Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 19

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

< May 18	May 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was No consensus, leaning towards keep, since most of the delete "votes" were made before the improvement to the article. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D. Bap Reddy

Contested PROD. On googling his name, most of the results that turn up are about his official capacity. Yes, he is with United Nations, but that in itself cannot be a notable thing. Article in its present form is more like a directory entry and hence proposed for deletion. Prashanthns (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. --Jacob ^Talk 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:N, not only is article unsourced WP:OR violation but also appears to be copyvio. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh?How is it a copy-vio? There are only 2 lines in the article!;)Prashanthns (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established. Merely being associated with the UN in some capacity seems insufficient. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and insufficiently notable. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still needs sources, but not now convinced he's not notable in the light of improvements to the article. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Tagged. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An earlier speedy was declined. Prashanthns (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I removed this one. What is asserted is possibly notable. DGG (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure about this one. It is true that currently the article is in terrible shape, no references or sources. But the guy might actually have been a notable agricultural scientist/ecologist and it is possible that he might pass WP:PROF. Apparently there is something called "Dr. D. Bap Reddy National Award for Integrated Pest Management" by Plant Protection Association of India[1]. GoogleScholar does not show much in terms of citability of his work[2] but GoogleBooks returns 81 hits[3]. Granted, many of these are books/articles/technical reports by him, rather than citations of his work (of which there are still quite a few). However, we are talking about someone who did most of his scholarly work in the 60s and, moreover, in India, so one could understand that the electronicaally available sources might be scarce. One of the references above is to some book[4] where he is explicitly characterized as "eminent agricultural scientist" (although the publication date of 1936 looks strange to me in view of his age; I think that date might be wrong or something). So, all in all, I have a feeling that we might be missing some significant info here that might show actual bona fide notability. Still, unless some knowledgeable person actually digs up some more conclusive references to indicate his academic notability, the article probably would have to be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article looking better now. An IP editor is working, it seems. Assuming that all that is added is true, his notability may be asserted. Sources lacking for now. Good research work there. Prashanthns (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are still no references in the article to substantiate the info added. Nsk92 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been brought to AFD very quickly. Let's give some time to the article, we may find sources establishing a stronger notability. He has also been cited in a 1948 article of the Oakland Tribune. As for my !vote, don't delete just now. Cenarium (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from relisting admin: Article has changed substantially since the majority of the above discussion took place. Relisting so the discussion can focus on the article as it now stands.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he does seem to be mentioned in some papers in Google Scholar, Google search turns up Scholar related results and he is shown to be the author of 37 books on Google Books [5]. I would say that conveys some notability, but he does not seem to meet human notability criteria. I'm going to have to stay neutral on this one— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atyndall (talk • contribs)
Comment The article has definitely got some sources, but they are links to people who got an award named after him. No sources for the biographical details or his acheivements as yet. His university days has a source from a newspaper archive which mentions him as a president of the Indian students union, while the other two sources are from profiles of the awardees. HOwever, per User:Nsk92 above, in view of his work being in the 70's and 80's and him being from India, electronic sources may be few. NOtability indicated if not asserted. Going neutral on this one for now. Prashanthns (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the Plant Protection Association of India chose to name an award after him would seem to show clear notability, as well as all the stuff found at Google Books and Scholar, which is far more than you would expect to find for a non-notable person who was active in the pre-Internet era. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With an award named after you, there is a pretty good chance you are in fact notable. The article is fairly verifiable as it stands now, and though it doesn't meet the letter of the notability guidelines for biographies, I think we can safely assume that this is a notable person, even if he doesn't meet our guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Agriprocessors. Singu larity 06:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Rubashkin

Reason: The article isnt about the person himself; all the information is about the company, which has its own article. Completing unfinished nom for User:Ironholds, apparently twinkle choked. I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the twinkle linking broke. Ironholds (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, seems slightly notable but not really anything written about him as distinct from his company. Alternatively redirect. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources for notability as a businessman. Heads of notable companies are notable. He is individually a major community figure, and I hope more information to that effect will be added.DGG (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - is that support for deletion or keep? i read it as support for deletion, but i just want to make sure. Ironholds (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Generally it is support for deletion. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Agriprocessors. The sources are primarily about the company, only incidentally about him. The book apparently has a lot of inofrmation about him but it's not about him, it's about the community and the industry and agribusiness trends with his company being a case study. --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung. It seems that the company is more notable than the person. Jakew (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article is definitely notable. The only question is whether it would be easier to avoid WP:BLP by redirecting to the main article on agripocessors. In any case, just deleting the article would be idiotic considering the tremendous media attention focused on this family and company right now.--Chakira (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kegg Pipe Organ Builders

I've just declined an A7 request on this, mainly due to the fact that it's been up for two years without anyone raising any complaint. Although it's unreferenced, I have absolutely no idea if this is a notable company in the pipe-organ world — and I'm not even sure how I'd find out, since I'd imagine most coverage would be in the specialist musical and religious press which wouldn't necessarily make it online. This, bringing it over here for some kind of consensus, as at the moment it doesn't quite meet inclusion rules, but I'm loath to delete it if it's a major company in its field. This is a procedural nom so I abstain. — iridescent 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added references from three different newspapers. --Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comes up near the top of Google List, they sell organs across the country and built the largest one in northern California. As much, if not more, notable than other pipe organ builders on here. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the company appears to be notable within its niche field of pipe organ building. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Exactly how does this meet WP:CORP? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. i.e. The Times-Standard, Eureka, California, Akron Beacon Journal, and The Cincinnati Post. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stand There and Take It No Matter What

I've declined a CSD request on this thanks to our old friend "hoax is not a speedy criteria". However, I've no doubt whatsoever this is either a hoax or a thing made up in school. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, now's your chance... — iridescent 23:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All, Stand There and Take it is a legitimate game that is known to many and is popular here on the beaches of Southern California. It has been around for years...longer than I can remember, and likely exists here due the year round weather for playing it. Will you see it sponsored by Gatorade? Not anytime soon, however that does not make it an invalid wikipedia submission. Its a grassroots game that is common to the area. Its similar in popularity to bean bag toss or beach bocce....all of which can be found everyday on the beaches here.

Ddgray (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)dgray[reply]

Except that there exists in literature outside of Wikipedia references to Tag and cornhole and bocce... your game shows no evidence that it is reported in reliable sources, and thus it is not a notable game. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find some reliable, 3rd party sources that assert notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete par WP:NOT, manual subsection along with likely notability and sourcing issues. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be a fun thing to do, were I half in the bag, but...WP:NOT is too had to discount here. Drieux (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless notability is asserted and verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Also, per this J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have played this game. It is for real! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1967camaro sd (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - drivel/nonsense --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate. People in Colorado play a similar game with snowballs. Search yahoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sand native (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A game pretty much identical to this was actually played in the Outrageous Fortune Christmas special telemovie. But never referred to by this name, and an appearance in a TV show is hardly grounds for supporting this article anyway. --Stormie (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted. Singu larity 20:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihal Singh Kairon

Notabilty neither demonstrated nor asserted. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Google reports a grand total of four hits, including WP: [6] Also looks like a WP:COPYVIO from here [7], though that site might merely be a Wikimirror. Qworty (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is vaguely asserted; However, this is still a possible copyvio, so I will tag it for speedy deletion. Otherwise, delete per nom; fails RS and BIO. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant copyright violation of this page. So tagged. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aurotype

Delete unsourced one-liner about a photographic printing technique, without indication really what it is, why it differs from others, whether this is a trade name pushed by one company, or anything approaching notability assertions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added additional content describing the chemical components of this historical process, the category to which it belongs and its notable discoverer, with two external references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.141.215 (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stub article that has moved beyond one line and is now sourced/referenced. More can be done to improve though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stub on notable topic, it is referenced now. --Itub (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There's really no reason for this to be deleted. The article is now referenced properly and passes WP:N. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 06:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Share International

Fails WP:CORP and WP:N. A lot of OR too. There are only two sources cited, one being cited quite a bit. I don't know of the validity of the sources. The links in the first paragraph all redirect back to the article. Undeath (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a cult/new religious movement that advertizes the messiah in newspapers all over the world passes Wikipedia:notability. Sources are fine and I have more (see talk), but cannot improve it here and now, because I do not have access to the sources right now and because I was topic banned by the arbcom for a related subject (Sathya Sai Baba). Andries (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- how does placing newspaper ads, even "all over the world", satisfy WP:CORP? At all? dab (𒁳) 13:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I admit I did not read it well, but it certainly satisfies WP:N according to the first sentence: "it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", as the references of the article prove. Andries (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources appear to be O.K. Article needs better footnoting to sort out what's really in the sources and what is not, but deletion is not the answer to this problem, IMO. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes notability. asenine ^{say what?} 09:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ but remove all the unsourced Bible discussion and find better sources. This group is rather notable in the development of the New Age movement. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Benjamin Creme. Share International is notable in the New Age movement as the group which placed newspaper ads around the world proclaiming a New Age Christ has arrived, but whether this is actually a "group" as opposed to a one-man show is in question. It is one of several such groups founded by Benjamin Creme, all of whose notability is one and the same as Benjamin Creme's notability and perhaps best consolidated into a single article about Creme and his activities. Changing vote from the above "keep". KleenupKrew (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is certainly not a one man show. Share International has local offices in among others London and Amsterdam. I have seen the one in Amsterdam. Nevertheless, I admit that merging increases maintainability. Andries (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or do a major rewrite - The nom is correct that this article has serious issues with WP:CORP and WP:N as well as having WP:V and WP:OR problems. If the group has indeed had an impact on the developement of the New Age movement, that fact needs to be stated in the article and there should be far more reliable sources that discuss that impact. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main claim to notability seems to be a 1988 The Sunday Times article. In any case merge with Benjamin Creme. dab (𒁳) 13:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or major rewrite as per Blueboar's points, and if we keep it seriously needs to be merged with the Creme article.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a notable subject but badly written article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Benjamin Creme - there are thousands of people in over 40 countries that support Share International and the work of Benjamin Creme. To suggest that it may be a one-man show, is uninformed. Jon33 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Blueboar, or alternatively merge as per Dbachmann Jimfbleak (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is nothing more than blatant advertising intended as promotion for Share International. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a ridiculous allegation when the article contains sourced statements like "These beliefs and claims have been described as fantastic and outlandish by the British journalist Mick Brown.", and "Some Christian pastors maintain that the Share International version of Maitreya is the Anti-Christ." Andries (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The article was already speedy deleted on those grounds, and all you did was restore it. The article, as a whole, is written in a way intended to attract attention to, and promote, Share International, and it has nothing encyclopedic about it. I call that blatant advertising. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did more than just restoring it, but you may have missed that. I added sourced criticisms. Andries (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to let the other editors who are participating in this AfD to read the article and judge for themselves if it is blatant advertising. (NB: If you want to argue about this further, it might be better to put that on the talk page.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the only one who is active on the talk page until now and I agree with you that that is where the discussion should take place, so please come there too. Andries (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable subject but badly written article. Afd is not for cleanup, if you think the article is an advert/original research etc then use the tags {{original research}} {{advert}} as that's what they are for, or if you have the time change the tone so it's not advertising and/or remove the WP:OR. SunCreator (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- on what grounds do you judge it is "notable"? A 20 year old newspaper article? dab (𒁳) 07:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A quick read of WP:N reminds me that Notability is not temporary. SunCreator (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor did not read the article, and was annoyed that I suggested he should! [8] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, I was not annoyed! The nominators issue is with notability, having found that it's notable, that is enough. SunCreator (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is notable as is proven for example by the sourced statement that Creme's statement served as catalyst to the Christian Evangelicals to make up their minds about the New Age movement. Also the extensive and in depth treatment by the British journalist Mick Brown. Andries (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand There seem to be plenty of sources available for such article: [9]. If these sources, after being evaluated, are not sufficient, the article can be redirected as proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I see in your link to googlebooks is two or three self published volumes, and a book by Lee Penn that was controversial when proposed as a source in the Alice Bailey article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the feeling simply won't go away that we are being taken for a ride here. ~~One Sunday Times article is insufficient for notability and the rest of the references are essentially self-published.~~ I remain unconvinced about the notability of the organisation. TerriersFan (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rest of the references are essentially self-published? You are completely mistaken. Andries (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- TerriersFan, only one of 22 references is self-published. Please explain how an article published by the Free university Amsterdam press is "essentially self-published". Andries (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, comment withdrawn. TerriersFan (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, every book that you use for a source is a compilation, which mentions Share International in a by-the-way manner. Never is Creme, or his so-called organization, discussed in a serious manner, or is it presented as truly influential in the New Age movement (or any other movement). Share International gets the attention that it does only because Creme is wealthy and can afford to pay for newspaper ads, press conferences, and can pay for publishing the Share International journal and site. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue, the book by Mick Brown gives an in depth treatment. pages 6-25 and pages 250-260. Andries (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Brown's book, The Spiritual Tourist: A Personal Odyssey Through the Outer Reaches of Belief, does not give an "in depth treatment" of anything, and particularly not of Creme and Share International. The book is not a scholarly study, but intended as an impressionistic account of some strange and amusing aspects of the New Age. Brown makes it clear that he considers Creme's claims bazaar, and considers him fascinating but not important. It is not necessary for anyone who is interested to take my word for it because Amazon.com makes this book searchable [10], so all that is necessary is to enter "creme" in the search box. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that Creme is wealthy is not supported by a reliable source. Andries (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[11] seems more credible than anything in the entire, laughable, article. What seems incredible is Wikipedia allowing, and editors actually discussing keeping, an article of that nature and that quality. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you or I should place a request on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Even if this article is deleted our dispute will not go away but simply continued at Benjamin Creme. Andries (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your angry reaction about this surprises me. Benjamin Creme's willingness to fund Share International, as something he believes in; seems very admirable, and makes me respect his sincerity (although that makes the article no better). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Brown (journalist) is convinced about his sincerity. You do not have to be rich to place once is 30 year large advertisements in newspapers. Andries (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has now 29-2=27 notes to 8 7 different reliable 3rd party sources. This must be better than more than 95% of the other Wikipedia articles. Andries (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note from relisting admin: Article has changed substantially since most of the above discussion took place. I am relisting it so the discussion can center on the article as it currently stands.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Howard (author)

Non-notable writer who's published a couple of non-notable short stories and one non-notable book. Faills WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:BK, WP:V, etc. Notability not even asserted. Qworty (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Winner of the Heinlein Centennial Writing Contest[12]. Pburka (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He won in the "Amateur Division," hardly a notable distinction. You'll find that just about every little writers' conference or get-together out there likes to give out "certificates" and "awards" like candy. While some of these pieces of candy have impressive-sounding names, there really isn't any notability to them by WP standards. Qworty (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Winner of the Heinlein Centennial Writing Contest, Amateur Division. Heinlein Centennial was not a "little writers' conference or get-together" there is some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you seriously suggesting that somebody who wins a short-story contest in an amateur division is suddenly a notable author? That is not what WP notability for authors is all about. Please read WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only real claim to notability at this point is the contest, and I can find no evidence that this one-time event with a $175 prize and publication via PDF has any notability itself. That link is the single independent search result listing winners, and it's barely more than an announcement. Notability to come. --Dhartung | Talk 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Award is minor; novel has not even been released yet; entry is sole contribution by user NoahWesler. --Thetrick (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung's link to details on the writing competition he won, there is clearly no notability there of the sort requested by WP:CREATIVE. --Stormie (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Productions

A not notable music project founded in February 2007. Only reference is a bebo link, no coverage in news or books. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. --Eustress (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Awakening

The band doesn't obviously meet notability criteria. It was created by a representative of the band. A web search for "Online Music Awards" "third awakening" yields only two pages, both by the band themselves. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC for bands. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SirFozzie (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmarnock Central

Creator of article has been blocked for sockpuppetting, was user User:Bennet556 SirFozzie (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable block of flats. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. --Eustress (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of article has been blocked for sockpuppetting, was user User:Bennet556 (amongst others) SirFozzie (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --JForget 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of Johns Hopkins

This article was written as an essay and duplicates information already found in Johns Hopkins and in the other articles that reflect the "legacy" (Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Hospital, etc.). -- Atama ^chat 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (I originally prodded, but this is fine). NawlinWiki (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant information and non-encyclopediac writing. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay Ultra! 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously no more than an essay, also presents no more information than found in Johns Hopkins. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is no more than an essay. Happyme22 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would there be any reason for a slight merge and redirect of the reliably sourced material to Johns Hopkins#The legacy of Johns Hopkins? -- saberwyn 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — Any reliably sourced statement in this article that's relevant to John Hopkins#The legacy of Johns Hopkins and not already there, should be merged there. (I added a Ref section to the article so that the sourced statements are viewable.) Rosiestep (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject matter is boosterish rather than encyclopedic; any unique material should go in other articles and be linked to from biographical article; article not even properly wikified, and that no one has bothered to make even this rudimentary fix-up since the article was AfD nominated does not speak well to its prospects for future improvement. Robert K S (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juicee News Daily

Only claim to notability is breaking two stories quickly. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it, especially without any reliable sources. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate delete If it were formated closer to Wikipedia's standards, I might consider otherwise, but for the most part I don't see anything particularly notable about it. The bigger problem, IMO, is the non-encyclopediac writing in some places, the trivia-type section, what appears to be vandalism, etc. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. At first glance I can't find anything via google and the website link on the article goes to a page full of adverts, see [13]. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting fact; the site doesn't exist now and leads to a linkfarm. As for these claims it broke news? Anyone with novice RSS knowledge can whip up a news site using feeds and get the story from someone else unrelated to them, which seems like what they did to get those scoops all the way from Alabama. As unnotable as our old friend The Post-Chronicle. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article states this website was created by the webmaster for his high school friends. Website is now down and goes to a link farm. Fails WP:WEB by a long shot, how this article survived since 2005 without anyone noticing is anyone's guess. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. While this site did once exist as a news aggregator, I can't find any evidence that it broke the stories mentioned in this article or any other nationally reported news, or that it was ever as popular or significant as this article claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, apparently first under G4 by Orangemike and then G7 by Lectonar. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NeoAxis Engine

Non-notable software. Not out of alpha, not in use anywhere. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see this article was deleted a few months ago and it appears no more notable than last time. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Speedy Delete per G4, recreated material, unless the article is substantially different. Tagged it for such. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noticeably, most of the keep "votes" are from IPs or single-purpose accounts. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (novel)

We deleted this in 2006 - see this AfD on crystal ball grounds. It has now been published but I don't see much evidence of notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on following grounds:
1. The book relates with other books in the mind-body-spirit genre in both style and content, including "The Celestine Prophecy," "The Peaceful Warrior" series and books by Carlos Castaneda.
[These other books have an article on Wikipedia. So the article on Nexus (novel) would link nicely with them.]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.158.128 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 2. The book has a strong and steady following among spiritual readers particularly in the UK (please check Richard & Judy Book discussion) and in Canada.[reply]
3. The book deals with a number of hot topics that are popular, including depression, spirituality and meditation.
What do you consider as evidence of notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al192 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, published sources independant of the author(s) or publisher that can be used to verify/prove the contents of the article and demonstrate that the book passes the notability inclusion guidelines for books. You should look at the policies and guidelines for WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Notability (books). -- saberwyn 04:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I made a concerted effort to find something notable online about this book. There's nothing in google news. I can find no reliable sources in a Google search. Their publisher, Manor House, has a website linked from the book article, but it doesn't seem to have been updated since last year. I can't find anything online about this company, I don't know if they're a reputable publisher or a self-publisher. If somebody can verify that this is a reputable publisher, please let me know. The book itself is over 300,000 on the amazon sellers' list. If somebody can provide reliable sources, I will come back here and change my mind. Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks as though Corvus and I were running the same searches at the same time. I found no reliable independent sources at all—just blogs, message boards, and outfits selling the book. The one review cited in the article is from "an online forum for volunteer reviewers," which doesn't sound any more reliable than an Amazon review. Fails WP:Notability (books). Deor (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book is not a bestseller at this stage, therefore you will not find it reviewed in major places such as newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. For those unfamiliar with spiritual book marketplace, most of these publications rarely make it to conventional media outlets, since they are generally not discussed unless they built a large following after which they receive some limited press coverage. "The Secret," "The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari," "The Celestine Prophecy" and other have rarely receive much media attention until after they became hugely successful. "The Secret" actually first spread due to virial online marketing. The book's sales number in Amazon UK at present are 44,297 and 51,972 in Amazon Canada. The book seems to have steady and growing sales since I have tracked it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.45.155 (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Manorhouse Publishing (MHP) is small to medium, independent publisher in Ancaster, Ontario (Canada). It has published and distributed books Worldwide through its distribution channels. While relatively small, this is NOT a self-publishing or vanity press. It's a creditable Canadian publisher with some promising titles, "Nexus" is its highest selling title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoDaddy (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC) — WhoDaddy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete based on current content. Being in the same genre as some prominent books is not enough to establish notability. After all, the genre presumably includes books ranging from the extremely notable to the non-notable. However, even if this novel is not being considered for review in general interest newspapers and magazines, there are professionally published magazines that take a particular interest in this sort of spirituality. If this novel has been reviewed by such magazines, that would help toward establishing notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has been reviewed by Belief.net (the largest faith site on the net), by Alive magazine (the largest free health magazine in Canada), The Hamilton Spectator (a daily newspaper), The Toronto Star (one of Canada's largest dailies) and a few other notable print sources, which I will need to recheck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoDaddy (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck out double !vote by SPA. Deor (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it may need some work here and there, but it is full length article with book image and other things that give notability. Also, per above reason. -- AmericanEagle 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What "other things" give notability? Corvus cornix_talk 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sigh. Whilst I think it's a trashy novel, I can't see a policy reason to delete it. I did remove a bit of text that I thought was WP:POV, but apart from that, it seems legit. -- Chzz ► 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Legit how? The keep !voters are not explaining where they find any reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An utterly non-notable book--there are only 5 copies in US/Canadian libraries, which for what is supposed to be a popular sort of book is as unpopular and insignificant as possible. But I knew it would come out to that without searching, because the first paragraph talks about how it is similar to 3 other actually notable books, thus giving a specious appearance of blue links and having something to say, the so-called "review" of the book is in something called "Reader's Bookwatch" in "Midwest Book Review", a PR publication of the small press community. The external links" are to books that are listed as references in this book, making it clear that not only is there nothing at all to be said, but not even anything real to link to. And defended here as "not a bestseller at this stage, therefore you will not find it reviewed in major places". A possible speedy as G11, promotional, except it will be good to have a easy way to remove re-creations as G4. Undoubtedly worse books have become best-sellers & notable, but it does not follow that all bad books are notable. DGG (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to its website, the publisher's last scheduled event was on 11/19/06. From what I've heard here, read in the article, and found myself, the only claims to notability are tangential: a sometimes-notable book genre and thin associations with Dan Millman and James Redfield. Until this book can generate enough notability to provide reliable 3rd-party coverage, I'd say it doesn't belong in WP. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability should not entirely rest on popularity of a work because what is popular at a given time is not always what is notable. Those looking to delete this book are looking only at popularity not on how this title adds to overall debate and understanding on Wiki. I don't think Wiki enteries should only promote what is considered popular or elevated according to critics, rather the focus needs to be on enteries that add to the discussion on Wiki. I believe this article qualifies as adding to understanding on Wiki and therefore it needs to be kept. Wiki must not become a closed place where only popular enteries are permitted or ones that satisfy critics. While this book isn't popular at this point, it seems to have a following among spiritual readers in the UK and Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritualBookLover (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — SpiritualBookLover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix_talk 19:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have I even once mentioned popularity, other than to note the book's sales figures from amazon? My concerns are with its notability, and until such a time as reliable sources are provided, there is no notability proven. Corvus cornix_talk 19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability and reliable sources are lacking. Most all of the keeps are apparent SPAs. Dimitrii (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H.I.M. (History In Making)

Unsourced information; can be recreated later on but with sources. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will make a come-back in 2010? What a load of balls. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article about album that has not been released. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted for copyvio--I could not see an easy way of reducing to a non-copyvio stub. No prejudice against a proper original article. DGG (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National hispana leadership institute

copyright violation http://www.nhli.org/about.htm Ultra! 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no need for an AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete so tagged. JuJube (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, kudos for rewrite. Singu larity 20:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Gérard

This bio is fictitious.

The article Yves Gérard is the only contribution of User:Crunchochango made by December 31th, 2007. At the same day user Crunchochango wrote at livejournal.com:

Yves Gérard goes live. I repeat, Yves Gérard is a go. Let me tell you a little story; one night a bored Karsten and Tim were wasting time listening to music when someone wondered aloud who Boccherini's contemporaries were. A short trip to wikipedia later, we had our answer. Well, would of had our answer if I hadn't insisted on doing a "dramatic reading" of the text (I screamed all the hyper-links. Yes, it is good to be my roommates!) Three quarters of the way through my reading, I noticed the name of Yves Gérard was red... yes, this poor man had no one to tell his tale. Until now. After probably at least six hours of brainstorming and research, Tim and I have completed the 100% fictitious account of the life and times of Yves Gérard. To truly enjoy our achievement to the fullest, I recommend you do the following.
1. Start here, with the original Boccherini article, moving on to old Yvesy when you come to him. 2. Keep track of how old he is throughout his adventures. 3. Check out our sources.
And finally, check it out soon, because this thing could be axed at any point. I'd also ask that you leave it for now as it is, pristine and beautiful.

So, I guess, the whole article is fake (except the fact that french musicologist Yves Gérard exactly is the author of complete catalogue of works of Luigi Bocherini). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete,~~ hoax. Sigh. That's been there for four and a half months :~( I did find this mention of him here, but I don't have access to JSTOR, and I cannot otherwise find sources that make me think we should re-write the article at this time. Excellent catch by the nominator, and no prejudice to creating a proper article if the subject is actually notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~G3 Obvious hoaxness. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep if rewritten Rewrite to be about the real person and you'll have a decent biographical article to meet WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep De-hoax and start a real article. This is a real person with an entry in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Dekkappai (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Google-search turns up articles at The New York Times.[14] He was named professor of musicology at the Paris Conservatoire, in 1975[15] ("generous historian of international distinction - an alumnus of the Conservatoire, a researcher at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), and a soon-to-be president of the Societe francaise de musicologie"), etc... Dekkappai (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no doubts that he's notable. But I haven't be able to find sufficient info at open access. Would be glad if anybody have a chance to rewrite. But I could find only some bibliography [16] (it is clear that for most of these books Gérard actually was editor or compiler, not the author himself). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know little about this area, but the consensus atm is that he's is in fact notable, so I've stricken my delete !vote. I'll ask for help in providing sources to make a stub. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, unless someone else beats me to it, I'll be happy to take a stab at starting the article tomorrow. I've got access to the Grove article on him, which will make a good start. Dekkappai (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. The hoax should not be in its history. Then rewrite it as a real article. JuJube (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article about the hoax person and start over with a properly referenced article about the real one. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still oppose deleting it. This would be an extreme measure when far worse exists in the edit-histories of many articles, not to mention talk pages. With the hoax still up and present, I feel a sense of urgency to rewrite it, and I'll try to do so within the hour. If it's gone, I, for one, will probably put it off indefinitely. Dekkappai (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK-- I've started a real article on the guy. Dekkappai (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And you've finished it. Keep this entirely new version (excellent work Dekka!) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Xymmax! Dekkappai (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten of course. though I'm not quite sure why we didn't delete and then write a new articleDGG (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Charleston

advert? Ultra! 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not written clearly but are gov't contractors notable? There appears to be RS coverage. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a contractor, it's a U.S. Navy organization. We can discuss whether the organization is sufficiently notable to have its own article, but since the nominator did not challenge the article on this ground, I'll wait to see if that truly is at issue. Just for comparison, here's the article for an equivalent organization. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thanks for clarifying. I'm not too familiar with military orgs. The article does have a promotional tone but I think it can be re-wrotten based on what I found by someone who understands their role and function. I tried but their website confused me. So yes, my !vote is keep based on the info provided by Xymmax. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Military installation/organization, automatically notable. MrPrada (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article could use some clean up and additional references. Happyme22 (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite to make NPOV and remove the promotional language. As it stands the article reads like an advertisement. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 20:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viv Baldwin

Very minor soap character. Appeared on and off for 2 years in a 45-year-lasting soap opera. Article contains mo real world information except (actor's name and years of appearances). Fails WP:N. Fails guidelines per WP:FICTION and WP:SOAPS. Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fancruft. JuJube (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of reliable third-party sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. Jakew (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Delete. Definitely non-notable. If this article stays on Wikipedia, every minor fictional actor would merit a spot here. Artene50 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters from Coronation Street, there are already several minor characters listed there, seems the appropriate place for an article containing nothing other than actor's name and years of appearances, that's exactly the detail that List contains. --Stormie (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as bad-faith nom; nominator is going through hellfire and brimstone to try and get this page nuked and is even going so far as to edit others' opinions to support his. Note that this does not preclude a good-faith nomination later. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical joke

This article is one big pile of original research. The first link that shows up on google for "mathematical humor" or mathematical joke is a professor webpage at the University of Utah. It is not a well-established type of humor like "knock knock jokes" or the "one-liner" and so, likely does not deserve its own page. Just to compare, the "That's what she said" joke does not have it's own article. I recommend a merge to Joke, Humor, or American humor. WhatsUpPussycat? (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. WhatsUpPussycat? (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — WhatsUpPussycat? (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Question Is your vote delete or merge? We can't do both. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the premise that something has to be as well known as knock-knock jokes to merit an article. We'd have to delete most of this encyclopedia if that were true. The Google argument doesn't hold any water either. Whole books have been written about mathematical humor - check Amazon. It's true that the article has many problems (references among them), but it passes general notability guidelines. – jaksmata 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and verifiable subject. `'Míkka >t 22:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see the article kept since I believe it's a notable enough topic: however, the current references don't really demonstrate this. If the decision is to merge it should be to humour or joke; America has no monopoly on mathematicians or their humour. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a common and sad problem with wikipedia articles on humor: while jokers are abound in wikipedia, rarely they want to take a scholar approach. I compiled a huge List of publications in humor research, but no one seems to make any use it, and I am quite busy in wikipedia with other even more useless jobs and can only occasionally come back to humor. `'Míkka >t 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough topic. Article could use review by someone familiar with the subject to make sure the content is limited to notable and verifiable jokes, and weed out any original research. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If mathematical joke deserves a page, then there might as well be pages for animal humor, or humor in other fields of study. It simply does not belong as its own page. If it is not deleted, it should be shortened greatly and merged with American humor, I doubt most even makes sense in other languages due to heavy reliance on puns. AboriginalDuck (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC) — AboriginalDuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- A-Duck's very first edit. While his first sentence make sense (anything can go asl nog as well referenced), the last two ones are heavily misguided. `'Míkka >t 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While it may be my first edit, I think my comment should stand on its own merit-- the language and cultural barrier makes it difficult for non-Americans to understand, I would be more than content with merging it with joke, but I thought American humor might be more fitting. AboriginalDuck (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Speaking as one of the 30 to 50% of native English speakers who doesn't live in the US, I don't have any difficulty understanding these jokes due to cultural differences. Unless there's any evidence Americans make more maths jokes than other people, I don't think it's a good place for it. After all, would we make pun a subsection of that page (assuming it wasn't given one of its own) simply because puns made in American English are confusing to a Frenchman? Olaf Davis | Talk 07:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think mathematical humour does qualify as more notable in its own right than say animal humour: it uses particular esoteric references and has relation to ideas of mathematical aesthetics, whereas I think most animal jokes are more 'mainstream' jokes which happen to have animals as their subject. Again though, the current article does a poor job of asserting this. Olaf Davis | Talk 07:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets notability guidelines, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, who hasn't heard this joke? Here are a couple referenced found using Google News(set to "all dates"): Math and humor: the connection, Math jokes in adult cartoons, Math = cool(available to registered(free) users, only). I'm sure more exist. Why was six afraid of seven?, Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 04:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The article needs improvements, but I think the topic is certainly worthy of Wikipedia and the article is at least some progress towards what it should ultimately be. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable subject. Has some sources. Could use some more, but AfD is not cleanup. Nominator has very short edit history and their argument amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As to the absurd idea that this is somehow American humour - don't make me laugh ! Gandalf61 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic (as has been pointed out, books have been written about it). Yes, it probably needs cleanup to ensure that all listed jokes have reliable third-party sources, but that's not a reason for deletion. Klausness (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously it's not original research since most of these are things that everybody's heard and has been hearing for decades. They're mostly fairly lame, but they're part of the culture. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I hope you're not calling the abelian grape joke lame. Because that's the funniest joke ever. Klausness (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator attempted to close this AfD as delete while changing other editor's votes (did they think no-one would notice ???). I suggest this has become a bad-faith nomination and should now be speedily closed as keep. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete CSD A7. — iridescent 23:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Stephenson

Real person; doesn't indicate importance Ultra! 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has been tagged for speedy deletion under CSD A7. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not notable. Any weak claims to notability (performed at Royal Albert Hall) are unverifiable. Pburka (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scot24news

There are too many news sites to list them all. This seems particularly unnotable as it is a citizen journalism effort; most of these aren't. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I looked for sources for this site, the only information I could find was from sites that aren't very reliable sources. Therefore, it fails the notability guidelines for websites (all three parts of it). When looking for sources, I could not find one mention of any major awards that it has won. Razor flame 19:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Long

Delete. Unsourced article about an amateur soccer player, fails WP:ATHLETE and general biographical guidelines for inclusion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible hoax? Doesn't even appear on team roster. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a hoax - he DOES play for the Kings (http://www.uslsoccer.com/teams/2008/roster/2466028.html), but he's definitely not notable yet. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Doss

Contested prod. Essentially an autobiography, no real notability asserted, certainly nothing that suggests notability guidelines are met. Paulbrock (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, I'm not sure but this might be possible to speedy delete. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Cleanup and move to Joe Morris Doss. He's a bishop, which pretty much infers automatic notability. Furthermore, his diocese represented 64000 people, and he's received extensive news coverage, e.g. this article in the New York Times. Pburka (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rename per Pburka. Also, see Google News and Google Books for other possible sources. Jakew (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I admit to searching only under "Bishop Doss", so missed the references cited. Am I right in thinking a lot of the significant coverage is over his resignation though? Maybe the events surrounding that are notable.... Paulbrock (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they probably are notable, and should be included in this article. Pburka (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ty 01:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Hansman

Non notable artist. Hasn't won any award DimaG (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, no news coverage. Pburka (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, sole reference is to personal web site. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Versageek--JForget 00:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghotit

Not notable web site DimaG (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coroberti (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Unclear, what is the intention. Web-sites can explain, what they are doing, including the problems, that they are solving. References provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coroberti (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the topic is notable, but additional, in-text citations are needed. Happyme22 (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In text citations added. References to other wikipedia pages as well. References for general background improved. --Coroberti (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam that needs to be entirely rewritten. Did anyone even read it?--Otterathome (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hadler

While I dislike AfDing a page shortly after creation, this subject fails WP:BIO. There are no reliable sources proffered, and with Google as a judge none are likely to turn up. Creator is an SPA (User:Jesshadler) who has also just created an article for her personal brokerage. RGTraynor 19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, typical vanity page. Rob Banzai (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I would have thought, under the non-notable biography option. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete still appears to be an option, at least in my book. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pres/CEO claim probably avoids speedy but there's no evidence amid false positives that she's notable _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any coverage of the company, let alone Ms. Hadler. Ergo, "this is vanity, and it is a grievous ill" (Ecclesiastes 6:2). AnturiaethwrTalk 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Black Mesa Research Facility. Anything that needs to be merged can go there (not much, I think). Black Kite 20:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mesa East

Unlike the case of the Black Mesa Research Facility, this fictional location in the Half-Life 2 game is not notable. The article admits that gamers are unsure of whether or not this is the eastern part of the Black Mesa Research Facility or in Eastern Europe. No substantial coverage found in Google Books, News nor Scholar searches. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potential Merge into a Locations in the Half-Life series (see the AFD for Black Mesa Research Facility). --MASEM 04:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary of a non-notable location which has not been covered substantially by sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no salvageable information for a merge, and have found no significant coverage in archives and web searches. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Black Mesa Research Facility per the editing policy to preserve information. Wikipedia is not paper. WP:N is supposed to be treated with common sense, not blind totalitarian obedience. --Pixelface (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Black Mesa Research Facility. There's not much additional here, and the other article is the more extensive one, anyway. Xihr (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 19:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFur

This website appears to lack non-trivial coverage by independent third party publishers, failing WP:WEB and WP:N guidelines. It should also be noted that this article has been deleted twice as a result of two previous deletion debates, but has since been re-created despite the consensus of the community. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per the rationale provided in my nomination above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the prior deletion we have been used as a reference (indeed, as their first reference, for the definition of furry fandom itself) by a published third-party peer-reviewed academic source (see Nast in the reflist). Four localization projects have also been started, though I appreciate this indicates popularity more than notability. GreenReaper (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect to Furry fandom. With a few minutes of searching I was able to locate two references to Wikifur, one in a Canadian newspaper [17], and one in a college newspaper [18]. Both were more recent than the previous AfD. I can probably find others if I keep looking. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, the references to date are not really sufficient to qualify for notability at this time. There is still a definite possibility the website may become notable enough to qualify within the foreseeable future, and with a redirect in place, good faith attempts to recreate the article by persons not familiar with it's history could be more easily dealt with (and I don't think anyone involved in this discussion is going to try recreating it before it has substantially better references and notability). --Mwalimu59 (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Addendum: Strongly oppose salting, even if the decision for now is to delete. References that may satisfy WP:WEB and WP:N are becoming more frequent, and even if it is decided that the ones currently present are not sufficient, that may well change in the future as additional references become available. It should not be assumed that because the article was found to be lacking notability in the past that that is still the case, or that it will continue to be the case in the future. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm actually in the progress of replying to a set of interview questions sent to me from a third-party (non-furry) website wishing to cover WikiFur (specifically) and the furry fandom. I'm not sure whether Wikipedia would consider that a reliable source, since I'm the source of replies, but it's something to keep in mind. GreenReaper (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Consensus has already spoken on this subject twice. Keeping now would render the AfD processes and consensus policies meaningless. Xihr (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And salt. The others are right; that this article keeps popping up despite consensus suggests strongly that it should be put to bed. Xihr (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that consensus cannot change based on new evidence? The last AfD was held in 2006, and strongly contested even then. Both the substantive use as a reference and the two news articles given by mwalimu date from after that point. GreenReaper (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I never said that, no, I'm not saying that. You simply haven't demonstrated anywhere near enough evidence that it is actually notable now -- and since it's gone through two AfDs were delete and twice the article was recreated against consensus. By the way, why are you !voting in an AfD for a site you founded? Xihr (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording implied that the sole reason for your decision was the prior consensus. If it was not, that's fine, but more clear wording would have been better. As for participating in this discussion, why not? My affiliation is quite clear on my user page. For what it's worth, I didn't think it should be kept the first time it was deleted - and I said as much - but I do now. This is an article with verifiable information on a website that has been noted by third parties as a reference within its topic area. GreenReaper (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per User:Mwalimu59's sources; seems to just barely meet WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, may not be similar enough for a G4, but there's still no proof that it meets WP:RS (I misinterpreted a source). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4). Consensus has deemed this website to be non-notable on two separate occasions. The article cited by Mwalimu59 makes no mention of WikiFur at all, not even a trivial one, other than a link to the site. External links != reliable sources. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: User:GreenReaper just mentioned the AfD on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry talk page.[19] Votestacking or not, keep that in mind for the flood of keeps that's sure to follow. Xihr (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the WikiProject dedicated to improving articles on the furry fandom. WikiFur is an article on the furry fandom that is apparently in need of improvement. What is your point? WP:CANVASS says that making neutrally worded notices on a WikiProject is the right thing to do. I have made no comments outside of Wikipedia, as this is a Wikipedia matter. GreenReaper (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete they are non-notable independently of furry. Wikifur have their own wiki where they can advertise or write about themselves. Sticky Parkin 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as re-creation of a twice deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the same article as the one that was deleted the first time. The article was recreated in good faith by a furry fan who (I think) had never edited it before. A substantive reference was added, along with many other tweaks and updates. Salting this page indicates to me that you think it will never be an appropriate encyclopedic topic, and I find it hard to understand why that is the case. GreenReaper (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions have already twice concluded the topic is insufficiently notable for an article, and that it was re-created a third time is sufficient reason to salt. Deletion should be based on whether or not the topic warrants an article, not on the content of the article; if the topic has twice been deemed insufficiently notable it shouldn't matter that the content of the third re-creation is different, the topic is still not notable. Salting is not necessarily permanent, an article can always be unsalted by an admin should this non-notable wiki ever become notable enough in the future for an article (highly doubtful, but you never know.) Wikis are a dime a dozen and I can count the ones notable enough for an article on two hands. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that any specific deletion is always based on the current state of the article, at the closing of a deletion discussion. If an article is not able to meet verifiability concerns at that time, then it is deleted, whether or not it theoretically could. I guess I find it hard to understand why the additional reference, which both cites WikiFur as "an extensive website set up by and for furries to represent furry culture and history" and goes on to rely on it to outline the fandom, is - if not sufficient evidence for notability now - at least evidence that it is getting to that point and should not be thrown onto the "assumed non-notable" pile. If it was such a close thing last time, why is it so far now that it would take a huge change to become notable? GreenReaper (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: and protect the title. Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial coverage to suggest notability.--Otterathome (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the current trend in this AfD compared to the previous one, juxtaposed with the observation that the previous AfD was a close call and the article has better references this time around than it did then, I find myself wondering why that is the case. There are three possiblities I can think of. First is that the judgments expressed this time are based in large part simply on the fact that it's been AfD'ed before and the reviewers are predisposed to vote for deletion without examining as critically as might be whether the article has better references or the subject has become more notable since the previous AfD. Second is that the bar has gone up over the last year or two; what might have passed muster a year or two ago with regard to references and notability is no longer good enough. Third is that it is simply a result of who contributed, because let's face it sometimes the outcome of a particular AfD could go either way depending on who knows about it and decides to weigh in (and it seems ironic that the flood of keeps from supporters that User:Xihr warned about has not materialized). --Mwalimu59 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This line of reasoning doesn't make any sense. The result of both of the previous AfDs was delete, so no "bar" is going up here. The topic in question has never been deemed worthy of keeping in any AfD process. Xihr (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse salt. In the interest in assuming good faith, I will not comment on whether or not any canvassing took place here, but it is clear to me that the only two motions to keep are coming from people who hold a personal stake in the WikiFur project. (jarbarf) (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though I edited this article (added a Category tag), my categorization should not indicate an endorsement of its topic. There are zero substantial sources for this article. There are only two trivial sources mentioning the subject in passing. The other sources are *.wikia.org or the like, and cannot be considered as WP:RS. Any basis with which to build this article clearly does not exist, even after it became apparent to editors that reliable sources were required. Therefore the article itself does not belong in Wikipedia. Quatloo (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on available references. The information could be merged into Wikia but would clutter that article by creating a severe imbalance, with far more detailed coverage of one Wikia project than of others. I note in passing my surprise at the hostility expressed toward re-opening a previous AfD. The last one was in late 2006. It's been fairly well established that an AfD decision is not carved in stone; the attacks on the Daniel Brandt article finally succeeded on the fourteenth try. When a Wikipedian wants us to revisit a topic after more than a year, based on a good-faith assertion of changed circumstances, people can of course disagree on the merits but shouldn't be so dismissive on procedural grounds. JamesMLane t c 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about the pages notability has changed, so no, a new AfD was not warranted. As for your example, the fact that an AfD failed thirteen times in a row and then succeeded on the fourteenth isn't indicative to me that consensus changed or that notability changed, but rather that all you have to do if you want an article deleted is keep bringing it up for nomination, and eventually you will succeed. Xihr (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources in the article are substantial from a secondary source, so easily fails WP:WEB without a second thought.--Otterathome (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You say 'keep based on available references.' Can you provide one single, reliable source, nontrivial reference? I ask because I don't think one exists. Your argument is therefore null. Quatloo (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral With a username like mine, you'd probably think I'd choose Keep, but no. My request is not to salt. It would be useful as a redirect, and there's no reason to think it can't get sufficient coverage in the future. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anyone wanting the content to merge into the list can drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Tattersall

Delete no indication that this unsourced one-liner about a soap opera character is notable. WP is not a guide to minor characters on soap operas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and I don't believe this withstands WP:FICT either. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of multiple reliable sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. Jakew (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters from Coronation Street. The search term could be valuable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Zoe Tattersall is part of the Category:Coronation Street characters, 236 pages on that category. Whatever happens to this article should establish precendent to all 235 other pages that remained on that category.

Why are we going to keep Matt Ramsden for example?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Society in New Zealand

There's one major concern: it doesn't become clear, either from the article, from internet or from the organisation's own press clippings, that this is a notable organisation. There is not a single indication that this organisation meets WP:ORG. Furthermore, the article is written from the perspective of the Bible Society, it's written like a personal homepage or profile, in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete coverage appears limited to the accomplishments of the former president, rather than the org itself. There's no evidence of its notability _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Keep I apparently didn't look hard enough. I still don't think the appointment of a new CEO establishes notability or the fact that a Bible was used in aboriginal communities is relevant (no one is debating thr notability of the Bible here) but the book establishes enough notability since it doesn't appear self-published _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. --Eustress (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Books on the history of the Bible Society were published in 1946 and 1996. I found listings for them in the catalogue of the National Library of New Zealand. I also added some newspaper articles. In my view, notability has been established. --Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to mention another point which applies to bible societies in general. For many aboriginal languages, the first printed book has been a bible or excerpts from it. Bible societies often played an important role in printing and distributing aboriginal-language bibles, and continue to do so today. --Eastmain (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Eastmain's efforts. GRBerry 00:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a book called The Bible and the Bible Society in New Zealand on this subject. There is also a history of the society published by the society but apparently written by an independant historian : "A Sesquicentennial History of the Bible Society in New Zealand". There are news article in reliable sources covering the appointment of a new CEO in 2006, about a rugby-related bible campaign by the society, and about the society distributing 60,000 bibles in 2001-2002 which was 3/4 of bibles distributed and kept them the best-selling book in New Zealand. The first book and those three news articles combined demonstrate notability, and the second book is likely to be a reliable source of encyclopedic information. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently notable society, has been around since 1845, referenced. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to show notability per the references. Also has reliable sources.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ryan Paddy. Also, looking around, there seems to be quite a bit of other coverage: Scholar Books News. Jakew (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clubbox

Delete nothing to indicate that the subject of this unsourced one-liner, a computer program, is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom also fails to give any real-world context (borderline speedy). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find the official website for this program. Cheers, Razor flame 19:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Easily referenced. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia (song)

Delete unsourced one-liner about a song from a silent movie ??? later recorded but nothing showing notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to reference this article in about five minutes. Carlos, do you ever tag an article and then wait to see if the tags are responded to before bringing it to AFD? If you tag at the same time as you AFD, it seems that you intend AFD as cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no assertion of notability at all. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Beneš

Just an average professor DimaG (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources/references of notability. Article previously deleted A7 (and nothing seems to have changed since then). Author still doesn't indicate significance of the subject. Suggest {{db-bio}} (speedy deletion) next time. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete again. Nothing has changed, and it still meets speedy deletion criteria, correct? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If nothing has changed since this was last deleted then this should be speedily deleted per CSD G4 as recreation of deleted matter. WilliamH (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 only applies to afd-deletions.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I misconstrued "nothing has changed" as it if had been relating to a previous discussion. WilliamH (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unestablished notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Successful rescue by Nate.--Kubigula (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy's Home (Cartoon)

Delete unsourced one liner about a comic strip with no indication of its notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This comic strip started just a couple of months ago and is produced by a cartoonist from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which did a profile about the strip, and has been added to a few papers around the country. I will research further and add sources when I get some time to confirm the notability (it'll take a couple days due to the strip's newness), but I think it can be rescued. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been expanded and retitled as Daddy's Home (comic strip) to meet title standardization. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to establish notability unless, of course, Mrschimpf improves it to do so. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per the refs in the article. But for the record, this comic has never been in the Chicago Sun-Times. Maybe they plan to add it eventually, but I haven't seen it. Zagalejo^^^ 05:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected...I was going by the MJS article so some signals must've been crossed in that writing. Thanks for letting me know. Nate • (chatter) 06:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maahi

Delete unsourced one-liner about a given name with no indication why this name among millions given is notable. WP is not an Arabic nor a Hindi dictionary, nor a baby-naming guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the many different reasons provided by the nominator. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Tombomp (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, and the fact that this is English Wikipedia. Happyme22 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bester News

No coverage in reliable sources and an Alexa ranking of 1,179,130 means that this website doesn't meet WP:WEB A ecis^Brievenbus 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree; this looks like Some Guy's Newsblog. Ravenswing 20:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A brief search did not reveal any suitable references to demonstrate notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cihat Aktaş

Sad story, but Wikipedia is not a memorial DimaG (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree; this young man does not seem to be notable in his own right. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Wikipedia is not a memorial, so I had originally tagged it for speedy. Although, it is really a saddening story. Shovon (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. If anyone wants the content userfied they can ask me. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leon ousby

Completely unsourced bio of "award winning" actor. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, me smells some falsehoods here mixed with a bit of spam. Only 113 GHits for the name, and most aren't for this person. Seriously doubt a Broadway performer would be so unheard of. Collectonian (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while ghits are not the be-all and end-all this person's work should be garnering some web-based attention, it isn't. I don't think it's a hoax, just rather enhanced. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, smells like yet-another-hoax coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Debate I think the problems with new entries/articles is that as much as these features hold certain truths, there simply isn't enough time to create and gather further sources to place in the article before users are nominating them for deletion.. even when 'Under Construction' is placed on the page. I have recently had articles deleted and yet again this seems to be another forum for people to delete/edit and sabotage information gathered. I assume a lot of people are disheartened and left to simply not contribute to this site. I have noticed a lot of articles up for deletion. It all seems a waste of the contributors time and energy. _orson20 09:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hopefully the updated article will convince you. I am still awaiting some other source and references _orson20 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.64.90 (talk) [reply]

How? No references have been added at all, and minor, unconfirmed awards are not evidence of notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orson20, what do you mean when you say you are "awaiting some source and references"? I see people saying similar things in these deletion debates and I'm never clear where these references are coming from. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ as you guys have said.. just delete it.. this forum seems childish.. >orson20 14.57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My question above was serious - I'm honestly curious why people say they are "waiting for sources". In your case, where are they coming from? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're coming from Western Australia. I know that the Alexander Library in Perth holds (Not a great deal) several references on this Actor. >orson20 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.64.90 (talk) [reply]

Userfy. Orson has a valid point about deleting new articles too quickly, particularly when they are being actively worked on. There is also the point that an Australian stage actor may be a lot more notable in Australia than in the US, and that Googling may not be the best test in this case. That being said, there is the problem of it being an article about a living person. These articles are held to a significantly higher standard of sourcing. Would it be possible to move this article into Orson's area until such time as he can get the proper references? --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I don't know how long references are going to take. Maybe it would worthwhile moving the article. I am a little cofused as I have read through the site's policies and I am seeing articles on BLPs that don't contain cites or refs. I do agree with AnnaFrance with respect to Australian stage actors/actor. Googling isn't always the most reliable source, test or evidence for notability. _orson20 14:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orson, you have now said Keep twice, debate once, and delete once. You need to either strike your earlier three, or combine your comments into a threaded set of comments with a single "Keep" or "Delete". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally unsourced bio. WP:BLP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gangster Disciples

Rather dubious gibberings about some gang of thugs Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The golden standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Nothing within this article appears to be readily verifiable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GDs are one of the most important postwar Chicago gangs among the most important in the U.S. generally, and much of their history is well-known and copiously documented. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources are plentiful: [20], [21]. The current article may be lousy, but there's no reason why we couldn't at least have a well-sourced stub by the time of this AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs some major help, but the name continues to be in the local Chicago media based on trials and criminial activities that continue to this day. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GD is quite notable...even if it's only for being drug dealers and criminals. I seem to remember an article about GD moving from the streets and prisons, into the US Military...I'll see what I can dig up LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they had an hour-long documentary on this gang on American Gangster (TV series) not too long ago. Has 3,130 Google News hits, 505 Google Books hits, and 286 Google Scholar hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe the abundance of independent coverage as demonstrated above asserts notability. WilliamH (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lemuria (continent). Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemuria and Easter Island

well-meaning but an essay/OR Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (but trim judiciously) into Lemuria. This is goofy anachronistic stuff but it's legitimate, it just isn't important enough for its own article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — Merge as a subsection into Lemuria (continent), an article that currently doesn't address Easter Island. Rosiestep (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Lemuria continent page. Should be trimmed, but the bulk kept as its all good reason. --Danbrown99 (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Sounds good to me, I'll withdraw the AfD, what's the procedure now?--Doug Weller (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Lemuria continent page for the goofy stuff, and into Easter Island for the scientific evidence. Makana Chai (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lack of reliable sources or coverage is a problem that no arguments and assertions can overcome. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team Fremont Live

Non-notable podcast. None of the references is to a reliable page, other than links to the site itself, they're either "ain't this cool" types of reviews, links to videos, and blogs and forums. There are only 72 google hits total for the site, and nothing in Google news. I had originally listed this for speedy deletion, but an spa with only the single edit to their credit removed the speedy tag. Corvus cornix_talk 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To claim that sites like Kotaku, Joystiq, Engadget, and 1up.com (one of the leading gaming journalism outlets on the internet) are not "reliable" makes it apparent that this user does not actively participate in or understand the gaming community or the relative impact a podcast like this has. Nonetheless, I believe that this article should stay.

I believe this article is notable in relation to the Podcasting Wikiproject, the goal of which is to "(make) Wikipedia's knowledge of notable Podcast and podcast-related information as complete as possible."
Moreover, the site also meets the requisite 2/4 requirements for the proposed Wikiproject Podcasting Notability Guidelines. It has gained news coverage from several different notable news groups including Joystiq, Kotaku and Engadget, and it has hosted several notable people within the gaming industry including Ross Erickson (Former Xbox Live Arcade Worldwide Portfolio Manager, now head of Sierra Games Online), Walter Day (Founder of Twin Galaxies, also played a large role in the film "King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters"), and Dan Loosen (one of the co-founders of the Midwest Gaming Classic). While this proposed system was not agreed upon, the fact that this podcast does meet these requirements should at least lend it some credence.
There are articles that showcase websites and podcasts FAR less notable than this one. I'm not saying they don't deserve to exist, but I don't understand why this article would be singled out for deletion.
Moreover, the only criteria for deletion that this page may meet states: "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". Therefore, it shouldn't be necessary to prove to someone that this site is notable. I believe that the sources provided, particularly the one from 1up.com, are strong enough to keep the page.
I don't know HOW Corvus got only 73 google hits, but the search I performed showed over 17,000 hits. Sounds like someone is trying to spin nonexistent evidence in their favor.
With what evidence I have provided, along witht he lack of evidence against the page, I am confident that the right decision will be made and the page will be kept. Rwiggum (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that Joystiq, Kitaku and Engadget are not notable, I claimed that the links provided to those sites are not notable. They're reviews, discussion of cool links, and links to videos. Nothing to write an article from. Rwiggum has been extremely uncivil to me to the point that I have told him to stop posting on my Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the link to 1up.com is to a message board. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these accusations are false. I have tried to be as civil as possible, but Corvus has made that increasingly difficult. He has continued to rally against the page, even after I have provided several arguments to the contrary, many of which he has ignored altogether. However, that doesn't have anything to do with this article, and bringing personal attacks into it seems petty.

And concerning the 1UP link, Corvus is referring to a different link altogether I was referring to this link, a main-page story referencing the major announcement that Team Fremont Live broke.

Also, The link to the video he was reffering to is in fact a Team-Fremont-produced video that gained a great deal of attention not only from the gaming and technology websites, but it was also posted on the official website for the Microsoft Zune, and THAT is what was linked to. I believe that, in itself adds to the notability of the page. I would say that an official Microsoft product website could be considered "reliable". Rwiggum (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and none of the links provided are "reviews". They are news reports, many of them concerning announcements broken through interviews with Team Fremont Live. There are countless pages for websites and podcasts that are far less notable than this one, and I find it odd that Corvus has singled this page out for deletion. Rwiggum (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a podcast. Nothing to indicate notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no reason to delete this article. It is a well written article and includes plenty of references.QuentinV (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those sources meet the guideline at WP:RS? Corvus cornix_talk 05:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LyricWiki

While this website claims to be the "7th largest wiki with over 670,000 pages" it does not meet our standards for verifiability and lacks independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable, third party publishers. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The External links policy forbids linking to sites which violate copyright. An entire article about a site which violates copyright seems majorly iffy. Unless there were some really important reliable sources on this, such as lawsuits, takedown notices, etc., then this is not a page we should have. Delete. See International Lyrics Server for what we could talk about. Corvus cornix_talk 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This has already been gone over on Sean Colombo's (the owner's) userpage, here. We pay royalties just like anyone else would have to. King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above was added by User:Kingnee1114. Corvus cornix_talk 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, that link only says that you take down lyrics when the copyright holder asks you to, it doesn't say that you get prior approval. That means you violate copyright. Corvus cornix_talk 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correction:

"We spend a significant amount of time contacting publishers and running a system to compensate them for with a rather hefty royalty. It is clearly impossible to make sure we have them all, however our efforts certainly qualify as due dilligence."

User:Kingnee1114 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was recently stripped of most of its content in order to cleanup the page and find sources. If you need a list of sources that have covered LyricWiki, see LyricWiki:In the Press. --Will Mak 050389 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable wiki. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how anyone could call this non-notable unless they simply use that word as a Maoist hammer on articles they don't like. Get rid of the external link if you want, but a site with nearly a million hits a day, with millions of pages, and in constant use by several programs to obtain lyrics (Amarok, WinAmp, foobar2000, LyricsFinder11) it noteworthy. Object all you want to the site's content, but that's no reason to delete the article. --Aquatiki (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...with millions of pages.." - They are mostly bot-generated. I can create a larger wiki myself. --Damiens.rf 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. No good sources.--Otterathome (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Not anymore, see SColombo's edit below.--Otterathome (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the first time this was nominated and kept. It should stay for the same reasons as before: 7th largest wiki (3rd largest non-Wikipedia-related) with multiple applications for integration into music players of all sorts (covered in MacWorld, Mac User, Wired, etc.) certainly makes it notable. Evidence of non-trivial coverage was given then, and again now. If the situation hasn't changed, why waste time rehashing the same arguments again? KieferFL (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's interesting how the keep arguments in the 1st afd read as "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..." WHERE?, "Among other places the site was featured in the German tech magazine, C't." SOURCES?, "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." WHICH?. No reliable source has been added since that afd... --Damiens.rf 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't follow the link in WillMak's comment above to the listing of the non-trivial published works, which was also given by Spurious Q on the original AFD. (It gives the issue number for C't, as well as links to the publications that I mentioned.) If you want to say "Delete", that's your right, but at least follow up on the evidence for keeping first. KieferFL (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WikiMedia meta link is given now to show that it's really the 7th largest Wiki. Lyric is an important part in human knowledge and life. This Wiki uses systematic ways to arrange data. The data is reliable and helpful so that it's widely used on Earth. --Noking (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Noking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To elaborate upon my points from the previous RFD, but with updated information (which refute this RFD's claim of lacks independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable, third party publishers.):
As per WP:WEB: Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
1. CRITERIA: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
  HOW IT IS MET:
  The site was featured in the German tech magazine, C't (issue #13/2006) (this was the only publication mentioned in previous RFD)
  
  LyricWiki was cited in an academic paper published in the 2007 Music Information Retrieval Conference[22].
  
  Brief mention in IEEE Spectrum article in Volume 43 Issue 12, Dec. 2006 [23]
  
  Discussed in Incite Volume 27 Issue 12, Dec. 2006 in article 'Webb's Web: The World at Your Fingertips [24] (that link is unfortunately to pay-per-view version of journal, don't have a free web-link).
  
  Usage of API included in paper EASAIER Semantic Music Retrieval Portal regarding the EASAIER project which was published / presented several times.
  
  In addition to these physical publications, the site has been covered in numerous very-notable online sources such as LifeHacker [25][26][27], Wired News [28], and also less in-depth mentions by MacUser [29] and Macworld's blog [30] in the context of mentioning usages of the API and specifically that this usage was powered by LyricWiki
2. CRITERIA: The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  HOW IT IS MET:
  The site was DreamHost Site of the Month in April 2006[31] which seems pretty notable since DreamHost hosts around 700,000 domains, and any of their sites are allowed to win site of the month.
  
  The Facebook Application that is part of LyricWiki was named to the 20 Great Music Applications for Facebook by Mashable.
In the very least, I think the above has established that LyricWiki does not lack independent or non-trival coverage by reliable third-party publishers.

-SColombo (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SColumbo's rationale. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson, Arizona Community Organizations

Wikipedia is not a directory or a repository of links. This article does not show notability and is just a collection of red links and external links, occasionally with a brief description. There are no sources cited. swa q 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per swaq. This is not the yellow pages. Corvus cornix_talk 18:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brewcrewer. --Eustress (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web directory, list of almost entirely redlinks, and an indiscriminate collection of trivial information. Not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) per CSD G#3, blatant hoax. WilliamH (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serg Klimov

Prodded as suspected hoax; my searches on dogpile.com similarly turned up nothing to substantiate claims of being the greatest basketball player of all time. In fact typing in that phrases turns up very different results. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a "blatant and obvious hoax". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an obvious hoax -- don't waste any more time. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, The text is taken almost entirely from Michael Jordan, with Klimov's name in place of Jordan's. Obvious hoax. Zagalejo^^^ 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Johnson (artist)

Non notable musician, fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Not a single source provided in over a year to confirm or provide any evidence of notability; total number of ghits = 0. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, linked to Neal Century, another non-notable artist. Corvus cornix_talk 18:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, linked to Neal Century, another non-notable artist. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for exactly the same reasons as on Neal Century's AfD. The fact that the creator's first edit was this should probably give an idea of exactly how good-faith an editor we're dealing with here. Once the AfDs are closed, someone's going to have to clean up this mess, too. — iridescent 00:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Jeremijenko

This has the appearance of a vanity page, and in any case the subject does not meet WP:BIO or any other notability guideline that might apply. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep significant coverage of the artist and her work. Result of a 2 second google search. That says, it's in dire need of clean-up but the appearance of a vanity page is not reason for deletion _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a vanity article, although a clean-up and better sourcing are certainly needed here. A fairly unusual career and I think notability can be established both per WP:BIO and probably WP:PROF as a notable artist/designer and engineer. TheGoogleNews results cited by the Busy Bee are quite impressive already: 157 hits, most with nontrivial coverage related to her [32] . GoogleScholar also returns a substantial number of hits[33] as does GoogleBooks, which yields 132 hits[34]. Several of them give detailed biographical coverage, such as this [35], and this [36], and where many more provide nontrivial coverage of her. Salon.com had an in-depth feature article about her [37]. Other examples of in-depth coverage include a review in New York Times [38]. More than enough here to satisfy WP:BIO. Suggest the nomination be withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. I have to say, I don't understand this AfD: she's shown at MASSMoCA, the Whitney Museum, Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt; she's a Rockefeller Fellow (among other achievements). This satisfies notability as an artist and an academic. freshacconcispeaktome 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to point out that "Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions" (from WP:GTD). I've done this in the past myself and it's worth mentioning now. freshacconcispeaktome 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some work, - a reference section, some clarity, otherwise it's fine...Modernist (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as an artist by our normal standard. the article certainly does need a sharp trimming though. DGG (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some impressive exhibit involvement is mentioned. Those venues don't accept just anyone off the street. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Participants and nominator are unanimous in the opinion that the subject should not have an article; whether any of information currently included in the article is an editorial decision not really within the bounds of AfD (non-admin close). Guest9999 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D. Aubrey Moodie Intermediate School

Fails to cite sources, non-notable, complete waste of Wikipedia space. Delete GreenJoe 17:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Corvus cornix_talk 18:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per the person I just stole a signature style from. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, doesn't need to be at AfD _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board where it can be discussed in context until sufficient sourced content warrants a separate article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - as per above. Find it curious through that it the AFD was launched basically on the same date the individual himself passed away.--JForget 00:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IntelliCAD. No consensus to delete, but not a single 'keep' also, so merge. I did a brute force merge, please help clean up. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelliCAD) - Nabla (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliCAD Technology Consortium

Full disclosure: This article has been the target of a long lasting spam campaign. That is not a valid reason for deletion. This consortium failing to meet WP:ORG however is a valid reason for deletion, and I am unable to confirm that this subject has received coverage in reliable, independent third party publications. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons in my nomination above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article had no secondary sources, just the consortium's own website. The article consists mainly of information about the consortium's products, very little about the consortium itself. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing much that ins't a press release. IntelliCAD is already up for Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelliCAD with a possible merge here, which will need to be addressed. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have far too much time on your hands. Delete the article? Can't find any sources? What a bunch of bullshit. If this were the AutoCAD Article you wouldnt be complaining. IntelliCAD has just as much right to be here as any other valid CAD product. Get a life. http://search.cadalyst.com/results.php?cx=008600089690839190750%3Af7ucb4sfdoq&q=intellicad&cof=FORID%3A9#1371 http://www.google.com/custom?domains=worldcadaccess.typepad.com%3Bwww.upfrontezine.com&q=intellicad&sitesearch=worldcadaccess.typepad.com&client=pub-3390771493678065&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&flav=0000&sig=R1eh-eMkuHgRr-gi&cof=GALT%3A%23006688%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A006688%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A006688%3BGIMP%3A006688%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A205%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.upfrontezine.com%2Fwca.jpg%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2F%3BFORID%3A1&hl=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadrules (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC) — Cadrules (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge - OK, I can't see many reliable sources *about the organization*, but I can about it's (sole?) product, IntelliCAD. I would say that one of these two articles should be kept, and I suspect that it is the IntelliCAD one. For example, both the links mentioned above by cadrules appear to help the notability of the product, not the organization. Wrs1864 (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, No-one (including myself) seems to be able to find a single, independent source for this company, and thus fails WP:ORG. However, there seems to be no problem finding independent and reliable sources for the product. So stick in the info on the "technology consortium" into the IntelliCAD article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per wrs1864 and arsenikk to [[IntelliCAD] Dimitrii (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - clear candidate for {{nn-band}}. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KMw katie and willy

Was tagged for Speedy Deletion at the start. Non-notable music duo that fails WP:MUSIC, but also basic WP:NOTE guidelines as there is no significant coverage from reliable sources. [39] and [40]. The page itself declares that they have no record deal, and that, most likely, their only exposure is that of myspace. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not shown. No independent reliable sources. swa q 18:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horstmann technique

This minor variation on a hyperbolic million other massage techniques is not mentioned at PubMed or NCCAM, nor is it listed in the Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine or other usual suspects. All of the internet hits seem to be either substantively copied from the originator's website or mere directory listings. While this does confirm that someone invented this technique and started selling classes, it does not provide anything with which to work for improving the article. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY indicates that this article should be deleted until independent notable sources mention it. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —- Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —- Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have papers but little time. Electron9 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Then please by all means share what they are or where they might be found. If notability can be established I have no problem withdrawing this nomination. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:Fringe theories, the absolute lack of reliable sources point that this massage is just another massage.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability and reliable sources. Dimitrii (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because of notability concerns. Alex Muller 08:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OSBIWiki

This is another website which does not meet either WP:WEB or WP:NOTE based on my own external searches and a review of the article content. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another non-notable wiki. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in News, Books, or Scholar. Non-notable, serious doubts whether it is even verifiable via third-party sources. Jakew (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H. Christ

AfDs for this article:

This is simply a procedural nomination. One editor is attempting to delete the content of the page and replace it with a soft redirect to the wiktionary entry. Because there was a previous AfD which ended in keep, I felt there needed to be a new community consensus to de facto delete the article. Is the current article in such poor condition that it does not meet any wikipedia inclusion policies (including stub), and therefore should wholesale be deleted from the project? Andrew c ^[talk] 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Comment. The contents of the article were merged to the Wiktionary entry Wikt:Jesus H. Christ. 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC) this comment was made by user:Silly rabbit
- This is true for some, but not all.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The content that was not merged was also not verifiable or was already better covered in the Christogram article (which is linked on the Wiktionary page). But if you disagree about the merger, fix it. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nom Why is this article in such poor condition that it couldn't meet a stub? I'm not trying to be glib, I'm just not sure I understand. There does seem to be a basis for a brief article here. Considering it already strongly passed a separate AfD, I'm also not sure how this is just a procedural nom, regardless of the wiktionary entry. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying the article is in such poor condition, but simply am asking a question of the community. Please see this diff. All the content of the page was deleted, and replaced with {{wi|Jesus H. Christ}}. A soft redirect is different from a stub. I dispute this bold action, especially in light of the previous AfD, so I am bringing the issue again before AfD, to see if the community supports the edit in question, or if they support another option, or a pure keep or pure delete or whatever. Hope that clears things up.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all which cannot be properly verified through reliable third party publications. We have standards to uphold here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The two references seem reliable though, don't they? Of course, can't check them on the internet (at least I can't). Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the term has been the primary topic of scholarly articles, wouldn't it at least be worth of a stub?Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no objection to this article or any other on Wikipedia so long as it meets our core policies and guidelines. If I may clarify my original comment, I have no problem with this article being reduced down to a stub so long as the material within said stub is verifiable through reliable sources, that's all. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The second reference seems to be available at JSTOR, although I can't access JSTOR myself at the moment. Zagalejo^^^ 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with an article on an expression. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Trans-wiki to Wikitonary. GreenJoe 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally I would agree, as I just did for the afd on Green thumb, but it appears that were actually reliable source which were solely about this term. I'm a little surprised myself, but they seem legit. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's research on the usage of the phrase and its meanings, certainly more than a dicdef _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I will object to the wording of the nomination. I have never suggested that this page or its content be deleted. I acted to turn this page into a redirect after merging the content to a better location. In this case, the better location for the dictionary definition is Wiktionary and the redirect was a soft redirect but it is still a redirect, not a deletion. Since content was merged, we are obligated to keep the attribution history in order to comply with GFDL. Second, I recommend that this discussion be closed since neither I nor the nominator want the page deleted. Decisions about whether or not to redirect a page get worked out on the respective article Talk pages. AfD is not the right forum for this discussion.
If we must have the discussion here (and I suppose we must since at least one person above has now recommended deletion), count my opinion as a very strong keep as redirect to Wiktionary. But if that is not an option, deletion is better than keeping a page that is a mere dictionary definition. So far, no one has been able to point to any content in this page or any potential for additional content which goes beyond merely lexical content - that is, meaning, origins and usage of the word or phrase. The fact that it's sourced is irrelevant (except to make it a particularly good dictionary definition). Rossami (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think usage and application is exactly what brings it from a dicdef to an encyclopedic article. Note also it was kept <2 months ago, what's changed since then? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usage notes are both accepted and desired in a truly great unabridged dictionary (like Wiktionary). What goes beyond lexical content? (As to "what's changed since the last discussion" - nothing. The AfD was closed and normal editing resumes. That includes routine decisions like mergers and redirects. The AfD only concluded that the page not be deleted, not that it must forever after be preserved in the form or even at the title it was at during the discussion.) Rossami (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are making good points Rossami, because honestly, the article is basically the same thing as the wiktionary entry. The only reason I think a term like this warrants further discussion is because of the sources given, which apparently were written primarily about the term. Although, playing Devil's Advocate on myself, I wonder how I would feel if someone wrote a scholarly article on the history of the term "Green Thumb". Ugh, AfDs as such are hard. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable expression that should have encyclopedia coverage. Everyking (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AFD, which also has sources which haven't been added yet. Is also a redirect of Jesus Christ (profanity), so it contains references to other versions than JHC; perhaps move over redirect is in order. I would think the Wiktionary version and the WP version should be free to grow separately because they are for different purposes; there is some overlap but not 100%. Christogram was disappointingly weak and would not be a good merge. The relevant policy is WP:NOTDICDEF: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness", with special reference to items with independent cultural significance. JJB 20:03, 22 May 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 keep. Charted album. Went gold. No brainer. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute Is What We Aim For

Disputed speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a valid reason for deletion. Do you have any reason other disputed speedy delete? Maxim_(talk) 16:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - An edit war had started in Cute Is What We Aim For. One party in that edit war (not me) wanted Cute Is What We Aim For to be deleted. Discussion, here or elsewhere, is better than an edit war. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - For goodness sake. That was one of the most blatant POINT violations I've ever seen. He didn't want it deleted, he wanted to disrupt the process for everyone. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with above, the user who put the speedy up clearly does not like the band and doesn't understand notability guidelines Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having a US-charted album is an obvious claim to notability. The user who tagged the page is violating WP:POINT. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agree with WBOSITG. Refs show coverage in multiple independent etc etc. At the very least was certainly never a speedy candidate. — iridescent 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Their debut record went GOLD in the US. That's good enough for me. Meets most if not all criterion for WP:MUSIC (at least 1,2,3,4,5 and 11). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:WEB is not met.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Repertory Project

Website which fails any fair test of notability, be it WP:WEB or WP:N. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cites one source which seems to be reliable. The article also does no harm to anyone and might be useful to a few. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please see WP:HARMLESS the only non-primary source cited is a blog, http://www.musicedmagic.com/blogtales-from-the-podium/the-wind-repertory-project.html which does not meet our guideline for reliable sources. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it sounds interesting, but not yet notable. No evidence it's had any reliable coverage anywhere. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I swear that there was a speedy deletion criteria for websites like this, but can't seem to find it. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources and this site is less than 4 months old. How could it possibly achieve notability in such a small time? So delete per WP:Notability.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knine01

Unsigned underground rapper. Completely fails WP:MUSIC. Improbably declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, is written like an advertisement and has no third party mentions that I can find easily or any linked. --Tombomp (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MUSIC no notability. There are rappers and then there are notable rappers.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green thumb

Article is a combination of a dictionary definition, which is more suitable for Wiktionary, and a television show which does not appear to be notable. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term itself is just that, a term, expression, etc. Suitable possibly for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Gardener already exists. As for the TV show with the same name, that would really have to be a seperate discussion, as this article doesn't claim to be about that show, but rather mentions it in passing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition, maybe create a placeholder for Wiktionary if need be. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and soft redirect to wikt:green thumb, which probably says all there needs to be said (including the UKism green fingers and the jocular antonym brown thumb). This is frequently used as a title of books, magazines, and TV shows or segments, so might lead to recreation if we don't keep the redirect here. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The article is 2 years old but has no sources and very little information.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, no new reasoning for deletion given beyond notability claims which have been discussed repeatedly before and almost unanimously rejected. Stormie (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wookieepedia

AfDs for this article:

The subject of this article lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications, and thus fails WP:WEB as well as WP:N, heavily relying on primary sources for content. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons in my nomination above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources here demonstrate there's sufficient coverage to pass WP:WEB. That they not been used in the article is a content issue -- the subject itself is notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I cannot access that link for some reason, might I suggest you integrate whatever reliable sources are available into the actual Wikipedia article for consideration? Thank you, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep... and expand references found on the site ...based on the references cited by Wookieepedia. Why does it keep getting nominated? Is there bias present here??? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC) added cmts - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only speak for myself, and this article continues to fail WP:WEB and notability guidelines, hence the nomination. If this cannot be resolved within the week, I would not be surprised if an administrator saw fit to delete it. The {{Refimprove|date=April 2007}} request has been sitting there since... Well, see for yourself. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous three AFD nominations resulted in a keep consensus. At this point, should it not have become more notable now? Notability is not strictly held to WP:WEB, but WP:NOTE mentions multiple nontrivial mentions in notable sources, which exist on the above-linked Wookieepedia page by Quasirandom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As we continue this conversation, the article continues to fail both WP:NOTE and WP:WEB. If I could access the link that Quasirandom provided I would fix the article myself. So where are the multiple non-trivial mentions? The nominations from a year+ ago do not address this problem, and the verifiability issues remain outstanding. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So we fix it; we don't nominate for deletion. The Wookieepedia references are now on the article talk page. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. Are these the links you were referring to? They all appear to be passing, trivial mentions. Which third party publication is expressly about Wookieepedia? I didn't see a single one. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please Google it before wasting everyone's time. --Explodicle (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Which of the references returned in this link are nontrivial? Theforce.net is a fansite...A notable fansite that is officially aknowledged, but still, is that sufficient? The other links appear to be trivial or passing references. -Verdatum (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Variety? SF Chronicle, St. Paul Pioneer? Keep, notability proven. Corvus cornix_talk 18:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the purposes of covering a wiki on canon and fanon, I think fansites devoted to the work in question are fine. Apart from the references in the article, Wookiepedia maintains a list of things that reference it. The list is substantial and contains enough traditional RS (Time, CSPan, Scifi.com, New York Times, TimesOnline) to warrant keeping it, even if they are trivial mentions. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the mentions are all trivial, but collectively I feel they satisfy any notability concerns. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is the FOURTH time that TPTB at Wikipedia have attempted to axe this page. I suspect that this is a case os institutional snobbishness. The ARTICLE ITSELF certainly meets the notability test. The problem, rather, is that some Wikipediains are offended that their pet project isn't the only game in town. (Pardon the mixed metaphor.) I have a news flash for you: Wikipedia is not the world's only online encyclopedia. Eliminating references to others via AFD wlll not make those outlets go away. Trasel (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as a website and specialized resource. Article facts easily verified. John Nevard (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I don't share Trasel's suspicions about the motives for yet another AfD listing, I do believe that repeatedly re-listing the same article, without a showing of significantly changed circumstances, is a questionable practice. JamesMLane t c 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only for the name. Also, out of principle, since I don't think articles that have passed several AfDs should be relisted without a significant new deletion reason. And it does seem to be a notable site, per links in the article and numerous Google News hits. Klausness (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I don't think that an article like this is necessary on Wikipedia, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to keep it. It could be longer, though. C Teng 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. WP:WEB and WP:N are our slaves, not our masters. Besides, Wookieepedia has been covered by Variety[41], SciFi.com[42], The New York Times[43], Howard Stern[44], and TimesOnline[45]. And the nominator appears to have an improper username. --Pixelface (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, what appears improper about the username? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a variation of the slang term "cock block". I'll let you search Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary for it. --Pixelface (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, okay, the user page is also somewhat of a concern, i.e. what is the point message there with "not censored" image? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as plenty of references and fairly evidence consensus suggests this site is notable by our standards. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N by having enough reliable sources. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 00:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If deemed necessary, at some point in the future all the articles on wikis hosted by Wikia could be merged. However, I'm not aware of a convincing rationale to delete the content. PhilKnight (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How many more times is this going to be nominated, anyway? - Sikon (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Oh, get off it already. You knew the outcome of this vote before you ever nominated the article. Glaug-Eldare (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G4 by Cobaltbluetony. Tikiwont (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back and in Attack (Milli Vanilli album)

Unexplained, contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC: unreleased/forthcoming albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wonder if this is a hoax, but not sure. Google search and news search brings nothing with this album title. Some source needs to be produced for this to be included. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought the prior deletion of this was a PROD (and it may have been). However, I now see there was a prior AfD deletion as well Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Back_and_in_Attack. As I've been all over this one more than once, I'll leave it to someone else to judge if this should be speedied. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation of an already deleted article. Also likely a hoax. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article was deleted yesterday as a repost. Has been re-reposted by the editor who posted the most recent version. I've tagged it for a new speedy and suggested deletion review to the editor. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Council for Educational Research

The result of this AfD was stubbify and keep. Non-admin closure. Tan | 39 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined, probably a good idea in retrospect. I had grouped this with ACER Press, which did get speedied as advertisement. This article takes text from multiple sources, mostly from the ACER site itself. It seems that there is a bit of non-copied text, which appears to be WP:OR.

Perhaps just stub to the first sentence? I don't have a vendetta against the article, but the way it is, it violates a few Wiki policies - WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPOV, WP:V... Tan | 39 13:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a long-established and reasonably well known Australian educational organisation. Many Australians (maybe of my vintage!) would recall doing ACER tests at school. The article needs a lot of work on it to bring it up to scratch, but is not a reason for deletion. Murtoa (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sentiment and nostalgia, but the problem is that it appears that a large part of this article is text that is copied from websites in violation of WP:COPYVIO. The other text, being uncited, is assumed to be original research, and is highly non-neutral. There's not much to keep here! In other words, this needs a fundamental re-write... Tan | 39 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in need of a fundamental re-write? yes; a justification for deletion? no. Murtoa (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important Australian organisation. Can I remind the nominator that AfD is not the place for cleanup, referencing, rewriting or partial copyvios? --Canley (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears that people did not really read my comments but thought that I somehow said that this article needed "cleanup". I removed all the copyvio, OR and NPOV material, which left one sentence that doesn't really meet WP:V. However, I'll back off; I have no vested interest in deleting this article! AfD withdrawn. Tan | 39 11:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted. Singu larity 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hits That Shook the World

Per WP:MUSIC, promo-only albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Copyright violation of [46]. Also delete because of no sourcing, no album charting, no commercial sales. Since the hit songs already have their own individual articles, there's absolutely no reason to have a separate article . - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Arnis

Non-notable newly created martial art. Most ghits are for the generic use of the name. JJL (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not nominated the related pages Jendo and Jonathan Makiling though I question their notability also.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, and possible WP:HOAX children listed includes Prince Charles... Other two mentioned should probably be grouped since a significant amount of the unsourced content (ignoring geocities) is the same. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to an ADMIN This and the other mentioned pages have had semi-protect templates added, these appear to be incorrect Can someone check please? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable. jmcw (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- geocities claims that Jonathan Makiling Abaya and Rafael Claro are professors at San Beda College.
- Officials and Staff lists Rafael Claro as department chair - no mention of Abaya.
- geocities claims that Jonathan Makiling Abaya is/was an instructor at the National College.
- Unesco reports that the National College of Physical Education (NCPE) has been closed.
- Department of Education of the Philippines has no mention of Jonathan Makiling Abaya.
Comment I believe that this link clears up all three articles: http://wikimartialarts.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=2 Philjendo, the author of the three articles, appears to be Grandmaster Jonathan "June" Makling Abaya himself. jmcw (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search using Makiling Abaya + "traditional arnis" yields no hits in Google Books. Google search gave a sole reference in FMA Digest. This publication garners only 3 hits on Philippine google so I don't think that it is that reliable.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Novembre

Previously deleted via WP:PROD, now recreated. The subject is Juventus' fourth-choice goalkeeper; he has not made any professional appearance in all his career, and played first team football only with Serie D amateur team Brindisi. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO#Athletes failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 12:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A unused member of first team may notable, but seems just playing for reserve team. Matthew_hk t c 18:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --MPerel 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinto Canyon Road

Contested prod. Non notable road (not a highway or some main city road). Links to a few Google News hits and Google books hitsare posted on the talk page, but these are passing mentions, not articles about the road (one link appears to have an actual sentence about the road, and that's it: the rest are toureistic mentions of it on route, or mentions of things located along the road). Suggested merge location doesn't exist yet, so hard to judge that proposal. Fails WP:NOTE and appropriate sub-guidelines. Fram (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this is one rural road that does appear notable, given the sources on the talk page. --NE2 14:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly move to Farm to Market Road 2810. There does seem to be enough sources for a good article here. MookieZ (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinalised

This has no reliable sources that I can find that supports it in its own right, and appears to be on the same topic as Michael Jackson's forthcoming studio album. I would argue for a merge or at least a verification of the reliability, very vague and WP:CRYSTAL may apply. SGGH ^speak! 10:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. The closest thing I find to sources on this are torrents supposedly giving an advance copy of the album and one video on Youtube. I find no reliable sources and, even if reliable sources are found, the proper thing to do would be to move Michael Jackson's forthcoming studio album to Unfinalised, if this is the official name of the album. Redfarmer (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. It contains little information other than tracklists, speculation and some opinions, with Michael Jackson's forthcoming studio album being a better article. --Tombomp (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystalballing. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, personal opinions, nothing reliable to merge to the other article. JohnCD (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is this a hoax? I can't tell, but it sure isn't verifiable. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g4, substantially similar repost of material deleted after 1st AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W. Dan Hausel

AfDs for this article:

Article deleted last year and reappeared. It seems to be like a resume or something. I am not sure about its notability so I think Afd it's a good place to discuss it. The google hits are not that many and i didn't see something of real importance. The sources given are certainly copy-pasted from somewhere (check article's history before my cleanup). Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, CSD G4 as recreation of previously deleted material. So tagged. Redfarmer (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the deletion wasn't last year; it was in January. Redfarmer (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky the Rabbit

I like rabbits as much as anyone. But I don't see the notability of this rabbit nor of the sad events surrounding it. There's one source, but this is a case of a bunny known for a single event, and unfortunately not a very noteworthy one. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Also, WP:NOT#NEWS. If there is any relevant information in the article, maybe it can be merged into Cruelty to animals or a similar article. Redfarmer (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS is the relevant policy here, misdemeanors are generally not part of what Wikipedia covers unless there are bigger implications. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, rabbits are people too. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, otherwise merge to stewpot, along with carrots, potatos, onions and parsnips. :-)) Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do not donate $50,000 to me, I will delete this rabbit! --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Mention this, if you want, in an article about cruelty to animals, Mandsford (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- forgive me Lucky! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like everyone else said, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy howell

American artist, skateboarder and entrepreneur. Almost certainly an autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Copyvio [47] But no complaints about recreation from scratch...notability as author of a book at a glance...I'm sure there's more there. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 09:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, per WP:SNOW, POINTy nomination. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Universities Debating Championship

AfDs for this article:

Notability and verifiability JJJ999 (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Reasons -I personally am an inclusionist, and I believe the content here is useful and worth keeping. I have edited articles positively which are no more notable. However, if you want a page to be included which would be disputable as being within what is technically WP guidelines, then you can't make the argument that any content you don't like won't count, because it fails to meet WP. The whole article technically fails to meet WP, and I am unconvinced the standard Purple and other partisans wish to hold this article to (but only when it comes to content they dislike) could be met by the article itself (not to mention most articles they edit). There have been claims made that content I have added, which is entirely supported, is invalid because sources like the official mailing list of these sites is "not notable or independant", and likewise the pages themselves from either rival tournament. This obviously doesn't make much sense, in light of the rest of the content, which they've decided somehow does meet it (despite no sourcing at all). Well, fine, if that's what they want to hold the article to, the best resolution seems to be an AfD, where we can either scrap the article, or edit out any of the unsourced material as a resolution (ie, all of it). To be clear, if the tournament itself is notable, then such notable tournaments official documents and minutes should likewise be notable, thus I don't see how you can claim they fail notability when being used to reference content you don't like, but attain it when you want to reference content you doJJJ999 (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator has admitted here (editing under the IP address 122.148.218.27, which he admits he uses on the article's talk page) that he does not in fact think the article should be deleted, but is nominating it to play games as part of a currently ongoing content dispute at the article. It's all detailed on the talk page. The subject is verifiable by the external links. It ideally needs some more sources to verify some aspects of the content, but that's not a reason to delete it. Purple Watermelon (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liking the article is not the same as meeting WP wiki.JJJ999 (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I should add I don't feel a speedy keep is productive. I think 5 days or discussion may ensure we have some sort of consensus on what is notable in regards to such content, and exactly what the consensus on this sort of thing really is. At the very least this thing needs a massive overhaul, and to do that an independant party is going to need to see what the consensus on it is. For that we need an AfD discussion.JJJ999 (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article is about regional championships of debating. Every year notable universities from Asia are participating in this championship. These two links (here, and here) shows 4th events of Asian championship, which was hosted by International Islamic University Malaysi.--NAHID 07:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reconcile these sources as meeting the WP requirements? They are no more notable than the ones rejected for content requirements? These sources are inherently self-referencing, which seems fine to me in principle provided it is notability, but that seems in dispute. Or is it just enough to have "alot" of blog references?JJJ999 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Bad faith nom. Nominator has basically admitted on the talk page that he is only AfDing the article because others disagreed with his addition. V-train (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth adding that since Purple has gone out and gotten people to come en masse to support this, it would be nice to hear actual independant voices (you know, people who didn't create the page, like Purple, and ones he didn't call over, like V-train, or the guy whose name indicates quite clearly his support of this IV). Allowing it to go through a 5 day discussion process is productive. Closing now is not. Whichever Admin has to deal with this page should probably note the massive effort that has already been mobilised to stack this vote and prevent the productive discussion we could be having, as so far all the respondants are either partisans, were told to come here by partisans, or are in the process of alerting more partisans, ie (here or here & here )JJJ999 (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've certainly not tried to stack the vote. I asked two people (because they've been involved in a similar dispute before) to look at the article's talk page and see if they wanted to comment there. This was before it was put up for AfD. I've not asked anyone to come to this page. Purple Watermelon (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a meaningless distinction as you well know, because the effect will be the same. Nor is getting a bunch of people who you know "forming consensus" as you were asked to do.JJJ999 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - They're only people who I know have an interest in the issue (becuase of one similar discussion last year). But they're indivduals who have their own minds and will weigh up the issues on their merits. I thought their insights might have been helpful in the content discussion. But I don't know if they'll agree with me until and unless they choose to comment. Purple Watermelon (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JJJ999, editors are bold to discuss with other editor about any WP matter. User:Niaz is a member and creator of Wikiproject Debating. So he might be helpful in developing this article. This doesn't mean we are stacking vote. And also please do not add spam link as reference--NAHID 08:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When 4 people are alterted within 30 mins of an AfD opening, and every vote is for "speedy keep" most objective people would have to ask serious questions about a stack, and I think it makes giving a speedy keep from such votes a bad idea. I am not necessarily advocating the removal of your article, I think it is an open question, but I have serious questions about the claims made regarding notability. From a purely interest level I enjoy and see value in it, but that isn't the same as meeting WP guidelines. I want an explanation of how this article meets those guidelines, and hopefully an outcome which creates a clear basis for the addition of future content. Can you explain to me why there is a double standard on content?JJJ999 (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where you get 4 people from. 2 people were altered about the content dispute before the AfD opened (of whom only 1 has voted here), and 1 person (who hasn't been here yet) was altered after. Purple Watermelon (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is clearly a bad faith nomination. JJJ999 is upset over a content dispute about whether one sentence should be added to the article, and is annoyed that two editors (me and Purple Watermelon) disgaree with him. He's admitted that he thinks the subject is notable, the dispute is simply over whether one sentence is adequately verifiable. Nominating the article for deletion in these circumstances is bizarre. Singopo (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per the articles for deletion page, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. WilliamH (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, WP:POINTY nom. After reading the talk page linked in the first vote, I am convinced this user is attempting to use AfD as a means of getting revenge on those who disagree with her/him. That is not what AfD was intended for, ever. An article is either appropriate for inclusion or not; saying that you'll nominate an article for deletion if the person doesn't admit you're right is POINTY and uncivil. Redfarmer (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. AUDC is one of the two major regional debating championships in Asia (beside All-Asians) and notable by its own right. It is silly to question about it's variability when so many strong sources are present online (Please help yourself with Google!). WUDC, EUDC, Australs, All-Asians and AUDC - these five tournaments are most popular among university level students[48] and it is unfortunate to see such nomination. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to keep.--Bedford ^Pray 18:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Packwood

Claim to fame is being the first white valedictorian at Morehouse College. Does not appear notable, however, per WP:BIO. References exist, as this is probably all over the news at the moment, but Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Might be worth mentioning at Morehouse College, but no basis for standalone article at the moment. Kinu ^t/_c 07:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Why do other Wikipedians tolerate people who do this stupid deletion shit to articles just an hour old and that are still breaking stories? Ever heard of STUBS? Apparently not!

And this at "at the moment" stuff by the nominator totally gives away his/her shortsightedness and rush to judgment here!

Let's see: from WP:BIO, the subject must be "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Er, the first white valedictorian at a historically black college? Gimme a freakin' break -- yea, that's unusual, DUH!

When all sources say the person "made history", that's not "routine news coverage" as discussed at Wikipedia is not Wikinews - again, a big and well-deserved DUH! goes to the nominator here.

Sheesh! "Kinu" needs community censure, not support for this AfD.

Now go find something productive to do instead of tearing down the good faith work of others!

Daimerej (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please discuss/debate on contents, not attacking other editor. Everybody has a right to nominate an article for deletion. Let us discuss whether this article stays or not based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, okay? Being in AfD does not mean that this article is already going to be deleted. An administrator will decide later based on the consensus of this debate. Dekisugi (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for supporting me when my good faith efforts at contributing to Wikipedia were so very, very obviously and misguidedly attacked by User:Kinu. It is heartening to realize that people do not view all editor actions as on equal footing and warranted and rational, which -- of course, this is very obvious, and goes without saying -- by extension means something about the editors who take such actions. On the other hand, what you are saying reminds me of a numbbot who might say that anyone who brings false charges before a "court" is blameless, while assuring the person who is charged that there will be a just outcome from a nameless and faceless "judge". But a just court immediately throws out and does not even listen to drummed up false charges, and a failure to do this right away gives no assurance to the person falsely charged. Quite the opposite, in fact. Daimerej (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the community speak for the legitimacy of my actions. Seeing has no one has jumped on the bandwagon to censure me, it looks like my nomination was made in good faith after all. I have no vested interest in the article itself, per se, so I will defer to consensus from this discussion, as is the case with every AfD. From the looks of things, it looks like there is plenty of discussion to be had. As for your personal attacks, I see no reason to humor them... sticks and stones. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ First, a note to Daimerej: please remember WP:CIVIL. There is no need to resort to bad language. Second, the nomination is very misguided. The person is clearly notable per WP:BIO. In-depth biographical coverage exists by multiple independent reliable sources. Apart from those listed in the article, there are lots more. GoogleNews gives 206 hits[49]. The core requirement of WP:BIO is: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". There is no doubt that this requirement is met here. Also, the nomination is misapplying WP:NOT#NEWS. This is not a WP:BLP1E case either (although there one could perhaps make a stronger argument). Both are talking about the situations where the only reason the individual is mentioned is where a particular event is covered. Here, the newscoverage is primarily of the individual, not the event. If not for him, there certainly would not be such massive newscoverage of the commemcement at Morehouse College in the first place. Plus, of course, in this case the coverage of the individual was specific, in-depth and detailed, not what WP:NOT#NEWS is talking about. Nsk92 (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral for the time being. See my more detailed comments below. Nsk92 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. In addition, this person doesn't have inherent notability. His achievements have not been article-noteworthy, there's plenty of students with 4.0's. He happened to be to the person utilized to achieve a semi-notable event that is amply covered in Morehouse College#Modern history.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. His notability comes not that from the fact that he is a valedictorian, but from the fact that he is the first white valedictorian at Morehouse, a top historically black college. E.g. this CNN story makes this very clear[50].You may think that this is not a good reason for notability but extensive press coverage says otherwise. BLP1E says: "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. ...In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." Do we really want to have a WP article called The first white valedictorian at Moreohouse, a top historically black college? Because that is the event here. Nsk92 (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That event is at Morehouse College#Modern history. It can be stretched out there for all its worth. But the event doesn't need its own article, and the validictorian certaintly doen't need his own article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say! It does no harm to do so, and it does seem a quite significant event. If Wikipedia sees it fit to keep the names and histories of all the different characters in made-up TV shows and other inane pap, I don't understand why its a problem to list this seemingly trivial, but fairly interesting fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.204.166.183 (talk • contribs) (see here for post).— 150.204.166.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This seems like a WP:NOHARM, WP:OTHERSTUFF, and WP:Pokémon test argument to me. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Meets the basic criteria of notability (see WP:BIO for criteria) and additional sources are available on subject. He’s not as notable as Frank Rossitano, but is probably more notable than Amy Wong.Absolon S. Kent (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - no notability apart from this one episode, which it makes more sense to include in the college article. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the person is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT, as the article reads. Millions of students attain 4.0 grade point averages, big deal. This is a feel good news story, not an encyclopedia article. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage at Morehouse College of the notable event is perfectly sufficient. No prejudice to recreation if he goes on to do other notable things besides graduate. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to Morehouse College. I see no potential for this article to expand with appropriate material. It seems to me that BLP1E is a valid argument here. -Verdatum (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it's a valid search term, but he's only notable for one event and we should cover the event, not the person. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep, clearly notable. Huge amount of media coverage. this is a big deal historically for race relations in the united states. many first black this, first woman that, first gay this have articles about them. we have to be fair in our coverage. this has gotten massive coverage. and he's so damn cute, you can't delete such a nice guy's article. i hope that my personal comments don't invalidate my arguement based on policy. thanks. also please let's wait and see how well this article can get written.Latinlover-sa (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy, indeed. Trasel (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; see how it develops. This guy received MASSIVE media attention -- as in, made the NBC Nightly News, CNN, etc. and the historical impact of his actions may be seen as a long-lasting sign/milestone for race relations.--SecretAgent (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the content in its current form could be condensed down to high-quality factual paragraph (easily, if you cut out all the quotes and soundbytes that make up everything below the second paragraph, which add almost nothing to an encyclopedic coverage of the subject, the event, or the person at this point in history). That paragraph should then be merged and anchor-redirected to the specific section of the educational institution's article, so that readers are taken to where the information is, and are provided with the context to understand the importance of the information.

At the moment, this is a single person, making the news because of a single event in his life. As Daimerej has said, this is still a breaking news story, although I must rebut his use of the term "made history" to describe this event... if the American media is anything like the Australian media, the term "made history" is thrown around far more than it should be. At this very moment in time, Mr Packwood had "made the news". This gentleman and this event may have long-term ramifications, but the case for "making history" will be made when the history books are talking about him. That may well happen. If it turns out that this gentleman gains long-term notability down the track because he has had a more widespread impact (as indicated by multiple, in-depth, reliable sources covering the subject from the holistic point-of-view of the person's life, not the point-of-view of a single event in that person's life), then the article can easily be split back out. -- saberwyn 07:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After thinking about it quite a bit, I have re-evaluated my position and will change my vote to Neutral for now. I think the real question here is whether or not the event that there was the first white valedictorian at Moreohouse, while clearly notable in the sense of WP:N in view of the massive coverage it received, deserves a separate WP article at this time. If the answer is "yes", this article needs to be kept (it is not really possible to write an article about this event without it turning essentially into a biographical article about the person; if the event is article-worthy, this would not be a BLP1E case as a careful reading of WP:BLP1E indicates). If the answer is "no", the event, and, correspondingly, the person, may be covered in the Moreohouse College article for the time being and then this could be treated as a BLP1E case for now. Saberwyn gives a good argument for this "no" option above. One could also give a reasonable "yes" argument here on the basis of various historic firsts and lasts being permanently notable and article-worthy once they get enough coverage. Ordinarily, for me at least, notability of the event is the primary consideration in deciding if a separate article is warranted. There is no question that the event passes the actual reading of WP:N and the person passes the actual reading of WP:BIO. However, notability is not the only consideration in deciding if an event warrants an article and Saberwyn makes a good argument along these lines above in this specific case. Nsk92 (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Trilemma (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep BLP1E is not a compelling argument since BLP1E is a concern generally because we don't want to focus on negative events in peoples lives. There is no such concern here. Furthermore, BLP1E has limits (thus, we don't apply it to Charles Manson or John Hinkley). Considering that all sources agree that Packwood's acheivement is "historic" he clearly exceeds the threshold where BLP1E would apply. Nor is there any other BLP concern or indication that he doesn't want an article. Considering that this got international press and is continuing to do so, keeping seems more than reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Joshua Packwood is still making newspapers days after a significant event. However, there is all still in the here-and-now... we don't know what long-term effects (if any) Mr. Packwood and his graduation will have. To use your example of Charles Manson, according to the Worldcat online international library catalogue, there are 234 different published books that have Charles Manson as a subject. The gods alone know how many more sources there are in the form of jorunal articles, news entries, documentaries, or major popular culture references (There was a news article in an Australian newspaper today about the one event he is famous for, 40 years after it happened). When Joshua Packwood has this quantity of publication about him, spread over this amount of time, it would be an undeniable fact that a Wikipeda article would be required. But we are nowhere near there yet. -- saberwyn 05:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that if he isn't as notable as Manson but the basic point- that BLP1E has limits stands. The question then becomes which side of the line is Packwood on? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not appear to be in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Edward Bouchet is Yale's first black phd graduate. He is is notable only for that reason. I find nothing else in that article suggesting he is notable. I see no reason to delete the Bouchet article. This seems the same. LarryQ (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bouchet was the first black American to receive a PhD at any U.S. university (not just at Yale). Nsk92 (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison also isn't perfect in that entire books have been written about Bouchet. However, no analogy is perfect and the basic point, that this sort of academic achievement can confer notability, holds water. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If merged to the college, it would constitute WP:UNDUE in that article's current state - it has one line there (of about 3 for "Modern history"). The material is encyclopedic & "cover the event, not the person" does not really work here - what else to call it? Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability requirments.--Bedford ^Pray 16:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Singu larity 17:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RKBA

Article defines an abbreviation of the term "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", a subject already covered in Right to arms: Nomination per WP:DICT. Estemi (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to right to arms, which already lists it as an alternate title. Doesn't need a separate article, but certainly should point to the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dhartung. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It has already been noted, but I don't feel that the initials are notable enough for their own article aside from what is already mentioned in Right to arms. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Right to arms - acronyms don't need an article unless they themselves are notable. In this case, even if it was notable, there wouldn't be enough content to warrant it's own article. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect already. Definitely not a delete, and not a disambig. JJB 20:15, 22 May 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 CSD G3 all, nothing but large-scale hoaxing from the creator of this and other articles. As if that wasn't obvious from the logo... --Kinu ^t/_c 07:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majajabist Young Men Revolution

I am also nominating the follwoing articles for the same reasons:

Apparent hoax, the club name, stadium name and player names get no Google results (that aren't Wikipedia related) so even if they do exist they are very unlikely to be notable. Guest9999 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy Your Plague

No WP:RS indicating that this is the title of this album; as such, violates WP:V. Also contains essentially no content other than unsourced speculation on possible tracks. Creation of such an article should be deferred until a title is available and/or any substantial information can be presented. Contested PROD with no discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: similar unsourced speculation exists at Static-X, and might need to be edited accordingly. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All google hits about this refer to Wikipedia. The title is, even according to Wikipedia, a working title. Article is all speculation. --Tombomp (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this speculation cannot be verified. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Russ (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above cannot be verified. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also could not find sources trying a different search engine. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CITE and WP:CRYSTAL.-- danntm ^T _C 17:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) per WP:CSD#G3. WilliamH (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow-back walrus

Looks like a hoax, to me. Can't find anything on Google. Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search comes up with nothing, article itself states the animal may not exist at all, and all the references are recently published books, which may not even by reliable. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 06:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G3, blatant and obvious misinformation. Article is a bad joke, references are made up, etc., etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 17:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Levenson

Non-notable, unreferenced, contains non-encyclopaedic info that may be nonsense. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Scant presence online seems to be an indicator of a lack of "prominence" as suggested in article, a few published papers here and there, but nothing to meet WP:PROFTEST. Might well be a joke. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No references and fails notability. Artene50 (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no evidences of notability per WP:BIO. Shovon (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unreferenced. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JJL (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly the same as the Zachary Levenson described in this blogger profile, a student living in Berkeley after previously living in Richmond, VA, and Manhattan? From the timing, I'm guessing his time at Columbia U. was as an undergrad there and that he is now a grad student at Berkeley. In any case delete as non-notable, un-referenced, and in part (the alligator) likely untrue. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from what has already been stated, the lack of sources in this article is a WP:BLP issue. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:BLP. There isn't any given information to argue why Mr. Levenson is more important than my high school biology teacher.... Happyme22 (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If somebody's only claim to importance is signing a petition and having a pet alligator...well, this should have been speedied already. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of speedy deletes ([51] [52]) have been tried already but overturned by other editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rationale for deletion provided. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Carmen

Comment: completing incomplete AfD from 98.212.48.92. No reason given for AfD. I am neutral at this time. Redfarmer (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Sting Buzz Me... 12:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Improperly filed AfD: no reason for the nomination given. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as an unreasonable nomination. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. On the assumption that full professors at major research universities pass WP:PROF. Almost the entire article as it is written has to go, though. Most of it is a description of his top-ten lists, whose notability is not established with reliable sources and smell like WP:HOAX. The same goes for his political views. A description of his published work seems more in order, since I presume that is why the U of Illinois made him a full professor in the first place. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per CSD A7; non-admin closure. nneonneo ^talk 05:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actual reason, I may want to note, was nonsense/hoax/vandalism. It met a speedy criteria, anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Ass Grabbing Day

Non-notable joke holiday. nneonneo ^talk 05:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, google only turns up blogs and myspace pages. Cannot find any news on it. Almost a hoax. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 08:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 29 (U.S. series)

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. No confirmed release date and no reliable sources, regardless of impeding release. Wolfer68 (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable series, but no verifiable info on this installment yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the series may have some notability (if not longevity), each (or, more likely, any) invidial CD needs not its own article. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The series is notable, but they haven't even released volume 28 yet. This article can be re-created when actual information about volume 29 is available. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Travis Hafner. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronk (Travis Hafner)

Content is redundant with information already presented in Travis Hafner and does not warrant its own page. Sanfranman59 (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Duplicative. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Travis Hafner. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I could see how it could be somewhat useful, but I do find it a bit difficult to believe that someone would search for (or visit) "Pronk (Travis Hafner)." Either way, likely best to just redirect and be done with it. All the information resides in the main article anyway. RiSK (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect this is best handled in the Travis Hafner article.-- danntm ^T _C 18:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satyajit Padhye

notability. The article seems to be created by the subject of the article. Dwaipayan (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. Frank | talk 16:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - the article is improved; I question the notability somewhat but I no longer feel deletion is a clear choice. Frank | talk 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some references to the article to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 03:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some cleanup - While the article reads like a magazine article (see COI concerns mentioned in nomination), the references seem to establish notability. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established by ref to numerous multiple reliable sources. Milk Float 10:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are three such sources in the article. How many more do you want? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional peiece, non-notable topic--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - I am assuming that getting mentioned 3 times on newspapers is enough to establish notability.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 07:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. CSD G7, page blanked by only editor. brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

43rd Academy of Country Music Awards

Information is already present at 2008 in country music , which is the norm for all ACM award shows. Nothing is notable about this individual airing (which I just finished watching). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Euroleague (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author blanked page and has requested deletion here, so let's call it a G7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2008 in country music. Redirects are cheap. Or speedy per G7. Either is fine. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. It seems possible that better sources might be out there still, and if found they could make a difference. WP:BIO is fairly demanding for actors. If she had been widely recognized for her performance in El Abuelo, that could make the difference. The movie's list of awards mentions other performers in El Abuelo but she is not mentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Cruz Mínguez

Fails WP:BIO. Child actor in a single six-episode television series and single film. Not an active nor notable actor. Failed CSD. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1 TV series + 1 film =2 visual media thingies. Was main character in one, strikes me as significant. I doubt we'd be having this discussion if this was an American show and countering systemic bias is valuable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already had enough insults for one day, thanks. I'd do the same if it were some kid in a six episode American series with one minor film role. I don't care that its a Spanish series, and I resent the implication that I'm showing some kind of bias. I just don't see how she's notable for an extremely short television series and a small movie roll. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a point about systemic bias in general and wasn't aiming it at you personally, but it is one thing User:Jack Merridew and I have discussed and strongly agree on, just we have rather different ways of going about it. describing 6 episodes as short is subjective, as Fawlty Towers seasons were only 6 episodes each, a rather common practice in English TV. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Cecil was 6 episodes, total. That was the entire programme. Its done its run. I've noticed lots of UK shows doing the 6 episodes a series. Guessing they don't have to wait 3 months between series like we do between seasons (or at least, I'd hope not!) :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, Fawlty Towers was 2 series and Black Books 3, and the best ones are often too short at six...:( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - don't know if it matters, but this article is basically just translated from the Spanish Wikipedia article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't matter. Many articles are translated directly from their equivalents in foreign Wikipedias, this one isn't even directly translated. There are no rules against translation, especially coming from the Wikipedia that is bound to have the most accurate information on this particular subject. T.W. (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Her only film, El abuelo, was an Academy Award nominee and won nine other prizes [53]. I don't know the "size" of her personage but she is in the credits with nine other actors. (Caiaffa (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. (non admin closure) Cenarium (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anakin Skywalker

Almost all of this page is prod and overlaps with Darth Vader. both Darth Vader AND THIS PAGE ARE around 30 kb long, so I don't see why the info from here can't be mergered, but I just think it should be deleted. The only reason this is separate from Darth vader is because the editors feel that the two alter egos have differnt personality. and both articles isn't that large either. an I really oppose having separate pages for alter egos of characters and this article have nothing but plot. Gman124^talk 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about Darth Vader's life when he was good and the Darth Vader is about when he was good. so does this warrent a separate article for a character? I don't think so--Gman124^talk 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not wrong it also violates Wikipedia Manual of Style. and WP:N, since there's nothing but plot on the Anakin page. becaue the plot is written as if it was an historical account. --Gman124^talk 12:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader, of course, but the articles have differing contents. One is about his youth, the other about his life as a Sith lord. JIP | Talk 03:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (Reads as: "TORN") Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are almost two different characters, sure. One was conceived long before the other. (In fact, when Vader says "Luke, I am your father!" the actor playing him didn't even know what the character was saying.) HOWEVER... They are, in fact, different periods of time in a single character's fictional history, and it wouldn't hurt to merge the two together. Just my two cents, Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't this been nominated or put through some kind of dispute process before? WillOakland (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. WikiProject Star Wars has also been notified. -- saberwyn 08:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second... didn't this used to be a soft redirect to Darth Vader way back when? I don't see what was wrong with that. They're the same character, they should be in the same article. Merge it into Darth's article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was before the whole Spoiler Warnings Are Evil, Evil Must Be OPPOSED!! debate. -- saberwyn 08:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I'm making this a Keep. This isn't an AFD issue really...it's more of a merge or not-merge. I can't seriously see this being deleted. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I !voted against a merge in the talk-page discussion, but every day I shift closer to changing my mind because of the overlapping plot summary. Regardless, though, I see sources, (some) development info (that you, person who added it ;-)), and am certain that movie reviews and commentary about the two kids' portrayals of the characters are out there. Yeah, I know: "so add them." --EEMIV (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. First Clark Kent, now Anakin Skywalker? This seems very pointy. Like with Clark Kent, there's enough notability for even former (and secret) identities (do we need to add something like this to WP:FICT?). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. Thank You. --neonwhite user page talk 14:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the nom himself gave a very poor reason to delete. He proclaims the only reason Anakin has an article is because "The only reason this is separate from Darth vader [sic] is because the editors feel that the two alter egos have differnt [sic] personality". No, it's because he meets WP:FICT. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major character of not one, not two, but three major movies, all of them as "Anakin", not "Vader". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see any arguments for straight deletion. It's more of a merge, don't merge. On that, both sides have a point, and with it being a complex case, I don't think this AFD is the best way to make a reasoned decision on a merge.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging an article that overlaps is just general editing, personal feelings about who the characters are has no relevance whatsoever. If the article has overlap they can be merged. However in this case both articles are of a significant length for a split to be justified and do not overlap that much. --neonwhite user page talk 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major character in top-grossing movies, best-selling books, and all manner of other media with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Character stands on its own, even if he later becomes another quite different character. It would be like merging caterpillar and butterfly. - Dravecky (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the sames reason I said keep on the talk page. Same person but 2 different characters. I agree the page needs improvement, at the VERY minimum they should be merged but not deleted. --Vertigo315 (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC) As a side note: if anything Darth Vader should be merged with or deleted and not the other way around as Anakin Skywalker is the central character and not Vader, if we are following the reasons given for deletion. It just doesn't make sense. --Vertigo315 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Keep is strong with this one. There's enough notability in both, plus enough distinction between the two, that deleting one or the other is ludicrous, and a merge would make the resulting article too unwieldy. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep worse case scenario this should be merged and redirected to Darth Vader, correct? There is no hope for deletion here if we are to comply w/ the GFDL. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHIPS

Orphaned two-sentance article about a Japanese clothing brand. My searches of Google have not come up with any reliable sources for the subject (although this is partly because the "Ship" more commonly means boat or mailing. The few web pages that actually describe the subject that I can find (see top three results) are either this article or mirrors of the same. At the moment, I cannot see this article passing the WP:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline, due to the lack of WP:Reliable sources.

If the article is deleted, it should be redirected and locked to Ship, as this name appears to have been used in the past for duplicate articles or forks of Ship or Shipping (fandom). If kept, it should be moved to a name with an appropriate qualifier. -- saberwyn 02:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above reasons., and redirect to ship. Noble Story (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ship. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a clothing line, but a nationwide string of stores, much like the GAP etc. According to their info page, http://m.shipsltd.co.jp/05/outline_e.php, they have sales in excess of 200million US$, and offices in New York, etc. Searching google for Japanese news articles is painful in the best of circumstances, given the propensity for sites to charge for articles in the past; but, with their common name, it becomes downright arduous. The Ginza Keizai (business newspaper) has a few links that should be enough to push this over the notability ledge. [54] [55], and, I'm confident that if someone were to visit a library with old print newspapers, even more would be found. - Neier (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update to reflect Neier's research. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was created in 2002 but has been edited less than 30 times since then, it is abandonned, it has no sources and only 1 sentence. Why should we keep it? Just because it is notable? It has no information on it, that article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia for we have articles with no information on them. Delete it and when somebody has the time, recreate it with at least some useful information.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 08:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents, Not Punishments

I prodded, the prod was removed, so I'm taking it here. This article is about a single sermon preached by Charles Spurgeon, and it really does not establish its notability (because it doesn't). Although this really doesn't have a specific category, I think as per WP:BOOK, , because it does not have third-party sources identifying its notability, it should be deleted. Noble Story (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think an individual sermon is notable. JIP | Talk 03:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that Dr. Livingstone thought it was OK doesn't establish significance. WillOakland (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I believe an individual sermon most certainly could be notable, the same as any other piece of writing, this one doesn't have much going for it except this item of trivia. The only mentions in Google Books were in Spurgeon's autobiography and biographies, in connection with the Livingstone incident. --Dhartung | Talk 05:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There are other sermons that might deserve an article, but this one seems to only be notable because of Livingstone's approval.Brian0324 (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per creator. The Livingstone's section does give it much notability, but the train wreck was completely devastating to the area. His sermon (which I'm sure before this none of you had been taught about), was one of the most famous, and important of it's time. The sermon was given after a very notable set of accidents, and it has external links to both PDF of the sermon, and full Audio. The article is very well done, and is one of the biggest events in London in the 19th century. -- AmericanEagle 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of what you said may be true. But a work like this needs outside, third-party sources talking about it to establish notability. This sermon does not. So, delete. Noble Story (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then there should be a {{Primarysources|article}} template on it. The above reasons that I put give it notability, it just needs reliable good third party sources. Not deletion. -- AmericanEagle 03:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the point is there aren't any, beyond the Livingstone mention. Noble Story (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The train wreck(s), Livingstone story, and sermon External Links all give it notability -- AmericanEagle 04:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sermon was related to the train wreck, but that does not give it notability. The sermon link is a first-party source, and doesn't count. So, you once again have only the Livingstone mention. That doesn't sound like multiple third-party mentions to me. Noble Story (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was one of the most influential things in the "Train Wreck"-era. The sermon link(s) are don't have to be Third-party, they are resources. And again, having a well-known missionary (Livingstone) being found with it after he had traveled across Africa, is a major event. Like I said it would need: {{Primarysources|article}} -- AmericanEagle 04:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there is no notability guideline for sermons, but WP:BK is a pretty good guideline. It states right in the lead "it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources." Later on it says "The book has been the subject [major focus] of multiple, non-trivial [reliable sources] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." (my comments are in brackets) There is no use putting a {{Primarysources|article}} template if there are no third-party sources. Look up "Accidents not Punishments" on Google, and what do you find? Actually, where are you getting the fat that is was "one of the most influential things in the "Train Wreck"-era"?

I don't mean to be overly bitey here, but I just don't think there is any concrete reason to keep this article. Noble Story (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be really rude, but in en:WP new users are just more people to be bitten. I haven't been editing that much here because almost all users (especially Admins') are not really caring. I am mostly editing on the Simple English Wikipedia because editors there are down-to-Earth and friendly. I am becoming really ticked with this. This is taking me a long time to write this... I am becoming very annoyed and really need to get away from this for awhile. Shrug -- AmericanEagle 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, whatever you want to think. But I have done nothing other than showing you why this article should not be kept. Noble Story (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep If it's a published sermon by a notable teacher than it's notable. Not every sermon a pastor preaches is published... this one was. Saksjn (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but without citations to reliable, third party sources to that state that this sermon deserves special noteworthiness--as oppose to any run of the mill sermon--notability has not been established.-- danntm ^T _C 03:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge 55

Does not meet WP:BAND. Tan | 39 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable bands. Not all bands are inherently notable. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Not even close to meeting WP:MUSIC. No assertation whatsoever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the article does assert notability when discussing media attention. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is why I started the AfD. Per WP:MUSIC: "Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. However, an article that fails to assert that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted under criterion A7. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a full proposed deletion or Article for Deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Wikipedia."

Delete. Recieving some local media coverge for winning some local contest doens't satisfy the notabilty standards of WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is simply not enough cited. Maybe in a few years there will be. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 by NawlinWiki , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Murray (Basketball player)

College basketball players are generally not notable, I thought. His only other claim to fame is being the son of "coaching legend[sic] Ken Murray (Brock University)". Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone didn't think the article asserted notability. Oh well. Please close, someone who knows how. (And maybe you could explain how to non-admin close AfDs on my talk, please?) ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Marie Jahoda. I have used a little bit of discretion in this close but two of the three comments included merge as an option and no reason against a merge was adduced. It is also a useful search term. TerriersFan (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal mental health

Either delete as non-notable or merge into article on Marie Jahoda. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Merge to Marie Jahoda, unless substantial evidence of notability of this concept can be found. There is no question that the person is notable but it is not clear to me, at the moment, if the concept is notable. GoogleScholar[56] and GoogleBooks[57] searches do not produce very much, but possibly many sources are missed there. Insufficient evidence for satisfying WP:N at the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Vince (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sign-off. --Selket ^Talk 03:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Lord's Prayer

I am unable to independently verify the contents of this article. Can anyone confirm its notability? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't confirm its notability, but it certainly seems to exist. See [58] (with Dick West as the Native American signer). See also [59] (without Native American; Lord's Prayer starts at 1:47). However, I don't know if this was a national practice or just used at a few television stations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I could really find was this and that's not a reliable source. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also apparently musician and actor Walt Conley did the voice over for the Denver TV version. http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/rec.music.folk/msg01253.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.120.200 (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Since it appears that this did exist (not a WP:HOAX), I'd like to see the information merged into sign-on and/or sign-off. Those seem to be perfect places for this—both articles even have an "Examples" section. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Not a hoax. Not quite as notable as the Indian Head test pattern, but it seems to be in the same vein. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to sign-off per AnnaFrance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per above. As to locality, I recall seeing this in at least four states. Drieux (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 07:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Way Cousin

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sources. Refers to nonexistent documentation. Very sparse and poorly written. Possible hoax. Ward3001 (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There exists no such term to describe multiple cousinship. Charles 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to ensure the page does not be deleted - the term does exist because I have a cousin who is my first, step-second, and third cousin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyoung761 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable third party source using the term. Heck, find several. See WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up the writing (ask for help by placing {{helpme}} on your talk page). Ward3001 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are problems with OR and the writing style, but that is not the main problem. There is no verifiable evidence that the term even exists. Google returns only 6 hits[60], none of them pass WP:RS and certainly nothing here to satisfy WP:N. It could be that the same concept is actually known under a different name, but the article's creator needs to find that out first. Nsk92 (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like it may be a term used in a very specific geographical region (such as a county or two), or even in a single family. If it cannot generalize beyond that (even with a source), it fails WP:N. Ward3001 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my note below, the term is Double cousin, and there already is an article. Eauhomme (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term double cousin is more often used for this sort of thing. Note that we have double first cousin already. I can find no evidence this is a term that is even in wide use, let alone one that would pass WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question of procedure: The author appears to have blanked the article; I'm not sure if that's permanent. How long do we need to wait to change this to speedy delete? Ward3001 (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly sure on the correct procedure here. The fact that the author blanked the page with no explanation at the talk page and left it blank for over 3 hours suggests that he is not going to edit it further and the page might be tagged for speedy. I left a message at the author's talk page, just in case. I think that if you tag for speedy, maybe as A3 rather than G7, and leave a message about it at the author's talk page, that'd be OK. Nsk92 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't blank the page - they accidentally broke the comment tag below the AfD template (which rendered the page "empty"). I've fixed it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see, good catch. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per Esradekan... --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Double cousin. This is the term I have known, so I checked, and yes, the article is there. Eauhomme (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Two Way Cousin, as described in the article, is not the same concept as Double cousin. I see no rationale for a merge. Ward3001 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Double cousin describes a different concept. A merge to that article would not be appropriate here and can only generate more confusion. Nsk92 (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved and merged by DHowell. Page now redirects to appropriate article. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 17:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of state leaders in 3150 BC

Scope of the article is too far in history to be referenceable or expandable into individual year. I am also nominating the following related pages because same reason:

--Jklamo (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ I certainly sympathize with you on this one and for the most part agree. However, the reason I'm !voting keep (but only very weakly), is because this format has gotten WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year, which is the WPWP that maintains this list of pages. If this were just a page unto itself, I would heartily !vote to nuke it. However, as this page is a part of a larger project, my recommendation is to bring up the issue at the WikiProject rather than club it with the AFD hammer here. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of that wikiproject but regrettably the project is pretty much inactive now - I don't think there are any other active members now. Davewild (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above -- Given the fact there's no one to build consensus with, I'm striking my !vote. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move and merge Maybe create the article by decade or by century (e.g. 3150s BC). Alway Arptonshay (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The nominator is exactly right: with such a remote date it is not really possible to create a meaningful and verifiable list for a specific year. A decade, maybe, but a year? I think in most cases there will even be a basic WP:V problem here since historians rarely identify events in such remote past definitevely with a specific year. In view of this, I don't think that creating merges and redirects makes much sense either. Nsk92 (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and merge into ~~at least a decade article~~ a millennium article. I agree with Nsk92, it's far too far in the past for the individual year to be reliable. JIP | Talk 03:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote. The article to merge to should be List of state leaders in the 4th millennium BC. I agree with Dougweller below, this is too far in the past for even the century to be sufficient, we have to go for the whole millennium. JIP | Talk 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and merge into an article on the century, that far back an article on the state leaders over the whole century makes far more sense. Davewild (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it being on a millenium either as suggested by JIP. Davewild (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteEven a century isn't going to give many definite names, this is just too far back, and there are too many chronological arguments that will have to be ignored to have an article like this. --Doug Weller (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a reference to support Narmer's rule in 3150bc. The scope of this project is certainly grand, but it depends on consistent presentation of state leaders by year for its value. Names of heads of state and dates of rulership obviously become harder to establish for more remote periods, but this sort of project is potentially very useful when available, verifiable information for a particular year in history is accessible with one click.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.230.141.215. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see two main problems here. The first and more important problem is that only a tiny fraction of the world was organized into states at this time: Narmer could be the only state leader that we can name. The other problem is that lists like these, for individual years, presume a level of date precision that we don't have when dealing with this time period. We don't know that Narmer was king in 3150 BC, do we? We don't even know that he was alive in 3150 BC. It's an estimate. I propose that some cutoff date be established, after which we will have these lists and before which we won't. Everyking (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to List of pharaohs Move and/or merge (see below). I don't believe there are any verifiable "state leaders" from this time period other than the pharaohs, and we already have a list of them. The State leaders by year page should just point to ~~List of pharaohs~~ milliennia-based lists for information from the 3rd & 4th millennia BC and eliminate those year tables that will be pointless to fill out. DHowell (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with a redirect as it violates the 'principle of least surprise'. I'm fairly sure I'd be very surprised by that redirection. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with ShinmaWa. I don't know if a redirect to some other destination is appropriate but List of pharaohs is not a good choice. Nsk92 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised that looking for a list of state leaders in 3150 BC would take you to a list of pharaohs? What other "state leaders" were around during that time period that we know about? Besides, in the case of Narmer, 3150 BC is an approximation with an error of at least a century; I've seen dates as early as 3300 BC[61] and as late as 2900 BC[62]. With all the gaps and uncertainties in our historical knowledge during this time period, making an accurate year-by-year or even century-by-century list for this era would be impossible. If we started adding, e.g. Chinese leaders to these year lists, there would be no guarantee that the leaders listed in any particular year would have even been alive at the same time, let alone whether they would have ruled at the same time. At the very least then, move these lists to List of state leaders in the 4th millennium BC and List of state leaders in the 3rd millennium BC per JIP, or even better, merge both into List of state leaders in the 4th and 3rd millennia BC. With the available knowledge of this era, this is really the best we can do. I agree with the idea of the State leaders by year project, which is why I'm not suggesting outright deletion, and note that that page needs to be modified to discourage further inaccurate year-by-year lists. DHowell (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point. Personally, I think that "List of state leaders in 3150 BC" is an extremely unlikely search term and I would prefer no redirects at all, but a plain delete or perhaps a move to something like List of state leaders in the 4th and 3rd millennia BC. That could also include Sumerians, Chinese and maybe even something else. I do agree that the idea of listing leaders from such remote past by exact year is fundamentally flawed and can only lead to inaccurate information being proliferated. Nsk92 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just too much.-- danntm ^T _C 04:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly moved and merged the lists to List of state leaders in the 4th and 3rd millennia BC, as well as merging in some existing lists from 2668 through 2686 BC. I noticed there was some precedent to this in that the lists for the 800s BC through the 1650s BC were already arranged by decades. I have also edited the State leaders by year, eliminating the tables for the 7th century BC and earlier and replacing with links to appropriate decade, century, and millennia lists. DHowell (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 07:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Oudad

Non-notable destination - I can't quite figure out what's actually there. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the latitude and longitude from the GEOnet Names Server. Perhaps someone has access to Algerian census data which could be used to expand the article. The article describes it as a settlement, which would make the place notable on the basis of "all villages are notable". Another source refers to it as a well, which in the Sahara Desert is also notable. --Eastmain (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. most geographic based locals are accepted as notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Eastmain and Brewcrewer. I also found this French link:[63]. The main reason I am voting weak keep rather than keep is that based on the actual reading of WP:N this place does not appear to be notable. It does seem to pass the proposed guideline WP:NPT however which presumably has sufficient consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment -this article shouldn't even be here. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This place does not exist, or at least it isn't recognised by Algeria as a seperate municipality. Municipalities of Algeria gives a list of all of them with census information, and In Oudad is not on there. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 10:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually the place does exist as the coordinates are avialable for it and I stubbed the article some two years ago from an atlas. However I agree with the wiki editor that there is very little web info on it and little evidence of verification. Perhaps it is a different name for some place which has many google hits but is "hidden". There are many places like Aïn Bouyahia etc which have very few hits or verification either ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.--SkyWalker (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Towns and villages are inherently notable regardless of size.--Oakshade (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Settlements, towns, villages are inherently notable. WilliamH (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iaat

Non-notable tourist destination, and its claims of being linked to a saint doesn't seem to hold up in a Google search Ecoleetage (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Geonames server gives coordinates of 34° 02' 13" N, 036° 10' 17" E for a populated place named Îaât, and nearby coordinates for a well and for a cultivated area with the same name. http://www.localiban.org/spip.php?article4027 seems to refer to the same place. I am inclined to think that a 50-foot-high monument ought to be automatically notable, and that it must have been written about in scholarly journals. So I think the article about the monument should be kept, and perhaps an article about the village could be created. Google searches are made more difficult be the fact that IAAT is also an acronym for several different associations and products. --Eastmain (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. municipality coupled with tourist attraction is notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Besides being a municipality (which should be included in the article), an ancient landmark/tourist attraction solidifies its notability. --Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect has little value as "Kill City (band)" is an unlikely search term.--Kubigula (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill City (band)

No references, no assertion of notability, written somewhat like an advertisement. Hellno2 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says it all:"Mainstream fame continues to elude them". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't establish notability of this band. Artene50 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lisa Moorish? -- Bobyllib (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Snowball keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Kent

This page should be deleted because the Superman page already exists and there really should not be an article for an alter ego of a character. Gman124^talk 00:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that most of the stuff is also not referenced, the smallville section really belongs in the Smallville TV series page, and the identy isuue stuff could be added to the superman page. Superman and Clark Kent are the same person. is mostly composed of some editors' personal unverifiable reflection on "Who is the real personality?" and It's all a plot summary--Gman124^talk 00:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clark Kent is notable enough on his own to have a lot of analysis and media on him and him alone. Wrad (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Bad faith nom. Clearly passes notability for fiction Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Easily passes notability for fiction, separately from Superman himself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- how is he separate from superman? it's the same person. --Gman124^talk 01:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I mean is, he's notable in and out of the Superman character. There's sufficient notability for each persona to have its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep after filtering out Smallville to remove most of the TV show discussion, there's still significant coverage of the character. The character also is discussed in scholarly research amid some false positives. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot deny the fact that the Smallville section is indeed way too long. I wanna vote keep, but first I got one question to ask, how is Clark any more notable than other superhero's human personalities? (Well that's what I call alter ego because they act differently when they're not in their superhero uniform and fighting villains than they are when they are using their powers to fight villains you know what I mean. Oh and by "they" I mean Superheroes in general, like Batman or something like that.) TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - he must be one of the most famous (and well studied?) characters but, as I said in my opposing the merge, he has also appeared as purely Clark Kent (see e,g, this) and there are stories which deal with a non-super man, just ordinary Clark Kent (e.e. Superman: Last Son of Earth). That isn't to say it doesn't need work, but this isn't the solution. (Emperor (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A famous alter-ego of Superman, clearly passes WP:FICT on his own. Clean-up the article and add more sources, though. Nsk92 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same dude of course, but articles have differing contents and from different viewpoints. Besides, the Superman article is long enough already. JIP | Talk 03:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Autobiography, author has not edited any other articles. No notability established. As mentioned, the only cited source is a copy of the article itself, therefore useless. JIP | Talk 03:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Cavanaugh

Assuming that it is accurate, this is an autobiographical article about a teenaged son of English notability, who has not achieved anything of note. There are no sources, and a google search for "Aidan Cavanaugh + Berkshire" yields 0 results. Prod removed by creator, who claimed that print sources exist but was nonspecific regarding those sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non-notable person. TheMile (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete To be strictly accurate, there is a claim of importance in that the subject was, according to the article, awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal, which is a remarkable honour for the Canadian government to bestow on a fifteen year old, especially when it was only awarded to Canadians. No sources is really not a surprise here. (And just another technical note, but the Old Etonians category would only apply if he had gone to Eton, which the article says he hasn't yet, and only then when he left, presumably at the age of 18 or so, not 15). FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a slight clarification. There is a web page offered as a source, but seeing as that is a copy of the article pasted into a webpage, with the section edit links included, that doesn't quite count. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best - unnotable, at worst - hoax. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Grow

Contested prod. Unreferenced article on a character in a popular series of books. The article is possibly supposed to refer to a book, although that is a tad unclear. However, there is no evidence provided or found to suggest that this character (or book) exists. For those unfamiliar with the Mr. Men series of books and cartoons, they are darn popular, so if this character existed, there would be mention of him on the Internet. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Comment: They seem to pretty clearly be book articles, rather than character articles. Agreed that sources are remarkably sparce, given the popularity of other books in the series; if WP:V can be met, though, WP:BK would be passed a clear kilometer. Will keep looking. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one sure looks like vandalism to me. The list of books is iterated in the main Mr. Men article. Even if not, it doesn't meet WP:BOOK -Verdatum (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly a hoax. The user hasn't responded sensibly to inquiries about the article either. --Tombomp (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as hoax, though you may be better off using a separate AfD for Leggy. Incidentally, I'm looking at the back of one of the Mr Men books, and there's no Mr Grow or Little Miss Leggy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Can't verify the existance of these books. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Likely a hoax. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both of these per arguments already given. Qworty (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 07:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogweed

Unsourced (except for urbandictionary.com mention), obvious neologism. Unencyclopedic, questionable context. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Author removed speedy tag, and I decided to bring it here. Tan | 39 00:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy if someone feels up to it (and can decide a criteria) Alex.Muller 00:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only sources I found is that it pertains to a fictional plant in Ella Enchanted and the plant genus Heracleum. The latter is probably some typo error on the plant's common name, the hogweed. I'm not sure if the entry is worth dabifying.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to just be a dictionary definition, there isn't enough information on the word to warrant keeping. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Human animal roleplay per Voyager640 (talk · contribs) and Aleta (talk · contribs). It looks like there's a general consensus that there aren't a lot of reliable sources for this subject yet, so we should only keep that portion of the content that's reliably sourced. If this subject later attracts more study, and more reliable sources become available, then this could be a standalone article again. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pup-play

I do not deny that some may find it an interesting activity to role play as a puppy in bondage games, but the references in the article do not appear to qualify as reliable and independent sources to show that the subject is notable. I placed a PROD on the article which was removed, so I add it to AFD for the community to have an opportunity to evaluate it. Edison (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not confirmed in this highly subjective essay. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ for the moment. I basically agree with nom that there are not enough WP:RS to show notability, per WP:N at the moment. However, take a look at this recent AfD and the corresponding article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM). This is a pretty specialized subject and maybe the people with the knowledge of relevant reliable sources will comment in the present AfD later. Nsk92 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human animal roleplay, per Aleta's suggestion. Seems like a good solution here. Nsk92 (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article may be somewhat subjective but the sources are there--the sort of sources there are for subjects like this and therefore reliable enough for the purpose. AfD isnt supposed to be for forcing the improvement of articles. DGG (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(as nominator) The websites do not appear to satisfy WP:RS, but I would welcome others' evaluation of them. As for the books, the one by Scribner "Of wolves and men" and the one from Owl Books "The great American Wolf" appear to be about real (not pretend) wolves. That leaves two books, by Micheal Daniels, which seem to be about about "pup play." "Woof! Perspectives into the Erotic Care & Training of the Human Dog" which per Google Book Search is held by 4 libraries, including only 1 public or college library, and "Grrr! (A collection of dog and puppy fiction.)" which did not show up in any library collection per Google Book Search Are they "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" or limited circulation fan publications? They are, according to Amazon, from "Nazca Plains Corporation." Edison (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen Woof! and Grrr! in local bookstores.... What exactly would be a respectable source on this topic? How can we go about seeking such a source out? Voyager640 (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks anything in the way of reliable sources fit for print in an encyclopedia. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have been doing some literature searches into BDSM-related topics and have been finding very few things published in scientific journals on the topic. I'm consulting with the Community-Academic Consortium for Research on Alternative Sexualities, and would like some time to revise this article up to encyclopedic standards. I am also going to consult with some of the pup organizations that i know of. Keep in mind that when an article is written about a subculture that has primarily proliferated in the Internet era, many sources will be written by members of that culture-- the sources cited in the article look like the very sites that my friends who are pups have learned from and rely on for their information about the pup-world. Voyager640 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - As an example of a BDSM practice or interest which DOES have reliable sources, Google Scholar shows 142 results for "shoe fetish" but only 16 "pup play," all of which are about real-life canines and not human role-playing. So there are notable and non-notable sexual interests, and this seems to be the latter. Edison (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I spoke with a German-language editor who said that the http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petplay article has some relevant resources and that he's willing to work to help translate the pup-play portions of that article into English. Voyager640 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate your efforts, you haven't actually provided a valid reason to keep this article. It goes without saying that you're encouraged to create a proper article in your userspace, but we don't keep bad articles around in mainspace for these reasons. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the article is a work-in-progress-- stubs, for example, are often kept in the mainspace while editors work to develop them, often over the course of years. I've listed this article in several places to request help in improving it. I have read a lot about the leather/BDSM community and been to numerous events over the years-- the pup thing seems to have a certain significance, role, and place within that community that seems worthy of documenting in an encyclopedia. Voyager640 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also added it to two WikiProjects and added it onto their todo lists and requested assistance on improving the article. Voyager640 (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I added a "This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications" to alert other editors about the problems that need to be corrected. Voyager640 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Voyager640 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No opinion on whether to keep the article, but I noted that for practical purposes the article was just been created within the past 3 days, and as such it seems inappropriate to be nominating it for AfD. It should instead be reviewed as a possible candidate for speedydelete, and if it survives that process, given more time to be developed properly before consideration for AfD. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question What makes you say that three days is too soon for an AfD? Loads of articles are in need of deletion as soon as they're made, but not uncontroversial enough for PROD. As for speedy, I don't see that it meets any of the criteria. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge information for which reliable sources are available into Human animal roleplay. Aleta ^Sing 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the above-proposed Merge. Voyager640 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human animal roleplay per Aleta. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the factual core of the article and delete the rest. I'm afraid this goes a bit further than poorly sourced statements. There's some highly contentious claims about dog society, werewolves etc. etc. etc., all without sources. There's a hefty block quote from an unknown source giving us a piece of Native American lore (or is this fiction? who can tell?). Sexuality articles shouldn't be judged by harsher standards than the rest of the Wikipedia, but there's a lot of stuff here that wouldn't be acceptable in any context. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Altho the references should be cleaned up and the over all article tightened, this is a small sub-group, distinct from other human animal role-play. They even have their own flag! it is a definite minority interest, but has deep cultural roots in lycanthropy and psychological dimensions of potential interest to the therapeutic community as well. "Woof" and "Grrr!" are available in bookstores and will, assuredly be available in libraries one day—especially libraries with GLBTQ special collections. the critical review amazon listed the book as being derivative of a web-site. a web search reveals the site in question, leatherdog.com on longer exists. just because a terribly small number of interested parties label themselves practitioners does not negate the subject as notable. the same could have applied to the entire GLBTQ just 50 years ago!--Hewhorunswithwolves (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is the "terribly small number of interested parties" and the lack of coverage which tends to make this practice/interest/subculture not meet the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources and notability. The two books may be in specialty bookstores, but do not appear to have sales numbers all that large, and the lack of their appearance in libraries is troubling with respect to their establishing this as a notable sex practice, lifestyle, whatever. Merger to Human animal roleplay as suggested might be appropriate at this time. We reject crystall ball claims that something is "bound to become notable" in the future. If it does, an article can be created then. Edison (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is it ok to merge to article into human animal roleplay prior to the conclusion of the VFD? Voyager640 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to wait for the closure of the AfD; we should see what the consensus is before acting. Aleta ^Sing 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wanted to make sure to be following WP:BOLD. Voyager640 (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is generally an underground kinky sexual activity that I would be surprised to find volumes filling up the New York Times best-seller list, however, there is some books about BDSM that delve into the subject and there certainly are websites that are not purely marketing/sales focused that also give the subject serious coverage. Puppy-play, like many BDSM activities, is getting more mainstream attention and some examples showing this evoltion might also benefit our readers. The article as is needs some clean-up and the encyclopedic treatment of the activity and those who find pleasure in it could make a great article. Here are a few books and here are a few articles that could help towards this. Banjeboi 03:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rather than cite a Google Scholar search which includes many items utterly unrelated to the subject of this article, please select a few which you feel are reliable surces which establish the notability of this subject. The question is not at all whether BDSM has gained coverage in the press; it is whether "pup play" has. Edison (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually the majority of the less than two-dozen seem to support this article with the handful of those "utterly unrelated" pretty obviously so. Presently, I am unavailable to rewrite the article but felt showing that many reliable sources are available so the subject can be dealt with in an encyclopedic manner would help others make a more informed decision. Above you note that two books "in specialty bookstores" with low sales and not in libraries "is troubling with respect to their establishing this as a notable sex practice, lifestyle" so I have tried to illuminate that this emerging sex-play has more than just those books and has other sources, many online. If one were to access some of the sexuality- and kink-focussed research centers (like the Leather Archives and Museum, Center For Sex & Culture and the Museum of Sex) other material would become plainly evident (like author Patrick Califia who has written quite a bit about puppy play. Banje boi 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment do you know what has patrick clalifia written about pupplay and where it can be accessed? im searching for all sources specific to the subject and will ad them, either to the text of the page, or to the references section. thanks!
    - I'll email Patrick and ask. Voyager640 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Hewhorunswithwolves (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Here's a link to the ones on google books [64]. Banje boi 17:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Shouldnt the Flag, depicting pupplay specifically, be considered an independent, published evidence of notability?--Hewhorunswithwolves (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There doesn't seem to be enough original, quality content for this article to stand on its own, but it certainly has topics that should appear in an article on human/animal roleplay. Most of the current article is poorly written, and I agree that there is a paucity of reliable sources on the topic. You could probably interpret my "merge" vote as "delete the current article, but cover the topics in the human/animal roleplay article." --davidstrauss (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 07:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent lodge

Non-notable accommodation building(s), fails WP:NPT and is definately not from a neutral point of view. Booglamay (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability and a search shows a number of facilities with that name so a re-direct is not logical. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A jolly travelogue, but not a WP-worthy article. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into University of Leicester (no redirect, per Cari). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity article about some student's residence lodge. Not notable outside the university. JIP | Talk 03:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a bit of background investigation into this one to see if it might be rescued. However, I was unable to find any significant coverage in a secondary source, beyond cursory mention in articles pertaining to the university itself, thus failing WP:NPT. No prejudice against an addition to University of Leicester article. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not any material here worth merging.-- danntm ^T _C 04:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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