Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 9: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Covenant
Momo Hemo (talk | contribs)
129 edits
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orcas at SeaWorld}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Covenant}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Covenant}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged UFO-related locations}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged UFO-related locations}}

Revision as of 20:10, 9 August 2008

< August 8 August 10 >

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, due to a lack of sources. If sources are found, feel free to take the article to DRV with them. lifebaka++ 12:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orcas at SeaWorld

Orcas at SeaWorld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yeah, I just found this one when checking the what links here on the other page. Momo Hemo (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  17:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Covenant

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

HUGE COI issue. Also, fails WP:RS. The talk page says the article creator has talked to the band members for the information presented in the article. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article contains a lot of OR. Undeath (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do WE know that he recieved permission? I suggest you take a look at WP:OR. I gave it a chance before with PROD, but no changes were made to the article. They fail WP:BAND in every way. Until they release something notable, I doubt they will pass any requirement. Undeath (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You're right; This is obviously going to get deleted. Oh well, maybe the band will get signed and become Encyclopedia-worthy in few years. --Azure Shrieker (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain you something. they are signed, but they don't belong to any label.they record, and their christian church finance them to release the album, i wrote "Unsigned" because i don't consider this a label. ah, one more thing, if i remove the unsourced information(segor's solo album,arbi's replacement,"religious differences" etc.), will this duscussion be over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not signed, and that is not a label. Plus, even if the church that is financing them was a label, it is non notable. The point is, you conducted a lot of original research to write this. They are not a notable band. Please read WP:OR, WP:BAND, and WP:RS. Undeath (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answered to my question if i remove the original research will this disscussion be over? and will you help me to rewrite this article to meet wikipedia quality standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it won't be over. The band fails WP:MUSIC. I can't help that. They aren't even signed. Undeath (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so what they are not signed?is it your goal of life to delete my articles?would it kill you if this article will not be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, please. Being signed is one of the criteria for notability at WP:MUSIC, (which I think at least 5 other people must have said already). Read the guideline, and don't attack other editors. Kafziel Complaint Department 08:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged UFO-related locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a fringe soapbox. In this way numerous pointless articles can be created like List of US military related locations, List of UK military related locations, List of X related locations etc. etc. Pointless article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 12:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless and uninformative, and as another user mentions, a needless duplicate of an existing category. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per CLN. This is the list counterpart of an existing category, and should be kept as such. There's no reason to delete this if we aren't going to be deleting the category; there are many, many things we can do with lists that we can't do with categories. It'd be a pity to cripple our navigational system simply because some people can't make the necessary distinctions. Celarnor Talk to me 01:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gatoclass. Unneeded, and there are no reliable sources to back anything up. Tavix (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete even by my flexible standards for lists, "alleged" and "related" makes this altogether too vague. Possibly it will be able to find some better way of dealing with this. DGG (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title 15 of the United States Code

Title 15 of the United States Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 19:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is list of links all to the same external page, all linking to the next paragraphs of the law. I originally nominated the article for speedy deletion, noting that the article fits criterion A3 for the speedy deletion of articles ("No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages and redirects, including soft redirects) consisting only of external links...a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion"). In my opinion, this page has no such context. It is merely a list of links that repeats verbatim the list of links given by the government's page [1] (which is also given as an external link on the page).

User:Iridecent believed that that reason was not sufficient for speedy deletion, so I have listed the article here.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, obviously. Every other section of the United States Code, has an identical linkfarm, and for good reason; because it's useful. I thought WP:USEFUL was a lame and misguided personal essay when it was written, and I still think it's a lame and misguided personal essay now; our primary purpose is to be useful. How is cut-and-pasting a great glob of federal legislation into Wikipedia (which would seem the only viable alternative to this article) going to improve the encyclopedia in any way? – iridescent 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A part of an important body of laws. The content is pretty minimal but it's definitely expandable and not completely useless as is. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. The earlier attempt at speedy deletion and this current AfD are part of this editor's ongoing pattern of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Most of his edits revolve around POV-pushing attempts to annoy me and others by wikilawyering. This editor is a WP:SPA here to promote his coworkers and their work, and to annoy and discredit their offsite critics (which includes me). This behavior is now apparently leaking over into deleting info from ANY of the 1000 or so articles I started, not just the few about his buddies. Jokestress (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not immediately apparent how nominating this article for deletion promotes the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health or sexology (as linked above), or even constitutes wikilawyering. Please do not make accusations without explaining fully your justifications and evidence. Besides, AfD is not a particularly appropriate place to air disputes between users. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you'll note above, I said this SPA's purpose on Wikipedia has two themes. This appears to be part of the latter theme (attempting to annoy me). See his user page for some typical comments about me, or check out the sorts of edits he has made to my biography. The only reason this user took notice of Title 15 of the United States Code is because it is listed on my user page as an article I started. The disruption and wikilawyering was noted by Iridescent on his talk page. The wikistalking is noted by Dicklyon below. If you have further questions about James Cantor's conduct, let me know. I was trying to give context to why this nomination was made. Regardless of that, the article was created to fill a red link in Template:USCTitles, which has been in place since 2006. The article in question here has well over 100 links in other articles and is well integrated into Wikipedia. It helps contextualize and organize wikipedia articles about acts of Congress that govern commerce. Jokestress (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: apparently just WP:Wikistalking by User:James Cantor of his nemesis User:Jokestress. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would be perfectly happy to clear up my histories with either of these folk with anyone who thinks it might be relevant. No allegations about my motives, however, change whether a list that is a cut-and-paste of someone else's webpage (in this case, the U.S. government) violates WP:NOTLINK. Should an exception to NOTLINK be made for what a consensus perceives to be a useful list of links, then the next logical step is to update WP:NOTLINK.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This isn't just a list of external links, it's also (and more importantly) a list of Wikipedia articles. This is a really easy way to see how our articles about U.S. law are organized under the United States Code. You could have a different list (and maybe we do?) with the articles organized chronologically, or whatever, but this set of pages is important to have. Not quite a list, not quite a disambiguation page, but who cares? We need this. Darkspots (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If nothing can be written about this on its own, perhaps we could create a category of everything in title 15 of the united states code, or of sections of the united states code. Perhaps an article on the subject is warranted, but this is not even close to what a good start would be. The external links belong in those articles, not in a list (Wikipedia being not a directory or list of links, useful or otherwise). I think that if this were to happen with, say, Mexican or Ethiopian law, someone would give more or less this exact argument, and we need to be careful of systemic bias. I don't think the order in which the wikipedia articles (the only appropriate constituent of this list) is overly important in and of itself, and so a category would be just fine. Additionally, if this is a list it should be named accordingly. Finally, there being other such pages is not usually a good reason to keep this particular one unless those were voted to be kept. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , write articles for as many of the individual chapters as practical , and do similarly for the rest of USC. That is, if we get enough people do do it all, but there's no reason to remove what we do have. Among the justification of lists is as an organizational device, and this is a simple and straightforward way to do it. To use an available PD list as a starting point is a perfectly sensible way to go about it. DGG (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep--the page (along with the other 49 chapters of the U.S. Code) are certainly notable, and it is entirely possible to write articles about all the Acts of Congress contained therein. Furthermore, I disagree with User:Falcon Kirtaran's opinion that we would delete it if it were a non-English-speaking country. If it is a part of the law in any jurisdiction, it is worth keeping. With regards to User:Jokestress's comment above, this may actually be a bad-faith nomination. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the number of external links is a side effect of using {{usctc}} to format the USC citation correctly (a 3 second glance at the source would have indicated this). This article also serves as a navigational guide to the various chapters that cover extremely notable topics (Sherman antitrust, FTC, weather service, NIST, etc., etc.). This article CLEARLY does not fall under CSD and the nominator's initial rationale of being contentless makes we wonder as to the true motivation of this AFD and extremely hesitant to believe his rationale & to support deletion. As such, no valid deletion criteria provided. Cburnett (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with all of the other "keep" comments above. To delete this one article on the external link claim alone would require deletion of the entire body of USC articles, which would be detrimental to Wikipedia.DCmacnut<> 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per all the above reasons and more.—Markles 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: By the way (apropos of nothing): if you want to suggest adding content to an article, put {{stub}} or {{expand}}. If you want to make sure that the article is expanded, add {{afd}}. See how much has changed here: (History since afd proposal)!—Markles 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Darkspots who wrote: This isn't just a list of external links, it's also (and more importantly) a list of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia does have articles which are lists - even featured ones. Perhaps this and its kind can formally be changed into such lists, whatever the criteria are. Deleting it is not the way to go, however. --Hordaland (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is a repository of encyclopedic value, and as mentioned above, it is a list of what are essentially other encyclopedia articles. Valuable to project as a whole, both as a starting point for augmentation and as a very good list (which, as was stated earlier, are part of WP). Lazulilasher (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW and for the consensus met to keep the article as a redundant with category is never a delete rationale per WP:CLN. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged UFO crashes

List of alleged UFO crashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article, which documents 11 incidents, is redundant to Category:UFO crashes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. lifebaka++ 12:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lowyat.net

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

Also see the other tags on the article, but i'm nominating this for deletion because it's a non-notable website/forum. John Sloan (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: not a hoax, and has gained sufficient notability for inclusion. No need for this to run its course. GarrettTalk 08:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em

AfDs for this article:
Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Likely hoax. No references and it is seemingly a list of misc info. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Are you kidding? Taking two seconds to do a google search proves your 'hoax' claim immediately wrong. Please don't nominate AFDs any more without at least attempting to do an inklet of research. SashaNein (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on guy, it was almost certainly a good-faith nomination. Let's be civil about this. Dreaded Walrus t c 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is asking for someone to do a google search before wasting all of our time with an AFD is uncivil? I will have 'good faith' that he doesn't do this again. SashaNein (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a game isn't enough to keep the game by itself, and it could be argued that Custer's Revenge is the only truly 'notable' Mystique title, however the combination of the collectability as well as the rarity of the release of a pornographic game (although more pornographic in thought than in graphics) give this title a unique sense of history that should be preserved. D3l8 (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's best to give stuff like this the benefit of the doubt. Wikipedia's scope is global, and if you think that the world is a normal place you haven't been getting out enough. Would you believe it if you were told about the Sedlec Ossuary? At the very least, it's courteous to look into the matter and ask other editors. --Kizor 07:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax/vandalism, there aren't any 15 year olds playing for Fulham. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Mohamed

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

Vandalism My-dog-is-shep (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, group of friends playing golf every year, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shankorman

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

Contested prod, completely non-notable local golf club event - also no sources or verification possible Hunting dog (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Body Yoga

Ten Body Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. GizzaDiscuss © 09:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga Chi Gung

Yoga Chi Gung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This term apears to be OR. After a look through Google books and Google scholar, I was not able to find any reference to these terms when placed together. As is, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A google search for '"yoga chi gung" -australia' returns nothing at all relevant, and I am forced to conclude from this that almost nothing has been written on the topic. As a google search is a rather pitiful way to establish this, I conducted searches in the online journal indicies Academic Search Complete and SportDISCUS (non-free, unfortunately), and found nothing whatsoever. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any evidence of the notability of this as a combined subject, only self-published sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertising for a roll-your-own guru/method. There is a lot of that about. People will take an element from this, a dash of that, and then get a Tae Bo jab on top and call themselves the new seer. <shrug> Utgard Loki (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PranaVayu Yoga

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

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Approach

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

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aadarsha Ratne

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

Advertisement with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Network for Teaching of Psychology

Oklahoma Network for Teaching of Psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot find sufficient third-party coverage to build a decent article. Does have an annual meeting but it seems the association consists of 256 members [3] so it's too marginal to be of interest. Pichpich (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UKTrainSim.com

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

Not really notable, badly written and seems to be just a case of a user of the site writing the article just for the heck of it. Byeitical (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, hoax. Neıl ☄ 00:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Paul

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

Appears to be an unsourced hoax. Source 1 doesn't mention Paul, and source 2 is subscription only. See [4] for deletion reason (A7), which was overturned because, while it does appear to be a hoax, it does also assert significance. Sceptre (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michele LeBlanc

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

violation of WP:COI, as only author matches the subject of the article, likely does not meet WP:N KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I just left Michele a note instructing her where and how to save this article, as though it is unlikley to survive this AfD, it would be at home at her User:Michele leblanc User Page. No need to push her away. (Sure hope to see that red link turn blue) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a1, insufficient context, one-sentence article on book by "anonymous author", no indication that it was even published. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pervasive Arcane Substance

The Pervasive Arcane Substance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability isn't established, and I can't find a record of this using a Google search, Library of Congress search, or British Library search. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 18:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Content available by email. lifebaka++ 13:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State Nittany Lions volleyball all time record

Penn State Nittany Lions volleyball all time record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Merely a statistical table of results, which is not appropriate per WP:NOT#STATS. ZimZalaBim talk 18:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it myself..no external links. It's all from a book I have, so I wrote it because I doubt many people have the book. Smuckers It has to be good 22:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

André Couteaux

André Couteaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete nn author. Only 9 GHITS, all to film or book listings. Nothing substantial about the author that would amount to WP:N Mayalld (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the google test. This isn't always a valid reason unto itself, but it's a pretty good warning singn that this fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple books in multiple languages in over 100 US and other libraries according to worldcat. Translated at least into English, German, Dutch, Spanish, and Finnish. One was made into a movie, that got a review in the NYTimes. He did the screenplay for another fairly well known film also. The inadequate article here does not seem to have listed them all, so I put them in, for at least the languages shown in worldCat. Critical reviews almost certain, at least in French sources, & as a start there's the NYTimes. Using the gtest for a European author whose works were published in the 1960s is the height of absurdity. I know people don't like using library catalogs, but they do work for finding basic information about published authors. DGG (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. The IMDB link only has 2 hits for 2 books from the 1960's. He certainly exists but doesn't appear notable/significant. Artene50 (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. At the top of his 9 gnews hits is the NYT review of his first book's translation. Googling is bad for non-English sources and much worse that far back in the 20th. Getting good results requires real work. ( I think it actually gets better for 19th century people). So one has to correct for this and weigh results higher than usual.John Z (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a key reason it gets better in the 19th century is because of the increasing amount of material from Google Book Search, and from sources reprinting PR material. Unfortunately, the present state of copyright legislation will leave the 1921 cutoff with us for a long time to come. This will inevitable have a negative effect on our work at building a free encyclopedia, but we need to try to overcome it, even if it takes old-fashioned methods. DGG (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  18:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolò Giraud

Nicolò Giraud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I'm nominating this article for deletion because Giraud falls far short of historical notability in any sense. If only known for his relationship with Byron (and even not among Byron's well-known relationships), then he is not notable. He's a relative by marriage to an assistant of Lord Elgin and that he was one of Byron's lovers (and not even the famous or infamous ones like Lamb). Just being a lover is not notable. Did he influence Byron's writing in a meaningful way? Did he have an impact on culture or history? This is not sufficient for including in an encyclopedia. Just mentioning him in a couple lines in the main Byron article should be sufficient. There are many famous people who have relationships with others, homosexual or otherwise with non-significant people. We don't need an article for everyone of those non-famous people unless they have a meaningful impact.

Please let me know if there is anything else I should mention or comment upon since I'm unfamiliar with this process.--Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep he is perhaps the best documented of his homosexual affairs, and as a key figure in a very notable person's bio an article is appropriate. Included in at least one of t he standard encyclopdias. DGG (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep He is notable as there are plenty of sources on him. However, I believe that the POV language, the lack of technical terms, and inuendo need to go. We should be exact here and make direct claims to what scholars say what. There is a lot that goes unattributed. I have a clean up of Byron's biography for this matter pending for September, so I can accomplish this later with an expansion. However, if anyone else can do it first, please do. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm currently undecided about this. It feels to me like a bit of a stretch for there to be an independent article on Giraud, when he could be covered in a few sentences in the article on Byron. Does Giraud have some independent notability outside of being Byron's lover, of a level that warrants an article? Nandesuka (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely unnotable. The article is also terribly written. Peter Damian (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having sex with a notable person does not make you a notable person. Edward321 (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would saving their life and being bequeathed 7,000 pounds (at a time when you could easily live off 50 pounds a year) in their will make you notable? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very witty 'delete' comment, though. Peter Damian (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] also, being given large sums of money by a notable person does not make you a notable person. Peter Damian (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in multiple books and sources over it may suggests otherwise. Byron scholarship is vast, and an individual who happened to be largest in his will, a potential lover, a guy who taught him Italian, and saved his life tends to come up often. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that he is notable in the context of Byron's life (and thus discussing him in Byron's article is completely appropriate). The interesting question to me is whether he has any indepedendent notability. That's what (in my mind) should determine whether he warrants his own article. Compare, for example, what we know of Giraud to (say) Zelda Fitzgerald, of whom there exists a significant body of criticism: she is tied to F. Scott Fitzgerald, just as Giraud is tied to Byron, in the sense that you hardly speak of when without speaking of the other, yet the mass of material that establishes an independent notability (wrote books, was written about contemporaneously, etc) is quite different. Nandesuka (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I offered to fix and expand the page. If consensus goes against it and doesn't want that, so be it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that making sure the material about Giraud is appropriate and well-written is a great idea, regardless of whether it appears in this article, or in Byron's, and your offer is and should be appreciated. Nandesuka (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nandesuka. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable historic figure. Easily passes the requirement for coverage in multiple sources. I am astonished it was nominated. This kind of valid but less mainstream knowledge is exactly what wiki can and should be doing to make it an unbeatable reference work. Having a "meaningful impact" is not a requirement of WP:N. Ty 22:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd echo Nandesuka, here: Can we see any indication that this is a "notable" figure outside there relationship to someone notable? While there is large scope for the material to be present in an article there is currently nothing in this article to suggest it should stand alone. This should be redirected. - brenneman 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement for someone to be notable for a particular reason, such as having achieved something. This is introducing a new concept into the debate, not established by consensus in guidelines, such as WP:BIO, where the definition of notability rests simply on the extent to which they have received coverage by independent sources. It doesn't matter how or why someone has achieved that coverage. There are 263 books in which Giraud appears, according to Google books. There would be no quibble with any contemporary figure, who had that amount of citations available. There is interesting and valid material about Giraud, which merits inclusion. There is a good reason not to do this in the article on Byron, as it is already a very long one, and in such cases Wikipedia:Summary style applies, so that aspects of the subject can be examined in more detail. Ty 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Ahhh, I'm having a hard time parsing this response...
      1. Looking at the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) which is linked above, it says right there in green and black that "* The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. * The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." are reasons to hae your own article.
      2. The second link you've provided probably does not have the effect you intended. It in fact supports the claim that this article shoul be re-merged somewhere, since none of these appear to be about the subject of this article seperate from Byron. I examined the first five pages of results, everything is " Letters and Journals of Lord Byron" or "Byron's Greece" or their ilk. (By the way, if you remove the multiple copies of Moore's Letters and restrict yourself to English, you only get 99 hits. A large number of them are extracts from letters as well, so we're falling way short of this being some "big number= keep" argument. Really, analysis of the quality of these sources is better than simple counting the google hits.)
      3. There are indeed constant "quibbles" with contemp. figures with high levels of mentions in reliable sources. "Family of B. Obama" is just one such recent debate. The overwhelming consensus, as established across a huge number of very similar debates and as codified in the guideline you linked is that "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A."
      Again, while there is little doubt that there does exist material on this person that is encyclopedic, but an unmerged stand-alone article is not justified.
      brenneman 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess that depends on the value one puts on historical information. To my mind the ability of an encyclopedia which is NOTPAPER to explore a subject in great depth should not be squandered. There will undoubtedly be reader interest in this, and that is what we are here to serve, not rule books. However, if we are to look at them, then WP:BIO in a nutshell is:
        • The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.
      • And the introduction is:
      • Giraud meets these. Other things follow from the basic criterion to show ways in which it may be met. Your "notable award" etc quote is from "additional criteria", not "basic criteria", which specifies "multiple independent sources". Even taking your reduction of sources (and I don't see why you omit letters) 99 is still adequate. I am not merely counting: I have accessed and read a number (also in press articles), and seen that cumulatively there is a reasonable amount of different material on Giraud available. It is not merely that he had a relationship with Byron that qualifies him, but the specific nature of this relationship and the way it has been commented on since, not just in studies of Byron but also, for example, in studies of sexuality. The bottom line is that he is notable, not top-league, but certainly passing the wiki bar. There are different reasons, as I have pointed out, why material may need to be in its own article. In this case WP:SUMMARY is a pressing one, as a convenient way of organising information. It is primarily a sub-topic of the Byron article, but of enough worth to expand beyond the space available in the main article. This is where the system undermines the purpose it was set up to maintain. The need for WP:N was to stop wiki turning into MySpace or family genealogy, not to exclude topics which anyone in academia would regard as perfectly legitimate. Ty 06:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manpollo Project

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

Article about a Web-based group; sources all appear to lead back to the group itself. No demonstration of notability via independent third-party sources; Googling fails to find any mention of this in mainstream news sources. In general, reads like an advert; in particular, actually advertises a DVD for sale. The article appears to have been created by a single user, User:Benjamindbrooks, whose contributions appear to be entirely devoted to this article. The Anome (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If reliable sources can be found then I have no objection to the article being rewritten. Wizardman 14:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK , I'll try ;) User:Bruno Grauber 16:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Gilbert

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

A minor journalist in France, directed a few television shows (I think, from the article, which seems to misuse the word "animate"), and I can't seem to track down any references for him at all (lost in the noise of many others named "Marc Gilbert"). No notability demonstrated. ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEnglish

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

Overly long description of a controlled natural language. Dates and lack of refs suggest it is too new to be notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would consider the article as 'highly descriptive' rather than 'overly long description' hence in contrast to a previous opinion, I can't see why a well explained and substantiated article can be a negative. Having followed some of the supplied links, the question of notability is further addressed by the subject matter being present at a world congress (International Federation of Automatic Control, 2008 held in Seoul). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkl199 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nominator. All the references are by the same author and very recent, which suggests self-promotion rather than notability. Presenting something at a congress doesn't make it notable; I'm just about to present something at a congress where eight thousand papers will be presented. Do we need an article on each of them? Finally, the book about it is self-published. --Itub (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my opinion this article is most worthy of being added to Wikipedia. I had a look at the book and it is "very notable" by whatever means it has been published. I am sure that a large reader community would agree with the principles described in the book and reported in the article. I think that is rather preconceived to criticize a new article entry by looking solely at the references’ year of publication. (user:txlm, 17:45, 12 August 2008 UTC)
  • You are overgeneralizing that quote in my opinion, which I base on years of watching how the policies are interpreted when discussing article deletion. The emphasis should be on currently. Certainly, some topics that are considered "notable" have not had the references added yet (most articles that have not been deleted should be on notable topics, but most articles are under-referenced). But that's quite different from cases such as this one, where no reason has been provided that would led me to believe that appropriate references exist at all. --Itub (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete As it stands, this article is pure promotion - the author of the article is apparently the creator of sEnglish and also is the author of every single reference given, so there's a WP:COI and the refs are hardly third party or independent. Having said that, it's a well-written and detailed description and if the author's own bio is to be believed, he's an academic authority in the field. If any credible third-party refs at all could be found I'd change to keep. And I'd feel a lot less dubious about the article if there were no keep votes here from newly-created accounts with no other Wiki edits... Karenjc 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am the author of the wiki, and having reread the guidelines, the article clearly satisfies Wikipedia:Notability and there is no WP:COI as the article is written in a completely neutral way and the author does not benefit in any way. Still sEnglish is so new that it will take time for independent professional publication to appear about it. Until then I intend to withdraw sEnglish as a wiki. I am including my comment here to inform the contributors who positively commented on my entry, thanks for that. I intend to delete my own wiki, thanks for all comments. --Veressm (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, that should not necessary be a problem. When a new movie appears, it will in all likeliness have its article on the very same day, unless there has been an article around for a while already. The fact that something is new is not a reason for deletion. As far as I am concerned, issues of notability and verifiability are addressed properly. But of course, if it is your desire to have it deleted anyway, then I will comply and change my "vote". —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support, based on this I am having second thoughts and keep the wiki..., of course I agree with you that notability and verifiability are perfectly all right and it even complies with all currently written wikipedia criteria (as I commented above in response). --Veressm (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Volano chat

The result was Speedy Delete and Salt. Useight (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:Advert, non-notable product. Its claim to fame is was added to another company's marketing-oriented hall of fame.

This article in various forms has been speedied a couple of times and I thought it deserved a broader review. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact Java is a world class client/server application? And the fact Volano is used by MANY different important webisties[1]; I think that's a pretty good reason it should remain...don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowsThis4AUserName? (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you geniuses think it needs to be salted, then do the salting and post it and shut up about it already, otherwise it'll just keep coming back up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.9.228 (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were an administrator, I would do it myself. Thanks, Enigma message 06:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lutherwood Camp and Retreat Center

Lutherwood Camp and Retreat Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

To me, this seems classically non-notable, but both a prod and speedy tag have been declined, so the community should have an opportunity to tell me if my perception is incorrect. There are no references and no verifiability for what is certainly a very tenuous claim of notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Within: The Dark Lineage

Darkness Within: The Dark Lineage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Article cannot show any verifiable, third-party sources (Gametrailers does not count.) establishing any notability about this future game. Hence, this fails WP:CBALL. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep though I was going to agree that there's really nothing to base an article on at this point, it's just a trailer with one reaction to it in the external links and another here, I just can't see the point in knocking it down when it's going to spring up again the moment the next source appears. The only difference between this and any other future game stub is that it's a trailer rather than a fluff-piece 'interview', there's still reaction to it from reliable sources which indicates more will be covering it. Someoneanother 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and See (weak keep), maybe redirect, but hiding the history is unnecessary and probably counterproductive. I don't think WP:CBALL applies to a game with a released teaser that says it'll be out in less than a year. The previous game did make it onto mainstream media's radar, so this isn't a case of "Unknown indie game syndrome". Nifboy (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Not a hoax, looks to be a legitimate sequel from a notable publisher and notable game studio. A trailer exists. This is less WP:CBALL and more documenting a current event: the development of an upcoming video game. Give it time. Randomran (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  17:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.zav

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

Non-notable file format used by a single web site. No notable google hits outside file listings and this page. Blowdart | talk 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The file format is used and supported by 15 different Chinese manufacturers of small GPS units. The same file format is adopted by all 15 manufacturers to allow interchangeable point sharing between different units manufactured by differnet companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zavvyy (talk • contribs) — Zavvyy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My intention is to maintain and update the desciption over time, adding in lists of the units that use it etc. But I am not going to type that up all in one hit. I will come back to it and improve it as time goes on. So yes it may migrate into a detailed description similar to .ZIP format but it wont happen immediately.

The format is currently in use on the Guider being handed out at the Olympics in Beijing. You can see the Beijing guider here. http://www.pmr-technology.com/pmr/gpscompass/index.htm

So please leave it alone and give me a chance to finish the edit. Zavvyy (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - The very fact that its in use as a recognised format by the Beijing Olympics should give it some notability. Also, with it being used by 15 companies, it should be workable into a valid article. You wanna delete .msi while you are at it? That's only used by a single company... Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could find a reference to say it's used by those devices? The link above certainly doesn't, and I couldn't find one myself. --Blowdart | talk 18:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Amended: Deletion Endorsed - I left a message for Zavvyy at their talk page asking for urgent contact to find out where they sourced that information from. The user has not bothered to contact me, so obviously doesn't want to hold on to this very much. Bin it. Scrap it. Chuck it. I can't waste my time dealing with people who won't help themselves when they need to! Sorry for holding up the AFD, Blowdart. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Userfy (non-admin closure), creator of article has agreed[7] to move this page to his userspace, where he will work on sourcing and re-writing. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexualization

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

This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. There may be something here about which a decent article could be written, but I think it would be very difficult to make an article out of this essay. Aleta Sing 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleta, is it against the rules to simply move this article into Masculinity's userspace, where he could rewrite it and add references out of harm's way?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems entirely reasonable to me, Fat Man, if Masculinity will agree to that course of action. I'd be glad to move it myself if it's agreed to go that route. Aleta Sing 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i don't have a prob. i guess its better than being deleted altogether.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs)


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Noodles

This is a vanity page. The DJ Noodles page was created by the subject of the article. The main problem I have is that this does not meet our verifiability standards and also fails WP:MUSIC as well. There is a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications about this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YourBusinessChannel

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

Does not establish notability, reads like an advert. ffm 15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

String delete. The article contains no reliable sources establishing notability of yourBusinessChannel, and in fact most of the cited sources do not discuss yourBusinessChannel at all. I was not able to locate any reliable-source coverage, multiple searches turned up nothing but the blogs, press-releases, social networking sites, and of course the company's own site. --Clubjuggle T/C 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am gathering the authorative sources to meet the editorial requirments.

There will be many including stories from major UK Media Outlets such as the Scotsman and Daily Telegraph, in both the print and online publications.

I am doing all I can to ensure that the page is up to spec. Can we please hold off deletion while I collect and post these reference materials? --Catweezel1200 (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new references to the article. While I will continue to collect and add more reference material, I hope these meet the reliable-source coverage criteria you are concerned about. Catweezel1200 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ellman's

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

The only sources I'm finding about this chain pertain directly to its purchase by Service Merchandise. I'm finding nothing in the news sources that asserts any sort of notability for this regional chain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 15:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Once (Nightwish album). PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creek Mary's Blood

AfDs for this article:
Creek Mary's Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Song is not a single or in any other way notable thus fail WP:MUSIC. What little information that is sourced is trivia. Also peppered with original research. Delete.

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

Ghost Love Score (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rehevkor ✉ 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citroën C-Cactus

Citroën C-Cactus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listing on behalf of Ftr2k7 (talk · contribs) with reason: "This is horribly written in the style of an advert, farly obviously by Citroen PR people. No-one is stepping forward to change it, and I can't do much constructive editing to it as I know very little about the car. I say it should be taken down until more reliable info is available about the car", originally posted here. No opinion on deletion of article myself. roleplayer 15:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The person who wrote this article also added information in the same style to an article about a Toyota car, so I doubt Citroën PR people wrote this article. There are reliable sources about the car, and it meets WP:V and WP:N. That being said, the article currently has a promotional, biased tone. I'll take some of the promotional stuff out of the article, but I don't know much either and the article could do with editing by a knowledgeable person. Bláthnaid talk 15:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. References look sound, just nees a tidy up. Per AfD policy "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD", "tag the article with any noted problems such so everyone viewing the article are aware and therefore may fix it".  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Cleanup is not a rationale for deletion.  Asenine  15:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:BLP1E or in this case 2E. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Wilson (lottery winner)

Valerie Wilson (lottery winner) is far from a household name. Valerie Plume (nee Wilson) is far better known. Loveyourcar (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article should not be deleted.

  • First of all, there is no requirement that a person be a "household name" to have a Wikipedia article. If that was the case, and, assuming you could actually find a way to establish which persons actually were "household names", then probably 97% of the bio articles would have to be deleted. Ridiculous argument.
  • Secondly, the fact that this woman shares her name with Valerie Plame (not Plume) actually adds to the rationale for allowing this article to exist. The Plame affair was actually very much in the headlines at the time of the deli worker's amazing win, and Valerie Wilson Plame has several times changed her mind as to which name she wishes to use. Someone doing a search for Valerie Wilson might well come up with the deli worker (her story was on CNN, the New York Times, the wire services, etc.), and we want to make clear who is who.

Additionally, it needs to be recognized that there is, in all likelihood, a hidden agenda at play here. I am quite certain that User:Loveyourcar is the same editor who has attempted countless times to expunge information from this article that he does not approve of. Now he has done this always before as an anon using a plethora of IPs, but it is him. He has a long association with the New York Lottery, apparently, and has a longstanding grudge towards that Lottery because it awards their jackpots in a twenty-year annuity instead of as a lump sum. He has tried on multiple occasions to expunge the use of the words "jackpot" and "million dollar prize" from this article, because he does not believe that it is honest of the New York Lottery to describe its prizes in this manner. Since myself and the few other editors who have looked at this article have disagreed with him, he periodically comes back and makes another stab at getting rid of this. On one occasion, despite other editors having previously disagreed with his attempt to wipe out this woman from Wikipedia, he just eliminated her article by turning it into a redirect.

Look, I'll readily acknowledge that WP:N is an issue here. My personal feeling is that this person is interesting enough to warrant this entry, but I can respect and abide by the feelings of others on this matter. But I just want it recognized that WP:N is not the motive of this editor. Heck, I was cool with just a dab page--it was another editor who created this page. But even with just a dab page entry (which I think absolutely must exist, at a minimum), this guy just kept sabotaging it, eliminating the verbiage that violated his personal POV, but which reflected standard usage. So there you are. Unschool (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be argued whether or not she actually won a "million dollars" each time, since both prizes were annuitized. Of course, if somebody wins a "million dollars" in a Canadian lottery, it is not only lump sum, but tax-free. Many people do not realize US lottery prizes are "different" than elsewhere. However, the "true" definition of "jackpot" is a prize that INCREASES in VALUE until it is won (such as in Mega Millions, Powerball, or Hot Lotto). It is more correct to say she won the "top prize" both times. If she's that "lucky", does she play Mega Millions, which not only has a starting jackpot of $12 million, but also a cash option? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.179.123.198 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See what I mean? His beef is not with the notability of this subject or lack thereof. He is on a campaign to eliminate verbiage from articles on the New York Lottery which describe any of their prizes in a way that violates his sense of propriety. Even if he's correct (which other editors do not think), the way to address the issue is not to delete the article that causes the offense. I move for
  • Comment. First of all, people winning the lottery happens all the time, but people winning a million dollars twice does not (Please, someone introduce me to some such person). Nonetheless, as I said earlier, I readily acknowledge that there are WP:N issues here; I would not have created this article in the first place. And now, after reading WP:BLP1E, (which I had never read before, but do not find surprising), I have to agree. In fact, it's not a near WP:BLP1E, it is one, since what notability is extant here is from one matter: Being a two time lottery winner. So anyway, the editors voting for delete (with the exception of the nominator) are all persons from whom I have no reason to doubt their good faith, that this article should be deleted for notability reasons, and I can concur in this judgement. My only expectation would be to still retain the listing of this person in the current dab page, since both she and Valerie Plame Wilson entered the public consciousness (albeit at highly different levels) contemporaneously. Unschool (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Wouldn't it have been proper, in listing this article for deletion, for the creator of this article to have been notified? How does that work? Unschool (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I think that this would work be more likely to be kept if it was part of an article about the New York Lottery, a link that currently redirects to a general article about Lotteries in the United States. Keep, because she does meet the notability standards, and the overused "single event" argument won't work in this instance. In answer to your question, Unschool, there's no provision for sending a special notice to the creator of an article unless it's recently been put up (most nominations are responses to new articles, although you sometimes get the type where someone has been going the extra mile to find something). Those persons who add to an article are no less important than the person who happened to be the creator of the article. Nor is there anything to stop you from notifying Ypetrachenko or any of the other persons on the list, although an administrator can take signs of such calling into account. It's not "punishable", but it's one of many factors in weighing an argument. Consider making this part of information about the NY lottery, rather than a particular person who won that lottery (twice) Mandsford (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Winning a lottery makes you rich, but not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Or, put another way, winning two lottery prizes of one million dollars apiece, on two separate occasions, would make one notable, while winning "a" lottery once would not. Mandsford (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to be anti-semantic, but winning "a" lottery or winning "a" lottery on two separate occasions does not make one notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I think this article is interesting enough to merit an exception to the normal criterion for inclusion. It is debatable whether this article meets that criterion, but I am saying the article should be kept because winning a lottery twice is about as likely to happen as winning the lottery I don't know what. So my !vote was a blatant act of IAR, as you can tell by looking at my edit summary. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't the relevent information just be kept in another article?Nrswanson (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of things could be done. I mean, look at the international space station. But that does not mean that they should be done. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scala, Inc

Scala, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - The company is not notable as well as their Software. It is only an excessive advertising article. Mediatemple (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Dating back to the 1980s, Scala inc's software has used in many different scenarios by many different companies to provide public information signage. Their profile includes Rabobank, IKEA, Bloomberg Television, Burger King, T-Mobile, Virgin Megastores, Disneyland Resort Paris, McDonald's, Warner Bros., Shell, Esso, Ericsson and The Life Channel. The software is also used in airports. Other product lines have been used to produce captions and credit rolls by video/television production companies worldwide. This makes this company very notable. Although improvements can be made, especially in adding citations, the tone of the article is generally encyclopeadic. Only one user has so far suggested deletion, with one other user seconding it without making comment as to why. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. -- roleplayer 15:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant vanispamcruftisement lacking independent reliable sources to verify notability. — 72.75.91.179 (talk · contribs) 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not perfect, but asserts notability, has reliable references, and otherwise seems like a good start class article. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Isn't it uncanny, that --Jza84 |  Talk  comes from the same location and has the same degree (BA) then Peteb16? I guess, that at least one of their (his?) votes must be striked through so. Mediatemple (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no relation between Scala Inc. and Mediatemple Inc. Last one is a Webhoster, the other one is a Software manufacturer! There is no reason to suspect a WP:COI Mediatemple (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 11:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone numbers in Austria

Telephone numbers in Austria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Specifically fails Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, overly detailed. Punkmorten (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 14:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not written too well, but seeing as how other countries have encyclopedic versions of their important telephone numbers, then it would make sense for Austria to have one as well. Wizardman 14:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No valid deletion reason given by nom.  – iridescent 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Male pregnancy

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

Come on, do we REALLY need an article about this? It's not really needed here, and it's unencyclopedic. I say delete. User:Islaammaged126 14:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - the article needs work (especially the speculative section!), but there is both notability and enough information to keep it a viable article. Aleta Sing 14:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep no valid rationale given. JuJube (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: unencyclopedic? How??? It's a valid topic, it's interesting, it's well referenced, what's wrong with it? -- roleplayer 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm clearly prejudiced in favor of the article, but I'll add that "unencyclopedic" as a reason for deletion is as useless as it is common. "Delete, it's unencyclopedic" translates to "this shouldn't be in the encyclopedia because this shouldn't be in the encyclopedia," encompassing all possible problems at once and not saying much. It's better to specify.

    Further, our articles on mathematics would be better off in a maths compendium. Our philosophy coverage would be more suited to a dedicated collection. We could blow up the encyclopedia without decreasing the sum total of human knowledge. Users have also been instructed (and the userbase generally agrees) to not care about the performance impact of our articles. In this light, how is anything "needed" here, and how is not being "needed" harmful?

    Further further, this is the tenth most popular website in the world. A correspondingly large number of people have opinions about which parts of our content are false, wrong, immoral or bad for business. If we were to start deleting knowledge because we dislike it and not because of its merits as knowledge, how would deleting this because people think it's stupid be different from removing our pictures of Mohammed because *checks* 450 thousand people have signed a petition that declares them insulting? This is meant as a honest question, though it's admittedly a bit unfair.

    Further further further, valid articles on ridiculous things are a speciality of Wikipedia's, an edge that no traditional encyclopedia can match due to the limitations of either its scope or its manpower. I could go on about this, but you're probably tired already, so keep in the absence of convincing arguments. --Kizor 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suppose one could argue that nothing in this encyclopedia is "needed", but the concept of male pregnancy is definitely an encyclopedic topic. JBsupreme (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No valid rationale given for deletion. This is a fairly well sourced article on a perfectly valid topic, and the nominator'a rationale doesn't hold water. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is about as likely to be deleted as Scientology is. Indeed, it needs some improvement, but it has potential to become a fair article. I might actually work on this one just to see how far it gets. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 17:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, Sorry but "We Don't Need It" isn't a good reason to delete an article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antigua honeymoon murders

Antigua honeymoon murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Ben Mullany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a tragic event, but (unfortunately) not all that unusual; it has caused a press sensation, accusations of blame are flying about, alterations to police powers in Antigua are proposed, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, and this fails WP:NOTNEWS: "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." I have added an article about one of the victims, which also fails WP:BIO1E. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This afd epitomizes that WP:BIAS is all about. These murders has a major effect on the Antiguan society. Because of this murder, there have been legislative attempts to overhaul and revamp police powers. In addition, it has renewed the always controversial death penalty debate. These facts are well-sourced in the article. Nonetheless, since it doesn't have a great societal effect on English society, editors consider it of no importance. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article should not be deleted because the murders are significant. They are an impetus for change in Antiguan law (and no, it is not too early for me to say so). In addition to the aforementioned changes cited in the article, there is more. Quoting the following article which can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7556016.stm, " Antigua's government will introduce the death penalty for crimes involving weapons in the wake of the murders of a British honeymoon couple. The new sentencing legislation will be for anyone who uses a gun or knife in a crime which results in death or serious injury. " The new law also imposes a requirement for judges to hand down a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison and enables judges to ask for a life sentence if need be in cases involving assault with a weapon. Under current law, the death penalty is applied only in murder cases. This legislation will apply it to any crime involving a knife/gun and to gun trafficking. Also, the previous law required that there be a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison for assault with a weapon. I'd say that these changes are pretty significant. The changes have been made in the article. Curvedatoms (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let the families grieve in peace. Howard Alexander (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This premise that the families of the murder victims do not a Wikipedia article about the murders comes from where? I would actually think the opposite is true, and the families would like to publicize the murders so that (a) it shouldn't happen again and (b) the murders should get the proper punishment. But assuming you're correct, a Wikipedia article won't make much of a difference in their "peaceful greiving". There's already tons of newspaper articles world-wide about this issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts).Nrswanson (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Knights

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

No evidence of notability for this book; no independent, reliable sources are apparent, book is published by a Vanity press -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • update In addition to the local interest TV spot mentioned below,
  • Lexington Herald author profile
  • and aparently "... while he was a lifeguard in 2005 to finally write down a story he had been mulling over in his head for a long time. He said some of the ideas for "Virtual Knights" came from his elementary school days and followed a story line he and others played on the school playground. Reutlinger said he wrote ..." 10/29/07, 1106925 bytes something in the Hastings Tribune
However, even with these sources, the subject of the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books).-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2Wings

2Wings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Notability not asserted per WP:BAND. The Czech Wikipedia article 2Wings was created just 21 minutes after this one, and is in exactly the same (bad) format, so can't be relied upon to help verify notability in the absence of a Czech language version of google. A search on English google for "2Wings Czech band" returns 54 unique hits. roleplayer 13:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David DeAngelo

AfDs for this article:
David DeAngelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability and references put which link to blogs etc, to pad out and give the illusion of references. In fact, there are only a handful of mentions of him in WP:RS -[8], some of which are press releases or an article saying he spams people with advertising. Non-notable, promotional intent. Presumably in the previous debate people say they would add WP:RS, but this is three years on and they aren't genuinely there to a sufficient extent, and probably never will be as they don't and won't exist. Sticky Parkin 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. The article as it is currently written is unambiguously spam and appears be gaming the system (see nominator's comment about padded references, etc.). I urge other editors to take the time (at least a few minutes) to examine the article, its style, and the references. Particularly galling is a list of "Superseeded" DVD's and CD's that are "no longer for sale." Finally, searching the proprietary OCLC WorldCat (not Open WorldCat) which allows for refined searching by specific authors, of all of his numerously listed works in his article, only one library in the catalog appears to own anything by him (LA County Public owns the 12 CD set Interviews with dating gurus) and that item is self-published by DeAngelo. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on OCLC WorldCat - this is a database of 95 million bibliographic records contributed by 60,000 member libraries in 112 countries. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, anyone with even tangential exposure to the seduction community has heard of this guy, he is one of the major players (no pun intended). Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable outside of niche community. The tone is strongly promotional and like most of the 'seduction' articles seems to feed on itself in circular fashion. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guy's got 226,000 GHits. Has anyone tried pasting it into that little box to the right of the address bar? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i agree it could be a better page, but that doesn't mean delete it; i agree 100% with Aldrich. Scholarus (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the extensive set of references should speak for themselves here, really, but in any case this person has received non-trivial coverage by multiple third party publications. That's the end. JBsupreme (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, and I won't attempt to bring any of the numerous Wikipedia policies to my defense in asserting this opinion. I am simply a user of Wikipedia, one of the many to whom, I believe, you would be doing a disservice by deleting this article. I found out about David DeAngelo and his works through an online dating site. After going through his works, I found them very useful. I thought I'd look up DeAngelo on Wikipedia, and I did, and in doing so I found links to the "seduction community" and other major players in it, such as Ross Jeffries, whom I had never heard about before. Had Wikipedia not had an article about DeAngelo, I would never have found out about this seduction community and these other gurus like Jeffries. The wonder of Wikipedia is that it allows human knowledge to be tied together in a logical way, such as linking DeAngelo and Jeffries together through the seduction community. So, while I agree that the article on DeAngelo perhaps goes into a little too much detail on his specific teachings, and could use a clean-up, I nonetheless repeat my assertion: if you delete this article, you'd be doing a disservice to people who, like me, would look up DeAngelo on Wikipedia, find nothing, but, unlike me, would not be led to other information that may be useful to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.127.108 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll be the first to admit that I think that this guy is perpetuating the problems guys have with his "cocky and funny" method and that I stand against everything he teaches. I hate the seduction community. However, that's not a sufficient reason to delete this article or any article associated with the community. There are quite a few editors who tend to move for deletion on these seduction articles because they obviously disapprove of the community's methods. The seduction community and DeAngelo are notable, and are worth including. --Quintin3265 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple google search turns up numerous references and articles from many sources. True, this article needs a lot of cleanup and reads like an ad, but that doesn't mean deletion is necessary. For those who want deletion on an ideological basis, he's not a scam artist-I was skeptical but desperate when I ordered his work, but the products did more than advertised. Also, unlike most of the "seduction community" he strongly respects women, values honesty, and promotes long-term relationships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.16.38 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm am absolutely astounded beyond belief a person would put up for deletion David DeAngelo. Especially an editor who has recently been making a major contribution to discussions and articles on the seduction community, please do educate yourself on this topic least you make again another blunder of this magnitude. Yes, this article does need some editor work on it but anybody with even the most basic level of knowledge on this topic will know David DeAngelo is one of the most key subjects in this area that there is. Mathmo Talk 11:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blunder Keep, I'm appalled... APPALLED... that the David DeAngelo article would be nominated for deletion. Just look at the intro paragraph! It has three references! Two from Donovan and one from "Dan and Jennifer." The section on his background is sourced with references from Cliff and Neil Strauss. If you knew as much as Cliff about this topic, you would not have made this mistake. If people say they are going to add reliable sources, you are just going to have to trust that people will add reliable sources. Three years might just not be enough time. I am with Mathmo in that I hope that you educate yourself before you make another blunder of this magnitude. AfD is not for cleanup. And AfD is not for someone who is one of the most key subjects in this area. -- Swerdnaneb 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Dan and Jennifer" are cited? Really? Had I known such authoritative sources were in Pagan nee Angelo's corner I would probably have not (erroneously, as I now see) voted to delete. A genuine thanks for the "heads up." When I have the time I'll head on over to the Reliable Source Noticeboard and work on getting these folks more universally recognized! WorldCat's bias against "Dan and Jennifer" is well known in my circles. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article does not at all seem to me to be spammy. I imagine that if it were written by DD it would sould very different. This article might not be perfect, but I feel it is nominated for deletion due to some individuals not liking the subject matter instead of an objective look at how encyclopedic it is. If it's just that problem then just clean it up. Don't let the thought police run amok here.Itsme2003 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete. Obvious hoax that fails WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Gustavson

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

As the article is now, there is a strong doubt whether it is verifiable. Gustavson only gets 20 hits on google. The person that is most likely meant is Tony Gustavsson, whose article is up for speedy deletion. Gustavsson is coach of Hammarby, however, he was born in Sweden, not Spain, and in 1973, not in '54. I do not know who the '54 Spaniard is, so the article should be deleted either due to WP:V or WP:NOT. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Saints Row, leaving open the option to merge sourced content from the history to that or another article, insofar as such a merge is supported by consensus. We have consensus here that this does not deserve an article of its own, but several people have expressed the opinion that a partial merger might be worthwhile.  Sandstein  18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stilwater

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

Primarily non-notable fictional location (a single ref is a developer's blog, this information is more likely useful in a development section for either "Saints Row"/"Saints Row 2". Explicity layout of the city is unnecessary, and falls in WP:GAMEGUIDE. High-level details of city can be integrated into main game articles as needed. MASEM 12:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge to Saints Row or Saints Row 2. Way too much detail about a fictional city in a computer game. JIP | Talk 12:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is best to keep. As both Saint Row and Saint Row 2 takes place at the same location. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Saints Row — Lack of verifiable, third-party sources and fails the general notability guideline. The main problem lies in that there are lacks any extensive outside coverage — something that the blog, verifiable or not, does not address. MuZemike (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to coverage in multiple verifiable third-party sources which demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those sources talk about Stilwater - they refer to the name of the city as to establish the setting. I've played the first and recognize that there is little that can actually be said about the city that doesn't become a fiction tourist guide or gameguide. --MASEM 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They verify it in enough of a manner that suggests we can and should cover it somehow or other, i.e. I don't see any pressing need to redlink the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It can be covered in Saints Row, the idea shouldn't be buried and that article can have a Setting section using an {{anchor}} tag, with a redirect from Stilwater to there, in order to retain high-level information about the city. But the news.google.com articles don't support any significant details on the reasoning or creative aspect of the city to warrant much more discussion; that's only supported by the one developer blog that's already sourced, and that doesn't given significance. What's in that blog can be used to build up a development section in either game's article, but alone is not sufficient for an article. --MASEM 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Saints Row: Without substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, this article can't meet the general notability guideline, let alone its burden of proof in our verifiability policy. The only coverage in reliable third-party sources is trivial, mentioning the name of the location, but not offering any meaningful facts that we can verify. Randomran (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is not notable. No reliable third-party source explicitly discusses the subject in detail, thereby showing that there is no significant or substantial coverage per WP:GNG and WP:NOBJ. Article's nature is more of a virtual travel guide than one discussing conceptualization and development of the virtual setting, hence a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:VG/GL. Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cull, merge and redirect - the subject's notability is painfully questionable and its article is far too over-detailed for an encyclopedia article on such a subject. However, it may be more prudent to cut the article down to size, cleaning out all that excessive detail and other fancruft so we're left with something actually useful for readers who haven't played the game before merging into the series article. The location should be covered in some small and concise amount in either the series article in setting sections of the two games it appears in. Such information is useful to the comprehensiveness of the other articles as it provides context to readers for the game's setting. It just shouldn't have a separate article; redistributing the information and redirecting to the series article seems like the best way to me.-- Sabre (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that LGRdC has added some references with comments about the city (see this diff for example). While these barely make this notable, we still have the issue that the content of this article falls somewhere between a fictional travel guide and a game guide, both which are details that WP does not cover. These points can be added to either game article with a more succinct version of the city, but a full article is still not justified with these references. --MASEM 23:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That strikes me though as cause for merging and redirecting without deletion. For what it's worth, I'm not really persuaded with the vocal minority argument that we shouldn't be a game guide. Given all the editors who create and work on those kinds of articles and all the hits they get, as long as they are verifiable, I don't really see why not to cover them or that the claim that we shouldn't are really consistent with what the community wants in practice. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why I'm still saying that its appropriate to merge (however, its up to an admin to close this in some fashion, I can't since I'm involved). We've been through the issue of being a game guide numerous times already through WT:VG and other AFDs, and consensus keeps showing that we do not include content that is only useful to someone playing the game, even if it is verifible, as it falls under the general principles of WP:NOT. --MASEM 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not persuaded of that because in those discussions the same editors which are far less numerous than those who create and work on the articles or who read them make that case. And who knows, maybe sooner or later they too will change their mind or be outvoiced. I see no reason not to keep ideas out there for others to pick up on. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • But it's not just video game editors, it's a long standing policy that WP does not tell people this level of detail. An encyclopedia is not the same as a textbook or guidebook for any topic regardless of how else the content meets WP's policies - game guides fall into these. This information can be located in a general game wiki, but not on Wikipedia. --MASEM 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • We're more than a regular encyclopedia though and have the disc space and interest to cover this kind of material in a manner that published encyclopedias reasonably could not. It may be somehow consistent with the ever disputed and evolving policies, but it's also a long-standing practice of editors to create and work on such articles and so long as what they write is true, then I say let them as doing so in spinoff and sub-articles only makes us that much more relevant, useful, valuable, etc. of a comprehensive reference guide. An alternate solution could be more vigorously linking ro soft rediecting to other wikis. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I completely agree on the later (and thus expect the extra information here to be found in some Saints Row wiki - I don't know if one exists, but its worthwhile there). However, be aware that the goals of an encyclopedia and the goals of a reference guide are two very different things, and we've long determined that we're the encyclopedia route. --MASEM 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I find that tables or lists of information on video games are to those articles what the table of elements is to an article on elements or a list of Academy Award winners is to an article of the Academy Awards. I am not suggesting that these fictional lists are necessarily as notable as the real world examples, but that they are sufficiently notable by their own measurement to be needed for fully understanding these subjects, too and anyone who is likely to click on them will benefit from comparing and contrasting that kind of information with other similar articles. If people use an encyclopedia for research and to evaluate information, there's something to be learned by examining one fictional location from another, i.e. it reveals something to the readers/researchers about how video games present locations differently and again so long as it is verifiable then there's something to be learned there too as not every video game is covered in strategy guides and nor does every game review specifically mention the locations. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge or redirect to Saints Row, depending on the subject's notability (which I do not wish to take the time to investigate right now). I see no good reason to delete when an appropriate and obvious redirect target exists. DHowell (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cull, merge and redirect per Sabre. No sign that this topic could support its own article (and no, a two-sentence Reception section and a link to Google doesn't cut it for me). Agree with nom that the majority of this current article is not suitable for wikipedia (WP:NOT), so that's where the culling comes in. – sgeureka t•c 06:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kohring

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

Article on a common surname, created and deprodded by User:Richkohring. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 12:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Laguna Summer Olympics

2020 Laguna Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax, or a currently non-notable bid. Google throws up nothing by that name, and nothing concerning Laguna and Olympics. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rififi (2009 film)

Rififi (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Comment Suggest User talk:TAP1000 consider including sources for this remake of the 1955 film Rififi. Paying mind to [15], [16],

[17], [18], [19], [20], and [21] while searching out more, if notabilty is to be established before the end of this AfD. Schmidt (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aron siegel

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

Contested PROD. No reliable sources are provided that establish notability or provide verifiability. The record of work from IMDB does not support notability either. Whpq (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you actually click through them you will find some of them are dead links, and none of them would be called reliable as they include sites that are related to him, or in the case of the Polish DJ site, it appears to be a reprint/rehash of material from his own site based on the credit in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am new to the wikipedia environment. I am continually trying to add information, but I seem to be unable to create the proper notations for article Aron Siegel. I would like more time to enter in these links and footnotes on the article.Vinylm (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time is what you may not have. However, and in the hope the article can be improved, go to the article, click "edit this page", and then copy the entire thing to User:Vinylm/sandbox (the link will turn blue as soon as there's something there. This way you can work on improving it at your leisure and need not fret if it gets deleted here. Study other similar articles. See how they source themselves and how they prove their notability. And in fact, you may always ask for advice. Many here will be glad to listen. There is no rush. Take your time. Make it great. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also, it appears as though a few of the links that were valid, are down at the moment. specifically discomuseum.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylm (talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least can keep working on it. I'm glad you moved it to your sandbox. Make it as strong as possible. Good luck. Have fun. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live At Parc Des Princes DVD

Live At Parc Des Princes DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Whitney

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

Not really notable enough, methinks. Chris (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawal by nominator and per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). RedThunder 13:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Settlement, Malacca

Portuguese Settlement, Malacca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable community site. H2H (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC) What Gene said was true. H2H (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only the nominator seems to want deletion, all other participants either express a keep or merge/redirect opinion. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Dependency of Forvik

Crown Dependency of Forvik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Hoax. Wikipedia's policy for hoaxes is: "Do not create hoaxes!" This article is about a crown dependency that doesn't exist. Therefore, this article qualifies as a hoax. Adam233 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and no redirect. There was a clear lack of consensus previously for a merge. I do not know about other editors, but I find it suspicious that Adam233, a new user with no editing history on Wikipedia before this nomination for deletion, does so a couple of days after Stuart Hill's announcement of a visit to Forvik Island by a London Times journalist, and also the filming of a segment for a new documentary, Islands of Britain (Martin Clunes presenting) - including photos. Might the clear passion of those who oppose the Forvik dependency declaration and concept be leading to sock and meatpuppetry? Is this AFD nomination perhaps to try and force through a merge or redirect by the 'back door'? As to the subject of the article itself, it is and remains a micronation with ongoing verifiable references as per the requirements of WP:MICROCON. Perhaps some might argue at a stretch that this is an article about a hoax, but that is NOT the same as a hoax as proscribed in WP:Do not create hoaxes, and to list Crown Dependency of Forvik for deletion as one is certainly bending the guideline at a 90 degree angle, if not simply abusing it outright. - Dalvikur (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This guy's claim to independence is not legitimate, but that's not the same thing as this article being a hoax. Verifiable and stocked with reliable independent sources. Reyk YO! 11:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Forewick Holm, merging at editor's discretion. Not a hoax, but an article for Forvik is premature. Notability is not established yet. This is an odd news story at the moment unless Hill can make his claim stick, or at least convince the businesses he seeks that Forvik is semi-credible (e.g. Principality of Sealand). • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and no redirect. We have already discussed redirecting and merging the page, look at the talk page of Forewick Holm. Also, this is a micronation, not a hoax, it has references to support its existence. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Existence does not establish notability. This self-styled entity needs to satisfy WP:ORG/WP:CORP. One splash of publicity doesn't do the job. If Hill can hold of the UK tax enforcement, that would be a start. If he can sell merchandise or attract "citizens" and investors, Forvik could establish some credibility. He's not there yet. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • CD of Forvik is by definition a micronation (not an organisation or corporation) - your opinions on how "state-like" it is and how to judge how "state-like" it is are completely irrelevant. Also, please do not use straw man arguments, I was refuting the "CD of Forvik is a hoax" argument, I wasn't even discussing notability until now. One splash of publicity? Did you read the talk page I pointed out? This is just a complete repetition of old arguments along with one editor's opinions. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Forewick Holm. But I wouldn't exactly term it a hoax, even if Mr Hill's attempts to sell something which doesn't belong to him are dubious. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: MacRusgail, this kind of discussion - about Hill's legal right to sell land plots to Shetland residents - is a perfectly valid topic of discussion, but let's leave that for Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik.
  • Keep. The sources in the article satisfy notability requirements. I thought this went through AFD last year, but I might be wrong. Anyway, this is not a hoax because there is substantial third party media coverage. The text could be tweaked more with relation to this being something that isn't widely recognized, but the media sources given make this an viable article. 23skidoo (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, this article is a hoax in so far as the article is written as if there was a "Crown Dependency of Forvik". That's the same as if someone (Let's call him "John Doe".) tries to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and you write an article about him with the title "Prime Minister John Doe". Adam233 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - that's why I support the merge with Forewick Holm, as there is little of interest on that island apart from this, and most of this is in Hill's imagination.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're repeating old arguments - remember, CD of Forvik is a micronation and Forewick Holm is an island, they are two completely different subjects. If Prime Minister John Doe created a micronation that had references, notability etc., then it is likely that an article on John Doe's micronation would be created and become a part of WP:MICRON's scope. The micronation exists, it's definitely not a hoax. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adam223, I notice that you have changed your comment about an hour and a half after I posted my last comment, so that in your example "John Doe" is now attempting to become Prime Minister of the UK. This is your attempt to make my last comment appear to be meaningless when I begin to discuss micronations, however the change can be seen in watchlists and history pages. We are not talking about a recognised country, we are talking about micronations - or "unrecognised state-like entities". CD of Forvik is a micronation, you still haven't described how Forvik is a hoax. CD of Forvik clearly exists. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • (Well, I have clarified my comment because, obviously, you didn't understand it.) The point is that simply the fact that Forvik wants to be a crown dependency doesn't automatically make Forvik a crown dependency. Similarly, simply the fact that John Doe wants to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom doesn't automatically make him Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. An article on "John Doe (politician)" would not be a hoax. But an article on "Prime Minister John Doe" would be a hoax. Adam233 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So John Doe is a politician now? You didn't mention that, maybe the comment would have been understood if it wasn't vague. The definition of micronation is unrecognised state-like entity.
              Is Forvik unrecognised? Definitely. Is Forvik state-like? Clearly it is, and therefore it is a micronation. It exists - it isn't a hoax. Why aren't you nominating all micronation articles for deletion? Atlantium claims that it is an empire, Hutt River claims that it is a principality. And does this affect their existence? Not at all! Because they are micronations, therefore they are unrecognised. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Kosovo. They declared themselves a nation; by your logic it isn't. As well, your going on about some John Doe claiming to be PM is quite a bit of misdirection in your argument. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No redirect. Subject meets WP verifiability policy and notability guideline. Multiple reliable references cited. Spurious nomination. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and No Redirect as above. Also, AfD nominator Adam233 seems to have created this account solely for the purpose of listing this article for deletion, which stinks of either sockpuppetry, or an agenda. I can't assume good faith when someone starts off claiming hoax on something that isn't, especially with the record (or lack thereof) of this user. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While Adam233 may yet prove their worth as an editor, right now certainly they look like a deceitful sock or meatpuppet as you say Onecanadasquarebishopsgate, Gene Poole and coldacid. Further this AFD nomination conveniently allows a rehash of previous arguments for redirect or merge which were previously rejected (see my edit of 16:49, 10 August 2008 above). - Dalvikur (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Forewick Holm. It worries me that we would choose to give any credence to what I regard as little more than a short-lived publicity stunt, (although I admire the enthusiasm of those interested in Micronations). My second choice would be Move to "Forvik (micronation)" as the current title is ( I believe) perpetuating a hoax. There is no such place - at least not in the sense that it is legitimised by the existence of a Lieutenant Governor representing the monarch . Ben MacDui 08:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As many have clearly stated before, it is a micronation - your opinion on the micronation is irrelevant. It isn't recognised or legitimised because it is a micronation or an unrecognised state-like entity. WP:MICROCON is a convention that is half a decade old, and it is accepted and very clear on the naming of micronation articles: use the full name. The article also clearly explains that it is a micronation - it exists, there is no hoax. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I mentioned in the merge discussion, as far as I know there is no WP Policy on this subject, only WP:MICROCON's "Proposed Policy". As far as I am concerned the misleading nature of the claim to be a Crown Dependency has more weight than this "convention". I am not sure why you think my opinions are "irrelevant". Surely we are here to exchange opinions and perhaps improve the encyclopedia as a result? Ben MacDui 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As various people have stated, Forvik, micronation or not, cannot style itself a "crown dependency" without outside permission. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ben MacDui - Your opinions on the micronation specifically, are irrelevant - it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks it is a publicity stunt or completely serious, it is by definition a micronation. There is absolutely nothing misleading about it because the article clearly explains that it is a micronation (read the first sentence), we never said that its claim to crown dependency status is in anyway recognised. We need to stop talking about how much of a state it is because it really doesn't matter - it is a micronation, it is therefore unrecognised and state-like. "Crown Dependency of Forvik" is the name of this "creation", what would be even more misleading is giving the article a title that is not the title of the subject.
          MacRusgail - Micronations don't need outside permission, they are unrecognised and state-like, they can style themselves however they want. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You may be right, you may be wrong, but in my view Forvik is neither 'state-like' nor a Crown Dependency. I accept your right to hold a different view, but your continued assertions that other editors positions are irrelevant is beginning to sound like a case of WP:OWN. Ben MacDui 17:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please stop using this complete straw man argument that I don't accept other's opinions. I have only ever stated that your opinion on the micronation itself is irrelevant (and not any other opinion) because it doesn't change the fact that it is a micronation. Myself and other editors have explained several times how Forvik is a micronation, what has made it a micronation - in other words we have backed up our claims with references and the definition of "micronation". I have explained how an opinion on how state-like the micronation is is irrelevant because it is still state-like, how similar it is to a recognised state does not matter whatsoever. If you don't believe that it is state-like, then please provide reasons, because with a flag, claimed land, motto, leader etc. I don't see what else it can resemble. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ben MacDui, why not take this debate to Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik where it belongs. Your opinions above belong on the talk page of that article, not here. They are not relevant to the 'delete because it is a hoax' question that is the subject of this discussion, and it's clear the consensus so far is not with Adam233. Do you have anything to add on that subject? Dalvikur (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • By all means, if the article survives this discussion. Two points if I may. First I afraid I have to agree that Adam233's credentials are extremely suspect. I have had a long look at WP:SSP, but it would seem fruitless reporting the subject there as his/her edits are not ongoing and I am not interested in hazarding guesses as to the identity of the sock-puppeteer. Secondly, as I discovered to my cost some time ago, policy allows considerable latitude to closing admins (see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure who may base their decision on the arguments presented and their understanding of policy. I am not suggesting the consensus is with the nomination at present, but you can't just tally up the opinions as if they were votes. Ben MacDui 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Although I am not of course second guessing the admin's subsequent decision, please can you point out an actual argument for deletion according to WP:Do_not_create_hoaxes, because Adam233 certainly hasn't put one forward. Surprisingly. There are other topics of discussion here but I would appreciate you pointing out an actual argument for deletion from the discussion so far, which, after all this discussion is meant to be quite narrowly about. - Dalvikur (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That is a fair question. "Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes describing them as hoaxes", so the logic would run that as the "Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik" exists, not as a genuine legal entity, but as a figment of its founder's imagination that the article is a hoax, but not described such. It is therefore a genuine subject for a deletion debate. Of course if the article were to point out that Forvik does not have crown dependency status and is unlikely ever to gain the same, or indeed any other formal recognition, then that might go some way to dealing with this objection. Ben MacDui 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And we have already mentioned that in the article, by using the word micronation. It is unrecognised, and some micronations do little else but exist, sometimes as a creation from imagination (though this micronation is more than a basic internet simulation, as it has had some impact in reality). It is called Crown Dependency of Forvik because that is the name given to it by its creator. I think what you mean by it "not having crown dependency status" is that it is not recognised by the United Kingdom as a crown dependency and therefore it is close to being a hoax (am I right?) - that is not how micronations work. You bring up laws when really we already know that their claim might not have any legal backing - it is common in micronations. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment: I do challenge Ben MacDui's view on this problem. The landing, claim and subsequent self-declaration has actually happened, and whether or not the legality of the claim can be established, it is something to be documented in an online encyclopedia. Only the bare facts have to be presented. Otherwise people will look elsewhere for the information. Wikipedia is starting to resemble an idiotic little dictatorship of B grade self-appointed editors squabbling over pretend issues. Vanderloo 15:12, 12 August 2008 (GMT)
  • Redirect to Forewick Holm, merging at editor's discretion. My second choice would be Move to "Forvik (micronation)" as the current title is perpetuating a hoax. Whatever happens, it cannot remain here under the completely false title of "Crown Dependency of... " as The Crown has not (and never will) recognise it, let alone take on the responsibilities of guardian over Mr Hill's back garden (as being separate from its responsibilities as guardian over anybody else's back garden in the UK and its recognised dependencies). --Mais oui! (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forvik is a micronation, therefore it isn't recognised. It isn't a hoax, it exits as a micronation and the title is the name given to the micronation by its creator. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to say the same thing: it's the Crown Dependency of Forvik because that's what the micronation's founder called it. Whether or not it can style itself a crown dependency is entirely beside the point, and arguing about it is counterproductive. I could found the Kingdom of Blah in my backyard, and not choose a king, and it's still the Kingdom anyway. Get over it. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 13:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about the polling below per WP:NOTAVOTE. AfD is not a majority vote. Straw polls are not encouraged and they are not binding. This is a debate to seek consensus based on evidence, guidelines, and policies for dealing with the article, and deletion is not the only available option at AfD. I don't feel that a slightly imperfect nomination is grounds for a speedy close. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lists weren't set up as a vote, but rather as a way of making comments clear and also as a way of grouping opinions. They were never labelled as a vote. So far Adam233 has failed to provide any evidence that this article is a hoax or should be deleted. In fact, he is the only editor that ever wanted to see this article deleted. Also, we have already had a merge debate on this very recently, and editors are using this opportunity to avoid the "no consensus" result. It is quite clear: this nomination is absolutely pointless, the article isn't going anywhere, so if anyone wants to continue the debate as normal on a talk page they can. This nomination has done nothing else but disrupt the normal process of finding consensus on the talk page. It is more than just slightly imperfect, this nomination has been useless from the start and used as a "back door". Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment can go for the list of names for merge or redirect, as well. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 15:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not redirect or merge - Per all of the above discussions regarding the fact that this is a micronation... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close this deletion nomination

We can continue the debate on Forvik and micronations on another page. However only one editor, Adam233, wants to see the article completely deleted, and so far it seems that he has left and only created his account to nominate the Forvik article for deletion. His reason for this nomination (his claim that Forvik is a complete hoax) has been shown to not be true, and for the above reasons this nomination should be closed.

I have added the signatures of editors that have explained that they want to see this nomination closed. All editors can add their signatures to the list below if they too want to see this nomination closed: (Comment by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Merge or redirect this article

I still think that this article is trying to perpetuate a hoax.

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate claims that Forvik was not a hoax, but a micronation. But even if Forvik was a micronation, this doesn't mean that Forvik can simply call itself a "crown dependency". If Forvik was a crown dependency, then this would imply e.g. that there was a Lieutenant Governor and that all legislation needed the approval of the Queen. In the article on micronations, micronations are described as follows:

"Micronations — sometimes also referred to as fantasy countries, model countries, and new country projects — are entities that resemble independent nations or states but which are unrecognized by world governments or major international organisations. These nations usually exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators. Micronations differ from secession and self-determination movements in that they are largely viewed as being eccentric and ephemeral in nature, and are often created and maintained by a single person or family group.
Micronations generally have a number of common features:
  1. They often assert that they wish to be widely recognized as sovereign states, but are not so recognized.
  2. They are small; those that claim to control physical territories are mostly of very limited extent. While several micronations claim hundreds or even thousands of members, the vast majority have no more than one or two active participants.
  3. Some issue government instruments such as passports, stamps, and currency, and confer titles and awards; these are rarely recognised outside of their own communities of interest."

So Forvik isn't even a micronation in the proper sense, since Forvik doesn't claim to be independent. It only quarrels about its concrete status under the crown.

So if this article isn't deleted, then, at least, it has to be merged with Forewick Holm or Stuart Hill (Sailor) or to be renamed to Forvik. Adam233 (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the signatures of editors that have explained that they want to see this article merged or redirected. All editors can add their signatures to the list below:

---

  • Comment: Dominion of British West Florida? Northern Forest Archipelago? Vikesland? Forvik isn't unique, these examples are also micronations that don't claim to be fully independent in some way. It is a micronation, the creator can call it what ever he or she wants to call it. Why? Because it is unrecognised. Why is it unrecognised? Because it is a micronation! All micronations claim independence in some way, even if it isn't full. It definitely is a micronation in the proper, simple definition - "unrecognised, state-like entity".
Empire of Atlantium? Principality of Hutt River? Micronations are known for claiming titles and forms of government. Also, they are well known for not necessarily having any law backing their creation in reality. This isn't a discussion on merges but on deletion, and it seems to me as it does to other editors that this nomination is being used to avoid the "no-consensus" decision in the last merge debate - this is not the place to discuss merging articles and even then we had a very recent debate on this.
Adam233, why don't you nominate all micronation articles for deletion, challenge the convention and try to eliminate the Micronations WikiProject if you really think your claim has enough support? So far, we have already explained why nominating the Forvik article as a hoax was pointless in the first place. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Adam233, your intent is clearly to subvert consensus through sockpuppetry. By posting this section you demonstrate clearly that this AfD nomination is primarily an attempt by you to force through a merge or redirect by the 'back door'.
I doubt therefore that you will get much support from the editors listed above for this reason, even though they might themselves strongly support a merge or redirect if you were putting forth the above points on Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik. But you aren't doing so. You are a sock or meat puppet doing it in the context of a false AfD nomination. Speaking for myself as an editor I certainly wouldn't want my reputation associated with such a thing.
As has already been stated by several editors with extensive experience in articles on this type of subject, and other editors merely looking at the article and subject on its face, Crown Dependency of Forvik, is and remains a micronation with ongoing verifiable references as per the requirements of WP:MICROCON. There was a clear lack of consensus previously for a merge or redirect.
Whoever you actually are, your arguments for a merge or re-direct should be made on Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik where they belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalvikur (talk • contribs) 00:28, 2008 August 15 (UTC)
Comment: This nonsense has continued for long enough. Adam233 is obviously a sockpuppet account whose sole purpose is the disruption of WP via the subversion of consensus. The account should be permanently blocked. End of story. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Adam233's contributions show this to be nothing more than an attack account. He's running afoul of 3RR now, too (although not on this page). --coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Reverted back to a redirect to Ringo Starr. If "Ringo Star" (the band) had been created as a new article, it'd be subject to speedy deletion under category a7, in that it doesn't assert that the band meets the notability standards of WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ringo Star

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

The article presents no evidence to indicate that this band satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for musicians and ensembles. JavaTenor (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- No assertion of notability; agree with JavaTenor.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 08:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahia Honda Ghost Story

Bahia Honda Ghost Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is a ghost story and not an encyclopaedic entry. I'm still unsure as there's nothing on WP:NOT about this matter. ShootinPutin109Talk 08:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep- Am not sure about this one, but am voting for keep at this moment albeit the article needs some work. Maybe in the future it can be merged with Bahia Honda Key.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 08:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David kenny

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

The subject is not notable and the article -which lacks any sources whatsoever and is orphaned- requires a massive amount of cleaning up and wikifying. Λuα (Operibus anteire) 08:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to fnd anything which supports notability.
Cheers mates!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 13:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I just noticed that....and it was moved :) Lazulilasher (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...there you are, thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bauer (radio host)

Kim Bauer (radio host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence is presented that this local radio host is notable. Grahame (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 08:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Limborg

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

Although the artist has toured with notable artists (the Jets and Prince) there is no indication that he has notability on his own. The creating editor (who shares a name with a subject) is unwilling to discuss the article or tags and keeps removing them without responding to comments. Fails WP:N Movingboxes (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepAt this stage, it seems that the subject is bordering notability and IMO I think it should be kept. The article itself is well written, neutral, and sourced leaving WP:COI as the only major problem.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 09:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My concern is that there are no third-party sources and I have been unable to locate any. Movingboxes (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 11:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Claiborne

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

It has no sources and I feel it is not notable. Plus the page just looks ugly. IT ALSO HAS MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION POINTS IN IT! How am I the first person to notice this?

DELETE KingsOfHearts (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Montrose, Victoria--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montrose Primary School:2259

Montrose Primary School:2259 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only salvageable content is the school's location, and it does not appear to have a chance of being notable [22] Someguy1221 (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ã’Leamóná

Ã’Leamóná (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This non-notable language article has been tagged as nn for nearly a month now. There are no google results, save for Wikihow (and there it says it is made up, which is why this is suspicious). There is not way this article can be salvaged or brought beyond a very short stub article, which is why I propose it be deleted. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 07:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grunk music

Grunk music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Keep Based on the fact that it is a new and notable musical genre. The reference in Rolling Stone magazine, if anyone has that mag they should have a look at the article. Buzz Magazine may or may not be notable, im not too sure. We should ask some Australians on the topic.--210.50.253.124 (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2008

— 210.50.253.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC) (who is Australian and never heard of either Grunk music or the John Smith Quintet.)[reply]

--With all due respect, how old are you WWGB? Because i cant help but think that someone who is slightly younger and has a broader knowledge of new Australian music might be able to shed light on this topic... --210.50.253.124 (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- And... since when does "(is Australian and never heard of either Grunk music or the John Smith Quintet.)" render something not notable, also have you ever heard of Mr Bungle WWGB? if you have not then you will be quite surprised when you discover that it is actually on wikipedia due to notability despite the fact that you have never heard of them. It does get quite tiresome when people who think they know things vote for deletion on topics on wikipedia.--210.50.253.124 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said "We should ask some Australians on the topic". I responded. Please make up your mind what you want. WWGB (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also intrigued by the comment "It does get quite tiresome when people who think they know things vote for deletion on topics on wikipedia" - this from an editor who had been a member of Wikipedia for 53 minutes at the time of posting that comment. WWGB (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am from Melbourne Australia and Grunk is a massive thing here. There are so many around, its the new trend in the Australian music industry. I agree it is barely a year old but it has already recieved alot of attention. Both sources are factual by the way and the Rolling Stone article is about half a page, have a read its quite informative. --116.240.169.227 (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 116.240.169.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I'm from Australia, work in the music industry, and I've never heard of it, and a bit of online research picked up nothing. I don't know what the Rolling Stone mention was, but I doubt it was more than just that - a mention. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible or sourced claims of notability. And sorry, the 3rd place in science fair in 2005 doesn't do it, either. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emi (Native American singer)

Emi (Native American singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable claims to notability, no references given and searching doesn't produce anything that verifies hit singles. Not listed on cast list of film mentioned [23]. Article apparently written by subject. Hunting dog (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page about the same person - lack of verifiable notability again:

Em (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-Hunting dog (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete this page is entirely unsourced and web searches seem to provide no clues - meaning this article fails [[WP:V]. Edited only by the subject (who had written it in a very POV manner), there are assertions of notability with the fabled "number 1" and "hit records" having seemingly no basis in reality. If these claims were true, the subject would pass WP:MUSIC, but as it stands, it seems this is a pretty elaborate hoax. On a side note, while a glance at the external links seems to give an appearance of authenticity, but a more thorough look shows them all to be personal sites (i.e. myspace), wikis, or non-working pages. Let's end this now. - Toon05 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby...You're Bummin' My Life out in a Supreme Fashion

AfDs for this article:
Baby...You're Bummin' My Life out in a Supreme Fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not indicate significance. Article is unreference. Release never charted anywhere. Kabob21 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenleaf (band)

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

Not notable, unreferenced, not charting album. Kabob21 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep (I am the creator of article) Article addresses WP:MUSIC criteria 5.Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels... criteria 6.Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable... Having not charted does not make a band non notable. External links verify information in the article, it just needs a rewrite to make them inline references.Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science driver

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

The article claims this is a term used by economists but there are no sources for that use, and the article has been tagged since June '07. The only sources found in Google refer to a different usage. Even if that other usage is verifiable it would just leave us with a dictionary definition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article may be on to something, but I've never heard of this term. Some kind of sourcing is needed for verifiability. I've mentioned it at WP:ECON to see if anyone else can lend a hand. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've heard the phrase "science as the driver" in the same context as the article mentions. I think I've even used it before. I did a search but I could not find any sources that describe the term rather then just using it. Too bad, it's a rather well done article. --Patrick (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Interesting concept, but the phrase has no currency and the article is wholly unsourced. Some of its claims, particularly the extremely high ROI claimed (1100%+) and the commonality of the name itself, require citations to even remain in the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've not encountered this term, and no citation has been provided to support the claim that any economists (let alone some significant share of the community of economists) use this term. Frankly, this term seems more the sort of neologism coined by policy entrepreneurs and journalists seeking a new bottle for old wine (or for old vinegar). —SlamDiego←T 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Networks: The Heralds of Resource Sharing

Computer Networks: The Heralds of Resource Sharing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources for this. Schuym1 (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is a book which mentions this film. Don't automatically discount the subject non-notable because of missing sources. The age of the film probably makes it harder to find material. This appears to be have been produced by MIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep just because it is hard to verify does not mean it is not verified. all i had to do was take the subtitle and it turned up more than than enough hits and substantive sources to justify notability. it is notable film in any case given who is in it and what they say. --Buridan (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wasn't verified. All I said was that I couldn't find any reliable sources. Articles have to have multiple reliable sources. Can you please add the sources, that you found, to the article? Schuym1 (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
notability is established based on the participants in the film. the film is widely distributed, you can watch it on the web for free. this is a case of... if you want sources, it is your job, else 'ignore all rules'. wanting it 'improved' is not a reason for deletion. what i did was say, does the film exist? answer yes. is it notable, answer yes, why is it notable, answer because the participants in the film are notable. --Buridan (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right about the notable part. If a documentary gets uploaded, it is most likely a copyright violation. Schuym1 (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I did not nominate the article because I wanted it improved. There are lots of AFDs that are started because the nominator couldn't find reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for what reason would one need reliable sources? either you dispute the validity of the article, or you want to improve it. also, note that if a documentary is produced by the government of the u.s., unless some special provision is made by congress, that documentary is in public domain, no copyright. --Buridan (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To show it's notability which that doesn't apply to this because the article shows it's notability. I made a mistake. Please stop continuing this. Schuym1 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buridan: Dunno why you're jumping all over the kid. The article has no sources and he said he can't find any. A very good reason for deletion. Verifiability is "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer, its not that there are no sources for this article; there are no sources online. I believe that there might be someone at MIT who can shed more light on this production, or their library could have more information. This involves someone doing the footwork and visiting some dead trees, of course. riffic (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but that's not related to my point. I just though that he was being to critical of the nominator who gave a very valid reason for deletion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
he actually didnt' give a solid reason for deletion. he said he can't find sources. if you can't find sources, you mark the article for improvement. you don't delete it. You would nominate it for deletion if for instance it wasn't notable, or for instance if it was entirely fictive. but the kid had the video which is full of notable people. for instance, in my personal library i cannot find anything to cite this with either, should i nominate it for deletion? no, i would just mark it that the article needs sources. find something good to delete.--Buridan (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the video. Schuym1 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done watching this. Do not expect a reply from me. Schuym1 (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I would like to withdraw this nomination. Schuym1 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keilor Park Football Club

Keilor Park Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an non-notable local amateur football team. Grahame (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Orlins

AfDs for this article:
Eliza Orlins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page was actually deleted a couple of years ago, but I figured a fresh nom wouldn't hurt. She is just a reality show contestant who has done nothing of note apart from Survivor. Yes, she has been on two seasons, but precedent shows that that is not enough. -- Scorpion0422 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but one article still needs to be merged. Non admin closure. Undeath (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apotactics

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

Fails WP:RS and WP:N. It is horribly written too. Possible copyvio in some sections. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google and Google Books hits are sufficient to establish notability. One can't violate the copyright of a public-domain source, and the Catholic Encyclopedia is properly credited in the article. I've done a bit of minor cleanup on the article. Deor (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that we have another article on the same group at Apotactite (that one's based on the article in the 11th ed. of the Encyclopaedia Britannica rather than on the Catholic Encyclopedia article). If the decision here is "keep", one of these articles should be merged into the other to avoid duplication. Deor (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and redirected Apotactite to this article. They should stand and fall together, in any event, and this is the more detailed article. It's title also seems more in line with the titles of many of the other articles in [[Category:Ancient Christian denominations]]. Deor (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before nominating an article as non-notable, please take the short time necessary to search for the term at [24]. In light of the overwhelming number of references there, going well back into the 19th century, it would be appropriate for the nominator to withdraw this to avoid further embarassment. I added two to the article for good measure. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Don't insult me by saying that this is turning into an embarassment. I take no embarrassment from any AfD and nor should anyone else. People should never openly insinuate that something embarrassing has happened either. I won't close the AfD until it's over. I didn't like the fact that the catholic encyclopedia was the only source given at the time of nomination. I also don't think this article is properly written. It almost sounded like a catholic fanatic wrote it to praise the catholic religion and put down those who oppose it.(who were called Heretics in the article, but it was worded as if the person writing the article meant that people who oppose his belief are still heretical) Undeath (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By nominating an article for deletion, you are advocating that it be deleted from an encyclopedia. Please read WP:DEL#REASON and explain which of those reasons apply. Note specifically these three:
  • Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms and original theories and conclusions
  • Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  • Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
Does Apotactics meet any of these? Even assuming the Catholic Encyclopedia wasn't an RS, which it is, an article being not sourced requires that the nominator search for sources before deletion before asserting that "all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Since a simple Google Books search finds a plethora, with full text, I strongly suspect no search was done. Further, note that even if the article fails to demonstrate notability, the deletion criteria require that the "subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline".
Certainly, you're not alone in AfD'ing stubs that should never have been AfD'ed. And you're right, it's really your choice, not mine, whether to be embarassed by the lack of congruence between your nomination and the Apotactics article. At any rate, you now have a full explanation why I find it completely unfounded and why I would be embarassed to have submitted it. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah! Calm down Undead warrior and Jclemens. This is not helpful. Everyone stop WP:BITEing Undead warrior. I think everyone here can admit that he added the tag in good faith, and the responses here should be civil. Let's not turn this page into a heated discussion simply because people feel insulted instead of respected. Undead warrior, I agree with you that the language does need to reflect a more neutral view and should therefore be significantly reworded. However, the correct response to this situation would have been to tag the article for neutrality and for one source rather than an AFD. I don't think it unreasonable for other editors to point this out to you (although they should be more civil) as it really is not the best way to handle these sort of issues. I myself have made similar mistakes when I first started doing AFD noms and have since learned that tags are often the better way to go if a subject meets notability requirements but may not meet other standards upheld on wikipedia. If you are not familiar with the different tags available and their usage please check out Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Cheers!Nrswanson (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is obviously an article on a notable (though minor) subject. The criterion for AFD is not that article has no reliable sources cited, but there are no reliable sources. This is a common problem in WP. The answer to it is to look for sources, not to nominate for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the fictional character is not notable enough. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's arguments are discounted for being boilerplate and at odds with established policy. If he wants to create an article about the unrelated historical person Bernardo Buscayno, he should do so under that title.  Sandstein  17:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Dante

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

Contested prod. Fictional character with no secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability. No out-of-universe content, too detailed to merge. Pagrashtak 04:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as I suggest when I removed t he prod--seems the obvious way to handle articles like this. A merge does not necessarily mean keeping all the content, though it should mean keeping a substantial part. I am reluctant with articles in this field to assume knowledge I don';t really have and perform the merge myself and decide what content to keep.DGG (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
several alternatives were mentioned in that afd discussion. DGG (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one suggesting the merge. I've already stated my position on merge targets, it would be nice if you could do the same. Where exactly would you have this merged? Pagrashtak 13:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Review, 2. Apparently in other media, 3 Independent character review, 4. Another review (is this a good site?) 5. Review of him in other media, I just typed in "Commander Dante" and review into yahoo and this is what I found from a quick search. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Trivial mention ". The Games Workshop sculptors have done a tremendous job on the special characters and heroes,. . . the magnificent gold Commander Dante . . ." and that's it about Dante., 2. Not independent of Games Workshop or licensed sellers (i.e. it's a card in a WH40k CCG), 3. What review? This is the description of the special character model which is identical to the official description on the Games Workshop website (i.e. the text used to advertise the model), 4. Trivial mention, "There is nothing like sitting back and smugly admiring the Commander Dante model you have spent the last 7 hours perfecting." That's all you get about Dante, 5. Not independent of Games Workshop. This is the official Games Workshop Blood Angels codex that describes Dante and what his game stats are, i.e. more repetition of official advertising material from the company that makes the figures. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third party spec guidelines found in 2 for the card and 3 for a miniature are part of Notability guidelines. And yes, all of them are independent from Games Workshop since Games Workshop does not own any of them. These references should be enough to justify the restoration of the previous page and merging this miniature into it. Plus, my search was only limited, so there are plenty more. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean here... The collectible card game, from which this card you mention is taken, is produced by Sabertooth Games, a subsidiary of Games Workshop, and hence isn't somehow a "third party reference". The third reference is nothing more than repetition of advertising material from Games Workshop. What "review" are you referring to here? As I've stated, the others are more advertising from Games Workshop or the barest of (trivial) mentions about this miniature that represents the character and don't substantiate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Restore previous group that was deleted, merge this individual into that group, add third party product information found above. It appears this character appears in multiple gaming books as a main character, games in multiple media, and a few comic books and novels that also appeared in my search. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC) HEre are seven more third party links to the group that this could merge into, to provide enough joint verifiability for one page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Less notable than blood angels, if that is possible. Creation of a redirect or a bold merge are editorial considerations, not for AfD. independent sources do not cover the subject in detail (product reviews don't really count). It fails WP:GNG, delete it. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
since there is the possibility of a merge/redirect, that should be the close, not delete. Merge/redirect are versions of keep, per deletion policy.. DGG (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I talked about this at the deletion policy discussion (the one about making enforced mergers a deletion outcome and speedy closing afds with merge possibilities), but I don't really care if this article is merged or redirected. That decision can and should be made by someone with an interest in the article. In my mind, this AfD is an up/down decision. We can close AfD's to merge or redirect but I would rather not do so, because we get into the habit of preemptively protecting redirect pages when we do that. I don't think that is good policy (it works as a case by case compromise) to do so. So, we should delete this article. If someone goes right now and redirects this to the 40K article, I wouldn't be unhappy. But I don't see a reason to implore the closing admin to do so (of course, if others want to do so, they are free to). Protonk (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with the merge-without-prejudice is that it is trivially easy to revert such a merge. That's what led to several related AfDs in the first place, because the articles wouldn't stay dead (so to speak) - this would be fine if the content in question were salvageable, but none of these articles consists of more than 5-10% of material which isn't gameguide or in-universe. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All are either trivial mentions that do not justify a whole wikipedia article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are good enough for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

As with Arathi, I am beginning to incorporate information about the historical figure into the article. Anyone is welcome to help as oodles of references exist here and we have two articles that also mention this guy. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the notability of either Commander Dante (I haven't really researched either at this point) I find it slightly odd to start incorporating information about a completely different person into this article. I would personally suggest creating a separate article on the historical Commander Dante at a different, disambiguated title so that the two can be evaluated separately. Having an article of some kind here seems like a good idea, but if, as you suggest, both of them are worthy of inclusion then it's just going to be confusing to have the info combined in one article - create separate ones and disambiguate with hatnotes. ~ mazca t | c 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicate below, Commander Dante should be a disambugation page to two all new articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 2

Following the success of this precedent, I have continued revising the article to cover the real world historical figure. This way, if anyone wants to merge the Warhammer stuff to an article on Commander Dante (Warhammer) it's readily available in the edit history and if anyone wishes to start an article on Bernardo Buscayno, they now have the basis in reliable sources to do so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Corbulo

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

Contested prod. Fictional character with no secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability. No out-of-universe content, too detailed to merge. Pagrashtak 04:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco pat

AfDs for this article:
Tobacco pat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable; band name is the same as the article's primary contributor, suggesting conflict of interest. This isn't identical to the earlier version so I didn't think it qualified for CSD (same editor, though). Delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was SPEEDILY DELETED. Except for the crufty signature move list I would have removed anyway, this is essentially the same article as the one deleted previously. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Money (professional wrestling)

Beer Money (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreated article on a non-notable wrestling tag team. It has been AfD'd in the past with an overwhelming consensus to delete. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: They have been around since May, yes they just recently began to be called Beer Money, but they will probably continue to tag together even after their feud with LAX ends. They have had three title matches for the TNA tag belts. They are both heels and they don't seem to be having a problem with each-other, which means they'll tag more in the future. I believe TNA is trying to make them the next America's Most Wanted. Also they are the second top tag team in TNA.--WillC 06:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pork

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

Contested prod. (I deleted it in June, but a user asked me to restore it.) I cannot find any sources about such a group. Google search comes up empty as well. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libya in the Eurovision Song Contest

Libya in the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Country has never participated in the contest and article even reads that they have no intention to. Grk1011 (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Egypt in the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Algeria in the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jordan in the Eurovision Song Contest‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kazakhstan in the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete all With the exeption of hypothetical concepts such as World War III, we should not have articles about something that doesn't exist. However the Kazakhstan one claims that there are plans for them to enter so if we can find a ref for that it might be ok. BUC (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its really strange that some of them were made by an IP on the talk page and then moved to the mainspace by an editor with good intentions. I've never seen that happen before and its weird since this IP seems to have gotten around the registering to create a page. Grk1011 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for reasons given above, unless more significant coverage is found. It is not appropriate to have articles for every country that could participate but has not done so; countries that have expressed a clear interest in joining but have not yet participated can be treated differently, but none of these meet that definition. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. As someone who is more interested in politics than music, I actually find the articles on why these countries never participated in the contest more interesting than an article about a country that entered the so-and-so song and came in 14th place. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting point, but does that mean that I should write the article "United States in the Eurovision Song Contest" with a few paragraphs about how the US is not a member of the EBU and therefore cannot participate? Grk1011 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some Arab countries refuse to participate because they would be forced to show Israeli singers. I don't think the reasons for the US non-participation are as interesting. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I wrote Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest, you may be interested. If you want to proofread too, that would be great because I want to get it up to GA status. Grk1011 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - although I accept the point that the political aspect of those countries not participating is worth documenting. That can usefully done within an existing article, or a new one created for that purpose. AnthonyUK (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I point out that unlike "peru in the eurovision song contest", australia in the... "United states.." these countries CAN and are ALLOWED to participate, its just they will not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.211.112 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

64 Studio

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

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks secondary sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WatchAndObserve (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alinex

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

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No input = no one cares. Wizardman 00:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arudius

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

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew and Alexander Fingelkurts

AfDs for this article:
Andrew and Alexander Fingelkurts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged for notability since April. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided for the moment. GoogleScholar results for them (apparently they write all of their papers together) are respectable[25], but nothing out of the ordinary. Top citation hit is 46, h-index of around 11. For an active experimental field like neuroscience that actually seems a little thin. Nothing in GoogleBooks[26]. I looked up their CV[27]. No significant awards or honors beyond the grad student level listed there. On the other hand, the fact that they actually bother to list "honors" from vanity press publications, such as Who is Who and International Biographical Centre, actually worries me. Usually academics do not list such stuff on their CVs as it is considered somewhat embarrassing. So I am not sure for the moment if there is enough here to pass WP:PROF (hopefully somebody more familiar with the field will comment) but am leaning towards delete. Nsk92 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Delete per Crusio's comments below. Nsk92 (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The citation data given by Nsk92 are meager (especially considering this concerns collapsed data for 2 persons). The article contains some claims that look impressive, but are not (all academics serve as referees for scientific journals from time to time, even my grad student is sometimes asked). They may become notable in time, but WP is not a crystal ball. As an aside, I get mailings from the IBC all the time (throw them in the wastebasket without opening), but always thought that the Marquis Who's Who is more reputable (as per the WP article), so I actually list those in my CV myself.... :-) Given that these guys are listed too, perhaps I should remove them... --Crusio (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aurox

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

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources and claims that the software is being discontinued. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If the distribution is renamed to Jazz Linux, I suggest merging those two articles and redirect one of themMegaribi (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLAG Linux and GNU

BLAG Linux and GNU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks reliable sources with significant coverage, and the primary claim to notability appears to be a passing mention by Stallman/FSF. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Still one of the few listed on FSF's website and still appearing in RMS's speeches. Apart from that there are several outstanding aspects, maybe most notably the advent of the Linux kernel's libre version containing no binary blobs, the ability to have rolling releases with bleeding-edge packages through BLAGHEAD, the FREEEEE-project, making it possible to run an EEEpc with entirely free software or the historic BLASTERISK worldwide free phone service. In my opinion it is not appropriate to call BLAG a "minor Fedora respin" because it is no just Fedora with all non-free parts removed, but also with many additional packages from independent repositories, creating a quite unique and well thought-out desktop experience and working state. renilgh (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caixa Mágica

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

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks secondary sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Strong keep, while I agree the notability of this distribution worldwide may be questionale, it is certainly notable in Portugal:
  • It is used on government schools. [28] (Portuguese) and [29] (I know because I even used it myself...)
  • It is now is being distributed on computers of the project of the portuguese government "e-escolas". News about Caixa Mágica being used in "e-escolas" computers: [30] (Portuguese)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeMuDi

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

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources, claims the software is already defunct, and the website is dead. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'keep' Was originally part of a notable EU project. That isis now defunct has nothing to do with any former notability--keeping information about dead software is part of what an encyclopedia does. it just makes sources harder to find, but has the nominator looked? 04:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    If it was originally part of something that was notable, and is not notable itself, then merge. That it is now defunct does not mean that reliable sources with significant coverage ever existed. Have you looked? Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NimbleX

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

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks reliable secondary sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep: Although very similar to SLAX NimbleX has one distinguishing feature which makes it notable, capability to build your own installation CD using Web interface. Additionally there are independent reviews at http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/12630 http://www.raiden.net/?cat=2&aid=328 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/07/24/nimblex-2008-mini-review/ http://www.reviewlinux.com/?m=show&id=10736 http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080728 etc Megaribi (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewlinux "article" is just a link to raiden.net, and raiden.net is a blog owned by the writer. The distrowatch article was contributed by the same person. LinuxLoop and tuxmachines are personal blogs as far as I can tell. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read WP:N and the other notability guidelines and I couldn't find the criteria about "capability to build your own installation CD using Web interface" making something notable. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are very important legit and detailed review on important specialty websites like: Linux.com - http://www.linux.com/feature/118802 tuxmachines.org - http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/12630 desktoplinux.com - http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4640953056.html and many other. It would be a very bad idea to delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.102.139.36 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC) — 194.102.139.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Well, now it's reopened, time to tell what I think. I think with the DesktopLinux and Linux.com as well as the DistroWatch sources, this distribution has a small amount of third-party reviews, enough to establish some notability. I think it satisfies WP:V and can satisfy WP:N. I do not think there is any harm in keeping this article. It's a close call and I cannot reach consensus with myself about this and that means for me to default to keep because keeping it will not do any harm. SoWhy 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, seems to have been the first distro to implement the conpcept of "custom distro on demand", and still seems to be the only one that offers that... And Wikipedia:Notability is not policy SF007 (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close to notable. No secondary sources present in the article whatsoever. HiDrNick! 17:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient third party sources to write *an* article, although maybe not an FA. Orderinchaos 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I rewrote the article to use more reliable sources (Linux.com and Distrowatch), which did their own in-depth reviews, and did not merely reproduce the soundbites from the NimbleX developer. I hope this alleviates the concern raised above that there are "No secondary sources present in the article whatsoever". VasileGaburici (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sites are self-published by the developer community, and by their stated charter produce reviews of all announced versions of any Linux/BSD type operating system. So any person who grabs an opensource OS and makes any change at all to it, compiles it and gives it a name, can then have their operating system featured in both ezines straight away. I could make 17 such operating systems before midnight tonight, and be featured in both by next week. These sources can be used to verify content present in the article per WP:V, (as can the developer's own webpage), but can not be used to verify claims of notability, per WP:N, which is the question here.
  • Specifically here anybody can submit a story for publication. And in the Terms of service, they disclaim all responsibility for accuracy of content, stating that the uploader is respnsible, and that facts are not checked.
  • And according to the Distrowatch article here on Wikipedia, the information there is not to be deemed reliable and is known to be frequently manipulated by hit-counter fraud by developers and promoters of new OS's to boost their ratings.
Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but statements like "I could make 17 such operating systems before midnight tonight, and be featured in both by next week." are nuthin' but trolling. Just because anyone can submit stories to linux.com, it does not mean they'll publish anything. I'll make it easy for you, make one (not 17) linux distro and get a story about it published in linux.com. Let me know when you're done... VasileGaburici (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the only way to create 17 operating systems in one day is just NimbleX. Login to their site, combine the software in different ways, download ISO and repeat it 17 times. Megaribi (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with using insider publications (eg Inside Retailing for retailers) so long as the source for all claims is acknowledged and people are able to make up their own minds as to whether they trust the source or not. Insider publications are not necessarily biased, in fact, being a new player the bias is more likely to run the other way if it in fact exists, in favour of more established distros. Orderinchaos 06:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, in terms of verifiability, as I also stated above. Such sources do not contribute toward non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability, however. That was the aspect of this discussion in which these sources were presented, and therefore refuted suchly. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 11:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep duplicate !vote struckthrough by JerryIn addition to my previously mentioned review sites (which were considered as user contributed, although they are unrelated to original authors) there is also coverage in previously printed publications
Serbian magazine Mikro 11/2007
http://www.mikro.co.yu/ser/casopis/tekst.php?id=7273
Keynote lecture of eLiberatica conference http://eliberatica.ro/2007/

http://eliberatica.ro/2007/keynotes/eLiberatica-2007-Bogdan-Radulescu-The-New-Wave-of-Linux-NimbleX.pdf

Linux Magazine issue 88 March 2008, pages 36-39
(those pages are not on web, but you can see them in table of contexts) http://www.linux-magazine.com/w3/issue/88/Build_Your_Own_Distro_Intro.pdf
An example of clearly NPOV article is at http://www.linux.com/feature/144180
dr Samir Ribic Megaribi (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as he now meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pim Balkestein

AfDs for this article:
Pim Balkestein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Using Google, I found nothing regarding first-team football appearances; therefore, the player fails WP:ATHLETE. –  LATICS  talk  01:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Made no senior appearances for SC Heerenveen and has made none for Ipswich Town F.C., per [31]. A probable CSD G4 as the reason for deletion at the previous AfD, i.e. has not played in a fully professional league per WP:Athlete, has not been addressed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to Keep as he now meets WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And he is indeed in the team today, which should be enough for WP:ATHLETE. Gr1st (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PAIPIX

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

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QiLinux

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

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satux

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

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment another of the several dozen such nominations. Another ed. removed the prods on them. Lack of notability is a reason to delete, not unclear notability. Unsourcable is a reason to delete, not unsourced. I would have a good deal more confidence in these nominations if the nom had reported an effort to at least try to source before bringing them here--a statement that no sources existed as judged by some search would help things along. Consider this comment copied on all the other mass noms. DGG (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per your request: the article lacks notability based on the lack of reliable sources provided and the lack of reliable sources found. The article appears to be unsourcable based on a cursory examination of hits returned by googling. This is assumed to be the case for every other good faith nomination that is brought to AfD on similar grounds, but you're questioning these nominations merely because you object to the quantity. Consider this comment copied on all the other discretely selected noms. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The only problem that I see is PoV issues, which can usually be fixed without deletion if the person meets WP:N, which indeed appears to be the case. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lemire

AfDs for this article:
Marc Lemire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Massive NPOV violations, and thus BLP violations, throughout the article, mostly evident in the lede: "violently racist and extremist", flinging around the use of the word "neo-Nazi", "violent ... organization", "bigot". It's a textbook G10 candidate; however, survival of the article in an AFD, sadly, precludes any avenue of the deletion process bar another AFD. Sceptre (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I'll give it a shot later today. Reyk YO! 00:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if every point you make is accurate (and I would dispute this) it would still not justify deletion of the article. Marc Lemire is a notable figure in Canada, and is quite appropriate as the subject of a Wikipedia article. If there are legitimate BLP violations, the proper course of action is to remove them -- not to delete the article outright. CJCurrie (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BLP says If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. There has been no effort by Sceptre (or anyone else) to identify BLP problems on the talk page. Sceptre has never edited the article, and so the assertion that deletion is the only remedy appears precipitous. The sources in the article appear reasonable, so I'm not sure which BLP problems Sceptre is alleging. As the past presient of the Heritage Front, it's not surprsing that the subject would be called a "neo-nazi" or a "racist". Such folks do exist and it does not automaticlaly violate BLP to use those terms if sufficiently sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the terms used are so perojative that they must not, per WP:NPOV, be used as definitive statements. For example, no-one would ever willingly admit to their own racism of neo-Nazism. Sceptre (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the terms aren't sufficiently-well sourced then you can remove them, and they can be attributed if they're POV. Note though that NPOV also requires we include all significant viewpoints, not just the subject's view of himself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not making a UNDUE argument here. What I mean is, we should not use terms as definitive when the subject would not themselves. For example, actor or lawyer are fine. Racist or cult are not, even where they are technically accurate. We risk causing harm to people if we use those terms as definitive, and as that mostly overlaps with opinion, we shouldn't assert them as facts either. We can say who says he's a racist, but a common problem is the inappropriate use of the lead to introduce spin; we should stick to bare facts in the lead section. Sceptre (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, but you're not giving any reasons why this article should be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There, no, but I believe it should be deleted because I think, as an outsider to this article, it extensively violates BLP to the point only deletion or officesque pruning would suffice. Sceptre (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a last resort, not a first one. Nothing in the article is unsourced. We can review whether the sources are really sufficient, or if more of the material should be attributed. Now that you've started a thread about fixing it on the talk page I'm sure we can make progess. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and address BLP concerns in Talk. JJL (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep possibly a SNOW, Will states the situation correctly. DGG (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sadly, sometimes words like "neo-Nazi", "racist", "bigot" and "violent organizations" are accurate descriptions rather than epithets. BLP doesn't mean we have to whitewash people to whom these words are applicable. CRakovsky (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator misunderstands NPOV. NPOV means we reflect what indepdent reliable sources say. If there's a clear consensus something is a fact, we state as a fact, even if the subject, and some unreliable sources disagree. That's why we say Hitler carried out the Holocaust in the lead. In Wikipedia, neutrality means reflecting reliable sources, and not introducing one's own biases. If one doesn't like what reliable sources are saying, then one should argue with those sources. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD not to mention the most notable facts about the subject, even though they sound awful. --Rob (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. AfD is not for Talk: pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:High School Musical : The College Years

Talk:High School Musical : The College Years (edit | [[Talk:Talk:High School Musical : The College Years|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

First off, this is in the wrong section and secondly the information and the cast list are completely fabricated. Dontyoudare (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jokaero

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

Contested prod.

Reasoning for the original prod was Minor fictional race with no secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability. It sounds like this race is not even that notable in-universe: "minor independent alien race", "occasional indirect references can be found"., which I seconded.

This 40K race is not mentioned at all in sources outside Games Workshop material and only briefly mentioned within it. It's not even clear if these guys are canonical. DGG, who contested the prod, suggests a merge but, even if we could find an appropriate place to merge to, I don't think the Jokaero warrant any more than a one or two sentence mention. Reyk YO! 00:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Boldly redirected to The Crusade (album) per WP:MUSIC precedent. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming The Dragon

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

Prod declined, non-notable song Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 00:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect via Rwiggum and Esradekan --Numyht (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical (song)

High School Musical (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A song from High School Musical 3: Senior Year (soundtrack) that has poor and wrong information must be deleted. --Gabriel mark 10:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kenny (artist)

Andrew Kenny (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An SPA's article on a photographer who's had one exhibition that got one mention in a newspaper. Perhaps he's what's conventionally/optimistically called an "emerging" artist (he's still a university student); if so, let him emerge, let's see the independent critical commentary, and then let's give him an article. Hoary (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was more than just one article but also a TV interview which was shown many times throughout the first week of the exhibition. Also a shortlisting in an International competition. With the website being known globally this is also a suitable reference for wikipedia.

This is not including the numerious group shows in the City of Belfast. So it should be kept in wiki.

Tangledupblues (talk

  • Do you have any reliable source for the frequent airing of that interview? (And how long was the interview, in broadcast form?) Which globally known website are you talking about? -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Northern Visions Television the interview lasted for 20 minites and was showen throughout the week. Andrew Kenny was shortlisted one of the Designboom.com International competitions. Did you not even check the references on the page? Tangledupblues (talk
      • Sure did! So do you have any source for the claim about the interview? And if designboom.com is globally known, I guess I'm not on the globe: it was a completely new name to me. -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'3431 participants from 92 countries' is quoted from this page http://www.designboom.com/contest/winner.php?contest_pk=19

So it would be classed as a global and International competition.

Tangledupblues (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.225.168 (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al1 right, all right -- it's global! Kenny was shortlisted (on a not so very short list) for "LED lighting indoor" or whatever it was. Sounds to me like an honorable first step toward eminence in lighting. But that's all. And it says nothing obvious about his photography, which is his claim to fame in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anthøny(talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.volano.com/customers.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_9&oldid=230873337"