Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 18: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:58, 18 May 2008

< May 17	May 19 >

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 Delete --JForget 00:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest suburbs in the world

Anti-policy (WP:OR), list is compiled from a mish-mash of various (largely uncited) statistics, i.e. a synthesis of published material. Also, subjective / indiscriminate title. While many of these places are within the sphere of influence or metropolitan area of a larger city, it is not necessarily accurate to label them as "suburbs". Deiz talk 08:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not cited, possibly OR, badly written. Atyndall93 | talk 09:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not cited, poorly written, --Bumbliedoo (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pretty much unverifiable. Deciding on a uniform criterion to rank cities by size was hard enough, the concept of a "suburb" is so vague that this list will never really be considered correct. ~ mazca ^talk 12:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR Frank | talk 12:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unverifiable original research.--Beloved Freak 13:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with all above. Jack?! 14:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – agree with Jack. haz (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If a suburb is defined as an independent city within a metropolitan area, a list of suburbs would be worthwhile. I agree that this is poorly written (a table would be nice, as well as-- DUH -- a mention of what metro area the suburb appends to). Looks like a delete, but no prejudice to recreating this if someone can find a source that ranks suburbs, or at least gives there population. Mandsford (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "if" invalidates the argument though - the table contains satellite cities rather than suburbs, and even that definition is subjective. Deiz talk 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violation of WP:OR. What is a suburb? Oh, sorry, suburbs with only city proper populations? What about non-Asian countries? What about trying to find sources that have looked into this before and referencing them? No, this is a mess, and someone is doing WP:OR while they are messing it up. Arsenikk ^(talk) 01:29, 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 because there's really no notability here. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unified SCC

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Unified SCC/aigenta.com. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find reference of Unified SCC in any books, new archives or scholar papers, fails notability guidelines Atyndall93 | talk 09:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is unclear; however, this tool is very fresh. Information in this article is correct and objective, as a programmer I found it quite useful. ZealousCoder (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is unsourced, ok, unsourced. I googled it, 723 results. So we have an unsourced article created by an WP:SPA, with low Google hit and low traffic [1] (visited only 441 times in April). Delete per WP:NOTABILITY.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability, unreferenced, SPA/COI. Plenty of reasons to delete not any reason to keep other than useful, which isn't enough. Dimitrii (talk) 03:12, 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 a more or less unanimous delete. Sandstein 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia

This was nominated some weeks back and closed (in a decision I find utterly incomprehensible) with a "no consensus", with a request to the delete voters to first try and improve the article (shouldn't that be the responsibility of those who wanted to keep?) and then come back here if that didn't help. There had previously be a consensus to delete among all editors who actually had tried for months to maintain this article; all keep votes were by drive-by outsiders who never raised a finger to improve it. So, now we're back here. Predictably, there has been no improvement to the article since the closure (in fact, not a single edit). There couldn't possibly be, because there are no sources out there. This has been nothing but a predictable waste of time.

The subject in question is an alleged political organisation representing a nationalist fringe group; in reality it is not much more than a one-man personal website run by a notorious hate propagandist (who also happens to be a wikipedia editor banned for personal attacks and sockpuppetry.) It has no known public activities, other than occasionally writing letters to politicians and newspapers, and publishing crude hate videos on youtube. Information derived from the "organisation"'s own sources is even more unuseable in this case than anywhere else, because lying about itself is exactly the one thing which earned it its only claim to public notoriety (in a limited media incident back when it was founded.)

All the "keep" arguments brought forward in the previous AfD were specious and ought to have been disregarded by the closing admin.

"The organization exists and is registered" (brought forward by an anon, probably a COI sock). — Existence doesn't mean notability. I once founded a registered association myself, does that make it notable? You need 20 signatures to legally register an association in Greece. So what?
"Ethnic issues and minority rights are extremely important in the Balkans" — of course they are, but this "organisation" doesn't represent such an issue, but merely the hate propaganda of a single disturbed individual and a few friends of his.
"There is a longer article about it on the Bulgarian Wikipedia" — which is itself unsourced and can obviously not serve as a source for us.
"It has over 500 members" — the bg-wiki reports that the group's website claimed that (couldn't find the info there though). As pointed out above, any information derived from the organisation itself is ipso facto dubious. This organisation is known to lie about itself; in fact that is the only notable thing it has ever been known for.
A wiki-lawyerish argument saying that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. [...] That means that just because it doesn't have multiple, reliable sources doesn't make it non-notable." — I'm still speechless at this display of logic.

This leaves us with that one small incident when a couple of newspapers reported about the founding of this organisation, its claims of enjoying support from the Bulgarian government, and Bulgaria's subsequent denial. Fifteen minutes of notoriety in a single incident. Additionally, none of the media coverage we found of this incident contains any real information about the organisation itself (who's behind it, what they really want, how many they are, etc.) The media coverage is really more informative about the hysterical over-reaction from Greek nationalists, than about the organisation that triggered it.

In short, the only reliably sourced piece of information we have about this organisation is that the Bulgarian prime minister wants nothing to do with them. That's not enough for an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source in English to prove the organization does exist, google search, news, books and scholar turn up nothing. Seems to be famous for one isolated incident, fails organization notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 10:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge probably into Bulgarians. Not because I disagree with Future Perfect at Sunrise, I rather think that he is fundamentally correct, but part of me also says that the irridentism in Macedonia is so substantial that we need a place to put it. There are two difficulties here. One is that irredentist groups tend to morph and multiply (remember the hysterically funny scene in the Life of Brian with the Palestine Liberation Army, the National Palestinian Front and a dozen other splinter groups). Of course, it's only funny if you are not a member of a dissatisfied ethnic minority, of which there are a lot with a lot of organizations. You really don't want to give each small org. its own page. On the other hand, Macedonia actaully does have ethnic Bulgarian irredentists. the problem, as I see it, is where to put small write-ups of irredentist groups? If you put them on the page of the ocuntry they live in, the material will be deleted by partisans of the nation they don't want to be part of. So, perhaps it is best to put small sectins not on the page belonging to the state they would prefer to be a part of (this might imply government support) but on the page of the ethnie with which they identify. In this case. BulgarianElan26 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure you realise just how marginal this thing is. Bulgarian irridentists in Greek Macedonia? I'm not sure, I've never heard of any, except this one. Sources? This guy is essentially a single person (who probably got some friends to sign up to get his 20 signatures together, sure, but we have no evidence whatsoever that anybody except one or possibly two persons ever were active in this group.) Mentioning this in any way in the context of an article like Bulgarians would almost certainly constitute undue weight. And of course, you still have the sourcing issue. Remember, we have exactly one single factbite about this group that is sourced, and that fact is a negative one (they are not supported by the Bulgarian government). What would your small writeup contain? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll switch my vote to agree with you on this group, which may not may not exist in any real sense. Elan26 (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR Merge into "Bulgarians" Mactruth (talk) 20:17, 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 --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dies Irae (Romanian band)

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Only one full length album on a non notable label, no tours, no news coverage etc... Delete Undeath (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete search of news and books turns up nothing about the band, has not released a notable album, fails band inclusion criteria Atyndall93 | talk 10:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After almost 2 years this article is still unsourced, so delete per WP:MUSIC.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:16, 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 --JForget 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future warrior: Hero of tomorrow...today

Both rumoured and unofficial sequel to low budget Z-list film Future War that hasn't been released yet, is the debut for everyone involved apparently and searching for it brings back zero results. To say this fails notability standards is an understatement. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-nocontext. JuJube (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't believe this meets speedy guidelines. However, no sources cited and only G-hit is to the Wikipedia article. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Redfarmer (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero results in both google search, books and news. Article is about a a film that isn't even released yet. It fails notability and future guidelines. Also, the creator of the article is a single purpose account. Atyndall93 | talk 10:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 11:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Happyme22 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 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 Merge (non-admin closure), I merged all the pages to List of characters in Malcolm in the Middle --Coasttocoast (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hal (Malcolm in the Middle)

Theses are all character for the TV show Malcolm in the Middle. All they have in them are plots and trivia with no real world information. All of them are unsourced and contain original research. The few sources that they do have are from IMDB and Tv.com, both unreliable sources. I doubt theres any secondary sources to establish notability. I did not list Malcolm since hes a protagonist and should probably be listed separately. Either way his article is just as bad. Coasttocoast --(talk) 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Non-notable, should be in main Malcolm in the Middle article, not separate.Renee (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the designation of them as "supporting" cast is entirely inaccurate. Every article listed here (excluding Jamie) were the main characters of the show along with Malcolm as the show used an ensemble cast. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok got rid of that-- Coasttocoast (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Malcolm in the Middle or perhaps into a new list of characters, as the list on the main show page is rather long already. Mr. Absurd (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into (a new) List of characters in Malcolm in the Middle. The show ran for several seasons, won many awards, used to be popular, and I don't doubt that sources exist to write some decent articles (or at least sections). The only thing I am a little concerned about is the original research in some of the characters' articles (especially Dewey (Malcolm in the Middle)), so there is so much necessary trimming that deletion and a fresh start may not be much worse. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per Sgeureka. Malcolm in the Middle was a very important show. I don't think merging all the characters into the show article is helpful. JuJube (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just because an article is currently in a bad state is not a reason to AfD it. Articles should be fixed if possible. That being said, if we are to merge these, Malcolm should be merged too as his notability would be similarly questionable. That being said some more, considering the show ran for seven years or so, there should be plenty of interviews with cast and crew out there, all of which would be lovely secondary sources. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except Malcolm to List of characters in Malcolm in the Middle these characters do not warrant articles of their own as they do not have notability and notability is not inheritable. Atyndall93 | talk 10:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per Sgeureka. I agree that this is the best solution here. Eusebeus (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, including Malcolm (Malcolm in the Middle) to List of characters in Malcolm in the Middle - Malcolm has no more of a claim of notability than the others. There is a similar lack of sources in the Malcolm article as in all the others, and exactly the same problems in that it is SOLELY plot with no other detail. Malcolm has no notability that the others lack - his only notability is that it's his name in the show, and that is adequately covered in the main show artcle. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Malcolm would be notable, but everyone else needs to get a moo-ve on. Ziggy Saw dust 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Malcolm in the Middle characters per the consensus that lists are the way to handle non-notable elements of a notable set. I can see an argument for not merging Malcolm himself, and with enough references, I'll vote keep for him when he comes up. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything to List of Malcolm in the Middle characters. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all characters in the film to List of Malcolm in the Middle characters. Happyme22 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It probably would be possible to put together a decent article on Hal or Lois. There's a lot that could be culled from newspaper articles: [2], [3]. Indeed, there's probably more real-world information about them than Malcolm. For the time being, I'd be fine with moving all the characters into a list, but I do think some of these articles have potential to be pretty good. Zagalejo^^^ 19:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until improved, per Zafalejo's realistic comment. DGG (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done I merged all the pages per consensus. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:18, 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) 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater Bandits

Non Notable amateur junior hockey teams. It appears that all of the teams in the League got articles at one time or another and at least one was deleted after an expired PROD. This was a contested prod on all of these articles. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable.Renee (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All All are Junior A hockey teams. Junior hockey is the feeder system to the NHL. If anything the articles need expansion and improvement tags. DMighton (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based on Eastern Junior Hockey League the teams aren't actually Junior A and sound more like a local minor league which have been routinely deleted in the past. -Djsasso (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I believe that back in the day the EJHL was a little shakier than it is now, but my understanding is that it is a legitimate junior league. As you know Djsasso, most of the American junior leagues, including the USHL and NAHL, are relatively new and experience many growing pains. Also, it probably seems that way because the guy who built the page didn't do a very good job. DMighton (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Oh I know, which is why I haven't !voted delete. I don't know enough about that junior league to comment. I could only go on what I saw in the leagues article itself. I know you know your junior hockey so I am more than willing to go on what you say. -Djsasso (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks. I just think these articles are terribly done, I think that is the problem here. I guess I'll have to give them the treatment. Templates, sources, update them a bit, find more history to add. I am very familiar with two of the teams because they used to play in the OPJHL... the articles just need some work. DMighton (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Running a Google News Archive Search on those teams turns up results from various newspapers about the teams themselves and the games they have won/lost. Because of this I think those articles meet notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Even though individual players are not normally notable, the teams are. --Eastmain (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's notability doesn't appear to be a problem. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Teams are notable, both locally, and within the hockey community. --Bill.matthews (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone supporting these articles please find sources that are more than just scores listed in the papers? I couldn't find anything. And its not a feeder for the NHL, its a high school club league...from the article about the league "The League consists of 14 teams in the Northeastern US. The EJHL prepares players for college hockey. The league is strictly amateur." LegoTech·(t)·(c) 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very inaccurate. All junior hockey is a pro feeder system. The beauty of Junior A is that it provides a level where you can go either the pro or scholastic route (especially for late bloomers). To be a high school team, your team actually has to be affiliated to a high school and have to be strictly high school age. Players in these leagues can usually play up to the age of 21. Also, the word "amateur" in junior hockey is a relatively archaic term... and is loosely fitted to junior hockey. If anything, the article should say that "players in this league are still NCAA eligible, as long as the abide by NCAA guidelines." Also, newspapers are an acceptable statistical resource and are the most common statistical sharing tool for the sport of hockey. DMighton (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problem is that newspapers will report the scores of whatever you send in...if you want to submit the scores for your local darts league, you can find a paper to print them...I don't see how box scores satisfy WP:RS...history, sources, anything like that would help lots! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed that Boston link. You see, with Junior leagues newspapers will actually "cover" the league. This normally includes professional articles and interviews... minimum weekly standings... and yes, box scores. The degree of coverage usually involves how local the paper is to the team or league in question. Also, if there is a "bigger" team in your centre you might get less coverage than normal, like an NHL club would outshine and junior club for newspaper coverage. I find it very rare to find minor hockey standings in a newspaper... although some do. The difference between minor and junior is that minor is the developmental stage, while junior is the fast tracking stage... and the goal of junior is to prepare a player to either go directly into the NHL, AHL, IHL, or ECHL, or if they so choose to undertake NCAA or CIS, to go there and delay they pro jump by four years (perfect for late bloomers). Junior is all about championships, sometimes to the point that amateur status becomes not only shady, but non-existent. Either way, when I get a chance I'll start cleaning up the articles.. I contacted the guy who put the stats in and asked him for his sources so I can add them. DMighton (talk) 12:32, 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. While the addition and withdrawal of multiple articles during the debate made it a little difficult to determine whether there was any major problem with the process that would require a closing and relisting of the AfD to sort out (hence my first-ever use of {{closing}}), it appears that this was not significantly disruptive to the discussion, and the comments presented during the time that multiple articles were listed are equally applicable to the one that stands now.

That being said, my initial impression of this discussion was that it was fairly split, possibly even a no consensus. However, the comments supporting deletion note that the article violates Wikipedia's ban on original research, one of the criteria for inclusion and indeed one of the concepts on which the encyclopedia is founded. As the keep comments do not address this fundamental issue, it seems there is a policy-based consensus to delete. --jonny-m t 07:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of stock characters in comedy

Completely OR, unencyclopedic cruft. If references were found, it still wouldn't be worthy of inclusion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:~~

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There certainly are "stock characters" in comedy and other forms of fiction. I disagree strongly with the nominator's claim "If references were found, it still wouldn't be worthy of inclusion" as being contrary to the Wikipedia notions of notability being established via reliable sources. That said, the article as it exists is weakly sourced and contains much original research. Considerable research would need to be done to bring it up to standards. Edison (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While stock characters surely exist, I don't see how a list of them would ever meet true notability standards. The stock character article itself is completely OR, I don't see how this list could ever fare better. Being well-known does not signify notability; 'Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"'. Notability is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", even a few references wouldn't necessarily mean notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. If sources could be found for these different archetypes, I think it would be worth keeping. As is, no sourcing and seems to be OR.Renee (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Encyclopedic subject. [4] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a distinct difference between "mentioning" something and "covering" it. Just because many books mention it, does not mean it is notable or encyclopedic. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, and most likely does have sources to be found. Not sure if this version is on the right track or not, but that's what editing is for. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, maybe a merge with Stock character? I haven't looked at it in depth, but since it is the main article on the subject, it might be the best starting point for a good version. This "merge" could even mean keeping two articles, but replacing this article's content with some found on Stock character. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is encyclopedic, meets notability criteria and also is very interesting. Most of the sources can be found in characters' articles linked. And, as Ned Scott well remember, new editions are welcome to improve the article's sources. About merge the article with Stock character, we have four another lists of stock characters to merge. It may be a problem. (Caiaffa (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy Keep The List of female stock characters was discussed here just a few days ago and so it is too soon to bring it back here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the others, but missed that one. List of female stock characters withdrawn. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lists are almost entirely OR, but if there was a chance of finding sources for this I would be arguing to keep. While the topic is interesting, and a lot of work has gone into it, my concern is that there is ultimately nothing solid backing it up that would enable it to transcend one editor's insightful, but nonetheless subjective analysis. Per WP:SYN, it would not be sufficient for these articles to provide a series of references to individual characters unless those references themselves explicitly referred to the characters as archetypes/stock-characters (and even this would still, arguably, be problematic). An alternative approach would be to use a list of archetypes from a particularly notable, reliable source, but this would almost certainly require reworking the articles nearly from scratch. Debate (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Authority figures in comedy, as per User:Debate above, without prejudice against sourced re-creation. I don't deny there might be a possibility of writing sourced articles about these subjects, but if that were to happen it would mean rewriting these from scratch. There is, after all, an academic field called literary criticism that certainly has some relevant literature. But the authors of these wikipedia pages (except the one I noted, which has some reasonable source) have evidently never read a line of that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just rewritten the SF list. It didn't take long. Such activity is more productive than deletion and recreation. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm... well, in the reference you provided there is no entry for "Alien invader", "Caveman", "Fish out of water", "Lotus-eaters", "Machine", "Mad Scientist", "Martian", "Sex object" and "Shapeshifter" (aside from "Redshirt" and "Little green men", which are also absent and which you didn't reference). "Absent-minded professor" is a film, not a stock character reference, "Demon" is only a cross reference to "supernatural creatures", "Zombie" is a cross reference to "Dawn of the Dead", and the only mention of Hitler is "Hitler Wins" (ie a theme, not an archetype)... of the remainder, references to archetypes are marginal in several and there is no indication in the article why these "stock characters" (archetypes) are chosen and not one of the thousands of other entries in that 1300 page encyclopedia. Perhaps there's a reason why it didn't take long to add the references. Suffice to say that this article still looks like OR to me. Debate (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started with that encyclopedia's entry on Clichés (pp 234-5) and then added entries from the checklist of Themes (p xxiv) which were stock characters. If you don't think that such entries from Alien invaders to Zombies are not SF stock characters, then you are obviously not familiar with the genre. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that clichés, themes and "stock characters" are not the same thing, although further discussion of content should no doubt best continue on that list's talk page. Whether or not I'm familiar with the genre is irrelevant, since I'm not a reliable source. ;-) Debate (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please keep in mind the notability aspect. Is the idea of "stock characters in science fiction" itself notable? Has there been "significant coverage" of this idea? One book that mentions similar ideas is not notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Stock characters if sources to prove that these are indeed stock characters, then merge into main article, if they cannot Delete all the articles due to lack of references or proof of notability. Atyndall93 | talk 10:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the hell is this? It's not even comparable to most lists here on Wikipedia. It should be in paragraphs not bulletin lists, and this article is NOTHING but bulletin list. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support the idea of a list of stock characters in comedy, but this is not a good one. It's missing some very well-recognized ones, like straight man, schlemeel, schlemazel that are used all the time in film criticism. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidenote - are you sure you aren't thinking of the opening theme song from Laverne & Shirley? [5] ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was waiting for someone to mention that. But they really are common terms among movie critics. Think, respectively, of Jerry, George, and Kramer from Seinfeld. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete all While these are enjoyable to read, and there's a grain of truth to these, there's no excuse for this being purely original research. I recall that movie critics like Roger Ebert have written about movie cliches. As far as stock characters on Wikipedia, this one was written by the "rules schmules" guy, and this comes down to a battle between the verse-quoting geeks like me, and the mother hens who believe that the articles will improve on their own. The decision will be made by one of several stock characters... most likely the "because-I-said-so" one who will announce a decision with no explanation, or the "fretter", who will make a decision and describe the agony that went into making the decision. It's a tossup on whether there will be a response to this from the "please-be-civil" character, or the "easily offended reader" who worries that I might be talking about him. Mandsford (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that selection is a problem, but the method of preparing the list seems reasonable. And probably there are reasonable actual sources that discuss this--many books do. Some of the above comments simply object to lists altogether, which is of course contrary to Wikipedia practice.DGG (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've realized something that has been irking me, which is that these are not even stock characters. These are clichés, or commonly used character types, but not stock characters. A stock character is totally interchangeable, and they usually have the same names. A stock character has the same personality and the same sorts of reactions, so the audience already knows what to expect although they've never encountered this incarnation before. Stock characters do not exist anymore, as they went the way of the Chorus. Steve Urkell from Family Matters has a totally different personality than Wilson from Home Improvement, and would not react the same in the same situation. And Wikipedia can't list every clichéd character type that exists, so why list some of them? Also, information that is not referenced and that does not assert notability can be removed. If these articles should not be removed, then these problems should be fixed. I don't feel the argument "these are notable and have sources because I understand the basic idea" is really valid. If these are notable and have contextual sources then please share. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why? Because this article gives you some really good insights and well-written knowledge about stock characters, which are a very important part of comedy. And most of us can verify this for ourselves. 92.237.21.186 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind, while you're at it, verifying it for Wikipedia as well? Insight is great if it's valid, but these articles are unreferenced, non-notable, and the very idea they are based on is inaccurate. These are not verifiable, because these are not stock characters, and if there is anyone that disagrees with this statement, please prove me wrong. Unless the information can be shown to be factual, and the subject notable, these articles should be deleted. If, after that, someone were to write a completely different article that was verifiable and notable, there is certainly nothing stopping them. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would, but I have no idea, and I don't really have the time, to put in verification. 92.237.21.186 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this AfD changed from one article when I first commented to multiple articles. Please remove all articles put up for deletion after the AfD started and people commenting. My comment was appropriate for the original AfD and no longer represents my feelings after the scope was changed. I could update my comments, but instead of trying to follow a moving target, the target should go back to what it was originally or the AfD should restarted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other articles withdrawn. This debate is now (and again) only about List of stock characters in comedy. Apologies for over-complicating things. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Tag. I believe the majority of WP articles have at least one cleanup tag (it seems like it, at least); many have 2 or more. There is no question that this article needs improvement, but that is no reason to delete what is otherwise a valid subject of study. Tag this article for WP:OR and WP:CITE; maybe we could get this added to WikiProject Film. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:17, 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 --JForget 00:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou conjecture

Non-notable and highly-likely-to-be-incorrect conjecture by a non-notable mathematician, Zhou Haizhong, whose article I am separately nominating for deletion. A previous version of the biography was successfully prodded, and at the same time the material now in this article was added but then removed by community consensus from Mersenne conjectures, an article about some more notable conjectures on the same general topic (the distribution of Mersenne primes). Rather than try another prod, I thought it would be best to go straight to an AfD. David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I did a quick Google search and a few third-party scholarly sources came up (see this and this. I think the article needs to be expanded a bit to explain it more for non-mathemeticians. Renee (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I've added two new scholarly references to the article.Renee (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- The Weymark and Huang references appear to be about something unrelated. Zhou is a common name among academics; you have to be sure it's the right Zhou. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. Thanks. You're right. I went and examined the references of the full articles and the former refers to an L. Zhou and the latter (Chen-Hsu-Zhou) conjecture is by a J. Zhou. I've changed my vote. Thanks for catching that.Renee (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Reneeholle. Could not find anything at all related to this conjecture in MathSciNet. A non-notable conjecture by a non-notable mathematician. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a paper was published on this in what appears to be a peer-reviewed journal. That's nice, but it doesn't make a subject notable. A note in the Chinese version of SciAm really doesn't, either. It's not nothing, but it's not enough to establish notability in this rough crowd. Merenta (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The conjecture, as presently stated, is meaningless (the variable p appears in the if part, and not in the then). If there is an article here, better to start over once notability is established. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable (scholar) article about a neologism. (Does the paper by Zhou himself call this the Zhou conjecture?) silly rabbit (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 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 — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bartok twins

Unreferenced article about twin brothers who are apparently Czech porn actors. No assertion of notability, they do not meet WP:PORNBIO guidelines. The lack of references could infer BLP issues as well. Risker (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability and WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Happyme22 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:01, 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 delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Haizhong

Nothing of interest appears in Google scholar nor does his name appear to be in MathSciNet at all. No indication of passing WP:PROF. I am separately nominating Zhou conjecture which, as his only contribution claimed as notable here, appears highly likely to be wrong. The similar article Hai-Zhong Zhou was successfully prodded a few weeks ago but rather than attempt a second prod I thought it would be best to go straight to AfD. David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also could not find any references in MathSciNet; GoogleScholar gives 4 hits that do not appear to help here[6]. Of course, with a Chinese name, there is a possibility of a misspelling or of inconsistent transliteration of some sort, but in the absence of positive evidence it will have to be deleted. Fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability? Non. Delete? Oui. The preceding comment was added by User:Merenta. Nsk92 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. There is no assertion of notability. Also this is a recreation of a previously deleted page. Wow, that's two speedy criteria! silly rabbit (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, there is an assertion of notability (known for his study of Mersenne primes), and G4 is only for pages previously deleted after a full discussion. So I don't think its eligible for speedy. — David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 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 --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke and Taylor Young

Article about twins who apparently acted in pornographic films in the 1970s. They do not meet WP:PORNBIO notability guidelines. Poorly referenced, inferring BLP concerns as well. Risker (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO or WP:N. Tabercil (talk) 17:09, 18 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 --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd shinobi wars

Naruto-based modification for Warcraft III. Can't find any substantive coverage of the mod in reliable sources, so it doesn't appear to meet the notability and verifiability guidelines for inclusion. Was proposed for deletion by User:Dreaded Walrus, but the prod was removed without explanation. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable videogame mod. Could I also bring attention to Naruto Uzumaki SW, an article technically created by the same person - there is no need to bundle, as the prod has not been removed from that article, but that article is about a character from this mod (basically the mod's version of Naruto Uzumaki), which I certainly can't see being worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable game mod, written more like a game guide than an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 11:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not game guide, and non-official mods are not notable. Maybe this article is appropriate in some wikia, but not Wikipedia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some third-party mods can be notable. See Defense of the Ancients, for example, a featured article on a third-party mod for the same game. See also List of Half-Life mods and List of Half-Life 2 mods for just two lists of mods, many of which are third-party. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm confused, There a page on dota, This is a popular game, I don't see whats wrong with this page, the guy just trying to show information on it all, like other game pages such as kingdom Hearts that is a popular game the people who made it just trying to show facts about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.16.191 (talk • contribs)
- Re-read my nomination. Popularity isn't the only thing that matters here; a subject also has to meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:notability. The games you mention, as well as DOTA, meet those guidelines; I can't find any evidence that this mod meets the guidelines I mentioned. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confuse:First improve this article, then it can be kept.--Freewayguy ^{T C} 03:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable mod. No reliable verifiable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:20, 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 --JForget 00:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendonomics

Apparent neologism, no evidence of notability. Purpose of article may merely to astroturf game/website of same name. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Reliable sources for neologisms. Also, NN. There is some evidence that the term is in use within marketing circles, however I cannot find any secondary sources documenting its use and the coinage (ca. 2007) seems too recent to have achieved any particular penetration. The game website is still in beta and even searching the Forrester Research website returns no hits. Debate (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pathetic attempt by the author to coatrock his way into a spam article. JuJube (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary sources; only one "real" ref - the second merely quotes the first - plus the "board game" issue. I agree with some of the previous editors here that this appears a bit spammish. Not notable; therefore delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merenta (talk • contribs)
Delete nothing in News or Scholar to indicate a term in general use, it's a neologism and not a particularly notable one at that. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy. Artene50 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-onomics 101. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 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 closed, merged discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Chris and The Dickens". Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris and the Dickens

Another AfD for the exact same page with a (seemingly) error in the title going on (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Chris and The Dickens". Band that fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC. Has some WP:CRYSTAL characteristics. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of this AfD should be deferred to the one below (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Chris and The Dickens"), as these are essentially the same article on the same topic, and that one already has discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:38, 18 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 00:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris and the Dickens

Contested PROD. Non-notable band. Only references provided are myspace and youtube. Roleplayer (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. provincial notability, fails WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC with a little bit of WP:CRYSTAL mixed in! What a twist! phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 03:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No references or sources to show notability per WP:BAND. Also, most of the info in the article is unverified and fails WP:V. Nsk92 (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable per WP:MUSIC, no WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I combined these two near-duplicate pages and their respective AFDs into one. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many thanks to you Dhartung. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 04:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails every critereon of WP:MUSIC. It reads like a press release for the band and seems to use Wikipedia as the website for a band who are too lazy to open a LiveJournal. Come back when you meet WP:MUSIC (Opening for The Toasters does not make you notable by itself). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 10:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Jack?! 14:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have refrences to radio stations, a newspapers, also prominent punk rock forums and websites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.128.242 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added refrences, and am proceeding to add more, Emails have been sent out to many websites requesting confirmation on information. The information is creditable, maybe not the MOST note worthy, but is in soem sort fo demand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatfootedninja (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What will be needed to make this more notable I read WP:BAND, and tried to match but I am assuming there needs to be more. I have this article's design saved, so I can add to it offline and hopefully make it notable enough.tutamensinenoism 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)fla4tf00t3dn1nja —Preceding comment was added at 02:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refrences should be enough for now, WRFL.fm doesnt have a sensible way to search playlist, and I am serching for another radio station in Cincinnati, this effort to prove notabilty is a 10 man effort right now.flatfootedninja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Flatfootedninja (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. I don't think you're fully understanding. The article MUST pass WP:MUSIC to be able to pass this. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Hús ö nd 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Ledger Independent can verify. They have been played on UK's radio station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.225.35 (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dont DELETE! notabilty can be on anyscale,a this band has made a HUGE regional impact, and SKa right now is almost a dead genre, it's completely underground with the new 4th wave, there may be only a few dozen ska bands that tour nationally, thsi band has made movements to conenct two regions essential to SKA's growth --flatf00t3dn1nja 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatfootedninja (talk • contribs)

Notability in general can be on any scale, but to be notable for Wikipedia this band still has to meet Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wpverifiability shouldn't be a problem, right nwo the arguement is what is consider notable,and if it is on a national or regional scale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatfootedninja (talk • contribs) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, it appears to be neither... just another local band with a few gigs in the greater Cincinnati area. --Kinu ^t/_c 12:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the magnitude of shows is not what makes CATD notable is the impact they have had on the 4th wave, which cincinnati is one for the major cities, for someone who follows ska, they reconize that its a movement underground. wiki users are judging them on the idea that they have never heard of them, but in ska and to ska fans we hear of new bands everyday. --flatf00t3dn1nja 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

the ska toolbar is also a HUGE search engine for ska fans, and CATD is a featured band

No, Wikipedia editors are judging this based on WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Blanket assertions that this band is making an impact on this genre of music, without any sort of third party evidence to that fact, do nothing for the sake of this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

third party information is hard to find, but i woudl consider airplay,newspaper write-ups,a dn the ska tool bar to be enough --flatf00t3dn1nja 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't help. Please read WP:MUSIC. We need more than the local newspaper writeups and local airplay. That simply means that the band is popular locally and there are thousands of bands in that case. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:46, 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 speedy deleted by Golbez (A7 (group)). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuernavaca lake basketball

Contested PROD of a non-notable basketball game . Appears to be something a couple of kids made up, and have provided zero sources (None exist, including the hoax references at the bottom of the article). Fails our basic criteria for inclusion. XRK (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. CSD A7. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as the references are even hoaxes themselves. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. The only Google hit to Thorax Publishing is this article and I can't find evidence for the existence of the other source either. I'm not sure that this is an obvious Speedy candidate, however, as hoaxes generally go to afd unless they're obvious nonsense. Debate (talk) 07:05, 18 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 --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Cho

Cho did not prevail in the 4th District NC Congressional primary, which is what he was notable for. At this time I do not believe he meets notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles. Gloriamarie (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What policy does this break. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~. Delete I believe that this article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN at this time. A Google search, however, of Augustus Cho with quotes returns over 5,000 results. I do believe that this passes WP:BK, seeing that he has five books written. I think an expansion of this article is necessary, along with some good ole' sources. I have changed my vote to delete in lieu of Dhartung's information. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone mentions below that the books are self-published on Lulu.com.-Gloriamarie (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But expand to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can expand the article, not the person's notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 14 hits in GoogleNews[7], insufficient coverage by WP:RS to pass WP:POLITICIAN at this time. Also, a bit of BLP1E case. Nsk92 (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bunch of stuff which don't really add up. The media coverage that he has recieved has only been recent, in reaction to his lost election. His books don't appear to be that notable. Nor is county chairman of a political party that significant. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I agree with PhoenixMourning that the subject might have more of a claim on WP:BK than as a politician. His political career at this point is nothing more than a footnote. But I disagree that five books grants him automatic notability. I think we would have to at least establish that any of the books pass the criteria for notability. Montco (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah I didn't really read into his books. I was just browsing some sources that said he'd written five books. Whether or not those books are notable is beyond me... but I'm going to bet not. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 04:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have looked and not been able to find a concrete source for the five books (that doesn't mean one doesn't exist, just that I have not found it).--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO; candidates (especially those who lose a primary) are not inherently notable. His books are self-published using Lulu.com and I can find no independent and credible reviews thereof. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung, who sums up what I was able to find. Deor (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:POLITICIAN. And his "books" are out from vanity presses, failing WP:BK. Big deal: Some guy loses an election and then pays a vanity press for publication. This article has no business on WP. Qworty (talk) 03:51, 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 --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moment (Framing Hanley album)

Page which fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. The parent article, Framing Hanley, has been nominated for deletion twice (passed) and deleted a total of four times. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good Article. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not keep articles based on the quality of them. They must be notable (in this case, passing WP:MUSIC#Albums is a must). phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no evidence it passes WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS and it's a very unlikely search term so a re-direct is not needed _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable album by a red link singer. Fails WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:49, 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 No Consensus to delete or move to Wiktionary therefore default Keep. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ureotelic

Dictionary definition, no potential for expansion. Powers ^T 02:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and should be moved to the Wiktionary. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to Wiktionary where it belongs. -- Alexf⁴² 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unsure~~ about this one. Although it looks like a dictionary definition, it actually refers to a technical scientific term rather than to a mundane everyday concept. No problem with reliable sources here[8]. Couldn't this actually be expanded into an article about how the process of excreting urea actually works in different types of organizms? Nsk92 (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete and move to Wiktionary per LtPowers' comments below. Nsk92 (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- We agree that it refers to a "technical scientific term". Articles about terms, however, are precisely the domain of Wiktionary and explicitly not the domain of Wikipedia. As for your final question, the answer is yes, and that article is at Urination. Powers ^T 14:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This scientific categorization belongs in Wiktionary just like this does. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikitionary: it belongs there. It's a dictionary definition. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary. Can not be expanded beyond dictionary definition. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikitionary because it is a definition, and only a definition. Happyme22 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge/redirect. This can surely be expanded, although perhaps a better title would be ureotely, which is the noun, instead of the adjective. For example, an encyclopedia article can go beyond a definition and discuss the evolution of ureotely, its metabolic aspects, its regulation, its ecological impact, how it varies between species, and so on. At the very least, such a plausible target for linking and searching should be redirected somewhere reasonable. Urination, suggested above, is not. It deals mostly with human urination and talks about urination techniques but never even mentions urea. A more plausible target would be something like Urea#Physiology. --Itub (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many reliable sources available to demonstrate notability. Per Itub, I believe this could be expanded into an encyclopaedic article.--Beloved Freak 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There's a great deal to be said here. I'm not quite certain what form of the word (or possibly a phrase) should be used for the heading--the noun is rather uncommon. DGG (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand --Kyknos (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. To address some of the points above: If Urination is currently primarily about urination in humans, I see no reason that couldn't change to be about urination in general. Ureotely is an aspect of that process, for sure, but I don't see any evidence that the concept is distinct enough from urination and/or urea to merit its own article. It's easy to say "keep and expand" but without some indication of how this article could be expanded without overlapping the two other articles, I have to remain skeptical. Powers ^T 14:58, 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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Public Schools

Directory of Public Schools in Newton, MA, including phone numbers and secretaries; a reasonable listing is already in the Newton, Massachusetts page, and there is nothing encyclopedic about elementary schools per se. Rjyanco (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out !vote with no reason attached (WP:JUSTAVOTE). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poor job of being a page, because it just looks like a directory (see WP:DIRECTORY). I think with a few major adjustments, we can change this into a page similar to Pinellas County Schools. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, this is the recommended method of dealing with schools where they are not otherwise able to support an individual article. The article itself needs a rewrite, but as a topic, I don't see it all that problematic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removed phone numbers, addresses, "mission statements" and all that other stuff. Since its a school district and every other school district seems to have an article, I think the article should stay -- Coasttocoast (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In general, school districts are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I think snow is in the air. Not only are school districts notable as government bodies and an integral part of states' management of schools, they are the accepted merge target for nn schools. TerriersFan (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article about a city's entire school system, and the article about the city is too long to merge it to. This is the kind of article we should be encouraging editors to create, so we don't have individual articles on each elementary school. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator did not alert the article's creator to this AfD but I have done that now. TerriersFan (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as snow. This article in its current form is the accepted method to treat nn schools, per consensus at hundreds of AfD's. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:30, 18 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) 20:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocalciuria

unsuitable for Wikipedia, perhaps move to wiktionary. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' But Expand. Delete Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the tone for wikipedia. Moving to the wiktionary? I'm not sure.--Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a WP:TROUT for nominating this page four minutes after it was created. This is clearly a genuine medical condition and I assume the creator is planning to expand it — even if not, someone at WP:MED is presumably in a position to expand this easily, given the number of major reliable sources even a 30-second Google-skim turns up. (In this instance I don't propose to expand it myself, as I don't have the specialist knowledge and I don't want to risk introducing errors into a medical article for obvious reasons.) — iridescent 02:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescent. I would like to give this article a chance before deleting also.--Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 03:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per iridescent. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and cancer and heart failure. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per iridescent; give it a chance since it's so young. Trout to the nom for AfDing so soon; and a second trout to Trees Rock, for providing a !vote with no reasoning attached again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - give it a chance to be developed. Many reliable sources out there to demonstrate notability. And yeah, per Brewcrewer. --Beloved Freak 09:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be an encyclopedic concept with plenty of future potential for expansion. No reason to delete, it would be nice if the nominator had provided more of a rationale than "unsuitable". ~ mazca ^talk 12:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a stub for an encyclopedic topic. It needs expansion, not deletion. Klausness (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescent -XxKibaxX Talk 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In contrast to hypercalciuria which is a very noteworthy topic this one is and will remain nothing more than a dicdef. Btw, current definition and references refer to hyper- not hypocalciuria. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer - Do give undue weight in this instance to Eleassar who knows more about the topic than I (or I assume any of the others) do. — iridescent 17:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Iridescent - Is this sarcasm? If so, please refrain from arguments ad hominem. Otherwise, my apologies. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all - I'm assuming that, as the only !voter here who's actually a part of WP:MED, you're more likely to know if this is expandable. — iridescent 17:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The symptom is quite notable. I have rewritten the article to correctly report its meaning and significance. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this had a link to it that was dead, ALSO there was no page discribing Hypocalciuria. This is a notable/signficant medical condition and needs a wiki page! Please forgive me as Im a newbie when it comes to makeing wiki pages as this was my 1st one. What can I do to improve it?? (I was very suprised that it was nomiated like the minute I wrote it.....lol) Medicellis (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:08, 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 no consensus. Any discussions on merging can be taken to the proper channels. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incest pornography

This contains nothing that couldn't serve as a section in Pornography, Incest or Incest between twins, and normally I'd just split-and-merge it (although I'm not convinced the sum of all human knowledge would really suffer were it to be deleted altogether). However, given that this article has been up for four years and seems to have been edited by a disturbingly high number of editors at one point or another, bringing it over to get some kind of consensus as to whether it should be deleted/kept/merged. — iridescent 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One Ewww. Second its a just a list of incest porn. Third Ewwwwwwwwwww. Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since I specifically haven't given any reason for outright deletion in the nom and this is a procedural nom to determine if there's consensus to delete, merge or keep, any particular reasoning behind the deletion !vote? Not saying it's not a viable choice, but you need better deletion grounds than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — iridescent 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ditto - Since I specifically haven't given any reason for outright deletion in the nom and this is a procedural nom to determine if there's consensus to delete, merge or keep, any particular reasoning behind the deletion !vote? — iridescent 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind I'm just tired. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, AfD is not a forum to discuss merges. Powers ^T 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did mention deletion as one of the choices. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've taken a look at this one; the majority of redlinks in this article lead to articles deleted because of lack of notability; I've nominated the articles on the two blue linked twins because they don't meet WP:PORNBIO either. At best, this might be worth a line or two in Pornographic film, but none of the names mentioned should be carried over. The article itself is completely unreferenced, and the external link leads to an article in a source of questionable reliability (perhaps someone from Wikiproject Porn could discuss). Risker (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources to satisfy the requirements of validity and notability. Edison (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are reliable sources out there, with substantial enough coverage to demonstrate notability. There is a mention here. There is a section in this book called "Incest Pornography and the Problem of Fantasy", would be useful if anyone has access to it. It is quoted here. There is more coverage in this book. Couple of news stories: [9], [10], [11]. Some of these may seem somewhat trivial in their coverage, but I think that taken together, there is enough to demonstrated notability. There may be more coverage on the web, but inevitably, it is hard to search for as you have to wade through literally millions of porn sites. I think there could be a good little article there about the connection with incest, child pornography and child abuse. I would potentially support a merge, but as far as I can see, Pornography would not be a great destination because it does not seem to give much attention to any of the sub-genres beyond listing them. I think that it would also take focus away from the child porn / abuse aspect, giving undue weight to the hot twin-on-twin action. Similarly, it could be merged to child pornography, but then it may unduly swing the focus the other way. --Beloved Freak 09:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there doesn't seem to be any child pornography issue with this article at this point. Risker (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realise that. That seems to be the focus of the sources I looked at, rather than consenting-adult type incest.--Beloved Freak 14:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 09:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as one or two lines into Pornography, which is only 41kb anyway, as barely notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as per Casliber. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book section mentioned is sufficient for notability--the article can be expanded. DGG (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to present any notability of specific trends or genre categories outside of a few obscure skin flicks. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was visited 20,000 in April (here) so the subject is relevant to readers and Belovedfreak has provided sources.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:43, 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 Snowball Delete --JForget 00:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of aviation

I'm loath to AfD this, as someone's obviously put a LOT of work into it — but I can't see any way it could ever be a viable article. Despite the 17 references, it's clearly a piece of original research. ("Its meaning is generally conveyed and well understood despite the lack of formal and objective definition", a direct quote from the current version of the article, pretty much sums up the problem here.) This is hopelessly non-neutral and unreferenceable, and despite the work that's gone into it I think it needs to be deleted; I can't even see any viable content to salvage and merge into existing articles. — iridescent 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry. But your right it could never be a viable article. Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunate as it is nice and obviously they have put some time into it, but it smacks of OR. -- Alexf⁴² 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially pure OR and the concept of the article is such that is couldn't really be anythings else. Unfortunate but there it is. Nsk92 (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those aren't references; it's a directory of external links. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically POV, belongs off-site if anywhere. WillOakland (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as much as people have put much work into creating this article, it's inherently POV. JIP | Talk 11:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay, original research, something made up in one day, and possibly somebody's idea of a joke. "Acting in the Spirit" indeed. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, probably a hoax. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:NOT. Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and Nonsense. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Advise – all points received, some seem most unfair. If the article is indeed OR then it shouldn’t be - how else does one capture its definition? Perhaps far better understood and appreciated by the pilot community?! (not designed to provoke) If it’s nonsense - why? If it’s a joke – why? Please explain and perhaps it can be worked on and moved to a more appropriate place? I believe that the article is objective, but if it belongs off-site, then by all means delete and please advise. Perhaps advise how to bring it in line with expectations, try to be positive! corpdash (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
suggestion How about rewording it as an article specificaly about the phrase. DGG (talk) 21:49, 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 delete all. Consensus is to delete all with one exception. The articles are grouped here because the nominator feels that they should be discussed together, and all of the articles fail WP:N and are possible hoaxes.

Culturenga

This series of articles all appear to be hoaxes. The tenants of the stadiums are also at AfD. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.D. Moma) Delete because they do not exist. ~ Eóin (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire lot. No references anywhere. Either hoaxes or completely unnotable. Either way, fail WP:V and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The stadia are not likely to be hoaxes, based on my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.D. Moma. Notability probably needs to be assessed individually, and not in a lump nomination. Neier (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the entries should be assessed individually. Actually they are all hoaxes EXCEPT the "Estádio do Costa do Sol". I know this one exists because it is not far from my house.The rest dump them, their names do not even make sense. Teixant (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken "Estádio do Costa do Sol". I bundled the nomination because if all the articles were separate, arguments could be scattered and lost. If the AfD does need to be split I am okay with it happening but I think the way things are set up now is best. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete all. Can't find any verification on google, no references. Everyone one of them seems to be a single copy. Hoax.— Ѕandahl 12:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very nice catch Eóin. Delete all per Teixant and per lack of sources.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:05, 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 all. Although the discussion shows a pretty even split between those calling for a merge of content vs. those calling for outright deletion, the comments supporting deletion (with the exception of one) raise the fundamental issue of the content's notability as well as the fact that its presence runs afoul of the principle that Wikipedia is not a game guide--issues that are not addressed by the merge comments. --jonny-m t 03:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Kerwan

Collection of non-notable articles from a video game (I've realised the pointlessness of PRODding this type of material, so straight to AfD). This is one of those dreaded multi-AfDs, but I've taken care to be sure that there's nothing here that can ever be claimed as notable (a case could possibly be made for the "List of..." article, of course).
Black Kite 00:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:

Merge All into List of Planets in the Ratchet & Clank series Nakon 00:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what, though? There's nothing sourced and nothing notable to actually merge. Black Kite 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There appear to be plenty of primary sources. No secondary sources, granted, but the information could still be merged. Powers ^T 02:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with Nakon. Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game-guide material. Original research with no assertion of notability. They are all unreferenced, and it is not an editor's duty to clean up and add references to things that the original contributers could not be bothered to do. If an editor does not want information deleted, it should be referenced at the time it is written. Also, please keep in mind that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and as such simply referencing someone else's comment adds nothing. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, pish posh. It adds weight to the original comment. How much weight is variable depending on the closing admin, of course. And I totally disagree that editors shouldn't clean up and source articles they didn't write; your statement is against the very spirit of a wiki. Powers ^T 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say they shouldn't, I said it's not their duty. If an editor feels a piece of information is valid and useful, then it is their responsibility to defend it by properly sourcing it, and asserting it's notability, at the time it is added. If it is not OR, that means the original contributor had a source. Not bothering to list the source creates double-work for someone else, who then has to find a source, and then list it. If it is OR (or just made-up), the other person is looking for a source that doesn't exist. I've had things deleted for this reason, and it sucks, but it wasn't anybody's fault but mine. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cautionary delete - I've played all the games, and while it's one of my favorite series, the planets themselves are highly non-notable and pretty much interchangable; it's a setting for a mission for all that matters. Only a couple are important as they come up a couple times in the series, so there's potentially a merge possibility here, but first blush? Non-notable, and strictly game-guide and should be deleted. --MASEM 04:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this material obviously isn't making any money for Jimmy or Angie while it sits here. --Pixelface (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per ongoing consensus that pure in-game material with no secondary sources and no assertion of real-world notability is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. --Stormie (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into List of Planets in the Ratchet & Clank series. Even though it is completely unsourced, deletion is not the solution to that problem; finding the sources to verify it is. Razor flame 19:35, 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 --JForget 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buhawian

This article is an original research essay and an ad, apparently for a dance company, and it would require a complete rewrite to address the issues. And even then, the notability of the subject is tenuous at best. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rambling essay/promo, thoroughly unsourced. JJL (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But wikify could be saved. Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JJL CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search did not come up with independent reliable sources.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay. -- Alexf⁴² 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom says it best. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, as it appears to be an essay on a relatively unknown topic. Happyme22 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research/essay. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:26, 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 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COGITA Business Services

NN company, just a reseller and local rep for International companies and products. Not doing anything else interesting nor especially big ( < $NZ 50M/year revenue) SimonLyall (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —SimonLyall (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my nom - SimonLyall (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment— Er, I don't think you have to comment, necessarily, since you already nom'd the article, I think that basically counts as your 'vote'. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --Kinu ^t/_c 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't be sourced sufficiently to where subject meets WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Advertisement. -- Alexf⁴² 03:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You would think that somewhere on the net would be an actual news story as opposed to press releases that the company issues. Without any sourcing, this is just a non-notable IT reseller. Montco (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP, and it's reads like an advertisement. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article with no assertion of notability. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:25, 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 keep. The discussion below indicates that the issue is simply with the state of the article, not the overall verifiability/notability of the topic. --jonny-m t 02:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohalo

Appears to a be a topic of pseudoscience/creationism, lacking sources and explanation of anything.

Redirects: Polonium halos, Polonium halo, and Radiohalos.

Delete, but allow for creation if anyone can get an article-worthy stub started. Paper45tee (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Cite it. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was first created in 2002. Isn't 6 years of no scientific citations in a bad, unhelpful, anti-scientific article enough? Paper45tee (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless before the end of this AfD someone does a major revision of the article. Ordinarily, I would say that notability is a primary concern but in this case WP:V is a bigger problem. From looking at the article, it is really hard to figure out the context or what is really going on here. Loads of 'citations needed' tags and unverified data in the article and only a couple of direct citations. Six years on WP is more than enough time for this article to have been brought to WP:V standards. The article can't really stand as it is. If someone knowledgeable about the subject can produce a reasonable stub while this AfD is open, it could be kept. Otherwise, better to delete the whole thing. Nsk92 (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Citations are badly needed and WP:V is an issue. Happyme22 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely should NOT be deleted. I came to this article because a creationist was trying to convince me that radiohalos prove that the Earth is young. He sent me a book talking about it. So it was very helpful to be able to look up the subject on Wikipedia. These radiohalos EXIST, and it's a very interesting subject. By the way, the article does give sources, I even added one myself a few weeks ago. If you don't like the article, improve it yourselves. Once it's deleted, all the work is lost. It would be a crime to delete this article just because some people think it's a creationist thing! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I just discovered the push for deletion because I came back to this article to get a reference, in connexion with evidence for a super-heavy nuclide. This was prompted by an article I read recently whose authors claim to have found such a nuclide. Nothing to do with creationism. If this article had been deleted, I would not have the reference I wanted! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before and as Paper45tee notes below, in its present form the article is a giant WP:V disaster which can't stand on its own and has been this way for 6 years. If you can revise the article quickly to make it into something reasonable, fine. Otherwise, I'd suggest that you copy the current text to some subpage in your user space and work on it there slowly. If deleted now, the article can be re-created later then. You/we can also leave a note to the closing admin here. In situations like this the closing admin is usually willing to provide the deleted content to some-one who is asking for it in order to re-create a better version of the article. Finally, there is always the deletionpedia. Nsk92 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - If you want it kept then add WP:V to it and I'll withdraw the nomination. Until that happens it remains a loosely organized collection of uncited anti-science ramblings; there's nothing to save. Paper45tee (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what you mean by "add WP:V to it". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is a page that outlines wikipedia policy on sourcing of articles, i believe the editor meant that the article needs some sources that comply with that policy. --neonwhite user page talk 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be provided as evidence of notability. --neonwhite user page talk 22:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a really major aspect of young-earth creationism. They use this example a great deal in their discussions, and there are sources available. We should take the opportunity to write a decent unbiased article. That;s our role. DGG (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main problem is with the lack of in-text citations. There is a pile of references at the end of the article (or was, until all of those written by the main proponent were inexplicably deleted by the nom). Someone with enough time and interest needs to go through these references and attempt to provide proper citations for the article. Remember that lack of in-text citations is not a deletion rationale. The relevant policy is that the article be verifiable. But there are references, so go and confirm or disconfirm. And while you are doing that, please provide in-line citations. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are suggesting here is unreasonable. Listing a "pile of references" without providing inline citations to them is not what WP:V has in mind and does not, in my opinion, constitute compliance with WP:V (in fact, it could even be viewed as an attempt to subvert WP:V requirements). Finding all of these references, reading them and then trying to figure out which if any statements from the article they confirm places an unreasonable burden on the editors attempting verification. The fact that the article has been on WP for 6 years and it is still in such an unsatisfactory state confirms this. Nsk92 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many of the references were added by User:Filll last year (see this diff). If you believe that his intention was to subvert WP:V and undermine the article, then perhaps he can be contacted to supply the missing citations. My understanding is that he remains quite an active Wikipedian. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was making a general statement. In fact, in this particular case the references, as they are/were arranged, do mean something, since, at least at some point, they were separated into categories "Disputing a young earth interpretation" and "Favoring a young earth interpretation" which actually conveys some meaningful information. But that is far from sufficient in terms of verification of the numerous 'citation needed' tagged statements. Nsk92 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to help supply some citations, but my institution lacks an online subscription to Nature and Science, so it's sort of inconvenient. But it doesn't look like such a chore. The article isn't that long, and much of it at least indicates who is making a claim. It shouldn't be that difficult to track which reference attaches to which statement in the article. Any volunteers? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded the 1975 paper (its very short) from "Nature" called "Spectacle haloes" that is mentioned in the article. But it is written in a terse technical jargon and I can't make heads from tails there... Nsk92 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a second attempt, it sounds like the author of that paper is putting forward an alternative explanation for the existence of halos from that proposed by Gentry. Something about "migration" of lead under high temperature conditions or some such thing. Still very difficult to understand what the author is talking about without having some specialized knowledge. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also do not revert the removal of unsupported claims. If you want something left in, the burden of proof is on you to back it up. If you really think legitimate journals support a young Earth then give a WP:RS. After all, science considers a young Earth to be non-science. Your revert is a fine example of why this should be deleted: claims are unsourced, unsupported and dubious in nature. Paper45tee (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What unsupported claims did I add? I added references back in which you deleted, all the while thumping your chest about WP:V here at this AfD. My edit summary indicated that, if you want to change the section title, then that's fine. But the references you removed appear to be quite important ones from the perspective of verifying the contents of the article. Ok? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the burden of improving this article should be on us who think it should be kept. The article is important for various reasons. It's not our fault that it was written in a way that doesn't exactly conform to Wikipedia standards. So it's not fair to threaten to delete the article just because people like me and "silly rabbit" don't take it upon ourselves to improve the article. Why can't you who want to delete it fix it instead of complaining? (And fixing it does not mean deleting the references!) By the way, I do not believe in a "young Earth" and I think the subject of radiohalos is fascinating in its own right. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An afd isn't a permanent decision on a subject, articles can be recreated later on if sources become available. An article can also be copied to a user page to preserve any text but the point of an afd is to determine whether an article should be kept, what it might happen is never an argument for keeping an article. You need to provide evidence of notability here if there are any. --neonwhite user page talk 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of evidence of notability. Have you checked out the references in the article? I'm currently in the process of improving the citation style in the article, but your bald assertions that the article is unreferenced or that its subject is not notable simply do not hold. Some of the references are in top-notch journals like Science (journal) and Nature (journal). The lack of footnotes notwithstanding, the material in the article is actually relatively easy to verify to anyone willing to follow up on the references listed. Furthermore, apparently this Gentry character has caused quite a flurry in creationist circles, as the Talk.origins archives dedicates some space to debunking his claims, and on the other side of the fence, Creationists have also used the work of Gentry as part of the R.A.T.E. project. It all seems fairly notable to me, and the article does provide evidence of this notability, so your delete rationale simply doesn't gel. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The above notes say that this fails WP:V when in fact, it doesn't. Sure, it doesn't have any internal citations, but deletion isn't the answer to that problem; finding references and citations for it is the solution. Razor flame 19:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. A clearly encyclopedic subject, which is the the subjects of books and papers, and a controversy. That it is currently badly referenced, doesn't mean it's unverifiable. The books and papers mentioned could be used for this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:50, 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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest suburbs in the world}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unified SCC}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia (2nd nomination)}}