron Young on this one. The BBC made a television programme about him back in 1988 where he was credited with helping British Airways overcome all of their problems at the start of the 1980s. This was said by the then MD, Colin Marshall. See here: Claus Moller on BBCFurthermore, there are several articles by Claus Moller in renowned management magazines: Harvard Business Review, Bnet, Emerald Insight, and many more. He also has a profile on IMDB: IMDB TV appearances. In Denmark he has been feted in all of the leading business newspapers as one of the key innovators in Danish industry and the Nordic Council have highlighted that he is the single largest contributor to the model of Scandinavian management. This is clearly reflected by the fact that a biography of him is being released in Denmark later on this year: Biographical book. There was also an article just two weeks ago about the 100 top talents in Danish business where the consultant had been mentored by Claus: Business.dk top talent Mirja Olesen. A case study about knowledge management and social networking in management consultancies was presented just a couple of weeks ago in Athens and Claus Moller's old organisation was referenced with Claus's name: Athens presentation. Furthermore, with regards to the comments by DGG above, this unfortunately is just the effect of somebody being better at doing web marketing than others. The book that you refer to was released by Berret-Koehler in 1996, but the original concept and book (sold through the seminars as most of the other 4 million+ copies sold) was actually written by Claus Moller back in 1993. Janelle's contribution to that project was finding US examples to put around the concept. The original A Complaint is a Gift was first published in Danish under ISBN 87-89937-105 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. For more links, please feel free to contact me User: PRasmussen ^{User talk:PRasmussen(talk)} —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRasmussen (talk • contribs) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — PRasmussen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G1 by User:RHaworth (non-admin closure) EJF (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hippocrocopig

Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Utter crap. DarkAudit (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Agree with the speedy... I see that the speedy tag is on the article. WP:MADEUP and falls into WP:BAD. Obliterate... Poof!--Pmedema (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete pity it doesn't identify an animal, I like the word. This is not only nonsense, but insulting nonsense too. BananaFiend (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy. Gsearch shows the word does have very limited slang usage, but doesn't come up with notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Bernheim

COI text written by subject, all claims of notability unverifiable. I would expect to find more than a passing entry for a concert pianist with an over twenty-year career, but I can't even find that. I have looked for sources on this person and have only found one source for his biography, here, which is on an article the subject wrote, where it also states he is "current editor of the Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry". This article was created by User:Pietre-stones. MSJapan (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... looking into this, things seem quite muddled... according to the Pietre-Stones Review website Bernheim is not the current editor of that site. That position seems to to be held (and always was held) by the site's founder, a Bruno Gazzo. This leads me to suspect that at least some of the claims about Bernheim's notability may be bogus, or at least based upon bogus information. We definitely need verification of these claims. On the COI issue... I note that Bruno Gazzo goes by the user name "Pietre-Stones" on his website's forum, which lead me to suspect that Gazzo might be the author of the Bernheim article here on Wikipedia. Granted, the fact that someone uses a user name on one site does not mean he is the person who uses it on another site, but it is enough to cast doubt. If my supposition is correct, there may not be a COI issue here after all. Push comes to shove, I have to go with DELETE - unless verification of the claims to notability can be provided. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two references which are consistent with the claims of having been a concert pianist, and once which mentions one of his books. I suspect the awards are enough to prove notability. --Eastmain (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... I would agree, if we can get verification that he actually won these awards. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on Note... not sure if this is the right sorting category... the awards that might make the subject notable seem to be related to his being an author, not a musician. -- Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep between the published works and the awards, notability appears to be already established. Could use some expansion. Shell ^babelfish 15:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be enough documentation for his musical career at least. DGG (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azriel (band)

Band with one album just out on a smallish independent label. No evidence of significant coverage - 'references' include 1 short interview on a fansite/webzine, and lots of trivial mentions, MySpace, forums, etc. Main claim to fame appears to be appearing 4th on the bill at a small metal 'festival' at a small venue in Leeds. A google search found nothing to indicate there's anything to be added to the article. Delete. Michig (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been created before by several users. However it has been deleted a few times. Since the article has been created several times this tells us that people want to view the page, therefore giving it a purpose. And since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, why can't it have an article on Azriel (Band), which people are wanting to view. The band has appeared in several popular music magazines and will appear more in the future as as User:Michig has pointed out they have just released an album on a small but popular independent label. The article does not state that the bands main claim to fame was appearing at a venue in Leeds as wrongly suggested by User:Michig. There claim to fame is their popular discography and touring with bigger bands, which increased Azriel's fan base. When i searched for Azriel (Band) in www.google.co.uk a found a few pages which were about the band. I would also like to point out this small music venue which Ariel has played in the past is not small [27], some of User:Michig created articles of bands have played there within the past year. So i find it ironic that he insults this venue. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it's been deleted several times in the past, that's probably a good indication that the band are not (yet) sufficiently notable. The references show no evidence that the band have appeared in 'several popular music magazines'. I was not 'insulting' The Cockpit - I'm sure it's a great venue, and I like small venues, but it is a fairly small venue which used to be the "Cock of the North" pub, and I was just clarifying the scale of the festival that took place there.--Michig (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well a lots of big bans have played there before. I can understand why the page was deleted before, however i took upon my {{self to create the article yesterday as the band released an album. If the page was to remain up, many people would view it and edit it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to provide sources showing that they pass WP:BAND to avoid deletion read WP:CSD#A7 Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing the speedy deletion guidelines with the AfD ones. Claiming significance may be sufficient to avoid the article being speedied, but it's nowhere near enough here.--Michig (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well why is any music artist significant to go on wikipedia. You yourself have created articles on many bands, which i have never heard of and could not find in google. I don't understand why you would go out of your way to try and have this article deleted. This article is significant as it the band is becoming really popular, they have just released an album and have featured in several media magazines, therefore according to wikipedia making the band notable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bands are significant enough to have an article here if they pass WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have told me to read that many of times and i have. And by reading that i found out that Azriel are significant as they pass WP:BAND. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The band seems to barely pass WP:BAND. Where it goes wrong is in the WP:RS area.--Pmedema (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is because the several magazines which the band have appeared in, are not uploaded onto the internet, so is hard to get references. However yesterday the band released an album yesterday, so im sure there will be more references to add to this article in the near future. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:BAND?--Michig (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I see that User:Ijanderson977 is devoted to defending the article, it would be helpful if he explained what elements of WP:BAND this group passes, and justifies the explanation. I don't see it. Ravenswing 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as magazine
I have given reference to the magazines which the band has featured in. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Errr, no. What you have posted is a pile of links to blogs, bulletin boards and websearch results. To quote from WP:V, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." By contrast, "[q]uestionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that ... are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Have there been any newspaper articles about this group? Mentioned on the BBC? Also, given Michig's info, change my view to Delete and Salt, please. Ravenswing 20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The NME link indicates no coverage. No ref given for Kerrang, others are trivial mentions.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Previously deleted twice at AfD under a slightly different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azriel (Band), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azriel (Band) (2nd nomination)--Michig (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per first statement by User:Ijanderson977 --Cradel 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to refer to the proper criteria at WP:MUSIC --neonwhite user page talk 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever. None of the arguements for keep so far have been remotely valid. --neonwhite user page talk 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. --Alynna (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it quite simply fails WP:MUSIC. ~EdGl 03:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as the article does pass WP:BAND. Also the article was recently vandalised. I wonder who did that? Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell from the article history who vandalised it - it was an anonymous editor using BT Broadband. I hope you're not suggesting that anyone involved in this discussion vandalised the article. And it's patently obvious that WP:BAND is not satisfied here.--Michig (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you hope that i am not suggesting that anyone involved in this discussion vandalised the article? Just out of interest, do you have BT Broadband? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it is a hostile, unwarranted accusation that blows holes in WP:AGF. Ravenswing 16:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only apparent claim to notability is that it is signed, but the label doesn't seem significant enough. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to Crystal ball concerns and failing the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

220 (song)

Non-notable single, sourced to the band's blogsite. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. The article also fails to mention why the song is notable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V and also is a view from a crystal ball.--Pmedema (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS, it's notability, and WP:CRYSTAL - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as nonsense dicdef. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iapula

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod was removed without comment. J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to a foreign language Wiktionary? I'm really not sure. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I'd go for a transwiki to Wikitionary. But the article says it has been done, so Delete as a dicdef, unless someone wants to expand it? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus; default to "Keep". I'll courtesy blank this as requested as well.. - Philippe 16:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Loewenstein

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kobiljanski potok

An unimportant brook in northeastern Slovenia.[28] Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, if possible, into the article on the river it flows into. A short mention there would probably be good. Delete otherwise, since the brook by itself isn't notable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All rivers are notable. It is unclear whether this should be referred to as a brook or river in ENglish. --Eastmain (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put the references in the article. Generally, one sentence stub is not really impressive, we could either merge it or expand. --Tone 16:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major geographic features like rivers are notable. Google searches indicate material to expand this article. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major geographical features such as this are inherently notable. There's room for expansion. --Oakshade (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

in Slovene it is usually refered to as potok (a brook). This even stands in the name.
I really doubt there are any serious references.
If there are no references, there is no room for expansion.

--Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But stubs are valid articles. Why does it have to be expandable to be notable? --NellieBly (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No room for expansion? What's the geographical and human history of it? What is is a tributary of? What are its tributaries? Does it provide water or food to the adjacent town? To other towns/cites? How long/large is it? What region is it in? Is it dammed? That information fills a page very well. --Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a significant geographic feature. matt91486 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Additional information may be available in the Geographical Atlas of Slovenia [Geografski atlas. Slovenije], Ljubljana 1998, or in the National Atlas of Slovenia. I do not think that either work is available online, but they may be available at a research library. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very geographical information. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I personally support the idea of Lifebaka and Tone to merge it with Ledava. I'll do my research in the proposed sources (Geographic Atlas has been checked before this nomination to prevent nominating anything notable) and some others but there is no point in having an article for every little brook imho (am I mistaken?) even if the questions asked above can be answered briefly. I'd be delighted if anything interesting is found but I don't expect miracles. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Perhaps someone thought the Kobiljanski potok is marked blue on the map.[29] Actually it is marked red. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment2. This brook does even not have an article in the Slovene Wikipedia. In fact, it is so unimportant it has even not been mentioned in the Slovene article about the sl:Ledava river. The article only says the Ledava has several minor tributaries after it leaves the Ledava Lake behind. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that Slovenia WP is much smaller and missing several articles. So this can't really be a criteria. Anyway, a merge in Lenava river article will be just fine. --Tone 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep - article simply requires some good old fashion cleanup.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic pressure pipe systems

AfDs for this article:

Unencyclopedic, and no attempt at finding sources seen since last AfD. This article was created quite a while ago by a now-banned user (some of the details are in the first AfD) who was apparently only interested in having the article say what he wanted; the article was lively until the socks were cleaned out, and all of a sudden there was no one there. The earlier consensus to keep leaned strongly in favor of there needing to be better sources for the article. Seven months later, nothing has really changed, except for some repetitive header vandalism. Each one of these types of pipes already has its own article, and there is nothing of substance that can be said that isn't already in one of the other articles in more depth. MSJapan (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree. Even though it do have some information about it, it isn't really needed any more, and each type of pipe already has its own article. There isn't much more information about it.

——

The Unknown Hitchhiker 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This serves an encyclopedic use as an overview of the different types of plastic pressure pipe systems. A reader wanting to know about the subject could well find this article via a search, but not one of the articles about specific types of systems which have technical names. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject seems notable, and I don't see the articles for individual types of pipe that MSJapan mentions (only articles for the individual types of plastic used in the pipe, which is very different). Klausness (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comments made in previous AfD still obtain. This is an article that requires work not deleting. SilkTork *^YES! 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an obvious {{sofixit}} issue, not something to be resolved through deletion channels. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If no one has bothered to add sources to or improve this article in any way after more than half a year ... I find it highly unlikely that anyone ever will. Blueboar (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion was re-opened after being incorrectly closed as a SNOW closure. Rudget . 13:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget . 13:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs improvement, not a delete. That no one has improved it is a shame but should not be a reason for removal.AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crufty and badly titled, seems to be used only for promotion of the significance of these things. A smerge to plastic pipe might be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just sourced a few of the statements and if I had time, I would go through and clean the rest up. Plastic pipe redirects to this page so a smerge would not be appropriate. I can vouch that the information is mostly accurate and within 10 minutes of searching google (books and web), I was able to reference half the fact tags. spryde | talk 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the consensus was clear last time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After reading the nom, I didn't expect much from this article. Now that I've read it, I deem it a keeper. — Athaenara ✉ 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Dil Se

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been hanging around for a long time, about this college acappella group. They have won the Southeast Asian competition, Anahat, which coincidently is hosted by their own University! I can't see how that alone is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The article has simply become an extension of their website and in many places a blatant advert for the group. Time for it to go! Sionk (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better currently. SwisterTwister talk 02:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tears Of God

Non-notable high school student film. The only references are the filmmaker’s blog an ad in a student paper. Few Google hits were about this movie, and those that were were postings of the trailer on YouTube, Google Video, etc. No relevant hits on a Google News all-dates search. The theatrical release, from my research, seems to refer to one show at a local theatre, and the DVD, from what I can tell, isn’t being sold anywhere. Has been tagged for notability since December, with no additional evidence of notability provided. Dawn bard (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A shame, too, because it looks like a nice student film, but that's exactly what it is: a nice student film, with no signs of notability.Kww (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even the very minor assertion of notability is via self-published sources, so there are large issues with WP:SPS. Gwguffey (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trailer is really well done; impressive. I have no doubt the people who made it will go on to success and the film will end up as a mention with some details on their notable biographies someday. But for now it doesn't meet notability requirements. I could not find any secondary sources, critiques, etc. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --Haemo (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious fanaticism

AfDs for this article:

This article was suggested for deletion 2 years ago, and is still in a very bad state. As no-one is willing/able (lots of controversy) to clean it up it has become a repository for nonsense, flame-wars and uncited information.

p.s couldn't find a religious category. BananaFiend (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably jumping the gun here but if this article is deleted as per nom, then I feel this AfD should have little bearing on people who wish to recreate the article from the start. --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agreed. I have a feeling that it would soon degenerate again, but that doesn't mean somebody won't take ownership and make something of a new article.. BananaFiend (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a tautology as religions are inherently fanatical. And the current article does not seem to contain anything worth merging. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all religions are fanatical which requires intensity (much like lost in translation). One of the reasons this page is filled with nonsense is that kind of knee-jerk reaction - when it could be a good page instead. BananaFiend (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arbitrary combination of words. What about football fanaticism, sex obssession, nationalistic fanaticism, food fanaticism and millions other things with millions of fanatics? `'Míkka >t 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone ought to write articles on those things. Z00r (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge useful content elsewhere. The article is in terrible shape, that's sure, but this AfD raises no issues worthy of deletion. Needed work isn't a reason to delete it (see WP:NOEFFORT). I'll try to get started cleaning it up and sourcing things tomorrow. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, but the reason I've put this up for deletion is because people have tried and failed for 2 years to raise it from the quagmire it's in. It's not that there is no effort (which is not a reason for deletion), there has been 'tremendous effort. It's that it is consistently a battleground for <ahem> fanatics, who have created an article that is unfit for inclusion in wikipedia (YMMV) BananaFiend (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection, then. It's drastic, yeah, but better than deletion. But first I gotta' see what I can do. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an ademdum, I'm sure that this could be whittled down a valid stub if necessary. Protection might still be necessary if it keeps attracting POV-pushers and vandalism. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the consensus here seems to be to delete, however if you're willing to make a go at saving it, I'd like to help, I'll open a discussion on the page about it, and we can have a look at what can be done? BananaFiend (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Colonel Warden's rationale.

+ Comment All faith-based religions require uncritical devotion. And that's the defintion of being fanatical. As a charismatic Christian, I should know. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we should probably take this discussion elsewhere: but from merriam webster and princeton wordnet, it requires "excessive" enthusiasm - I can be unquestioning in my belief that wikipedia is not edited by alien life-forms, but I'm hardly fanatical about it :) (or even that sure come to think of it) BananaFiend (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personal kidding aside, more than being merely arbitrary (as Míkka correctly points out), the word fanaticism is too often used with a jocular or pitiable meaning. For instance, Winston Churchill said "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Such prevalent jocularity extends back onto the word Religious in the phrase "Religious fanaticism." Perhaps such a pitiable meaning goes too far in interpreting Colonel Warden above, yet our concerns definitely agree that these two words don't belong together as the topic of an encyclopedic article. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOEFFORT. It's also hard to believe that some in this discussion claim religious fanaticism is nonnotable. Z00r (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many articles are "repositories" for nonsense, flame wars and uncited information. AFD is not for cleanup. And Wikipedia has no deadline. Google Scholar and Google Book turn up many sources that can be used to write an article on this topic. --Pixelface (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow, regardless of the state of the article this is a crazy encyclopedic topic. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think there is any doubt about the encyclopedic worthiness of this article. Religious fanaticism exists as a concept and is often referenced in every day speech and the media, true the article is in abysmal shape now and yes it is a controversial topic, but I don't think those are reasons enough to delete this. The Dominator (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could and may change my mind to keep.--Firefly322 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I started this nomination, I am currently working to save the page (delicious irony!) - I know there is no deadline but I believe that when the cleanup is finished it will require effort to keep it "clean" BananaFiend (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comment This page has undergone some cleanup, and my thoughts have not changed - this is an incendiary, and ill-defined topic that has attracted much vandalism and flaming. At the moment it is simply a list of the worst elements of the 3 abrahamic religions. I would suggest that this information can be merged into other topics if it is important enough. BananaFiend (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all current content into related articles, but allow recreation of the page at any point in the future if someone finds enough information on it to merit its own neutral, verified article. Right now, it simply contains too little real content and too much original research to merit its own article. Yes, an article being in a bad state is a reason for cleanup, not deletion, but what neutral, well-sourced content it contains right now is little more than a dictionary definition. Merging and allowing recreation will allow us to keep all the good content and leave things open for future improvement. Perhaps even make an intentional red link to the page from the places it's merged to in order to encourage addition of further information? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly good topic. Article needs major improvements, and those who object to its presence might more usefully help edit it. We do not avoid incendiary topics. We do not avoid topics that are much vandalized. DGG (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought the above was a final comment before judgement was made. I'm not suggesting it for deletion because it's incendiary, and I'm not suggesting it for deletion because it's vandalised (which it actually isn't overly much) - I'm suggesting it for deletion because despite efforts made for years, it is both a poor article and a repository for nonsense. When stripped down to factual information it is little better than a dictionary definition and a collection of information about religious groups that can be put into their respective religion's articles. There are few (if any) scholarly sources of information on this topic. That said, I have more usefully helped to edit it. BananaFiend (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with strong consensus to merge; merge discussion to take place on article talkpage. Non admin-closure Skomorokh 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dagger of Time

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a massive in -universe repetition of the plot sections of the Prince of Persia game articles. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Get rid of this article and put the information either with the game it belongs to (or if multiple games) in the already existing franchise page. BananaFiend (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-The article plays a significant part in the Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time game series. I'd rather let the article be merged into the main page of the game page and be expanded. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge What BananaFiend said basically —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin Harvest (talk • contribs) 13:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the info is game specific, it should be in the games article.AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 09:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything notable into Prince of Persia(series article, needs renaming), as the concept apparently spans more than one game in the series. Delete the rest. Note that this is the same rationale as Medallion (Prince of Persia) and Sands of Time --Gazimoff (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - rather central part of the series that would better be present on a primary series page. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Perón Foundation

I don't know that there is enough information about this topic, at least in the English language at this point, to warrant an entire article. As it stands, this article is largely based on an unpublished work by a student at Oxford. What is verifiable is already available in the main page about Eva Peron, and therefore this page seems redundant. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Foundation. Even though the work was unpublished, the foundation is still notable. ṜέđṃάяķvίʘĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After doing some searching, the coverage of the foundation seems to pass WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations. Gwguffey (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. tim.bounceback 23:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It only takes a few seconds to find loads of reliable sources. [30] [31] [32] Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I never meant to suggest that this isn't a notable topic, but that this article in its present state isn't well written. I've seen articles on notable topics deleted if they are not well written. We're having enough of a time keeping the main article about Eva Peron at the "good article" status. After I'm done working on that article, which I am attempting to improve, I suppose it's going to fall to me to keep this article up as well. (Note: The section of the main article I'm working on is the section about the Eva Peron Foundation, which made me take a look over here.) Thanks, though. (By the way, is it possible to withdraw a nomination?) -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable subject. --Soman (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 18:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farah Nasser

nn Toronto TV "personality". Was previously incorrectly nominated as part of a bulk AfD of CityTV articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not finding any secondary sources about the subject. The AfD template on the article was still broken, I just fixed it to point here finally. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppers Crossing Soccer Club

A really minor soccer team, whose best achievements according to the article are winning some small-time under-13, under-11, or senior leagues Montchav (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless someone can demonstrate that teams from the "Men's Provisional League 2 North-West" in the state of Victoria are notable. - fchd (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Amateur Club in the 6th tier of Victorian state competition. Murtoa (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "state representatives" listed on the site are all at junior or at best strictly amateur level. Murtoa (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A unanimous view. In addition, despite a long AfD, no secondary sources have been added to the page that would attest to notability. TerriersFan (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Consulting University Of Edinburgh

Part of the Junior Enterprise project, buthardly notable enough for own article. A sidenote at University of Edinburgh at best. Montchav (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn as per nom. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Weblogger's Day

Non-notable geek holiday. A few thousand web hits, but that's not surprising as it's strongly related with the web. I think it is far to Compare this to Wikipedia Day in terms of notability. Montchav (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No google news hits; getting little or no attention outside of the blogosphere. Jfire (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are many made-up holidays and few (if any apart from talk like a pirate day) have gained any traction. If a page existed for these days, it could become a section in this case I feel it fails WP:N and is purely to raise profile. BananaFiend (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. As above it simply fails WP:N and the article seems to be promotional--Cailil ^talk 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability Nothing 444 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything. Per WP:N - not notable - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Wary of WP:CSB, but isn't even a major city in Puerto Rico terms. Black Kite 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isidro A. Negrón Irizarry

A Puerto Rican mayor, and nothing more. I'm pretty sure that one needs to be more than a humble mayor to be deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article these days Montchav (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mayors of most US cities have articles about them, and I don't see why Puerto Rican mayors should be treated differently. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. San Germán has a population of only 37,000. I don't think we have articles on the mayors of most mainland towns of that size. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I generously extend the standard to mayors of cities 100,000 or above, but not all editors even share that limitation. Well below WP:BIO, and San German is not a major city even in Puerto Rico terms[33]. The mayors seem to all be redlinked in Municipalities of Puerto Rico, which is an attractive nuisance. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mayor is a notable political post, and demographics for comparison cannot be measured by US standards, US is the third most populous country in the world. --Soman (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if there was proof that he is a mayor such as an article when he as elected I would say to keep, but since the article states only that he is a mayor and offers no proof whatso ever then get rid of it.03:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete -no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mayor of this community would need something other than his office to achieve encyclopedic importance. --Stormbay (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mayors of cities are notable; the fact that the sources are in Spanish and that the individual concerned is from a non-Western country should not seduce us into systemic bias. Skomorokh 04:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of secondary sources via Google. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Andrew Jackson#Opposition to the National Bank as redundant. Davewild (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksons bank veto

Already handled under the Andrew Jackson article. flaming lawyer^c 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't this just be redirected to a section of Andrew Jackson? Tizio 12:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a redirect to Andrew Jackson#Opposition to the National Bank. EJF (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. No useful content to save. Choess (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. withdrawn by nominator - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing

AfDs for this article:

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and the three reliable sources should be added to the fandom of Harry Potter article and the rest of this article deleted. It is all original research, and does not have enough notability to justify a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I must object. The article's notability exists in that it received coverage in the media, as evidenced by the sources to which the article links. Soon after the website's creation, there was a great controversy as to whether or not the project was an official continuation of the Harry Potter series or the creation of a fan, and after it was revealed to be a fan project, controversy continued over whether or not the project was legal or a case of copyright infringement. A [Google Search] for the title of the project brings up a host of websites detailing the project and the controversy surrounding it. While it may have faded from the headlines, I created the website specifically for the purpose of explaining to those hearing about the project for the first time what it was and where it came from. Although the site is fan fiction, most fan fiction does not get the degree of notoriety that this particular project has received, including a direct response and approval from J.K. Rowling herself. The website on which the project is hosted has also received millions of hits, giving it, in my opinion, a degree of notability that merits a Wikipedia article. I vote that the article should stay. --Antodav2007 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, this isn't a vote, it is a discussion to establish whether this has notability or not. The easiest way to resolve this is to add more references to the article; that way, the notability will then be indisputable and will be kept. Sound like a plan? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:WEB, web content is deemed notable if it is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent published works. If you take "multiple" to mean "more than one" (which Dictionary.com does) then the fact that it is the subject of the two newspaper articles (The Scotsman and News.com.au) already linked in the article means that is notable. As for other sources, it also seems to have been covered by BlogCritics and CBC Radio. I think the article probably needs some cleanup but it is notable enough to exist. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just add some references and there will be no doubt. Having an extensive article like this underpinned by two solid references is not nearly enough. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how many references would you consider to be enough? (This may sound sarcastic, but I don't mean it to be.) WP:WEB specifies only that it requires multiple sources to prove notability. Article length is not mentioned there at all. Why should an extensive article need more sources to prove notability? If this article was shortened, would it require fewer sources to be notable? As far as I am aware, either something is notable or it is not. Things are not "notable enough for a stub article" or "notable enough for a featured article". They are just notable.

Of course, I understand that in order to produce a greater quantity of good quality non-OR content in an article you would likely need a greater quantity of sources also. But that is a cleanup/content issue, not a notability issue, and I don't think that's a reason for deletion.

By the way, I haven't actually read this fanfic, so I'm not sure I could competently edit this article. But obviously others are free to work in the sources that I've added here. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just concerned that it doesn't have enough notability for the long term, so when we go to make a Good Article out of this, we wont be able to find 20 references to fill this article in and site everything. We dont need 20 now, but if we could get to 6 or 7, we could say this should probably never be deleted, and at worst it would be merged in the future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about what may happen in the future, but I'm not sure that nominating this article for deletion in the present is a good way of dealing with that. Maybe a discussion on the article's talk page would have been more appropriate? After all, we can't predict what Wikipedia policy will be in the future. Nor can we predict what reliable sources will be written on this subject in the future. We have no idea what the circumstances will be in five, ten, twenty years time, and I don't think it's helpful to speculate.

As for sources that currently exist, I've found a couple more: The Leaky Cauldron and TransWorldNews. Although, I have to ask, what is the status of reliable sources that are essentially rewrites of other reliable sources? (Such as these ones: Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Syracuse.com and The Leaky Cauldron #2.) Do these "count"? -- KittyRainbow (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher's Weekly absolutely, Syracuse looks good, School library journal looks ok. Transworld news is questionable, but I think the leaky cauldron might be alright in this instance as long as you have these other ones. Go ahead and add them as inline citations to the article and let me know if you need help with it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think I can really add them myself. I know how to use ref tags and cite-web and all, but I can't see where they'd go in the article as it stands now. And, as I said, I haven't read the fic so I don't really have a good enough grasp of the subject to make serious edits to the article. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge There is a lot of fan-fic, and this one has been approved. J.K Rowling has stated that anybody can do what this person has done as long as it's respectful/not-for-profit/suitable for all ages. I think that perhaps there should be section in the main article and that this should be mentioned in that section with the references preserved. BananaFiend (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one crosses the line for notability due to it being referenced in major media such as Publishers Weekly and The Scotsman (those two alone are enough). The article needs to make clear (and I think it presently does) that this is an unofficial work, and there is some content that could be seen as crossing the line into WP:NOT territory with regards to Web guides and advertising. That, however, is an issue of content, not AFD. I agree that in 99% per cent of cases fanfic/unofficial works are inappropriate topics for articles, but if they do achieve notability through those third-party references everyone wants cited, then they're OK. A good example (in a different medium) is Star Trek: Phase II (fan series). 23skidoo (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's notable now, it's notable forever. If we have all these reliable sources, how can it possibly not be notable? Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete self-generated publicity. Possibly the author is notable, or will become so when additional books are published. The article in Pub. Weekly is primarily about someone else's work, The Harry Potter Lexicon by Steve Vander Ark. The standard for inclusion is notability, not approval by the author. DGG (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Withdraw - It has a minimum of notability, and more so than when this began. I am going to propose a merger instead. Thank you all for your efforts and comments. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has recieved enough publicity for it to gain notabality, it does deserve an article of it's own as it would be too big to merge into Harry Potter Fandom. Jammy (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story is very popular and has gained more attention then ordinary fanfic, so it would be reasonable to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.125.167 (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Songwriters Association International

Seemingly non-notable association, with plenty of Google hits, and 300 news hits, but trawling through a few News hits, there's nothing to back up the NSAI's notability - they're generally just quoting things, and not doing things. Montchav (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know, but I have the feeling that there are many organizations who don't do much expect for quoting things. Jobjörn (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the hits I reviewed did not point toward notability. --Stormbay (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pederastic filmography

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

Since we now have a consensus on List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, I believe this article should be removed. I do not think that 'rederastic filmography' is a genre and there have been no citations given in response to the various 'citations needed' comments.Tony (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Comment: Without jumping to conclusions either way I would say that this motion is premature. What is the harm of subdividing the sexual attraction to children list into a separate list such as this, that focuses on relationships between men and male adolescents?
The foundational category, pederasty, is clearly an important category historically, culturally and psychologically. Why should readers interested in this particular topic have to wade through mounds of irrelevant information, to cull out what they are looking for? And where do we stop? Having merged the movies, do we now move on to the books and the poetry? And how about all the other articles on pederasty? I have not counted them but there must be quite a few by now. Do we delete those also, since we will have (if we do not already) parallel articles on “Sexual attraction between adults and kids in XYZ”?
As for the outstanding citations, they can be resolved by deleting text that is unsupported, and deleting citations which are spurious (there are quite a few of those as well, the whole snowstorm of those citations struck me as a bit of a polemic in itself, as such things can be at times). Haiduc (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originated the article 'pedophilia in films', but am now happy eith the new title List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. All the other editors who contributed to the debate wanted the words 'or adolescents' included. That implies, doesn't it, that pederasty (attraction to adolescents) is included. The other issue is that the article pederastic filmography is a much less comprehensive article. As I mention above, I do not think that 'pederastic filmography' is a genre and there have been no citations given in response to the various 'citations needed' comments. The intro appears very POV. Let's see what others think. Tony (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

The intro is no longer POV (if ever it was) and you have not adressed the fundamental issues I raised above. Haiduc (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment pederastic pornography- redirect to child pornography- just a euphemism for child porn. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you mean films such as Lolita they are more complex than just being'pederastic', and have their own articles. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

oh I see now, it's a list of films. Well strong redirect/merge to the already existing list. IMHO, some people just like to see Category:pederasty very large. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is absurd. There is no such genre of film called "pederastic filmography." It's completely made up --and an extremely biased fabrication to boot. It's a sadly pretentious way of saying films that might interest people who are interested in child pornography. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Request This comment be removed as inappropriate and as a homophobic slur. There is nothing inherently abusive or illegal about pederastic relationships as long as they involve individuals above the age of consent, in which case they are protected as legitimate homosexual behavior. Haiduc (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Haiduc has made a set of very peculiar statements here, none of which are germane to this discussion. It shoudl be pointed out that pederasty cannot be between couples over the age of consent, almost by definition(!), even in nations like Japan where the age of consent is extremely low. And his phrase legitimate homosexual behavior can be read as more than a little offensive to those who are homosexual, since it appears to align homosexuality and pederasty. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Pederastic films are simply another aspect of homosexual culture and people interested in LGBT culture and the expression of same-sex attraction between individuals of different ages should not be forced to wade through lists of movies having nothing to do with the topic they are researching. Furthermore, pederasty is a clearly defined subtopic of LGBT culture and history and needs to be documented as such. Almost all the works treating the subject treat it as a separate topic, not as just another aspect of "adult attraction to children and adolescents." Haiduc (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be splitting hairs to subdivide a list of pedophelic-themed movies into sub-groups; the existing article isn't overly long, so why split it? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the "request" above--are you nuts? Where does it say in the "pederastic filmography" article that people who are interested in child porn are gay? And: this is an encyclopedia, not an on-demand child porn directory. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you are unfamiliar with pederasty as a scholarly topic involving history, anthropology and sexology, then that explains your homophobic remarks. It does not excuse them, since ignorance is never an excuse. Haiduc (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I would say *you* are the one slurring gay people--I bet the majority do not appreciate your idiosyncratic definition of child porn as a gay issue. NAMBLA etc is the extreme fringe minority. Most gay people are *not* child molestors, and don't want to have anything to do with them. Also, it's completely ridiculous to makeup a pretentious new phrase that no one else uses or has ever used, slap it on a list of films that looks alot like a wank list for pedophiles, and then claim that anyone who points out that you made up the term and the list is bogus anyway object not because you made up the term and there's no justification for the list, but because they are homophobes! Perhaps someone should claim that Pokemon is a gay issue, so that when they start cranking out bogus trivia pages they can accuse people of being homophobic when the pages are nominated for deletion?-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is simply not a recognised genre of film classification. The list is interesting in its way, but "interest" is not a reason for continuation of an article. In so many ways this becomes Original Research because the inclusion in the list becomes a matter of opinion, not a mater of encyclopaedic fact. While it may be obvious that a movie deals in some manner with pederasty, that is insufficient reason (because it is uncited) to include a film in such a list, and citations as such are, generally, unavailable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It does not have to be a recognized genre to be a film, and there is no research involved in the commonsensical identification of movies about a relationship between a man and a youth. It is not the "genre" that is of the essence here, it is the topic and that topic is well recognized and documented. There is no recognized genre for the list into which some people are trying to squeeze these movies either, but that article exists very nicely - it just is not as specialized as it should be. Haiduc (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The very act of compiling a list of things which fall into no citable category is, of itself, original research. Please be careful not to confuse "what is obvious" with "what is citable". Many things are obvious, but, without citations that meet WP:RS, such things are original research. At the point where you can deliver citations which show that it is valid to have such an article at all, the discussion changes from "keep/delete" into one about whether an item referred to inside the article meets the criteria for inclusion. At present we are discussing the deletion of the article. I do not find your arguments for keeing it persuasive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This list is just as objective, and is just as legitimate, as the list into which some people are trying to include it. If you can have an article listing movies featuring adult desire for children and adolescents, you can just as well have an article listing movies featuring men's desire for adolescents - a topic with much more history and culture behind it than the former. Haiduc (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We do not argue "this article should be kept because that article is being kept." Nor do we argue the case for deletion in that manner. Each article is considered on its merits alone. Please do not use this type of comparative as an argument either to keep or to delete an article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument fails since you base it on the absence of a recognized genre of pederastic film. That argument would be, at most, a reason for deleting the category link at the bottom of the article, which I will do. That leaves "pederasty" as a citable category. If you wish to debate the citability of "pederasty" I will be happy to do so. Haiduc (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, his argument does not fail simply because you claim it has. You haven't made any case for this list except comparison to List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. Note that that list is also proposed for deletion. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not need you to speak for me or to misrepresent my arguments. If you want to debate any of my points you are welcome to do so on their substance. Haiduc (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You haven't made any point to debate except that this list should be kept because the other list (which has been nominated for deletion) exists--you made a comparison argument, which Fiddle Faddle pointed out is not a sufficient argument. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Citations for content should be in the relevant articles, not the list. The list is just a list, coalescing information just like any other list. Beyond that, nominator hasn't given any reason for deletion, so keep due to lack of valid reasons for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fear you misunderstand the use of citations. In this article the citation, should the article survive, is to prove from a source meeting WP:RS that the item belongs in or adds value to this article. Thus a citation within an article hyperlinked from this article, while interesting, is irrelevant. But the problem is that this article requires citations in order to prove that it is, itself, a valid article. That is an entirely different discussion from a discussion about the nitty gritty of the content. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand citation policy perfectly; I'm afraid that you're the one who doesn't. People are giving about the lack of citations in a list as a reason for deletion. The only time citations belong in lists is when the citation can not be placed in the main article. The main reason that this is done is to keep as much information as possible in the article and prevent content forking; it's much more convenient and maintainable to use lists as lists of articles which adhere to some categorization, and use articles as articles, rather than confuse the two by mixing and matching elements. This way, as much sources and information get kept in the article as possible. Imagine an article with that was a member of a hundred lists; would you rather have references in each list, or have everything that the subject of the article is inside the article? In order to keep content where it belongs in the article and lists as simply lists, this is how it works. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other point (i.e, "You need a source to for the list itself"), I'm not really following why that's necessary. It's pretty common sense if you ask me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those citations are in the articles for the movies, not in the list. Citations do not go in lists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations go in any article which requires them. And citations are most assuredly required for this article, list or erudite text. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to this new guideline? It seems to be in conflict with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) and WP:LISTS. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will second that request. Fiddle Faddle is also presuming to make us believe that, even were that absurd contention to be true, the remedy for articles lacking sufficient citations is deletion. His arguments are incredible on their face. Haiduc (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So as not to waste any more time debating the merit of the insistence on citations in a list, or of deletion as a remedy for dearth of citations, I have gathered a handful of citations for some of the entries in that list. It is an elementary task, proving that what was a commonsensical task for the Wikipedia editors was just as commonsensical for a number of outside commentators. Haiduc (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is all the content in it is already in another, more comprehensive list- and we don't need more promotion of paedo-ism on wiki (not saying you are- but it's some other editor's agenda). special, random, Merkinsmum 02:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of an encyclopedia is not to generate ever more generalized lists but ever more specific ones. This is not the Columbia Desk edition. Furthermore, I do not know who the "we" is, but while I condemn abusive behavior I also condemn the hounding of scapegoats - it is the activity of people looking to boost their own self-image at the cost of someone weaker and more vulnerable than them, in other words typical bully behavior. Haiduc (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"People looking to boost their own self image at the cost of someone weaker and more vulnerable than them" is exactly what pedophiles are. AfD voting doesn't really compare. Further, portraying yourself as some kind of victim because your pedo article has been AfD'd is as ridiculous as claiming that anyone who criticizes your article is homophobic. What's your next lame ad hominem argument going to be? -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your unchecked anti-pedophile campaign is making a laughing stock out of you, and out of Wikipedia. Let's see what we can do about that. And don't take my generic description of bullying activity and try to twist it to your agenda. I am not the one interested in pedophilia, you are. Haiduc (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at Haiduc's user page, which declares that he has "an agenda." It specifically says, "Agenda: To promote accurate and comprehensive treatment of LGBT history, in particular of pederastic homosexuality, in its sexualized as well as chaste manifestations." First of all, one isn't supposed to come here with an agenda. Second, Haiduc's sole interest *is* in fact, pedophilia. Third, his views of pedophilia are not the mainstream views of pedophilia. Last but not least, he is the author of the article being discussed here. So, he has an agenda; he writes an article from a fringe POV to further his agenda; which is not unsurprisingly AfD'd. Then he comes to the AfD and posts constantly without identifying himself as the author of the article, and makes a bunch of lame ad hominem arguments/personal attacks. Seriously, wtf ?!. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all have an agenda, and so does Wikipedia. The agenda of Wkipedia is to create a compendium of knowledge freely accessible to all. If we come in with a similar agenda, such as mine, which is to be accurate and comprehensive, then we are in synch with the purpose of this project. If we come in with some other agenda, like pedophile hunting, then we are helped to understand the error of our ways, and if we do not get the message we are politely shown the door. I am sorry that I have not been able to help you with your problem, but I fear it is too deeply rooted and either you simply do not get it, or you are being deliberately provocative, as is suggested by your probable identity as a sock. If so, please feel free to agitate at will, you are not MY problem. As for my not being mainstream, if you cover issues in sexology accurately and are able to avoid conformist POV (which is difficult but possible) then you are likely to irritate everybody, gays, straights and pedos alike. So as long as I get flak from all three quarters I know I am doing my job. I will not speculate on which group YOU belong to, on one hand it is sadly obvious, on the other it is irrelevant. Haiduc (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can keep all of your ad hominem arguments straight: anyone who criticizes your article or thinks it should be deleted does so not for the reasons they state, but because they are 1) homophobic 2) bullies 3) pedophile hunters 4) sockpuppets 5) have deeply rooted problems. You, on the other hand, are a completely objective neutral party, who merely happens to advertise a pro-pedophile agenda on his userpage, only merely happens to have written this article, and only makes ad hominem arguments at this AfD in order to "help" the other participants.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be documented it is notable. And for many items in this list the references are extensive. Thus the discussion reduces not to whether or not to delete but to an entry by entry analysis of individual validity. Haiduc (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the specificity here is helpful. The other arguments for deletion are frivolous. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research - fails WP:NOR. Fails WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srong Keep: Bad faith nom. Valid encyclopedic subject. The arguments for deletion are frivolous. Article needs referencing and rewrting, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the arguments, Haiduc has presented here, very convincing. Especially, since pederasty is indeed an important part of homosexual history (and present). If ignorant users as Petra would really know these films, than she couldn't say it's "child pornography". Fulcher (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Haiduc nailed it for me. Pederasty is historically and culturally distinct from paedophilia involving children or adolescents due to the nature of the relationship. A pederastic relationship would typically involve one or more of the following: mentoring, sponsorship, introduction into society, or friendship and not always sex. It is not synonymous with paedophilia, and as such should be eligible for a filmography subsection of it's own. The reference requirements are, of course, valid but also rudimentary and as such are not of themselves sufficient to justify deletion at this stage. Morganautt (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started the debate and there has been very valuable input from many editors. Since then the article List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, a more comprehensive article, has been nominated for deletion. Editors contributing to this debate may wish to post their views there too. My original opinion was that the pederasty article was superfluous, but I am am now happy that both should stay.Tony (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. Needs more refs. Will rename. Black Kite 18:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Palmer (footballer)

I'm mainly nominating this because it's one of the remaining on Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from April 2007. Nothing verified here. Montchav (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lack of sources and seems non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's quite well known as he's all over Sky Sports. Should be renamed though, as he's not a footballer. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As above, it should be renamed as he is known for his tv presenting. References will have to be added though. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Let's have some references added and the name can be changed once afd is over. --Stormbay (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wait, he has no appearances in a professional league - doesn't this violate WP:BIO? :-) ugen64 (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. Deb (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even has a couple hits at Google News. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Bitch Arsenal

Does not meet WP:MUSIC at all. No big tours, and no label. The few interviews that have been found are from either, 1.) Trivial Sources, or 2.) are not even reviews at all, but sites stating that the band is out there. The page's creator says they are notable because they release their music on the creative commons license, but, that has nothing to do with being notable under WP:MUSIC. Delete Undeath (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, I cannot read the article on TheSixtyOne site, so I cannot determine if it adds towards the band's notability (website restrictions at work). The interview on the NPR page certainly counts towards it. If there is multiple independent coverage from noteworthy sources then this band can be classed as notable. A google search hasn't shown anything else significant though. I'm going to hold off my vote until I can get to a computer that allows me to read that article. In the meantime, if the page's editors can add more independent sources, then it will help the article's case. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Read The61 page - just a list of available downloads. Not seen anything that meets the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NPR article is simply one of hundreds of profiles on the NPR music website. Gwguffey (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails criteria of WP:MUSIC; NPR is a trivial source; releasing music under CC license is non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Visor (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC, no sources... - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, clearly fails WP:BIO, could probably have been speedied. Black Kite 13:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Rigby

Added a prod for deletion but was removed by Clayts450. This player has not played a single professional game. Was just released by Rochdale A.F.C which is Div 2 and I hardly see him making a pro game. (WP:CRYSTAL). Govvy (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Recreate should he ever return to the pro game ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Should be recreated if he eventually plays for a professional team. EJF (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as speedy deletion under CSD A7-- no assertion of notability. Even the cited link does not come close to asserting notability. Dloh cierekim 14:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John James Jordan

Article is about a professional wrestler who is 16 years old. There are no reliable sources provided, nor does there appear to be any coverage about him when searching for sources. PROD was removed without any stated reason, but a reference was added pointing to a myspace page. Subject does not meet WP:BIO as there are no reliable sources about him. Whpq (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is either an immature kid having some fun or a hoax. Either way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. (Mind meal (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax. Tagged. Undeath (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite simply, a hoax. EJF (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 06:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephane Thibaut

Non-notable individual who I am unable to verify by research, at least in a way that would justify an article. I do a lot of work on articles pertaining to Zen Buddhism, and I couldn't improve it. I couldn't find the tiniest bit of information to use. Mind meal (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep By what I read on him he seems notable... and [34], Barbara Kosen, [35] are some articles on him (or mentions him)... I'm accually on the fence on this one but I tend towards keep when that happens. --Pmedema (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Article doesn't establish notability. archanamiya · talk 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing in WP:RS . special, random, Merkinsmum 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge, after a long discussion here and at the article talkpages, the this article has been merged with the main Kosovo article. Should a renomination occur, I suggest the alternative proposal is discussed on the talkpage first. --Tone 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo (geopolitical region)

WP:POV fork. This article would have the same content as Kosovo. The splitting in two articles has been done without reaching a consensus on the talk page (there was some discussions, but it seems more people were against this). There's no reason to have two articles, because the region is the same as the Republic of Kosovo, just like Bulgaria is not split in Republic of Bulgaria and Bulgaria (geopolitical region).

The arguments about similarity with China, Cyprus, Palestine, Tibet are wrong: the regions of China, Korea and Cyprus are divided into two distinct countries, Palestine is larger Tibet is larger than the Tibet autonomous region (which includes just a part of historical Tibet).

Kosovo is currently an unitary state and the UN/NATO troops control all of its territory: currently there is an ethnic division in the region, but no political division. bogdan (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe not official, but certainly de facto. PISG has no jurisdiction over North Kosovo (11.1% of territory) whatsoever - which isn't even geographic Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, there's much info that could go in to that article, especially the history and forth and backs pre-Republic of Kosovo Chandler talk 10:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the history would be split in two. This is Wikipedia:Content forking bogdan (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current Kosovo is not NPOV. This article is suppose to be under Kosovo and all the "kosovo states" have own articles, see the ones at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija Chandler talk 10:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the current Kosovo article is far from npov indeed. It is also protected from editing. This observation has nothing to do with this afd. dab (𒁳) 12:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, clearly valid topic, not a pov fork. Kosovo is at present the article on the Republic of Kosovo, declared in 2008, not on the region. Questions of moving and/or merging articles do not belong on afd. This is the China solution for disputed territories: we have three articles, China (the territory), People's Republic of China (the de-facto government) and Republic of China (the government-in-exile). This borders on a bogus nomination, since Bulgaria is ostensibly not a disputed territory. That's not to say we don't do articles on geopolitical regions unless they are disputed, see Republic of Italy vs. Italian peninsula. The observation that Palestine and Tibet have larger areas than Kosovo is a complete non sequitur without apparent relevance to anything. dab (𒁳) 11:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kosovo. This POV fork was created against talk page consensus for a split. There is however consensus for merging the two into a single article. Hús ö nd 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first substantial edit was on 17 Feb 2008. Can you link to the discussion before that date where consensus was established for not forking? Thanks Ha! (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I could link to discussions afterwards where strong opposition to forking was clear. It would take me a while to gather all those links: multiple discussions about splitting have been a constant in the past weeks, always with the same outcome. Hús ö nd 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Húsond. Rudget . 14:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and sanction the forker. Was created as a FORK against CONSENSUS, which was in discussion, by one of the many agenda warriors who've chosen to start the civil war on the wikipedia page before it hits the ground over there. ThuranX (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list who the agenda warriors are so we can see what you mean? Ha! (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can't let the pro-Kosovo editors run rampant with Wikipedia and concede to their POV-pushing. The "consensus" pro-Kosovo editors are referring to is basically a stream of pro-Kosovo editors pushing their POV, not a real consensus among neutral editors. In terms of neutral editors the consensus is the other way around. Whenever an article on Kosovo comes up that they don't like they call it a POV fork, it's like a broken record. There is nothing POV about the article and there are similar article on Taiwan and China. The article on Kosovo despite using the word region is clearly about the partially-recognized state not the region and given the disputed nature of Kosovo having an article solely on the region would allow for neutrality. The pro-Kosovo editors basically want the article on Kosovo to talk about Kosovo as an independent nation like it is Bulgaria as the nominator brings up yet they resist having a separate article on Kosovo as something else, even though the Serbs who control 15% of the territory of Kosovo do not recognize Kosovo as independent. Basically this nomination is POV-pushing like they've been doing in various other articles on Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It is an obvious POV fork with essentially the same content. This is not the way how infobox disputes should be resolved. Zello (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the issue. It's not a simple matter of the infobox. Quite a few editors want the Kosovo article to be about the Republic of Kosovo, but don't want it titled Republic of Kosovo or having an article on the region. Those people are asserting doing this creates a POV fork, but the truth is we have an article on UNMIK which obviously merits its own article so the only new article that has been suggested is this one and it's not a POV fork because it does not even touch on the matter. Mind you the proposal trying to be implemented was to have this article under the title Kosovo while an article on the partially-recognized state was under Republic of Kosovo. The problem is that the current article on Kosovo treats Kosovo like it and the Republic of Kosovo are one and the same by having the infobox, then having sections on politics and administrative divisions which mainly refer to Kosovo in terms of the partially-recognized state. The nature of the article suggests it is about a country, not a region. Hence this article was created to focus solely on the region and then have the other article renamed to Republic of Kosovo as this article is renamed Kosovo. I fail to see how this is a POV fork when it does not push any POV, except the neutral POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above. —Nightstallion 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the only difference between the two articles is what infobox is used. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would just like to point out that this article only a little bit ago was actually the article titled Kosovo until that change was reverted. The editor who reverted the change then proceeded to nominate this article for deletion. This nomination is nothing more but the continuation of an ongoing edit war. We should stop giving into this POV-pushing by the pro-Kosovo editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kosovo as redundant and unnecessary to comply with WP:NPOV. A much simpler, clearer & NPOV-compliant description of Kosovo, including what it is considered to be by the different parties involved in the region, can be made in a single unified article; a "de-infoboxed" one if needed. - Ev (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Also per all the discussion on Talk:Kosovo. Hobartimus (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Husond. "Wikipedia articles may have only one unique title; the use of the current title does not imply an endorsement of that title." That a minority of editors strongly dislike Kosovo's independence, or that it has an irredentist region, does not change the fact that it is an internationally recognized unitary state within more or less inclusionary borders. The main article, as it stands, quite adequately discusses the geopolitical disputes involved. No reason has been proffered why Wikipedia has to fight the Serbian corner. (Come to that, the four largest English-majority speaking nations have all recognized Kosovo's independence. I cheerfully concede the right of the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia to slant the article according to their own lights.) RGTraynor 19:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The four largest English-majority speaking nations" do not set policy on the English wikipedia. 36 or so out of the 140 UN members have recognised the Republic. That isn't enough for us to have a unique article. Frankly, I find it objectionable that you think the only reason someone would believe that a separate article for the disputed state is required is because "a minority of editors strongly dislike it". Frankly, I don't give a damn, but I think a separate article is required. Relata refero (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to find anything objectionable you please; I shan't stop you. For my part, when the other side comes up with statements like "We can't let the pro-Kosovo editors run rampant with Wikipedia and concede to their POV-pushing," it's plain upon which side of the bread their views are buttered. Thanks for playing. RGTraynor 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if you have a POV on this, but let me point out (a) "the other side" is not a suitable approach to take, WP:BATTLE and all that; (b) my point that WP cannot privilege 34 countries over the others has not been replied to; (c) you haven't substantiated how a carefully neutral presentation at this article "fights the Serbian corner." Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kosovo. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving disputes, especially not disputes about where a page should be. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except you haven't explained how this is a POV-fork. It covers two different subjects. One covers the state and institutions of the new Republic, the other is the overall article for the region. Relata refero (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the surface perhaps, but the intent of the article is clearly POV forking between those who recognize Kosovo as an independent country and those who don't. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't speak to intent here. POV forking is about the scope of the two articles, not about the intent of the creators. And I don't think User:Dbachmann has strong opinions on Kosovo in the RW. Relata refero (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per the points put forward by RGTraynor, Húsönd and Stifle. Ha! (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. Merge the relevant bits into Geography of Kosovo, History of Kosovo, Politics of Kosovo and Kosovo or delete if that's not practical or if there's too much overlap/duplicate material. My reasons are as per points raised by RGTraynor, Húsönd, Stifle and Biruitorul. Ha! (talk)

Keep Merging will result in more than 80 kilobytes. Georgia guy (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles which are much bigger: for instance, Germany (a Featured Article) is 103k long. Anyway, if something doesn't fit in the main article, it can be moved to the subarticles. bogdan (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good portion of the text here is already at Kosovo, so the amount of text that has to be actually merged will be quite few. Plus, having 70-100 KB articles on countries are not only common, but expected. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not a POV fork because it expresses no POV and I challenge every last editor who's made this claim to cite ANY POV pushing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this is in the best interesst of the reader who wants to be informed about what is going on in what kind of state and therefore wants also to know about the history of this country, about his culture, his language and so on. Without this background he would not be able to understand what and why things are like they are. --Tubesship BTW: And yeah, after merging delete this one here to avoid further problems. (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move. This nomination is ridiculous. I moved this Kosovo (geopolitical region) to Kosovo. The split (reverted by the nominator) was to create Republic of Kosovo, not this article. Move the current Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo, and move this back to Kosovo. Superm401 - Talk 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ridiculous? Not at all. That move should have never occurred as there was no consensus whatsoever for it. In fact, by looking above it is clear that there is no consensus for moving content out of Kosovo. Hús ö nd 01:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people above are saying that the content at Kosovo (geopolitical region) should be at Kosovo. I agree. That's exactly how things were before you reverted the split. Superm401 - Talk 03:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You err, I didn't revert anything. Hús ö nd 03:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That was directed at the nominator. Superm401 - Talk 10:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You err in a second way, because the reader wants to be informed about Kosovo (geopolitical region) when typing in Kosovo, therefore merge, please. Anything else is working against the interest of the reader and his interest should be above of yours, because he is, whom WP serves, not you. Keep in mind, that you are the servant to the reader, when you write. --Tubesship (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The split was reverted by the nominating editor. I think that alone should discount this nomination as the reasoning for the nomination only applies because the nominator made a change to the articles concerned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the split was the one and only right thing to do and the logical second step was to avoid further splittings he reverted, so he was just consequent by nominating this article for deletion after merging it into Kosovo. --Tubesship (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we disagree on that it does not address the sheer illegitimacy of this. The nominating editor only nominated this article after reverting the changes that would have made it a legitimate article. It would have been impossible for the editor to put this up for deletion under the title Kosovo and succeed or the other article Republic of Kosovo on the partially-recognized state because both are clearly legitimate articles which should be separate. So the editor first reverted these changes so that rather than having an article on Kosovo the partially-recognized state and another on Kosovo the region we have two articles apparently on Kosovo the region. The editor nominating this was strongly opposed to having separate articles on Kosovo the territory and Kosovo the partially-recognized state. So after reverting these changes to create what appears to be two similar articles the nominating editor then goes on to put this up for deletion. The nominating editor is using AfD to force against a decision the nominating editor did not approve of without discussion and this editor shows a clear bias in declaring Kosovo a "unitary state" and comparing it to Bulgaria. This nomination is nonsense and this article should not only be kept, but the nominating editor's changes which created the situation undone. Most of the opposition to this decision came from pro-Kosovo editors so that's why it was decided consensus was for a split as it seems only pro-Kosovo editors ever gave objections.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point there, that does appear to be what has happened. It would be useful if the nominator could explain why he did it in this particular way as it does seem to be out of order. Ha! (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see here Ha! (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current Kosovo is only about the Republic, so if this page (Kosovo (geopolitical region)) is "merged" in, that will in practice just mean it disappears, and the Serbian viewpoint (that Kosovo is a province) will be ignored. Superm401 - Talk 10:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a separate article to mention the Serbian position; instead, the main article on Kosovo should be amended to describe this complex situation. Cf. the BBC's profile of Kosovo: Kosovo, an impoverished territory with a population of mainly ethnic Albanians, unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in February 2008.
Status: Declared itself independent 17 February 2008. Serbia refuses to recognize declaration. UN-administered in the meantime.
If the country infobox stands in the way of a neutral article, we can simply move it to another section of the article or remove it altogether. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge this with Kosovo it doesn't make sense to seperate the two, especially given the fact that Kosovo at the moment is a country born out of a certain geopolitical entity. I know the Balkans is a complicated place ethnically speaking but thats why theres a country for all and a wikipedia article for each one. Tourskin (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the "merge" votes take the pro-independence point of view. Wikipedia cannot endorse either position in a dispute. This discussion has no place on AfD, and this AfD should be speedily closed as misplaced. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please stop calling "pro-independence" everyone who is for the merger into Kosovo. I think we can all pretty much decide on this matter in a reasonable, responsible and unbiased way. Tagging people who do not agree with you as "pro-independence" is really unnecessary and sort of immature, sorry to say. Hús ö nd 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - He says the votes "take a pro-independence point of view", not the editors. That is indeed the problem, that a direct merge would mean Wikipedia itself is taking a view that is not neutral. Relata refero (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, so it's the votes who have a pro-independence point of view by themselves. Interesting. Hús ö nd 16:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, its the effect of the votes to create a skewed, pro-independence point of view, which we can't permit. Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The people who voted are aware of the result of their position and I don't think we agree that the result would be a pro-independence POV shift of the article Kosovo. The effect of our position will simply be the removal of an article that is merely a POV fork. Its content has its rightful place in Kosovo, which deals with the region, independent country and province of Serbia altogether. Hús ö nd 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Geography of Kosovo. That's technically what this is all about. Editor of the wiki 12:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Move to Kosovo. It should be clear that this article has a scope that differs from that of the article on the newly-independent and still relatively unrecognised Republic of Kosovo. For how this approach is sensible and minimises conflict over inessentials, see Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, and Kashmir (disambiguation). Also see Punjab. The claim by the nominator that since they "share the same borders" the precedents are irrelevant is puzzling; how precisely is that relevant to the approach that we use to indicate that a particular political entity is contested?

Note that most 'merge' votes are not for the same thing; some for merge into Kosovo as it stands; some merely objecting to the current title; all very confused. Relata refero (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "merge into Kosovo" means merging a former redirect named "Geography of Kosovo" that was transformed into an article (as part of the Wikipedia-wide "Geography of" series – cf. {{Geography of Europe}}) on February 17, 2008, and subsequently expanded in scope and moved to many different names similar to "Kosovo (region)" between March 10 and March 15, 2008, when it finally got its current title of "Kosovo (geopolitical region)", into the original article on Kosovo apparently created on December 15, 2001 (cf. earliest history).

Since then, the old "Geography of Kosovo", which had become one of the many redirects left from those 5 days of moving the article around, has been transformed into an article for the second time on March 26, 2008; and is now the Kosovan version of the Wikipedia-wide "Geography of" series.

To avoid any confusion let me state that "merge into Kosovo" is not an endorsement of the current version of that article. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all confusion has been avoided. :) Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL point taken :-) The idea is having a single, comprehensive and NPOV-compliant article at "Kosovo", covering all aspects (and not being used for the "Rep. of Kosovo" only, as is the case since yesterday). - Ev (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Currently, people at Talk:Kosovo think Kosovo is about RoK. If there's to only be one article, it absolutely needs to address the Serb position, not just RoK. Superm401 - Talk 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the idea: general description instead of just RoK. - Ev (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So just write a few sentences with the Serbian position about it and it is ok. But no renaming, moving or splitting, please! --Tubesship (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominating editor actually created the conditions used to justify the nomination by reverting the moving of this article and others. Prior to those reversions there could be no question to the legitimacy of the article, but by reverting the changes the nominating editor created the conditions necessary to even justify a nomination. Given the editor has shown a rather blatant bias on the issue and is also part of the dispute this article arose from, a dispute which has yet to be resolved, I suggest this be kept until the dispute over moving the articles is resolved. Caving to this editor is just going to lead to more edit warring.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply reverted Superm401's move. There were plenty of people who disagreed with the idea on the talk page. Taking important decisions such as this one, without seeking consensus first, is not acceptable. bogdan (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a diff to the exact decision(s) you're referring to, so we can see the lack of consensus prior to that point? Ha! (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make such ridiculous accusations when it's clear to any objective observer that it's outright false. Consensus was sought and it was strongly in favor of a split. Wikipedia is not a democracy so majority vote does not mean consensus, though even if it were consensus would still be for a split, but quality and reasoning of vote. All opposing such a move were either biased or had no valid reason for opposing the move, but the point is you nominated this article and wouldn't have been able to so without making the changes you did. Your nomination is nothing more but the extension of an edit war. It is not the appropriate way by any means to deal with a dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide diffs or a link to the article state when consensus was in favour of a split. Ha! (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devil, I can read. And I read there was a consens towards merging and against splitting, moving or renaming. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide diffs or a link to the article state when consensus was in favour of merging. Ha! (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Oppose_split.2C_move.2C_rename_and_variants and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Proposal_to_merge_from_Kosovo_.28geopolitical_region.29 --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you just counted votes and didn't bother to consider context. Let's look at some of these editor's comments, "Therefore no splitting, but if so (under my protest), then Kosova = Republic of Kosova," "Strong oppose. The main article should be about the European country," "No need for different articles. We need only 1 article on Kosovo, and that's Kosovo as a Republic," and "Strongly oppose spliting. The majority of teh EU, NATO, UNSC permanant members and G8 recognise Kosovo." That's four of the editors showing a rather blatant POV which suggests Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo are the same thing or should be treated as the same thing. However, several other editors there have shown a POV elsewhere. Interestingly enough I found an intriguing entry you made: "Merge, as it is contra productive to have 2 different articles about the same issue and regarding the fact that a person searching for Kosovo wants most probably to be informed about the newest state in Europe." Interesting indeed. Any real analysis of the talk page would show a strong amount of support for a split and most of the opposition coming from people who openly proclaim support for Kosovo or actually say they think the article on Kosovo should talk about Kosovo as an independent country. Given these facts most of those opposing a split can be thrown out and while there's probably biased editors calling for a split I don't think there any questioning which comes out on top in the end and who has the better arguments. Arguing that "splitting is quitting" does not really do much here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I spent far more time seeking consensus for the split than you did for your revert. Note that seeking consensus doesn't mean listening to people saying things like "Right on! Split would be evil!". Neither of us got unanimous agreement. Superm401 - Talk 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdangiusca did the right thing as a matter of fact. And there is plenty of consensus both at Talk:Kosovo and right here that the POV fork that is hereby nominated for deletion should go. Hús ö nd 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my challenge to you that I made to all editors calling this a POV fork to point out where there's any POV in this article. So far I have received no response. Most curious.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its existence is POV. The only purpose for its creation was to have an article about Kosovo that would make little reference to the Republic Kosovo and would not have its respective userbox. All of its content is either already described in Kosovo, or has its rightful place there. Simple as that. Hús ö nd 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is basically the same yes, but it's the same on many other articles as well. What matters is what's different and what's different does not impact the neutrality of the article. The article makes little reference to either Republic of Kosovo or any other manifestation. There should be a section to deal with the political dispute, but it doesn't have to be dealt with intensely by an article such as this. On a further note this article was placed there, before the editor who nominated this article changed that, prior to nominating it of course.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I realize this is a very sensitive topic, but I don't see the difference between Kosovo the region and Kosovo the political entity. It seems the only reason for this article is to avoid the political controversy. King Pickle (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the difference: Everyone agrees Kosovo the region exists. Some people disagree on whether the political entity should exist. The difference is in the scope of the articles. Relata refero (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge After reading through I think that this tug of war must have an end. Merging this article would solve this problem for all times and it would lead the reader to the information he is looking for. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if we were given your reasons for that hope... Relata refero (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is self declaring because if there is only one end of a tug, everybody has to pull at this one end. If there is only one article, everybody has to work together. Further difficult questions? Just keep on asking. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my suggestion wasn't trolling. It was incredulity that you think that creating a single article would reduce drama. Relata refero (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete. There is no such thing as "Kosovo (geopolitical region)" apart from "Kosovo", the article that is meant to be at Wikipedia, like on any other language version. POV issues need to be resolved without scattering the subject matter of Kosovo to four wikiwinds. The nominator's analogy to Bulgaria is apt and, might I add, reflects understanding of the region, which apparently is lacking in some other participants, however well-meaning their edits may be. --Mareklug ^talk 09:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- you may have missed that the article at Kosovo is at present about the Republic of Kosovo. Viz., the title doesn't fit the scope. Once we have moved it to Republic of Kosovo, i.e. the title corresponding to its actual scope, we will be free to move Kosovo (geopolitical region) to Kosovo if we so choose. Alternatively, we can just redirect Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation), since there are lots of places with this name. Your comment is irrelevant to the question at hand. There is only one region of "Kosovo" in the Balkans, and its article is at present at Kosovo (geopolitical region). This is the case because the Kosovo title is at present take by the article on the entity of disputed legal status declared in February 2008. This is a matter of moving and possibly merging articles. Such a debate has no place on AfD. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where do you see the difference between Kosova as a state and Kosova as a geopolitical region? Why can the article Kosova not include both, the newest state in Europe called Kosova and at the same time discuss this region (which is now a state) geopolitically? We still do not see your problem. You still missed to tell us your reason of your opposition. So please answer the question above istead of insisting that others do not give a valid reason. No, it is you not giving us a valid reason for your opposition. There is no contradiction in merging both articles. And please stop distorting fact because when you talk about "possibly merging" it is obvious that you do not mean what the majority here means. Let us talk clear, please and not play seek and hide, because it was this behaviour that made many of us sick an tired and therefore we want to get rid of this article once and forever as some are hiding her agenda behind this article. Bogdans decision to propose this article for AfD after merging is right and justified. --Tubesship (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

account is operated by a nationalist ~~troll~~ zealot refusing to recognize even the existence of the anti-independence pov. dab (𒁳) 12:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

account is operated by a racist ~~troll~~ zealot with resentment against ethnic Albanians refusing to recognize even the existence of the independence npov. --Tubesship (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. Same as above. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- same as above: no valid reason. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete, per WP:POVFORK Chaldean (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if not then Merge to Kosovo - POVFork , there is no difference between Kosovo the region and the state , why cant we simply explain in the article Kosovo that it is disputed region/territory. As for the rest of the information , it can be included in :Geography of Kosovo and History of Kosovo (as well as in Kosovo)--Cradel 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly valid topic, not a pov fork. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Feargod, you missed the point as there is no difference between "Kosovo (geopolitical region)" and "Kosovo" as there is no difference between "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Germany". Therefore there is no need for this article named "Kosovo (geopolitical region)" and it should be deleted (after merging). --Tubesship (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my point is clear. I will not change my decision--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out the policy being used to justify nomination doesn't even apply. Specifically, Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As it stands right now the article titled Kosovo is about the Republic of Kosovo while this is simply about the region itself. The Republic of Kosovo would represent a distinct topic separate from Kosovo itself as Kosovo is thought of differently by most other countries.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's false. The article titled Kosovo is about the region, republic and province. Hús ö nd 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, now that the article has yet again been changed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge overlaps with Kosovo too much. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, mainly due to overlap, but also POV forking. We have plenty of articles where this information could go (indeed, where it's already present) - not just Kosovo, but also Geography of Kosovo, History of Kosovo, Politics of Kosovo, etc. Since the breakaway Serbian province just about covers the region, there's no need for two articles on the same entity.

As for the argument that there's a slight difference between the Serbian province as a whole and the part of the province under de facto control by ethnic Albanian indicted traitors: well, yes. But then again, there's quite a big difference between, say, historical Romania and present-day Romania, Germany in 1914 and today, etc. We could probably have two articles in that fashion for many countries of the world, but let's not go down that road just yet, at least until the dust settles in Kosovo and academic literature treating the "geopolitical region" and the Serbian province as distinct entities emerges. Biruitorul (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment will the closing admin please take into account that this "AfD" is being flooded by partisan votes along ethnic lines. There is no case made for deletion, and the "merge" votes simply take the "pro-indepencence" point of view. AfD is not the place to vote on ethnic or territorial disputes. dab (𒁳) 09:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the closing admin won't give a s*** about ethnicity as not everybody has the ethnic resentments you obviously have, dear dab aka Dbachmann. --Tubesship (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dab will you please stop making such ludicrous accusations? The way you are contesting everyone is hardly worthy of an admin. Please present your arguments responsibly and refrain from attacking merge-supporters' capacity of providing valid positions. Thanks. Hús ö nd 11:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be careful, you two. I could collect some rather telling diffs on both of you and the state of your "good faith". I am however not seeking action against you, since pov-pushing accounts are a dime a dozen in this case. There is an actual debate going on at Talk:Kosovo, it is just difficult to pick out among all the allcaps hysteria. You want to take this to RfAr, be my guest, but this is clearly no topic for AfD. dab (𒁳) 12:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, you haven't collected those diffs already?! Please do, should be interesting. Hús ö nd 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kosovo. Pace dab, this is not motivated by a "pro-Kosovo" POV, but simply by the conviction that the topic overlap between the two articles (on the factual, not the symbolic level) is too great – close on 100%, actually – to warrant two different articles. Decisions about separateness of articles should not be dictated by considerations of "acknowledging" or not acknowledging political entities, but by considerations of how to package information most practically. POV problems are not solved by dividing articles out. To be sure, this is not to mean that the resulting unified Kosovo article ought to be a standard country-type article focussing on the Republic as the sole or primary political incarnation of the geographic territory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no problem with merging. I object to have merge or split debates on AfD. This is not what AfD is for. dab (𒁳) 14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the debate on Talk:Kosovo has become more constructive, and there seems to be an emerging consensus for merging. I have done the merger now, and I suggest the redirect is left in place in order to preserve the editing history (no need to delete). dab (𒁳) 07:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clarifying my postion, as well as justifying why this is an AfD matter: Kosovo (geopolitical region) has the same need of being on the English Wikipedia as it does in the current Encyclopedia Britannica or the current Wielka Encyklopedia PWN. My objection transcends Wikipedia, and is made purely on categorial grounds. Same goes for any putative Poland (geopolitical region) and the aforementioned Bulgaria (geopolitical region). It is not beyond the English Wikipedia's abilities craft a unified Kosovo article, with topical subarticles spawned as needed; this is just not one of them, nor is it a justified sibling. I trust that this per analogiam justification will be seen as convincing on the merit of things. I would like my voice to register here as that of the corrective editor of polyandry in Tibet, wherein both polygyny and polygynandry are to be described, yet each is technically distinct from polyandry and on the face of things outside the scope of this article. Nonetheless, categorially and anthropologically, these things belong under one roof. Similarly here, geographically and historically, we need only one Kosovo. As for the mentioned need of keeping the edit history, how about echoing it to a subpage of Talk:Kosovo, making it directly accessible from one of its headers, as unmistakenably belonging to "Kosovo (geopolitical region)"? The benefit of keeping the article in article space merely as a history container/redirect is not worth a singleton in the counterfactual space of the abovementioned geopolitical red links. --Mareklug ^talk 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Discipline (Janet Jackson album). Black Kite 11:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never Letchu Go

An article whose content can be summarized as "This should be a single". Has been speedied, prodded, and recreated both times. JuJube (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Never letchu Go whose content is identical. JuJube (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the album, as a plausible search term. Those with a greater interest in the subject can debate the merit of a merge. -- saberwyn 10:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both articles fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mazed

Band that doesn't even seem to have a MySpace page, but survived speedy deletion because they claim to have the former drummer for the Cure. Or a guy by the same name. Perhaps from Kenya. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No sources are identified nor can I find any. Translating the article into English yields nothing that would qualify the band under WP:MUSIC. And if a long-term member of The Cure had joined a band in Quebec, I would think that the Cure's fan base online would have taken notice of that. They haven't. (This band isn't from Kenya. Maybe their Boris Williams is, but then he wouldn't be the one from the Cure.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom and Metropolitan90. Not notable and fails WP:BAND Think outside the box 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom and Metropolitan90. Fails criteria of WP:MUSIC; no reliable and verifiable sources per WP:RS & WP:V. Visor (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grabertising

Promotional neologism (see WP:NEOLOGISM) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete borderline speedy as spam. JuJube (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, advertising. Harland1 (^t/_c) 10:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marketing-speak neologism. DarkAudit (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: not a notable neologism, stealth spam, and a coatrack article intended to promote a specific business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, delete, however I feel there should be an article on shopping cart advertising. Note that this was profiled in Marketing Magazine, the premier publication in Canada for the industry. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why was it not deleted three years ago, when the article was first created? I simply stated that this is a neologism and has only Canadian examples. In other words, this is not notable. I have found this article only accidentally, since it originally does not have links to this article and I found this article from the "What links here" link on the Longos (supermarket chain) article. When this article is deleted, please remove references to it in the Advertising article, as well as in the Limited geographic scope page. Johnny Au (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references, little context and only 74 google hits. Non-notable term, although the idea behind it may warrant an article, or at least a mention on Shopping cart. Think outside the box 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam, WP:NEOLOGISM, no references, - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Tyszko

Fails WP:RS, WP:V & WP:BLP – no reliable & verifiable references. Visor (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Wikipedia has very strict rules on biographies of living persons and this article does not adhere to those rules. On that note, it does not cite reliable sources and this makes its verifiability questionable. Also take note that the article is rather biased: "...form of exceptionally beautiful and profound portraits of outstanding Polish...". Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 08:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:BLP Gwguffey (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable as either artist or photographer. Terrible article as it stands, & no RS sourcing. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what about granting any graphics such as an architectural or technical assemby/detail drawing or its author the entry into Wikipedia? Some people just do their job. The cover of a jazzmen's albums must also meet the Wikipedia basic requirements as an artistic entity acknowledged by independent and prestigious sources. Can't vet for Norwegian examples, but I always saw the cover of a Polish jazzman's albums between 1970 and 1989 as nothing but a grainy picture of the artist such as Hanna Banaszak with some print on it, must see this. greg park avenue (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources, it also seems to fail WP:BLP - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction Chat

I don't think that Interaction Chat passes the notability requirements. I don't see any third-party sources referenced. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this fails the Notability criteria, searches on the web show only press-release type reviews, and the forums on the company page have only 26 posts. BananaFiend (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not seeing third party sources either. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Khan (Pakistan)

A musician without an album (yet to be released), with an article that seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. Jmlk 1 7 05:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I don't think the article sounds advertisement-ish, but its sources certainly needs some improvement. Its improper use of sources should certainly be highlighted upon; it cites YouTube as a source (see WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPY). Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 08:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely not a speedy candidate, as it claims the single charted. Lacks sources that would establish notability. 11 ghits for "Natasha Khan" +aag, none of which are usable, had to do it that way as there's another singer with the same name who is notable. I'm somewhat concerned that the subject may have enough coverage in another language to pass though. Horrorshowj (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable singer; more advert than article, but that would have been curable. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails criteria of WP:MUSIC. Haven't released any full-length album. No reliable and verifiable sources per WP:RS & WP:V. May be notable after success of first album, but not now. Visor (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC, and the link for YouTube? - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. As unambiguous an example of WP:NOT as I have seen. Wikipedia is not a radio station programme guide. Black Kite 10:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Radio Philippines Network

AfDs for this article:

Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Also fails WP:LISTS#Purpose of lists. Long lists of unreferenced redlinks are unhelpful to readers."...lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space". Nothing more than a collection of empty redlinks which do not add any content or meaning to Wikipedia. Hu12 (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on the grounds that this article survived an AFD with a keep decision just over a month ago. Articles must not be repeatedly nominated in such a short period of time. 23skidoo (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly an improperly applied argument for keeping. Its been close to two months which is not a "short period of time", and the first AFD defaulted to keep as a result of no consensus. Two months is more than an adequate time frame in which to improve the article, which was neither done or even attempted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a collection of empty redlinks which do not add any content or meaning does not belong in an encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Radio program guides are specifically mentioned as forbidden by WP:NOT. Let Radio Phillipines maintain this on its own website. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: RPN is a TV network, despite its name (well, TV signals technically are radio signals). --Howard the Duck 01:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist some other time. Two months is an awfully short time. I had to wait 1.5 years to relist an AFD of mine. --Howard the Duck 01:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there any support for keeping this article based on the article itself and not the AFD process?--Rtphokie (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, is there a way to determine that aside from the AFD process? Although a lot similar kinds of articles exist. --Howard the Duck 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert One

Tries to reach notability by the creator's writing and Random Guy(TM)'s Master Thesis. And there is a tendency in the chatterbot category to make an article out every bot that wins or even partecipates in the Loebner Prize: most of them are not notable. M4gnum0n (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I think the Loebner winners certainly deserve the best treatment we can give them. If not in separate articles, then in a merged list. ---Dhartung | Talk 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 05:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "Random Guy(TM)" comment seems a bit unfair. That source was added because M4gnum0n asked for references a while ago. It's likely the winner of the Loebner AI chatterbot prize wouldn't have been in a mainstream internet news source in 1998 and 1999 just because AI chatterbots weren't in the mainstream news (unlike today [36]) so the editor has had to stretch for a source. Ridiculing it isn't helpful. 6 out of the 18 bots in the chatterbot category mention the Loebner prize (which has run for 17 years), I'm not sure that's a tendancy for every bot that's ever participated to have it's own article, expecially when you factor in that it is the prize for chatterbots so their claim for notability would likely start with the prize. There's a section in the Loebner prize article for the 2006,7 and 8 winners, would condensing the Albert One information and merging it into the Loebner Prize under a 1998 and 9 section be of any use? Ha! (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references (BBC, New Scientist). Ha! (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Came across this discussion by chance. I noticed while looking around that "Albert is listed in the 2001 Guinness Book of World Records as the most human computer program in the world" [37]. I know that's not a proper citation (I don't have a copy of the 2001 book so can't cite it) but it does seem to establish more notability than some other chatterbots. 193.128.170.146 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Perhaps needs some more work, definitely not a delete. I would love to see the Guinness listing mentioned above properly cited to avoid future dispute. Isn't it safe to assume winning a Loebner Prize is notable if the actual competition itself meets notability? Maybe even import a reference from LP to AO since the article seems to fall within the same domain. As it stands the references provided seem strong if you look past the potenetial for self referencing issues. A quick search turns up quite a few term papers and .edu sources mentioning Albert One. Anyways here's what appears to be a published article mentioning Albert One: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/21/nmega21.html 99.229.222.154 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK but I dont think both creator AND software need an article. Also watch out for self- and cross-references added by a single-purpose account in this and other related articles. --M4gnum0n (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you name the account (and articles if they're not obvious)? Thanks. Ha! (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, I hadn't seen Robby's article page- it's got nice references right there. I think the existing citation of BBC News "Albert is top talking computer" is pretty much an open and closed case on both issues. Besides it seems to be a fairly common practice for developers of notable software to have their own articles. It provides more background info for anyone interested in the topic and they also fall into two separate realms; software and biography. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be Persecuted

Fails WP:MUSIC. Only one record released on a notable label, and no/very limited third party coverage. I don't know if I should count the bad review as a third party, but, it's a bad review nonetheless. They have done no international tours or recieved any online attention other than a few fan sites and a myspace page. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient releases or coverage to pass WP:MUSIC. I'm not convinced their one release is on a notable label either - seems more controversial than notable for it's releases.--Michig (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The band pass two criteria of Wikipedia:MUSIC:

C5—They released one full-length album under more important indie label (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). No Colours Records has been founded in 1993 and released many notable albums mainly in black metal, National Socialist black metal, extreme metal genres (including Graveland, Nargaroth, Dimmu Borgir, Rob Darken's Lord Wind and Infernum, Nocturnal Nortum—see Discogs and WP article for more).

C7—By analazing Chinese metal bands at Encyclopaedia Metallum we can conclude that is the one of the first black metal group from China with studio album under notable label. Biography at the label website claims it is the first great black metal act from China, although, it is not a third-party source and cannot be used as reference.

Online attention should not be decisive in this case due to the nature of non-mainstream black metal scene. Bad review has been deleted. Visor (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:MUSIC requires 2 or more albums on significant labels, not 1, and Metal Archives isn't a reliable independent source, nor is their label's website. Either online or printed coverage would be fine. Sadly, both are lacking.--Michig (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. No Colours Records seems to be an indie label. Metal Archives as a reference in my argumentation for C7 above can be a good source for knowing how many Chinese black metal bands are, and how many of them released full-length albums. It has not been included in article as a source, but as an external link. Both label websites provides basic informations about years of group had been formed, names of band members and dates of albums. Since the band has neither published online biography, nor official website, these two label links should be acceptable for such basic infos. Visor (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming No Colours is sufficient as a label, the band would still need to have released 2 albums on the label to pass C5. The issue is notability, and without significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the band, that isn't satisfied yet. The label bios are ok for verifying basic information as long as they're not the sole sources for the article.--Michig (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I can see OR operator in C5. Isn't that "2 albums in major label or 1 album in indie label"? Visor (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's two or more albums on a major label OR one OF the more important indie labels, i.e. the label must be a major or an important indie, and there must be 2 or more albums.--Michig (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My translation mistake... All I can say about band's notability—undoubtedly, it is notable in Chinese black metal scene. The problem is to find a proper reference claiming its notability. Metal Archives clearly says that the band is one of the first black metal band in the country with notable label contract, but it cannot be used as a reference in the article. They also have coverage in printed media—extreme metal magazine Dragonland. But in this case, I have changed my vote from keep to Delete unless referenced. By referenced, I mean assertion of notability referenced by reliable source. Visor (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of secondary sources, chart rankings and awards. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree with deletion due to lack of secondard references and no major chart listing or music industry awards to warrent notability. Maybe redo the article in a few years after they have had additional press and obtained a significant award. C. Williams (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of members of the British Royal Family through history

Arbitrary and subject to change indefinitely if any number of parameters are used. We have categories and articles for these people, we don't need a list of dates otherwise random dates for these things. As explained to a user who edited the page, while it may be interesting it is not an encyclopedic topic. Charles 05:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Send to user space As nominator. Charles 05:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ – See Below - This was a tough one, I could see a reference list or call it genealogy list that could be useful and informative. However, the statement: “there is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the Royal Family”, in the opening paragraph just makes this a list that as the nominator pointed out; “…Arbitrary and subject to change” at the opinion of any editor, in turn making this extremely Point of View, . Sorry to say what a shame, the editor put a lot of time and effort into the project. ShoesssS ^Talk 05:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KTC (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are two arguments given for deleting it. It's arbitrary and it's not encyclopedic. I can't agree with the first argument as the list isn't arbitrary. It's not chosen by whim or without regard for any underlying reason. There's a clear criteria and reason given for inclusion and that criteria kind of makes sense (I wonder if a source be found that supports it?). As there's a clear criteria, it's not subject to change indefinitely depending on any number of parameters because the parameter is already set. I'm not sure about the second argument though as no reason was given to support it. Why isn't it encyclopedic? Ha! (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no set parameters. If I wanted to, I could list every day between the death of Queen Victoria, or earlier, and now and list members of the British Royal Family. We have categories listing them anyway and other articles: British Royal Family, British prince, British princess, British monarchs' family tree, Genealogy of the British Royal Family and so on. I imagine some of those are even shaky, this one more so. Charles 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The set parameter (or rules or criteria) for inclusion in the list is stated on the page "those carrying the style His or Her Majesty (HM), or His or Her Royal Highness (HRH) are generally considered members [of the royal family]." Can you clarify exactly what you regard as being arbitrary? Are you saying that the list is arbitrary because who qualifies for inclusion in the list in the first place is arbitrary or because how the list is ordered/sub divided/sub set is arbitrary? If you mean the later then that's not really a problem, once you have a good criteria for what goes into a list it's extremely easy to reorder it into a more sensible ordering. I see what you mean about the other articles though, there are a few. At first glance I prefer this article to them though as the others either address a different need or are too unwieldy. I think, as Jibco says below, this article provides a useful perspective/context (for me). I need to have a more detailed read of them all though. You never mentioned what specifically you regard as unencyclopedic about the article topic though, it would help if you could expand a bit on that. Ha! (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At least in modern times, is there not the concept of the Royal List (do I have the term right) of those who are paid a stipend by the UK parliament? The lists for now look pretty well what I think that list is. This would be an objective source. --Bduke (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm not sure what the significance is of taking a snapshot in 1880, 1977 or 1990. The years 1901, 1910, 1936 and 1953, of course, coincide with the coronation of a new monarch, but why December? Then, there's the labelling, such that the first name is listed as "The Queen of the United Kingdom" or "The King of the United Kingdom" or "The Prince of Wales". OK, perhaps you have reasons not to say Victoria, Edward, George, Elizabeth, Charles, etc., but it's no less a breach of royal protocol to simply refer to "king of the kingdom" without mention of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (a lot of these were also Empress or Emperor of India). It's not very informative, analogous to a list that informs us that the American leader in 1901, 1910, 1936, etc. was "The President of the United States" and that the foremost member of the cabinet during those same years was "The Secretary of State". Finally, there are more efficient and informative ways of presenting the information. Isn't the point to show the changes in the royalty, through births, deaths, ascension, etc.? I agree with those who say it's arbitrary and unencyclopedic. Mandsford (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Members of the British Royal Family. Content is verifiable and is not covered in List of monarchs in the British Isles or British Royal Family. Think outside the box 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have British Royal Family, British prince, British princess, British monarchs' family tree, Genealogy of the British Royal Family and so on. Really, tell me why we need this. Charles 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Charles, I didn't see those. I have to say delete then. Think outside the box 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As creator. The article shows a clear perspective and/or contrast how the Royal Family has change through years or generations, and in the making of the article, as you can see, I follow the same line as in the article of British Royal Family in the part of List of members. Jibco (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think people can grasp that even royals are born and die. We don't need an article to list it for them. Charles 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Im not refering that they born and die, thats not the point, I said just to make a perspective and/or contrast of how was in the past (or in a period), and how its now. Jibco (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the modern section is duplicated in British Royal Family, but the composition at earlier dates is potentially useful, provided the dates reamin reasonably far apart. There may be overlap with some of the other articles, but not entirely. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who is the arbiter of what dates are good? What makes this topic encyclopedia-worthy? We are not the Almanach de Gotha for any given year. Charles 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per my comments above. It's encyclopaedic (or at least no one has shown how it's not), it's not arbitrary (the article, not the ordering) and I found it useful (not just interesting). I get the argument about the information being elsewhere though. It suppose it might be a helpful to show what policies/guidelines it breaks, if it really needs to be deleted. Ha! (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you show that it is an encyclopedic topic? The article depends entirely on the dates which can be changed at whim to include any and all dates. This article only satisfies an interest and nothing more, really. We are not the Almanach de Gotha for any given year. Charles 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the authors rewording of the opening paragraph of the article. In addition, I have let my original comments stand,though striking out the reasons for delete, in that I believe they support my keep opinion. ShoesssS ^Talk 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How? All is speaks about who is and isn't HRH or HM. It doesn't change the fact that any number of dates could be used and that you would never find that topic in an encyclopedia. We are not the Almanach de Gotha for any given year. Charles 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zonggu

As the article indicates, a zonggu is a valley between two mountain ranges. However, there is no particular cultural significance to the term, and WP is not a Chinese-English dictionary. Delete. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chinese or English -- a definition is a definition if there is no other significance attached to it. I learned a new word though. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a Chinese word when an existing English word is quite adequate. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. 99.239.190.195 (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure). A strong argument has been made that this article satisfies the guideline of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative_professionals. Darkspots (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Brown (programmer)

Eamon (computer game) and SwordThrust may be notable, but the programmer behind is definitely not. Jobjörn (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Jobjörn (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand. Why is he "definitely not" notable? You've said the games he's written are notable, it would follow that the developer is. --Canley (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it would not. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria - it's very clear! He is definitely not notable because there is no published, reliable, intellectually independent, independent of the subject, reliable secondary source material that he is the subject of. A crude example: while Carl Linnaeus is notable, his father is not, even though the father's child is notable. Eamon and SwordThrust are like the children of Donald Brown. Jobjörn (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous example. I am well aware of the "notability is not inherited" guideline with regards to notable people and their families, but to compare a subject's notable achievements (artistic works and the like) to children is a bizarre interpretation of the notability guideline. I presume you are saying that you have been unable to find on Google any biographical reference details other than references to Eamon and Swordthrust. --Canley (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, exactly. What, do you think I missed some book written about him? Some academic essay? Magnus Manske has made substantial contributions to a software far more notable than Eamon and SwordThrust - MediaWiki itself. Is there an article on Manske? No, it's a redirect to the article on MediaWiki. None of the authors of Wget, including the current maintainer Micah Cowan, has their own articles. Their involvement in these notable software products do not warrant an article on themselves. Anyhow, my interpretation of the notability guideline works perfectly fine without the example. There is still no published, reliable, intellectually independent, independent of the subject, reliable secondary source material that he is the subject of. Jobjörn (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not at all, but is that your criterion for sources (books and academic essays)? I've added two articles, one about Eamon and one about his work with Spymac. Citing lack of articles on Manske and Cowan seems like a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument though. --Canley (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to Eamon (computer game). It isn't that his achievements aren't notable, it's that he himself has not been the subject of the coverage of his notable products. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as above. Finishing a game is a fantastic achievement, but it doesn't automatically make you as notable as your creation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. According to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative_professionals, which appears below the "basic criteria" section cited above, he is indeed notable as a creative professional. He originated the concept of Eamon and implemented it by writing the core of the software as well as the initial adventures; and his work has been the subject of various reviews, and is certainly a significant work within the context of gaming systems. Omnedon (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If multiple works are notable, then so is the author. The relevant rule is common sense, if that still matters at Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. Someone's creations are not their children. If someone is famous then their parents would not become notable is a valid fact. It's like saying, his computer is not notable, just because that computer made those games and applications. Just as his computer would not be notable , nor would someone's parents or family, but the father of those games isn't Donald Brown, its the computer! Nevertheless, I disagree with you on that fact. That's all I wanted to say.Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted earlier, Donald Brown meets the criteria for creative professionals. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Black Kite 18:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Furman

I'm not so sure how this is notable for our inclusion standards. I see a good deal of memberships, however, it it not mainstream or side stream notable. Additionally, subject requests deletion. Thank you for your consideration on this. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Well the gentleman does have a building dedicated to him, as covered by the New York Times as noted here [38] with the opening presented by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the Supreme Court. In addition, an in-depth article, once again by the New York Times as shown here [39] about Mr. Furman’s efforts to revitalize Harlem. Also, found an article from the New York Law Journal as shown here [40]. Likewise, found at least another score of articles from much promenaded – well-respected news sources as shown here [41]. Moreover, the article is well written. Does it need cites, yes. Nevertheless, by just adding one, which I will do a little later makes for notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job finding those cites. I should have looked harder. If you don't get around to adding them, I may do so later. Were you able to locate any other material? Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good deal of marginally notable folks have had buildings dedicated to them, and people do what they can to help their towns. Question is, what has he done to cause his notability? I'm not sure this cuts it. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL – How many have Ms. O’Connor as the speaker? In addition, the town we are talking about is New York. The amount of the building, which Mr. Furman donated cost $100,000,000. Just in this, I believe notability was established. In addition, this is just one of many news articles about the gentleman.

Thanks – I really do appreciate the help and thank you for offering! I have already added the first New York Times piece, regarding the Building as an in-line cite and a reference on the article. If you click on this link [42] it will bring you to Google News where I have already put the search criteria in and you should be able to take your pick of articles to use as cites and references. Again, thanks, editors like yourself are truly appreciated and welcomed with open arms. Keep up the good work. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime :) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although Furman does come up in the above sources, and it's very nice to donate enough money to have a university building named for you, there is not really that much in the sources about him other than that RD Management is a major developer of shopping malls. The developer featured in the Harlem article is actually Joseph H. Holland, with Furman receiving a brief mention towards the end (the $9 million equity portion of the $40 million development budget came from a more traditional player in real estate: the developer Jay Furman and his company, the RD Management Corporation.) The recent article about the dedication does not confirm that he oversaw the construction (this says He also chaired the building committee and was instrumental in supporting the management and construction of the new building. Being chair of a building committee ... isn't notable.) There are some trade papers that list Furman and RD Management together among the "top X shopping mall developers/owners". Altogether this is pretty weak tea. With more sources a case could be made for notability but even the sources I can find in Google News don't offer that much. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further examination supports a case for notability for RD Management under WP:CORP. I would suggest writing that article and smerging a brief mention of Furman there. As it is, we just don't need an article that's 50% a listing of charitable board activities. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment – I am sorry Guy I do not mean to be confrontational - but what constitutes independent sources? I always felt the New York Times and the New York Law Journal were always pretty independent. Has Mr. Furman recently obtained a majority interest in the companies? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a contentious or contended biography, non-trivial independent sources of an essentially biographical nature, not news coverage of involvement in events but profiles or other coverage where the individual, not an event, is the primary focus of the piece. That's my personal standard, anyway. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ~~IRC~~ nom. Not enough independent biographical sources.--Doc^g 23:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources create presumption of notability not refuted here. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ShoesssS's sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Star*Drive - Nabla (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klick (fictional species)

Race of aliens from a role-playing game. Not notable. Prodded once upon a time by yours truly, prod removed and article replaced with a redirect. Article re-created half a year later. Jobjörn (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sure, have Klick (fictional species) as a redirect to the Star*Drive article and integrate the Klick article into it. I only created the article because information about the fictional species was on the disambiguation page Click. --Kawada9999 (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Article is unsourced but appears to contain useful info that would be better integrated into the Star*Drive article. The dab page should be updated to point to the merged article. - Dravecky (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article used to be a redirect to Star*Drive. Jobjörn (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adeyemi series

Possible original research. No clear references showing that this series is well-known under this name in the mathematical community. Two references are given - one is a vague mention of "Mathematics: Theory and Fun", the other is a link (maybe a typo?) to an unrelated webpage. No relevant Google results for "Adeyemi series" or Adeyemi "recurrence relation". (Note: PROD was removed by author, who then added the two references.) FreplySpang 02:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Appears to be WP:OR. Problems with WP:RS. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone has discovered the not-very-exciting fact that 13 × 7 × (10^n - 1) / 9 = 10^(n+1) - 10^n - 10. It makes pretty patterns in decimal notation but is otherwise pointless. It's not even in OEIS. And it's misnamed (should be sequence not series). The only reference I can find is an (unreliable) forum posting a month ago (not involving anyone named Adeyemi). I tried looking at "Integers with digits 0 and 1" by D. H. Lehmer et al. but that doesn't even mention this example. Delete as original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are references for the existence of the series, but that does not make it notable, also there is no evidence that it has a name. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator and David Eppstein. I am a bit surprised though that this gets so little attention in 13 (number). Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD G7. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joep Verheggen

Not sure if this person meets the notability guidelines or not. The references are all primary and the article looks like a cross between a resume and a Myspace page. Polly (Parrot) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a vanity page that looks like it was made by his mother, but he appears to be notable per Google search [43], [44], [45]; keep and edit heavily. JJL (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last two of those articles seem primarily to focus on ScienceDirect rather than Mr. Verheggen. Polly (Parrot) 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. References I found were from Elsevier which, though it is a very big name in publishing, is the organization he is associated with (through ScienceDirect). I'm sure the creator of the page had good intentions, but the extent of the vanity is a bit shocking. "References" which are the subject's own anecdotes? Unbelievable. Perhaps they missed the "encyclopedia" part when first looking at Wikipedia's site. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aledevries I've removed everything we added. This was indeed a "vanity page" which we'd hoped to surprise the subject with for a special occasion, and we were very well aware that the page might at some point be nominated for removal - it wasn't intended to be permanent. We never expected it to be nominated so soon, though ;-) which is in itself a very encouraging signal about how serious Wikipedia is about quality. If anyone felt offended by this, then please be assured that this was never the intention.
Speedy Delete per G7. Author blanked the page. DarkAudit (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Not notable enough to get past WP:BAND - yet. Black Kite 10:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro (band)

Procedural nom. I declined to speedily delete the article, as there's a vague assertion of notability. Still, appears to be a non-notable band whose main claim to fame is performing at MACRoCk. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND. faithless (^speak) 01:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite sure on this one. There are a couple of valid assertations of notability. The sources look like they're fairly in-depth, so they might meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC; at least one source also claims them to be well-known in their region, so #7 might apply as well. I'm going neutral for now, awaiting further comment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references meet WP:MUSIC#C7. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me say, that if this band does meet notability (I'm not saying they definitely don't - again, mostly a procedural nom), it would be through criteria one. I'm a frequent visitor to the Harrisonburg area, and can attest that this band is in no way the "most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city." Not that this precludes their notability, but if they are notable, that's not why. :) Basically, the question here is: are three articles in fairly small publications (Daily News Record, Rocktown Weekly and DC Style Magazine) enough to establish this band as notable? (The Pitchfork article just lists the band as performing on a DVD and the other reference is a blog.) Cheers, faithless (^speak) 08:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No record yet. Getting notice here and there, and even getting a local profile, are ephemeral. For an act to pass the bar of MUSIC, they really need to have an object, an impact, a document that can be and will be affecting things. Touring is not remarkable, even if it is a great live act or the most interesting group of people in the world. "Working on first record" means advertising and profile boosting. That's a Wikipedia NOT. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough yet, come back after that first album is released. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Those that are a part of the same scene throughout the east coast consider this group to be very notable. I'm a bit confused why the artist playing MACRoCk for 3 consecutive years can't be considered as proof for notability when the festival itself has it's own wiki article. I have edited the article better describing their current recording as a "production deal". This deal and relationship is also notable. --Daniel W. White (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because notability is not inherited. Hundreds of small local bands have played Warped Tour and Ozzfest over the years; that does not confer notability, especially when such bands haven't even released an album. faithless (^speak) 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Presents...Zoey 101

For future albums, this sets a new low point. I'm used to no sources. I've grown accustomed to no tracklist. Not having a release data is a standard in this realm of article. But no artists? Pure WP:CRYSTAL Kww (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite an extreme case of WP:CRYSTAL here -- there seems to be no verifiable info on this album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, and unlikely tie-in as the series ends this year and there's no new program to promote (sountracks usually come out early or mid-series, not usually at the end). Nate • (chatter) 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed - premature. Not to mention uncertain as the fallout from the Spears thing is still being felt. Recreate if an when an actual announcement (with details) is made. 23skidoo (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this be called Zoey 101 (album) in any case? 70.51.8.129 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If and when it is released than write article. Right now all we have is a promotional piece.ShoesssS ^Talk 05:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Cradel 12:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystalline. Article can easily be recreated if the album is ever released. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Compulsions70 (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ...and the album will be released on TBA 2008, as if "TBA" was an actual date. WP:CRYSTAL, at best; WP:HOAX, at worst. -- azumanga (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guesstimate matrix

Non-notable neologism and guerrilla spam for the book referenced. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, appears to be WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable. Fails WP:V. Given reference is nothing more than an advertising site for the named book. --- Taroaldo (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a mystery to me what speedy delete criterion this could fall under. Could you please refer to any of the points at WP:CSD? Neither non-notable nor unverifiable is a speedy deletion criterion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not adequately sourced, no indication it could be sourced. Not a speedy, though. - Ironic goat (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next, Lies, & Videotape

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Next, Lies, & Videotape

No sources, no tracklist, no release date. Kww (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has been confirmed on the album yet -- no track list, release date, cover art, etc. Therefore, this violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC Cannot find a confirmed release date. --- Taroaldo (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very WP:CRYSTAL, as we seem to have gone past the release dates offered with no actual release. Can easily be recreated if it ever does surface. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaulting to Keep. Only the nominator has argued for deletion and a merge has no consensus here. This has no prejudice to a merge taking place for which discussion should continue on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hellomagazine.ca

Non-notable news website. While it does seem to have a quite substantial reader base (see Alexa), there seems to be very few pages linking to it (see Google - note that while Google says "about 1,330" on the first page, this is lowered to "about 16" on the next, due to "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 16 already displayed". They are, indeed, very similar). I do not see how this article can be considered as passing Wikipedia:Notability (web). Also note that the creating user Cprice is a suspected sockpuppet. Jobjörn (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article on hellomagazine.ca was posted because news from this site is on Google News quite frequently (sign up for google alerts on hellomagazine.ca and you'll get one almost everyday). I'm sure there likely will be a linked article page created for Hello! Canada magazine soon too as the two are connected. Hello! Canada magazine and hellomagazine.ca are fairly new (one is weekly news and one is daily news as per the two separate articles on the properties) but have a huge readership and fan base as per the established Hello!/¡Hola! brands —Cprice (talk • contribs) 14:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – In doing some research, I did find one source showing that the site was getting over a million and a half hits a month as of January, 2008, which is notable, [46]. In addition, there do seem quite a few other sources linking or showing their source was hellomagazine.ca. However, sorry to say, I could not find any information on the magazine on Google News, which was disappointing. Nor could I find any in-depth articles from reliable – credible and verifiable sources pertaining to the company. If the original author or any other editor could show or cite additional sources, I would change to strong Keep and I am sure that would persuade Delete opinions, which could be justified at this point, to vote keep. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: How does a high hit count imply notability? Jobjörn (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems that it should be notable, but unsure if it is. What bothers me is that Hello! Canada doesn't even have an article. Considering that is a notable title I find it rather surprising. Canterbury Tail talk 01:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Tough call. Would need a good overhaul. Problems with notability/WP:RS. -- Taroaldo (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. The website is part of the Canadian edition of Hello! which is a major magazine. I'm actually surprised an article on Hello! Canada hasn't been written yet, so alternately this article could be expanded (and renamed) into an article on the magazine itself. 23skidoo (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hello! or a new article on Hello! Canada. It's silly and backwards that we have an article on the supporting website but not the magazine. See Time.com, NYTimes.com .... --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per User:Dhartung Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hello! per Dhartung. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless or until an article is written on Hello! Canada in which case it can be merged. I must say that I am amazed by the sparsity of information in the Hello! article, and by the fact that there is no article on Hello! Canada. Surely this is a more important subject than a single episode of Friends or a Pokemon character? For some time I've been trying to help combat systemic bias by improving and referencing articles about subjects from outside the developed anglophone world or from the pre-internet era, but I didn't realise that we had the same problems with major subjects in Western popular culture. I can only presume that readers of Hello! Canada have better things to do with their time than editing Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mute Math second LP

No sources, no title, no confirmed tracklist. Sounds like "no article" to me. Kww (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystally. Article can be easily recreated when some hard facts come to light. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, the very definition of fundamental reasoning behind WP:CRYSTAL Gwguffey (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all, consensus is that the articles fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ornament (band)

Delete as musician of unclear WP:MUSIC notability. I'm bringing it here only because the article has been on Wikipedia for two years. Google search for "David Pask-Hughes" -wikipedia results in 22 hits; Ornament "Is Architect" -wikipedia comes up with about 3,500, but the relevant ones are all mp3 download pages. Also included in this nomination are the albums:

... discospinster _talk 00:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, articles fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all no assertion of significance. Completely fails WP:MUSIC. Serves only as a vehicle for self-promotion. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all, musician and albums do not fulfil the WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No assertations of notability made; no sources seem to exist on the band yet. Utterly fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Notability acording to WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.190.195 (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Clarke (politician)

This biography does not establish notability. WP:BIO states “Just being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability…” and the subject is not “…notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.”

Indeed the only claims to any notability stem from being a former chair for Conservative Future (but the only other person to not be a redlink on that list is notable for being involved in a broadcaster), being the subject of the documentary which itself was deemed not notable and being a PPC which is already establish by WP:BIO as not being notable.

The page has mainly been edited by a series of IPs [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] acting as SPAs, and more recently by one user who appears to be an SPA [52].

A Google search for “Mark Clarke” mainly turns up blogs run by or for the subject, and lists about 423k hits, but mainly because of the recent death of Arthur C Clarke. After removing the PROD [53] Bastin added a couple of extra references but the bulk of the information is not coming from credible third party sources but political blogs, and even the new references do not establish that Mark Clarke has done anything notable outside of Chair of CF and being a PPC, neither of which in themselves justify a biography on Wikipedia.

The references are written by Clarke [54] [55], mention him only in passing with reference to his chair as CF [56], are another person’s blog [57] or come back 403 [58]. None of them establish notability of the individual concerned. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - is about one good article away from having achieved sufficient coverage from third party sources independent of him, but I don't think he's quite there. Remember, though, that it's quite possible for an unelected candidate to be notable if there exists sufficient coverage - unelected candidates aren't automatically notable, but nor are automatically non-notable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On two grounds:

Clearly, the grounds for 'notability' imply sufficiency, not necessity. That it, it is quite plausible that a candidate for major office is notable simply by the fact of running for office. I would contend that, of the range of offices from the Presidency of the United States to the local council of Esch-sur-Sure, Parliament is a relatively notable position: and hence major party candidates may well qualify simply by being candidates for Parliament. And that ignores the fact that, due to Tooting being a target seat and Clarke being recently-departed chairman of Conservative Future, he's actually considerably more notable than the average parliamentary candidate.
Numerous sources have been cited: national newspapers, major independent blogs, etc. The references in Byrony Gordon's Telegraph piece is not incidental (he is quoted consistently, it includes biographical details, and a profile picture of him!). He has also written pieces for the Telegraph (cited). And that's a newspaper with a circulation of 880,000 copies a day; if one included local newspapers (which are reliable and independent), you would see considerable media coverage that would establish him as notable under the primary criterion and also as a major local political figure, which is confirmed by the preoccupation that both right- and left-wing blogs have with him. I am in the process of adding references, but contend that the current number is enough to prove notability.

On a further point of clarification, the article has not been edited mainly by those single-purpose accounts. It has mainly been vandalised by SPAs. It has mainly been edited by me. Were you to attempt to ascerain my 'single purpose', it would be on editing articles on Luxembourg, not on Conservative politicians. Bastin 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment notability is the sole reason for keeping WP:BIO articles, the refs are weak, he may be quoted a lot in the one article and also written an opinion piece for the Telegraph, these are not reasons to keep this article. He has done nothing of note, he is a candidate for "a target seat" is not a reason. He is a former chair of CF, not a reason. The article has been edited by SPAs in the links above, I know that it has also had one off vandals, and I never said you were an SPA, I said Daveboat was an SPA, and as of the start of this AfD he was. If you remove the ref written by Mark, and remove Blog refs then do a Google search you will find little of susbsatance to justify keeping what is close to a vanity piece. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Well argued and presented nom. The subject of the article appears to be more non-notable than the average. It seems to be straining for something to say when the article mentions that the subject stood unsuccessfully for President of his university debating society on two occasions. SilkTork *^YES! 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hasn't won yet; consensus finds that politicians who haven't won elected office and are not otherwise notable (such as by being retired athletes or whatever) don't get Wikipedia articles. This keeps Wikipedia from being a campaign PR outlet, and the articles from being endless POV battlegrounds. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neutral seems to be notable , but most of search engine results fail to give any concrete notability ,even though he has not won in any it doesnt mean tht he is not notable , but for sure this article seems to be a third party source , if the creator of this article provides some external notability then im ready for a keep --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reasons as stated by Blast Ulna. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, consensus has been for awhile now that merely being a candidate is not a guarantor of notability. In fact, WP:BIO even states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Of course, prospective candidates can be notable for other reasons, but I don't think that being chair of a few minor Conservative organisations is going to do it in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Candidate and media appearances do not cross the bar. He's quite young, yet, in politician years, and has not had significant achievements, yet. There is no doubt that he is himself interested in raising his profile, and so he will show up, but Wikipedia should be one of the last measures, not one of the means. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. non-admin closure by --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EVEN ANGELS FALL

Fails WP:BK. Non-notable book; article is unreferenced and probably has some WP:OR. Tan | 39 00:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It appears the book's author is the article author, blatant COI. Tan | 39 00:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author blanked the page. Speedy delete G11 tag added. Tan | 39 00:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the sources added during the AFD meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile Dentist

Contested PROD, another non-notable run of the mill children's board game, no non-trivial coverage, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely non-notable board game [59]. I couldn't locate a single source that covered the game without simply listing it for sale. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to Keep per below. My google news searching (not in the diff above) didn't go beyond a month. That's why I found nothing. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – To be honest at first, I was going with delete. However, in doing some research, I was able to find some credible – verifiable and in-depth reviews of the game. As shown here. [60]. I believe a decent piece can be done on the game. I have expanded the opening a tad and added reference and cite. I’ll work on the article as the debate is going on and see if we can expand and bump up from stub status. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's easy to verify that this is or was an actual commercially marketed game, but that information doesn't contradict any part of the argument proffered by the editor who marked the article for deletion. The game does not appear ever to have made an appreciable dent on the culture at large, in contradistinction to, say, Scrabble. All information in the article as it currently reads is very trivial, and I don't see how that is likely to change. TheScotch (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent sources found on google news above, I think it satisfies notability.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, non-trivial coverage by notable publications as above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep — sources establish and prove notability. EJF (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even "coverage" doesn't make something notable, as the coverage is for the incident, not the game. The game "is considered a classic" in a dubious passive voice construction. The game, in fact, does not appear to have achieved sales figures or cultural entanglement sufficient to be a notable object. Additionally, this article is not about the game, but about the YouTube video. That is not Wikipedia's business. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's described as "popular" and "classic" by sources in the Google News Archive. I know from my own experience (FWIW) that this was a commonly-seen game in the 1990s. No, it's not Scrabble, but it's probably good enough for Wikipedia's low notability standards. The fact that most of the article is about the YouTube video is an editing concern. Zagalejo^^^ 16:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the google news sources assert notability. Needs an informative and a concise intro. Think outside the box 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. House of Scandal (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know notability standards for products are relatively low, but seriously, this isn't Monopoly. There isn't much to say about this that couldn't be covered in a Hasbro subpage, and none of the arguments presented thus far have shown me that Crocodile dentist is notable in the wider scope of culture. The Google News archive presents with maybe one exception all trivial coverage, most are either product listings are brief mentions. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep and expand. This article needs a references section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.12.51 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of articles that do not show up in Google News but are listed at Newsbank, such as the one below:

"Croc chomps out the fun; Crocodile Dentist game; Test drive". Hamilton Spectator, The (Ontario, Canada) - April 15, 2004

Unfortunately, Newsbank is experiencing problems at the moment, so I can't access that article. But if I really wanted to, I'm sure I could churn out at least a couple of sourced paragraphs about this game. I don't see why it's any less notable than the thousands of video games which have an established place on Wikipedia. Indeed, the game has remained available in stores for years, which is something you can't say of the average title reviewed in EGM. Zagalejo^^^ 06:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources meet notability guidelines. Hobit (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. No basis for deletion is stated and WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahāmada

Needs more Refs DWhiskaZ (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not fully ready for Wiki Standards.

Refernces must be obtained from Library Books and Actual Photos from Vedas

Article still going through Edits and will take time to provide Refs to be upto Standards

Article is being investigated by University of Toronto (Scarborough Campus) and researchers will need more time to provide all information.

--DWhiskaZ (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is the nominator supporting deletion ? I ask because he created the article, and he and his apparent sock IP are arguing for the article on FTN and edit warring to prevent it from being redirected to Bhavishya Purana - as seems to be the consensus on the board. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Sorry if apparent sock IP which perhaps forgot to log in according to Wiki did not offend or violate any terms.

Speedy keep None of those is a reason for deletion. If the article isn't "fully ready for Wiki standards", fix it up. There is no deadline for completion of the project; almost every article is currently under construction. I would highly recommend that you please familiarize yourself with the deletion policy first before listing another article for deletion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Wikipedia does not have deadlines. We are never finished with our articles here. Everything takes time to do, so the argument that 'it'll take time to find references' doesn't fly as an argument. Our deletion policy should give you a better idea of what are valid reasons to put something up for deletion. Primarily, we only delete something if it isn't notable or verifiable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article can be imporoved and will be (We have got intouch of the Books that mention Mahamad) and i find it useless to redirect to Bhavishya Purana because Mahamad is also mentioned in books RigVed, Atharvaveda, Kalki Avtar and Samaveda. If you ever see these books they are really thick and its going to take time to go through all them. Thats why we have an team going through the books. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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