Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 17

< April 16	April 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

Rape This Industrial World Vol.1

The result was Speedy G7, the author blanked the page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD, no assertion that this compilation album passes WP:MUSIC, zero references. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Discussions on whether the article should be merged or not can be taken up on its talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor

This girl is entirely not notable. The British line of succession is notable, but not all people in it are. Her article is almost entirely composed of information that belongs in other articles and very little of it is unique to her. She goes to a boarding school and is interested in drama? Well, that's fun, but not encyclopedic. Charles 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the exact same reason, an overall lack of notability:

Delete and turn into a redirect to her father, as nominator. Charles 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to redirect it, what's the point of deleting it first? In fact, you didn't even have to bring it here for discussion. The talk page would have been OK. 152.3.247.38 (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Royal obsessives will keep on reverting a redirect even if there is truly no point for keeping an article. Charles 14:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that was me. I must be a royal obsessive. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what is to stop another royalist from coming along next week, ignoring the deletion log, and recreating the article from scratch? I guess you could page-protect the redirect but then you have a request for unprotect every time the individuals are in the newspaper for anything, be it notable or trivial. If your goal is to stop "royal obsessives" it's not a battle worth fighting, and it will make you look like an obsessive deletionists. Not that there is anything wrong with being an obsessive deletionist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Haven't we been through all this before? 25th position in the line of succession is notable - it's not like she's 525th. StAnselm (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if we've been through it before, she is not notable. Where does it end? 26th? 27th? Really, this is ridiculous. Why is 25th notable? Please note that notability is not inherited and also that notable groups and lists can be composed of non-notable people. Association does not automatically create notability. Charles 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably until the line of succession goes far enough that the concensus is that the members are no longer notable. That sounds circular and tautological but it is true. there isn't (and shouldn't be) a hard line. People ARE notable for being royalty apart from any existential notability. You seem to be intent on deleting what you see as marginally notable royal figures, perhaps you might be happier just letting it slide? I don't mean that as an accusation or to suggest that you aren't acting in good faith. I just mean that you might be unhappy making the same justifications over and over for the 4-10th (or so) in line to a throne of some country. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more clear. I don't think you should just give up because people like me are around to say things contrary to what you believe. I just hope to convey the fact that your argument can just as easily be extended to absurdity as my argument. Meaning that if I accept that nobility does not confer notability and that lineage does not confer notability then I can remove articles about people who could conceivably be next in line for the crown (of, say, england). Let's look at it this way. If no office in the government of the united states were inherently notable aside from the presidency, then you could make the argument that an otherwise non-notable commerce secretary should not get an article for just being the commerce secretary. At that point, I could suggest that this policy extends to the vice-presidency. Then we find ourselves asking how the presidency itself is notable because no office whose holder stands to succeed to it seems to be notable. In some sense, this is the same as drawing the line from 10th to 527th.Protonk (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said Protonk I wish I had thought to explain it that way. By the way, in some administrations, the Vice President is about as non-notable a job as there is in Washington. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Near enough to be a matter of public interest/importance/notability.DGG (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING. So non-notable, vital details like a birthday have to be listed just because they exist? Charles 06:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and redirect to their father's article unless sufficient reliable sources for an article are found. Not the progeny of an heir apparent or heir presumptive of a head of state. Neither is even in the (reasonable) line of succession for the Duchy of Kent.--Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for both they both may be notable in England and thats what this is all about. Atyndall93 | talk 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May or are? Charles 06:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. They are somewhat notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? Charles 06:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with their father/mother's articles. While I firmly believe all grandchildren of a monarch are notable, and children of British HRH's (i.e. children of Dukes of Kent & Gloucester and Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra), I don't believe their children are noteworthy enough. A good section of their parents with dates/places of birth and any other known info would be better.--UpDown (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge had long reason but, database locked. Basic reasoning is that a) notability isn't meant to be inherited b)not enough coverage of the subject as an "individual". Make part of parents article or part of a minor royals article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This is royalgeekery. "25th in line for succession is notable" ought to be their motto. Any job that's dependent on 24 persons dying suddenly isn't much of a job. Mandsford (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think you understand. This notability isn't based on a potential notability that may come through inheriting the throne. It's based on an inherent notability in being part of the royal family. StAnselm (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a likely descendant of Edward II. Where do you stop? --Dhartung | Talk 10:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both with George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews and redirect - while members of the British Royal family are inherently notable just for being who they are, these two are outside of the immediate public eye and have done nothing remarkable with their lives... yet. Other grandchildren of the Duke of Kent, such as the children of Lady Helen Taylor, do not have articles of their own so I don't see why these should be any different. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't the same as the status of the spouse or child of a politician or other celebrity. Simply being in the line of succession is notable in itself, even though details about her are limited. Without an article, there will be redlinks in any discussion of the line of succession. --Eastmain (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Red links can be removed, it's easy. In fact, I'll do it myself. What do you suggest about the other 1000+ people in line? Should I suggest you start writing articles on them all? Get on it then. The line of succession is notable, not everyone in it is. Charles 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to calm down. Every afd on this subject has you belitting people who hold a different view on the subject. Please try to keep it on an even keep and respect the fact that some of us have different opinions about the notability of royalty than you.Protonk (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take grievances that aren't directed directly at this discussion to my talk page. I maintain and will continue to maintain that there are huge, huge issues with the idea that royalty always equals notability. The comment above by me illustrates that. If you haven't anything to offer directly to the subject of royalty don't post it unless it is on my page. Charles 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for both: Reasonable places to draw the line are: Elizabeth II's descendants, who occupy the top 12 spots, her father's descendants, who occupy the top 18 spots, her grandfather's descendants, who occupy the top 55 spots, or her great-grandmother Queen Victoria's descendants, who occupy nearly the top 500 spots. 12 is a no-brainer, 18 will get very few arguments, 55 is debatable and considered only because this crown is so famous, 500 no way. Weak keep because article already exists and there is no compelling reason to delete this person, as her place in line for this very famous crown makes her marginally notable and that's enough. If this were a less-famous monarchy, such as maybe the one in Belgium or Saudi Arabia, I would draw the line higher, probably at either direct descendants of the reigning monarch or 10, whichever is longer, but no more than 20. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the only thing which implies her notability or even supports it is her position in the line of succession and all the rest is filler, would this not best be served as an entirely notable section within the context of her father rather than as a "marginally notable" (I wouldn't give it that) standalone article? Most things have much better impact and relevancy as sections in related articles than as perpetually short, awkward and non-notable stubs. Charles 04:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, and it very well might be, then this would have been a proposed merger or if non-controversial, a WP:BOLD merge, rather than an AfD. An AfD removes content and edit history, a normal merger does not. I doubt I would object to a merger if no encyclopedic content were lost along the way. As for non-encyclopedic content within an article, if you find any, feel free to remove it, that goes for all articles and it goes without saying. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always found that articles such as this that are merged, whether discussed or not, tend to be recreated in their previously existing form. Arguments are sometimes presented before but rarely after (if the merge is undone) I find Afd usually to be effective in reinforcing the point of a merger. It makes it clear that the article on its own is basically not viable. I am actually discussing such an article right now. Also, look forward to a reply from my talk page relatively soon on yours, I have just read it. Charles 05:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look to history to find consensus. If you look through Line of succession to the British throne you will see things peter out in the 20s. Looking only at people born in 1989 or later, everyone has an article up to position 26. Position 29 does not. After that, things get spotty, with articles at position 56 then some for the direct descendants of King Olav V of Norway in the 60s. I stopped checking at that point. Articles for adults follow a similar trend, with occasional adults having articles even well down the line if they were somehow notable in their own right or by virtue of some other relative or some position or title of nobility they held. This tells us that so far, it's the consensus of Wikipedia editors that the cut-off point for automatic nobility the British Crown line of succession is probably in the 20s, with some tolerance for articles for people lower down who can't stand on their own credentials. On the other hand, it could just be that editors are slowly working their way down the list and given time will have articles on all 1000+ entries. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just as an aside, no there is actually a trend towards not having articles on these people: back in November for instance the article for Columbus Taylor (see history) was merged with his mother's article (she being his link to the line of succession). In the future though, as the Queen's grandchildren grow up and have children of their own, these more distant individuals will only get further from the line of succession and their position as people who have articles here will only get more tentative - it's not as if they are directly related to the monarch, which is what would give them automatic notability. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure why you keep focusing on some definitive cut-off position in the line of succession, especially since that position is, shall we say, quite subject to change (per below). --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. I'm saying that at any given point in time, for a given royal family, there will be some general consensus that people higher than X in line are clearly notable by virtue of birth, people lower than Y are clearly NOT notable MERELY by virtue of birth, but there will not be a consensus for people between X and Y. With the current British crown, X is somewhere at or below 9th place and Y is probably well above the 100th place. Between X and Y there is no consensus and we have contested AfDs. However, as you said, this will likely change over time. In 2028, even Y may be above 9th place. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, as with Roleplayer, UpDown, and others above. Their position in the line means someone might type them in to search for them, but their lack of notability in themselves means their father is the perfect place to add the little information about them needed ~ which, i might add, is less than is currently in the articles: Who cares or needs to know what her favourite subject is? Cheers, Lindsay 08:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the Chattos are redirects to their mother's article, and they're closer to the throne than these ladies are. Corvus cornix_talk 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chattos have full articles, they were redirected without opposition in late March by Charles. The lack of opposition argues for a redirect-without-delete, but does not argue for a delete-then-create-redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Charles. Notability derives from an accident of birth. What a shame for this young lady. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Race. Consensus is clear that the current version of the article should be deleted, but the original redirect (in place until 16 April) has no apparent flaws, so back it goes. Discussion on a new target for that redirect would be welcome at the article's talk page here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Race

Unsourced article on non-notable event. Prod was removed by author without explanation. --Finngall ^talk 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was my prod tag that was removed; I don't see any notability here, no references, no sources, not even enough information to tell in what continent this event is held, let alone who attends it or why it should be listed in an encyclopedia. Plus I note the suggestion on the talk page that the apparent reason for the page's creation violates WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News searches from GNews, Proquest, Ebsco only turn up one mention for the combination "The Race" and "Kirkwood Estate", and it's about a speech given by a mayoral candidate regarding a race that just happened to contain the word "Kirkwood estate". No sources to suggest notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Atyndall93 | talk 05:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect from 02:48, 2 November 2007 . Current article is deletable. "The Race" should either be the round the world sailing race of 2000, or racial supremacy. 70.55.85.177 (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see any sources, references or notability ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 11:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability criteria Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Qualls

around 200 unique Google hits, nothing on Google News. Does not look to be independently notable. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You need to search the archives of Google News at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Fort+Qualls%22 to get multiple references from reliable sources, but they're there. --Eastmain (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Merge Might do to move it into a "counterprotest" section in Camp Casey. that, actually, might help to mend the neutrality (or apparent neutrality) problems of the Camp Casey article. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. G-news comes up empty because it lists news from the last month by default; telling it to search all dates brings up numerous articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be some notability throughout news and google sources, thou it really needs some good sources and expanding. Atyndall93 | talk 05:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Camp Casey as this doesn't seem to have been notable in isolation. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No need to merge, it can be mentioned in Camp Casey, but should retain its own article. MrPrada (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; Does not meet notability guidelines for conlangs; author also requested deletion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tauro-Piscean language

Completely unsourced; Google search yields no reliable sources. Probably a hoax, as "Old Taurusian," referenced in the intro, does not exist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete unsourced, and appears to be made up. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A little bit of linguistic whimsy here, with some astrology Taurus and Pisces thrown in. What's your sign? An arrow pointing upward that says, "I'm with stupid." Mandsford (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~G3 Appears to be blatant enough for a hoax tag. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete Fictional language with no notability whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utter bullfish. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's utter bullfish, does this call for a WP:TROUTing? (And if so, do my otters get extra fish today?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not clear whether it's a hoax so much as a nn Conlang. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I think it's a fictional conlang related to this team in the game Jennifer Government. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Looks like it. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for no evidence of real-world notability. (The article plainly states that it is a constructed language, as Quasirandom suggests, but it is written without adequate differentiation between fiction and fact.) Languages constructed as part of world-building may be notable, but only if they have real-world notability, which includes being connected to a notable world, like Klingon language or Quenya. A google search suggests that this may not have such wider notability, and lacking reliable sources documenting same, this article is inappropriate on Wikipedia, though it seems quite at home on frathwiki. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google search reveals no information from refutable sources. Atyndall93 | talk 05:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's refutable sources. Reliable sources, OTOH ... —Quasirandom (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Moonriddengirl's arguments. Does not meet WP:FICT, the notability guidelines for fictional constructs. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moonriddengirl. It is amazing that the article would go into so much detail about the language without making any case for its notability. If there are more references to prove that people have paid attention to this, there's not much time left to find them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, made up and almost certainly WP:CB ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taurusian? Piscean? This bloke isn't even creative... +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not a hoax - Tauro-Piscean is a constructed language that really exists, I can testify for its existence. People, please, be careful calling something you don't believe or have never heard of "hoaxes", "utter bollocks" et.sim. It's better to ask the questions first before you start shooting. That said, I agree with Moonriddengirl's comments: the article is not clear about fact and fiction, the subject itself will probably not meet the criteria regarding notability, verifiability, original research, etc. But that's definitely NOT a reason to throw mud at people! —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am the author of the page. It's not a hoax; it was just meant to be an informative article about a conlang that has gained some interest from others. I appreciate now that it does not meet guidelines, so delete it if you feel it is inappropriate. I also don't think this is the place to criticise the project itself and I think Hexagon is being extremely immature to question my creativity! It's not their project, so they don't even understand it. Please refrain from these types of comments. This page is about the inappropriate nature of the article, not the project. I have a page on FrathWiki anyway; I'd be quite happy to have it deleted. I just want to settle that it's not a hoax.--Pisceesumsprecan (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, go ahead, the author says! --Pisceesumsprecan (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trapwood Close

Non-notable housing estates. Both articles are unsourced and much of the content is unverifiable. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Atyndall93 | talk 05:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, so nothing from which notability could be shown. No objection to a later re-creation with sources. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable. I also tried searching it on google, but nothing appeared reliable.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom - TheProf - T / C 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Clive Lloyd

This player had no non-wiki hits on a Google search. [1], another user also removed him from the Bolton Wanderers article. i assume due to his lack of hits from a similler search. TheProf - T / C 21:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see i voted weak keep on an earlier AfD. For the record, im now Delete! TheProf - T / C 21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources in the article both seem legit. Maybe if you remove the "Clyde" part from your search? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, i got a movie profile, but still no footballer. I'm going to have a look at the Bolton Wanderers website! TheProf - T / C 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this mentions "goalkeeper Jason Lloyd". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A search of the main BWFC site finds nothing. I'm starting to wonder if the man in this article and the goalkeeper in the source are actually different people! This is why i wanted a wikibreak, lol. I must remember to not use wikipedia at all tomorrow! TheProf - T / C 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per rational in first AfD; player is an international player, and that gives immediate notability. This article proves he has played international football, and as for "no Google hits" - what do you call this then? GiantSnowman (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see 2 wiki hits, 1 non-wiki hit and lots of hits for a famous cricket player ;-) TheProf - T / C 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because his name contains the words 'Clive Lloyd', his father, who is much more notable. Regardless of number of google-hits, he IS notable as an international player! GiantSnowman (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that theres an international goalkeeper called Jason Lloyd. My main concern now is the fact that this goalkeeper, Jason Clive Lloyd, doesnt show up on any major websites. And im now 100% certain after my search of the main BWFC website that this goalkeeper has never played (or had anything to do with) Bolton Wanderers FC. Could it be that this article needs to be deleted, and a new article about Jason Lloyd, the international goalkeeper, needs to be started? TheProf - T / C 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prof, there is no need for a new article as the first source clearly states Jason Clive Lloyd played for Guyana. Eddie6705 (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also came across this non football related story [2], although i doubt this helps. Eddie6705 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, again it only uses the name Jason Lloyd. If he passes this AfD, I'd like there to be a discussion on the main article talk page about whether or not he plays or has ever played for Bolton Wanderers. TheProf - T / C 11:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Even though the only mention of him playing for Bolton is from the source in the article, he is notable due to his international football. Also his profile on the Guyanese team website says he is playing in England, but doesn't say what team. Eddie6705 (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep based on his appearances in the 2007 CONCACAF Digicel Cup (qualifiers for the confederation championship). This is playing at the highest level and definitely confers notability. Jogurney (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have notability using a google search. Atyndall93 | talk 05:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on the grounds that this article passed a previous AFD with a WP:SNOW speedy keep decision LESS THAN A MONTH AGO. Articles must not be repeatedly nominated in such a short period until a desired outcome occurs. 23skidoo (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Match Report confirms him as an international footballer. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Note - I'd like to withdraw this AfD and have a discussion on the articles talk page about whether or not he has ever played for Bolton Wanderers FC. Thank you TheProf - T / C 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to the risk that this article is propagating wrong information. If he never played for Bolton, we should know that fact. If we don't know that fact, let's delete the article until we have some sources that we feel are reliable. If we don't even *know* whether he played for Bolton, why do we think we have any useful information to offer to the world? It's like having an article on a politician, and not knowing what country he was the president of. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - EdJohnston, you have completely missed the point. Whether or not he is a member of the Bolton Wanderers squad is, for now, a moot point; we are discussing here whether or not he is notable, and he is, because he is an international player. There's no need to "delete the article" at all! GiantSnowman (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 (author blanked the page). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The detentes

Band article seems to fail notability guidelines on music and certainly fails verifiability. In fact, this article contains sufficient misinformation to border on WP:HOAX territory, if it doesn’t actually cross over. Pay particular attention to the “quotes” section. Reference on Pitchfork media is unverifiable. All google hits to “The détentes” & “Talentless but motivated” currently go to bebo.com, as do all hits to their Christmas EP. Their Bebo site indicates they are self published. This was a borderline speedy, but did assert notability, however implausibly. I believe barring reliable sourcing this article should be deleted. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 Author blanked page. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds good to me. :) (Presuming, of course, that it doesn't return with new, but equally unverifiable/non-notable content.) However, since I'm the one who nominated it for AfD, I'll leave it for somebody else to process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egged bus 36 bombing

A news event. Quite a big news event, but a news event. Not notable distinct form any other suicide bombing, and Wikinews is over yonder. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability, I still remember it now. I am concerned where exactly you want to draw the line on this one and I would have thought it would have been less so than this. Also seems to have been written about in a written reference that was not news. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Raul654 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would call an event like this notable. Just about anything could be called news- killings, plane crashes, natural disasters, etc. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Getting run over by a bus, yes, that's news. Getting blown up in a bus, well, that's history. And don't think it's forgotten already. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have notability. Atyndall93 | talk 05:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no policy on Wikipedia against notable news events. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 163 ghits none of which appear to be from reliable third pary sources (mainly being wiki or wiki mirror type sites. Maybe lenient enough to say Merge with Hamas or other article about similar occurences. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment don't know how to cross stuff out so after doing another search with the word bombing outside the quotation marks I say Definite Merge as "Egged bus" bombings get a lot of hits but, no one occurence on its own seems to be more notable than the others. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, Jasynnash2 you did see there appear to be refs from a book there as well? Thanks for googling though. The article does need some fleshing out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that the one reference in the entire article (at the time of my comment)was to a book. My understanding is that just because something is in a book doesn't automatically make it notable. My merge suggestion still stands as I've been unable to find any other article about a single similar incident (Egged Bus bombings) my suggestion is to compose an article entitled specifically Egged Bus Bombings and incorporate this text. It would allow All the bombings to be covered instead of someone writing up what would amount to a huge number of stub articles on the individual bombings. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re I've been unable to find any other article about a single similar incident. For other similar articles, click on the category link at the bottom of the page. And for alternate parent categories, look at the link I've provided below. Andyvphil (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very notable news event with meaning thats worth being noted in an encyclopedia. thanks--YY (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies individual notability and is a desirable reference component of larger meta-articles (e.g. List_of_Hamas_suicide_attacks) and categories. Andyvphil (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable event with an impact that extends beyond its coverage as a news story..Lazulilasher (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Zsinj^Talk 07:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ DNA

Fails notability. Google searches reach only first-party MySpace and website Schmloof (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per nom. also not to be confused with a "DJ DNA" now known as DJ Donotask (web site [3]) that has a longer history but no article currently and who spun for Urban Dance Squad: see [4] and [5] - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:MUSIC. Pastordavid (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 23:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yemane Gebre Loul

WP:BLP1E. Prisoner of the Month of the International Society for Human Rights, and that's it. Wikipedia is not Amnesty International. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the deletion Delete. Very weak source for an unknown event, not enough footnotes. A M M A R 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable for one thing only, and not a happy thing. Unless the issue of this man's imprisonment is covered much more widely, WP:BLP1E applies. This is not to say that the imprisonment could not be covered in a different article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Very hard for natural humanitarian reasons - which we must as far as possible ignore, neither leaning towards keep or delete. First principles state that there should be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Well OK:

- there is this this [[6]], which says it is taken from [[7]], which says that its source is "compass" - no further detail given but it was quite easy to find and is here [[8]] So, that is one source.

- There is a passing reference here [[9]] - no source given, but could be independent, and Christian Monitor seem pretty authoriative.

- This [[10]] seems to be a news round-up, so not original to the website.

- This ref [[11]] - is interesting, not in english - but includes a photo and source: [[12]].

Is the coverage significant? Not very, but yes. So, apologies for essay: IMO, dicounting for my own admitted bias, it just meets WP:N criteria. Springnuts (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. Little has changed since the original AFD which I initiated. Punkmorten (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one event does not confer notability. Pastordavid (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard

I really fail to see why this sound is notable. Yes, it may have received the focus of a few studies. But that doesn't mean that it should have its own article. Perhaps (and only perhaps) there could be an article about annoying sounds - it could perhaps even just be merged into the psychoacoustics article which already links to this article in its "see also" section. Also, the page only has three actual articles pointing to it, none of which really have anything important to do with this. I think it unlikely to be important to link here from other Wikipedia article, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that anybody is ever going to search for this article without already knowing that it exists. In short, delete, or possibly merge into the psychoacoustics article. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benefit of doubt, keep. (If only for its novelty value.) —Nightstallion 21:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless it's already covered elsewhere and a redirect is appropriate. It's sourced, however, and it's encyclopedic, in that it describes something to which there is a powerful psychological reaction. Mandsford (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...unless... The author can tell me what the sound of one hand clapping is. :) Protonk (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that was on an episode of The Simpsons once. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)
  - The gentleman gets full credit for recognition. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kōan#The sound of one hand. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the title is awkward, but it is a notable sound as demonstrated by references. Satisfies the primary notability criterion. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding searching, this article is the 8th result on Google for "fingernails scraping chalkboard" and the 3rd result for "fingernails scraping blackboard". We must remember that many people use the search interface, be it Google, Yahoo!, MSN, or AOL to find everything, and Wikipedia ranks highly on many, many searches nowadays. We don't need to imagine people searching for the full name of an article (if anyone has any ideas for improving it, though, speak up). --Dhartung | Talk 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something is wrong with this AfD - there is no tag on the article page. Aleta ^Sing 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tag added Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article passess WP:N and WP:V and it has been the subject of many studies in the field of psychology Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat notable, and definantly something that regular people are going to look up on the internet. It's well referenced, and mostly MoS compliant, so it's worth keeping. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with the disclosure that I am the primary author, creater, and DYKer of this page). Had I felt that this did not meet notability criteria, I would not have made it. I feel that the number of citations from various sources, including newspapers (Vancouver Sun), magazines (Popular Mechanics) and a scientific journal (Perception & Psychophysics, published by the Psychonomic Society), all establish the notability of this topic. Just because something is unusual (which this definitely is) does not mean that it is non-encyclopedic. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks well sourced and encyclopedic; this is a pretty well-known phenomenon. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; subject is a notable phenomenon in psychoacoustics and general psychology. Studies and coverage back it, thus I don't see any reason to delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though I can see where the nom is coming from. I wouldn't have started an article on this topic, but the sound/pheomenon is indeed somewhat notable, the article is pretty good and has some good references. That's all that an article IMO needs for a keep (I'm not opposed to merging or renaming if the topic can be presented in a better way). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Articles on related topics include Consonance and dissonance and Phonaesthetics. They are focussed upon music and speech so there's room for another article upon other types of nasty noise. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat notable and well-sourced. I mean... screeeech. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slashdotted Didn't I see this on Slashdot a couple days ago? Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sgeureka, though a title with fewer words might've prevented this whole discussion - though I've no idea what that title would be.... Ezratrumpet (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written article with references to multiple reliable sources, which appeared on DYK. Its linkage to other articles is not a question for AfD. It's one of the advantages of Wikipedia, in my opinion, that it can cover this kind of topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability and verifiability via references. spryde | talk 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close. The last AfD on this topic closed today with a result of no consensus. No need to open a new discussion so soon; please try making suggestions on the talk page instead. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies of Pakistan

Wikipedia is not a catolog of non-notable companies. This list is a warrant for any company to list itself. During the last Afd the "keep" side maintained it was useful for business. I will contact the relevant parties involved in the last Afd and hope to gain concensus for a rename with clearly defined notions of Notability to List of major Pakistani companies -- BpEps - t@lk 20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC) BpEps - t@lk 20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was speedy deletion per WP:CSD A7. Chunky Rice (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Fiction

Band of dubious notability. No listing at Allmusic. No evidence of any released albums or tours. Only source coming close to WP:RS is a NME blurb on a New Bands page (which was copy-and-pasted word for word in a previous edit, leaving the stub as it is now). Google search returned their own sites, Wikipedia, a blog or two, forums, and club sites listing who was playing there on a particular night. Not enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:MUSIC. DarkAudit (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, so tagged. I see absolutely no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hau Thai-Tang

Sources are primarily about the car, not the man (WP:BLP1C?). No non-trivial biographical coverage in reliable independent sources. My usual disquiet aout marginally notable biographies applies, really. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article just needs some more research of this engineer that has a pivotal role in their design teams.Bnguyen (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not quite enough here to base an article on. As Hau progresses in his career, he may have further accomplishments that are widely noted in the trade press, and this will make it possible to have a proper article. WP does not need to have an article on every auto company executive. The Ford Mustang is notable, but not every manager who worked in its vicinity. Our article on Ford Mustang makes no mention of Hau. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable product, not a notable individual. Pastordavid (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm open to userfying it if someone wishes to pull out any reasonable information... but you're going to have to type the WHOLE title on my talk page to get me to do it. :-) - Philippe 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The effectiveness of neurofeedback as a treatment for Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder : An annotated bibliography

Essay containing personal opinion and book reviews: fails Original research; Synthesis of published material Ros0709 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That's probably one of the longest serious titles I've seen! Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's even longer than Jeremiah Peabody's Polyunsaturated Quick-Dissolving Fast-Acting Pleasant-Tasting Green and Purple Pills. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just ran it through a perl script, and this article is 104 characters, while the one you mentioned is 124. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pwned. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a original research / synth violation. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least three of the references are unambiguously reliable sources: Newsweek, The Times (London), The Independent, and some of the books and journal articles are as well. The article may need trimming and NPOV work, but I think the article contains some encyclopedic information worth saving. --Eastmain (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge as a never-to-be-put-in-the-search-bar addition to neurofeedback. A summary of this probably already exists there anyway. We shouldn't have another article promulgating a fringe theory, when there's one already. Merkin's mum 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the subject of the article is a bibliography. The references that Eastmain notes aren't on the subject of the article, so aren't relevant. Very few bibliographies are interesting enough in and of themselves to be worthy of an article, and I see absolutely no evidence this is one of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment- I'm suspecting this is written by the same bloke who wrote Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Divorce_and_Children:_An_Annotated_Bibliography , due to the similar unusual choice for titles, although the usernames are not the same. Merkin's mum 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also suspect these notes are for his own personal use, rather than anyone elses, as his versions of the article include "The clinical trials addressed in this work would provide excellent information for the body of my essay." and similar notes. Merkin's mum 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to user space. This is simply a personal essay/notes. While it could be used for research in other articles, it's certainly not appropriate for mainspace. Vassyana (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic, WP:SYN. What is with all of the annotated bibliography articles? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: to date, eight similar articles have been created within a short timeframe. There is ongoing discussion about them here. Ros0709 (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Comment (putting this in the first listing on this page) A professor at the U of Florida gave an assignment to his students to post here; see the AN/I thread. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salvagable information to ADHD. Ezratrumpet (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV and original research. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MD4Bush Incident

With 175 unique Google hits, I'd say the fifteen minutes of transient notoriety are over. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability isn't temporary and WP:GOOGLEHITS. there are multiple sources covering the controversy including a news magazine of national scope (though I personally don't like it, that isn't important). Also, the article could use serious help in cleaning up POV or apparent POV issues and in giving a better run-down of the incident and connections to other like incidents. There is a good deal of general scholarly research on the changing boundaries of privacy and how public officials are reacting to that--this is one example. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikinews could certainly write a good article on this. But encyclopaedic (as in non-transient notability, rather than transient notoriety) does not seem to be established, and living individuals are involved. Wikipedia is not a tabloid aggregator, after all. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But these aren't tabloids. I understand that wikipedia isn't a newspaper, but it isn't fair to extend that to mean that events covered in newspapers can't be documented here. I'll admit the article is not that well written and reads more like a timeline (heck, it IS a timeline) than anything else. the tone isn't right. But that doesn't mean that the source material doesn't support a more encyclopedic look. The second washington post article makes motions in the right direction, talking about this as a new front in the political smear world. There was a special counsel retained, subpoenas were sent out and news coverage continued months after the intial break (see second wp article). Protonk (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable from the news coverage. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability in my opinion. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of lasting impact. May I refer the "notable from the news coverage" voters to WP:N, which states: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability"? The short burst is over two years old, and nothing more has been heard of it since. Biruitorul (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First news coverage was Feb 05, and coverage continued sporadically until Nov. 05. Protonk (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, naturally the media was going to do a few follow-ups; that's their job when it comes to big or middling scandals. But it was still largely a short burst, short enough to render it trivial. Biruitorul (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOT notable. Yahel Guhan 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objective Modula-2

An article consisting entirely of unverified information (not a single ref, no relevant informative Google hits) highly suspect of being original research. In addition, Google search results indicates non-notability. Article not substantially modified since 2005, and seems to describe an unfinished dead project. More details on article talk page. -- int19h (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: readers who clicked a link that leads here because they genuinely sought information about Objective Modula-2, please search for the offical home page of the project, contrary to opinions shown below, the project does exist and it is active. Website maintainers should fix their links and point to the official home page instead.
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

-- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per int19h. This appears to be a dead project that was never implemented. It's usually a bad sign when the Wikipedia article on something is its first Google hit. That suggests there is no mainstream recognition of the topic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not currently notable; looks like description of vaporware to me too. Plvekamp (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Pueblo Firefighters Association

Non-notable labor union. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Well, there is this [13] and this [14]. I'm sure that the Arizona Star is a reliable source. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This perticular one may be small, but Trade Unions are notable. Cites are recomended, but, AfD is not for forcing article improvement. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - I have added EL's highlighting the fact that this FireFighting organization is a Corperation/Business, not your usual public service fire department. The reletive uncommoness of the Business aspect I believe supports the Notability of this Article's subject. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having twelve toes is unusual, that doesn't mean that everyone with twelve toes is notable. In this case the sourcing required for a topic to meet the primary notability criteria or the specific criteria for organisations has not been shown to exist. Guest9999 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in some degree, however I believe there are more people with 12 toes in the US, than there are For Hire Fire Dep't business' and their (non-IAFF) Labour Unions. It is that rareness that does make this, and its related Articles, encyclopedic to document. The only Policy that must be satisfied is WP:V, and that has been done. There is no hurry to satisfy the other Guidelines that you quote. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. Of the two sources given above one appears to be about a trivial mention in a "Community Notes" section and whilst I can't view the body of the other article,the title "Local firefighters sent $115,000 to N.Y." suggests that it is a one off news story about a fund-raiser and will likely not contain enough encyclopaedic information about the organisation to justify an article. Guest9999 (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this meets WP:ORG. Is every small labor union notable, I think not. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only 3rd party references are trivial. Plvekamp (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High school dropouts: an annotated bibliography

Delete. This is an apparent essay, written in violation of our OR/synth policies. Wikipedia is does not publish original thought in this manner. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already prodded previously, no real need to bring it here just yet. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This new trend of articles is troubling, from an encyclopediac standpoint, so I wanted to ensure a wider review than just having it slink off into deletion a few weeks out. The five AFDs currently up will be a good barometer on this new trend. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are very odd; they've all been created by SPAs (one for each). Not enough for [{WP:RFCU]], most likely, but I suspect they are all the same editor due to the identical style. In other words I wouldn't call it a "trend" but possible evidence of POV-pushing. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awfully odd POV push, if thats the case... some of the topics aren't exactly related. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe all from the same class? It is getting towards the end of the college semester, so final papers and such might be due soon. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a personal essay filled with soap and original research Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure original research and synthesis Bfigura ^(talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dropping out. The material in the annotated bibliography is suitable for inclusion as references, and this is not original research in the sense of someone's new theory. --Eastmain (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to user space. This is simply a personal essay/notes. While it could be used for research in other articles, it's certainly not appropriate for mainspace. Vassyana (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay and synthesis. Maybe we need a WP:ANNOTATEDBIBLIOGRAPHY.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ros0709 (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of WP:NOR. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: to date, eight similar articles have been created within a short timeframe. There is ongoing discussion about them here. Ros0709 (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I have a question: could this possibly be a school project or something? Like an assignment by an adamant teacher that wants his students to post this project on the internet or specificly Wikipedia? I mean considering these were all made by single purpose accounts it seems plausible Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may very well be right about that. I can't think of a more plausible explanation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space for nurturing to encyclopedic form. The article does veer off and gets lost in opinion, but it's a laudable topic to write about drop out and this is just first attempt at an article on the topic. But the title doesn't need saving, and I'm not keen on putting it in "dropping out" either. Plenty of good references on school drop out policy and statistics are out there. There are good workarounds, and since the editor who created the article is new perhaps coaching from experienced editors can help the process. The doubled pending deletion notices aren't the friendliest welcome I've seen for a newbie talk page. It could be an instructor is using WP as a class project or something, and presumably not every student can do A+ work on the wikipedia with their first article creation. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section titled "Fixing the problem" places this article clearly in the domain of journalism, not an encyclopedia. WillOakland (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NOT multiple offender. Author should have known better, we're not the least bit obligated to keep it. WillOakland (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat offender? How so?Professor marginalia (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple offender. WillOakland (talk)

I'm curious then why there is no evidence of this whatsoever on the user's talk page. What makes the user a multiple offender? Professor marginalia (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read that to mean that multiple elements of WP:NOT applied, not that the article creator had previously 'offended'. Ros0709 (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteor move to user space. Like the other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are personal notes. The editor is however apparently familiar with the subjects at hand, and should thus be encouraged to integrate the information from those essays into the appropriate articles. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like the various other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are apparently dumps from a University of Florida course. (cf. "About the author" at the end of this article). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)ps: not likely a multiple offender, but apparently all SPA accounts of students of the same course.[reply]

Thanks, that makes more sense. Wikipedia's been welcoming of editors introduced through course work-in this case they don't quite have the concept of "encyclopedia article" clear yet.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Impact on Human Health: An Annotated Bibliography

This is an apparent essay, written in violation of our OR/synth policies. Wikipedia is does not publish original thought in this manner. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure original research and synthesis. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to an existing article, and clean up. The topic is a notable one, and the material in the bibliography is what we normally consider reliable sources. This is not originail thought in the sense of someone's new theory. --Eastmain (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to user space. This is simply a personal essay/notes. While it could be used for research in other articles, it's certainly not appropriate for mainspace. Vassyana (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ros0709 (talk • contribs)
Delete as violation of WP:NOR. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: to date, eight similar articles have been created within a short timeframe. There is ongoing discussion about them here. Ros0709 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this isn't en.loginandtypewhatevercomestomind.org. WillOakland (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to user space. Like the other "An Annotated Bibliography" articles, these are personal notes. The editor is however apparently familiar with the subjects at hand, and should thus be encouraged to integrate the information from those essays into the appropriate articles. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like the various other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are apparently dumps from a University of Florida course. (cf. "About the author" at the end of this article). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)ps: not likely a multiple offender, but apparently all SPA accounts of students of the same course.[reply]
Delete as with all the other "annotated bibliography" articles. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce and Children: An Annotated Bibliography

This is an apparent essay, written in violation of our OR/synth policies. Wikipedia is does not publish original thought in this manner. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure synthesis / original research. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vrac (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Implications of divorce or another existing article once any NPV text has been removed. This annotated bibliography isn't original research in the sense of someone's new theory. The materials reviewed appear to fall within the category of Wikipedia:OR#Reliable_sources and might be appropriate as citations or as part of a "further reading" section. --Eastmain (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment is this by the same editor who made Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_effectiveness_of_neurofeedback_as_a_treatment_for_Attention_Deficit_/_Hyperactivity_Disorder_:_An_annotated_bibliography ? I presume so. Merge any useful info that's not excessively verbose. And someone give him some tips on how to make articles on wikipedia that survive, he might be able to contribute well if he's shown how to make/contribute to articles. Merkin's mum 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked further and it is definitely him IMHO. It includes similar use of wikipedia to keep his personal notes, such as in his versions of the article, "The work cites various other Univeristy Sponsored studies and is very useful for my to my topic of effects of divorce on children." The other article in his versions says "The clinical trials addressed in this work would provide excellent information for the body of my essay."Merkin's mum 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to user space. This is simply a personal essay/notes. While it could be used for research in other articles, it's certainly not appropriate for mainspace. Vassyana (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ros0709 (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of WP:NOR. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: to date, eight similar articles have been created within a short timeframe. There is ongoing discussion about them here. Ros0709 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an encyclopedia article. Get a web site. WillOakland (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to user space. Like the other "An Annotated Bibliography" articles, these are personal notes. The editor is however apparently familiar with the subjects at hand, and should thus be encouraged to integrate the information from those essays into the appropriate articles (e.g. Divorce). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Like the various other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are apparently dumps from a University of Florida course. (cf. "About the author" at the end of this article). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)ps: not likely a multiple offender, but apparently all SPA accounts of students of the same course.[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fusker XP

No evidence of notability given or even asserted; quick google doesn't show up much either. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe check the usage records of the site, maybe its bigger then we know, if so, please tell us--Pewwer42 Talk 04:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per unanimity of responses, Heymann Standard (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rumbauskas

This article is about an author who is relatively unheard of. It seems to be of a self-congratulating, self-promoting nature that is unfit for Wikipedia. I also consider it neither useful nor encyclopedic for the average person. Not a notable figure by any means. TomKite420 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC) — TomKite420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Eastmain (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/books/bestseller/200607bestpaperbusiness.html to confirm that a book of his was on the New York Times list of Paperback Business Best Sellers for July 2, 2006. That's a pretty compelling argument in favor of notability. See also Worldcat for a list of libraries with each of his books. --Eastmain (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rumbauskas also has quite an impressive amount of media coverage as any Google search will show. Also, the user who nominated the article for deletion has no Wikipedia activity other than this nomination which makes the nomination itself suspect. He is a 'new user account' created the same day as this nomination ... is he a competing author, perhaps? Jthorley65 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) JThorley65[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gets Eaten Alive!

Contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC - non-notable album. ukexpat (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, not notable enough. I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under CSD criterion A7. Can't see this team existing based on multiple searches, and even if it does exists, it's not notable enough for an article. Rudget 18:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KK Angeli (Skopje)

Appears to be a WP:HOAX. No proof that this team even exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. another one.. - Philippe 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxation of Carried Interest: An Annotated Bibliography

Unsourced essay containing personal opinion and book reviews; entirely original research. An anonymous IP removed the tags and PROD placed on the article without explanation. Ros0709 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete. This is an apparent essay, written in violation of our OR/synth policies. Wikipedia is does not publish original thought in this manner. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure original research and synthesis. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The topic is a notable one, and the material in the bibliography is what we normally consider reliable sources. This is not originail thought in the sense of someone's new theory. --Eastmain (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is notable, but it's pure OR/SYNTH. For what an acceptable annotated bibliography would look like, see: Annotated_bibliography_of_fly_fishing --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to user space. This is simply a personal essay/notes. While it could be used for research in other articles, it's certainly not appropriate for mainspace. Vassyana (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of WP:NOR. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: to date, eight similar articles have been created within a short timeframe. There is ongoing discussion about them here. Ros0709 (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as a WP:NOT multiple offender. There's no obligation to keep it in any form, the author should have known better. WillOakland (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to user space. Like the other "An Annotated Bibliography" articles, these are personal notes. The editor is however apparently familiar with the subjects at hand, and should thus be encouraged to integrate the information from those essays into the appropriate articles. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like the various other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are apparently dumps from a University of Florida course. (cf. "About the author" at the end of this article). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)ps: not likely a multiple offender, but apparently all SPA accounts of students of the same course.[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under CSD criterion A7. Not-notable enough for a page, not sourced, probable hoax. Rudget 18:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emran Topolec

Does not meet WP:NOTE or WP:V. Google cannot provide any references and only shows a couple of non wiki mirror hits. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any information about this player at Eurobasket.com. The article says he has been playing professionally since he was ten years old, which makes me think this might be a hoax.... Zagalejo^^^ 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The KK Angeli (Skopje) article might be a hoax, as well. There's no team with that name in the Macedonian Premier League. Zagalejo^^^ 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 per Zagalejo; pretty good evidence that this is a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff T. Kane

This author appears to fail WP:N - minimal Google results don't include anything resembling decent reliable sources, and claims of publishing appear to be mostly on small, non-notable sites. One book sold through Amazon, published on Lulu.com. I don't see anything that affirms any notability here. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources provided are dubious and one of them is just an Amazon listing. Any self-publisher can sell their books on Amazon. Writer is not notable and the article was created by a vandal. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He fails note. No google news hit for any date, minimal google hits. He looks to be in the same realm of aspiring authors as thousands upon thousands. lulu is self-publishing, so this wouldn't prove any notability. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self publisher, fails WP:N. Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non notable Dreamspy (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Lulu is a notorious vanity press that confers notability on nobody. StorySouth is a notorious online-only "journal" that confers notability on nobody. He completely fails WP:BK. Also, this guy is constantly removing tags from his article--a very aggressive vanity-press vandal who's already been blocked [15] but continues to vandalize articles through his ISP. Get rid of this thing and salt it if it's recreated. Qworty (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He does not have anything available on Lulu at the moment and has been published otherwise by many other non-vanity presses. His stories have appeared in print and online in many journals and Ruthie's Club is a notable paying erotica site. He also was a finalist in Story South's notable online stories of 2004. I'm not sure how that doesn't satisfy a third party source since it was neither a site that published him or had anything to do with him personally. He also just had a story appear in the new issue of Demon Minds which is a paying horror magazine. Whether or not the author has vadalized the site should have nothing to do with their notability as an author or the article about them. --24.185.244.21 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has he been written up in other reliable sources? A couple of sales does not confer notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. I would have relisted this but it's already had one relisting, no need for another. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consolation

Does this band meet WP:MUSIC? Apart from split releases and EPs, they have had two full-length albums on the indy label Displeased Records. Now is this an "important" indy label? It's somewhat borderline, so I think it warrants a larger discussion. Neither the band article nor the album articles give hints to substantial independent coverage, so at this time I would say they fail WP:N. Article tagged with {{notability}} since May 2007. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the corresponding album articles too:

Beautyfilth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brave Melvin from the Southern Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hardcore Leeft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stahlplaat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Truth (Consolation album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--B. Wolterding (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the context of Dutch Metal, I believe the record label to be a notable one, so I believe they pass WP:MUSIC. However, the individual albums don't, so merge them into the main article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I couldn't find multiple non-trivial mention in independent and reliable sources online. That rules out criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. Members of the band have gone on to form other groups but none of those other groups have an article on wikipedia and presumably are not notable then. So that rules out criteria 6. They have released two albums on Displeased Records, an independent record label whose importance does seem quite borderline as indicated by the nominator. While the label does have a history of more than a few years, their roster of performers does not seem to include "many" other notable artists per criteria 5, hence this weak delete vote. --Bardin (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Philippe 04:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the weak delete above. They are somewhat notable. Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Chait

autobiographical article/ musician does not appear to pass WP:Music Frog47 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why this page should be deleted. The artist listed has performed on albums which are on wikipedia and have significant cultural importance. All references are shown a properly linked. The article is completely accurate and up to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattchait (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non notable and blatant self promotion Dreamspy (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Serious COI issues. --DAJF (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Blatantly fails WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COI autobiography, fails WP:MUSIC. Plvekamp (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, per WP:CSD A7. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanbridge Audio

Spam, article creator removed speedy tag. Frog47 (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently lacks any claim of notability. It's too short for me to call it spam. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, re-tagged as such, user warned and user name reported. – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millenia Malls

No sources, no relevant Google hits, unverifiable. Fails WP:CORP. No malls operated yet, so WP:CRYSTAL may apply as well. Was prodded, prod removed by anon without improvement. Huon (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability for this mall which does not yet exist. Pastordavid (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be recreated if and when the mall exists and becomes notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may pass WP:N but fails WP:RS. The article may be looking into a crystal ball but that's inconclusive. --Pmedema (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible WP:CRYSTAL at work here. No info seems to exist on these malls yet, as they've not yet been built. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non notable Dreamspy (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 23:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Homeless Power Project

Delete. Fails WP:ORG criteria of eligibility for non-commercial organizations, which reads:

Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale. Endless Dan 15:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a local group, but it has coverage in multiple reliable sources, and therefore passes the general notability criterion. --Eastmain (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in this article demonstrates that this organization has established independent notability. It's a noble cause, but what makes this organization more noteworthy over another homeless rights organization in any town or a larger city? --Endless Dan 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Secondary coverage in reliable sources, per general notability and organization notability guidelines. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep in mind that articles do not assert notability, the sources available for the subjects do that. And the sources speak for themselves. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't agree with the nom interpretation of the WP:ORG policy. Even the sentence quoted doesn't express national or international reach as a hard threshold for notability. The general thesis is that implied notability is reached at that point. But it doesn't seem as though this article is notable enough to support the argument I would make in this case. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user Celarnor. The sources are now there to indicate that the organisation is mentioned widely. Therefore, verifiable through reliable sources which indicate notability regardless of entity, and I can't see why WP:ORG should be allowed to muddy this primary fulfilled requirement. Whether it's person, group, subject or organisation, if the references are valid and complete per WP:VERIFY, and notability is confirmed through that process, no prejudication on grounds of the article's subject matter should over-ride the basic qualification necessary in all WP articles. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable political advocacy organization specific to Nashville, Tennessee. Fails WP:ORG. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very notable organization that has had numerous articles written about it. Note that the ORG criteria also states: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." There are currently two reliable independent sources cited in the article (one being the International Herald Tribune), and I'm sure if you give it time more will be added. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. If anyone wants the content for a transwiki, drop me a note. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takat

Rules-only description of a game of dubious notability. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and not having won an award isn't enough to meet WP:N. The only references are an entry in an inclusive directory, and a link to an online play site that should be removed per WP:EL. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As much as I would like to (generally) keep all game articles, an online search doesn't reveal anything that would establish notability. The only things I have found are the trivial references to "not winning an award" and further rules descriptions in other forms. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Thinking that this should go to wikibooks? --Pmedema (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete seems NN, and looks rather like a copyvio for long sections. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) The consensus is that sources exist that prove the notability of the article subject. Darkspots (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helene Rask

I suspect that recent edits to this article are mainly the work of a disgruntled Wiki contributor whose ramblings are now hosted elsewhere, but can still be reached using a link on the Helene Rask page. Guess which one. Also 'Rask Models, Norway's most popular model agency' is blatant advertising - not to mention hyperbole. Damansky (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Moved from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know what the nom means with the disgruntled editor; her name pulls up quite a few google and g-image hits, and more importantly, a number of google news hits. I'll also point out that a nearly identical version of the article survived an AfD a while back [16] I'm also going to remove the {{fact}} tags and put a general citations needed tag; that many ^{[citation needed]}s is just unnecessary. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing it's being nominated for deletion due to a perceived advertisement or WP:COI. Even if the current version contains such flaws, the article has been around since late 2004 so it's definitely fixable. SWik78 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Topic seems reasonably notable after a Google Search. Article could use a little work, but not worth deleting, IMO. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JeremyMcCracken.--Berig (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per WP:HOTTIE :) Joking asside, Seems notable. Sort of fails in the WP:RS area for citing... --Pmedema (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kimbula Project

The subject of the article is a 2 week old forum that fails the basics of WP:N and WP:V as well as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day as the article explicitly states The concept for the forum was born approximately in 4 minutes. SWik78 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that all of the major contributors to this article (Steelersrule (talk · contribs), Thisiswhoiam (talk · contribs), Krazykat nuzi (talk · contribs), Acephalia (talk · contribs)) were registered today (some within minutes of each other) and have made no other contributions to Wikipedia outside of this article. SWik78 (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The creator of this article continually removed the speedy delete tags. I then "prod"ed the article. Of course, that user or a newly created user today (possibly a sockpuppet) quickly removed that tag, too. I then put tags for notability, third-party sources, etc. giving the article's creator (and other newsly created users) a week to find reliable third-party sources to demonstrate notability. Surprise, surprise. The user removed those tags, too! Is it any wonder the article is now facing an AfD? Incidentally, I checked several newspaper databases (LexisNexis, Google News, and Factiva), but I could not find any hits for "The Kimbula Project." If this subject (the creation of a chat forum) is notable after failing that straightforward test of reliable third-party sources, I would be very surprised. J Readings (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non notable Dreamspy (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do Not Delete - I do apologise for deleting off the tags at first i did not pay much attention to it and didnt know what they were i am new here.And the second set of tags were probably deleted by one of the other users also had no idea what they were inititally. (It just says spam and some code how would we know that it is a deletion tag)I am in no way associated to the site but it has created some what of a revolution in the Sri Lankan community that i thought ill put it up. I have never done a wikipedia article b4 hence it probably came across as advertising when i did read the deletion tags properly thats when i asked a couple of people i know to sign up and help me clean it up. Hence the subsequent signing ups. A lot of Sri Lankans are interested in knowing what exactly this site is. And what better place to educate some one than wikipedia again i apologise if i did violate any terms,i do know we are a small country but we are on the map and innovative acts such as this to better a community should be mentioned as it means quite a bit to a community that has been over shadowed by a war for 20 years.As for the statement - The concept for the forum was born approximately in 4 minutes is not my doing it is the site authors and it is sheer genius in most peoples minds.I do not know how anyone can judge the quality of a concept whether it takes 4 years or 4 seconds.

Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website instead.

I stress again i did not make this website and this is not a thing made up in a garage it is one persons attempt to give common ground for a community made up of different levels and ethnic groups.A place where people can freely express discuss and learn without anger hate or violence. My intention was not to promote the site at all but to let people know what it was about.As it sure has the right idea worth mentioning.

P.S - If you do a search on google/yahoo/live for the word "Kimbula" you will come across the Sunday Times Article on the website.--Acephalia (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - internet forum created April 3, 2008 with no assertion to notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per author’s request (CSD#G7) after merging into AT-43. —Travis ^talk 03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.N.A.

I don't see how this is notable, if it is notable, then my bad. but It don't seem notable. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 14:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(full disclosure: I'm the article's author) I'd say this entry is notable as it expands on the information found in the AT-43 entry. AT-43 is an emerging tabletop wargame that is quite rapidly growing in popularity in the United States (shipping issued delayed a more widespread release back in 06/07). Much like the entry for Warhammer 40k, a similar tabletop game, it's nice to have the details and backstories of the diverse groups listed here on wikipedia. That way, novice players or the curious may be able to find more information about the game and its factions. I see how something that is new could be seen as something that is not notable, but I think it's better to be proactive information-wise, than reactive. Thanks, --Btg23 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any evidence of notability presented and the burden of proof is on those who believe the article is notable, as per WP:NOBJ. As to proactivity vs. reactivity, I'm afraid Wikipedia disagrees: WP:NTEMP. If the game gains more coverage in future the article can always be reinstated. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is briefly mentioned in the parent article of AT-43. I think that the important information can be merged into there... not a full merge. --Pmedema (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non notable Dreamspy (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with AT-43. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 11:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with AT-43. Looking at it, I agree it's non-notable. Since I'm still learning the ropes here, I'm not sure what to do next. Can I delete the page myself since I'm the author? --Btg23 (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it needs to be merged first, so... – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dur, thanks. *g* I went ahead and merged the Therians article into that as well. It wasn't marked for deletion, but it served the same function as the U.N.A. page. I think the main AT-43 article really benefited from this. Thanks everyone! Should I just edit the two pages and take everything out? Or is there a special delete command?--Btg23 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can place {{db-g7}} on the page and it will be deleted in a few minutes. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Thanks again, everyone! --Btg23 (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miami Rappers

non-notable as a list, work as a category. Frog47 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:CLN. Nominator may want to review guidelines regarding redundancy of lists and categories: "These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." There are lots of things lists can do that categories can't in terms of presenting information; if the current version of the article doesn't present anything the category doesn't, that can be changed by the regular editing process and thus isn't a good rationale for deletion; ultimately, there's no reason to delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the nominator doesn't believe that rappers being from Miami isn't notable in a list, why is it notable as a category? Have navigation guidelines been skewed recently? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom, plus I doubt this list is seriously maintainable. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it unmaintainable? It's a fairly simple matter to add an entry into a list when a given musician from this location becomes notable. If it's unmaintainable, then the same could be said about its category bretheren, which should also be put under the same scrutiny. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary, the category is perfect for this, it can be added to any new rapper article and combines them effortlessly. This list will be forgotten and remain in the poor state it is now. Just to prove my point, the article is currently orphaned, except for things related to this AfD and userspace discussions. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the name of any rapper can be added to the list. I don't see how it's more difficult; it's like, two more clicks. The added benefits that lists have over categories for human readability far outweigh those few extra clicks. Again, it should be noted that categories and lists aren't to be considered in conflict with one another, rather that they should be used to keep their accompaniant well-maintained and up to date. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But no one is going to make those two clicks... hence seriously in the original comment. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think they'll make the one click to add it to a category? Seriously, this is essentially a NOEFFORT argument. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was just my addendum to the nominator's comments. I still consider them valid. But point taken, my bad. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Southern hip hop. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Louis rappers for a similar afd. Pastordavid (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G4 (recreation of previously deleted material) by Discospinster. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo III (film)

No sources or references, no evidence this even exists or is being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samrulez91 (talk • contribs) 2008/04/16 23:27:46

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF as well... this project's been rumored since as far back as 2003. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing has changed since its last AfD, or the one before. Steve ^{T • C} 14:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be speedied per #4 of WP:CSD, then? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G4, recreation of content previously deleted by AfD. Dgf32 (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Page has been nominated for Speedy Deletion. Dgf32 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation of material previously deleted by AfD. We've been through this particular Internet rumour before and no one can substantiate this with any reliable sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Punkmorten (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon, New Zealand

This appears to be complete nonsense. Fences and windows (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Fences and windows (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article wasn't nonsense; although I have no idea about the story of how it came by its name. In general, places don't have to pass a notability test to be on Wikipedia. I've cleaned it up significantly.-gadfium 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As long as they're verified, towns of any size are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep / Cleanup / Stubify. The village is a real place (and is therefore inherently notable). There is a photo of the hotel taken on 9 January 2008 here - it looks very much open for business to me. The Etymology and tourist promotion both need referencing. (I'd expect the source to turn out to be some historical pamplet which can be found at the nearest district library or museum). At the very worst this article should be reduced to a locality stub - it should not be deleted. dramatic (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ok, Gadfium has already done the cleanup while I was edit-conflicted :-) dramatic (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the article was messy to begin with, but this is a real settlement. -- Avenue (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article has been cleaned up and is now a decent stub on a town (keep in mind that towns are inherently notable). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Avenue & Ten Pound Hammer. Nice save, Gadfium. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade.--Berig (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I was even able to find online weather forcasts for this place. Most named locations are considered notable, and this one definitely exists.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vereniging Basisinkomen

Request for deletion. This organisation is not notable, promoted by one of the references Guido den Broeder, and deleted on the Dutch wikipedia as well. Migdejong (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no article on this topic in nl:Wikipedia.[17]

Since I have a declared COI, I will not take part in this procedure, except to answer questions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe COI means you can't edit the main page, it doesn't mean you don't get an opinion on the AFD discussion or talk page. If you can provide unquestionable proof the page passes WP:CORP, then the AFD discussion can end immediately. WLU (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note The Dutch WP consensus has no meaning here; we're a seperate project, the same as our decisions have no value on their side. The article is heavily sourced apparently to multiple sources. How is it not notable? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am undecided atm. It depends on the coverage by VPRO's De Ochtenden, who apparently went to one of their conferences. If they covered the organisation, it would go a long way towards establishing the notability of this organisation. But if they covered the topic of a guaranteed minimum income, they at best mentioned the organisation in passing, which wouldn't establish notability. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honoustly I have to agree with Aecis here. Migdejong (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I was asked by Guido to comment on my talk page. Based on my analysis of the sources found in this version there is insufficient evidence that the page is notable per WP:CORP. My analysis of the 19 sources found on that version of the page can be found here. Even should more sources be added, there is a significant problem of coatracking which should be dealt with if the page is not deleted. WLU (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC) User has archived my comments on his analysis. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- based on the recognition by a Dutch political party (from page 195-6 of this document, translated via babelfish 'cause I can't read dutch) I think there's enough to establish notability. The page is still a coatrack and content fork in my opinion, but at least a notable one. Undecided I hate to chage my mind, but based on a bit more context around the new sources, I don't feel comfortable with keep. What a mess. I've re-written the page by the way, so now it is (in my mind) solely about VBI and no longer a coatrack or POV fork. WLU (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to comment on this coverage, calling the Natuurwetpartij a political party is a bit of a stretch. It's a movement that is was active in politics, but it has never managed to exceed the realm of fringe parties. In the 1998 elections, where they mentioned Vereniging Basisinkomen, the party got 0.00183% of the votes. They haven't taken part in any other elections. Even calling this party an also-ran would be an exaggeration. A ecis^Brievenbus 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It never fails to disturb me as to what will get deleted here under accusations of being non-notable. This has included, among other things, title-winning athletes, just because they won a now defunct title decades earlier and none of the editors voting had heard of them. Undecided is, fortunately, a significant improvement over that flavor of VfD. If it might not be important enough, then don't include it with the Wikipedia 1.0 DVD. Just tag the article and note that it's needing review by a disinterested party with fluency in Nederlands for possible bias and changed accordingly -- presumably that's a job for Wikiproject Netherlands. -- Strangelv (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this page seems to be a point of conflict and seems there is some possible WP:COI involved here. The four book references seems notable although perhaps only three are independent of the source. I would encourage anyone to check for themselves in books and scholar. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. SunCreator (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis included the four book sources, but in my opinion the coverage of VB in each one was trivial (one sentence in two, perhaps two sentences in the German, and only a mention in the acknowledgements in the fourth). I think that WP:CORP supports the notability being established by sources having a thorough discussion but no-one ever agrees with me :( WLU (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are partly right as each of the pages shown on g-books is not significant itself, if there was only one such reference then it could be dismissed. Here however we have three or perhaps four independent book sources. In WP:CORP#Primary_criterion it deals with this by saying If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. I suggest multiple independent book sources are enough in this case. SunCreator (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems also another independent source has been discovered, I saw the link on the articles talk page. SunCreator (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have listened to the VPRO report, which can be found here. You can listen to it by clicking the speaker, the segment that is relevant to this discussion is from 32:38 to 41:38 (in Dutch). After having listened to it, I am edging closer towards delete. The report starts by mentioning that Vereniging Basisinkomen has held a conference, but the report is not about the VB, it's about the topic of a guaranteed minimum income. I see that as a passing mention. I haven't made up my mind about this article though, as I haven't looked into the literature listed above yet. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- During a large part of the coverage, you are hearing Michiel van Hasselt, in his capacity as chairman of the Vereniging Basisinkomen. Each time he says 'we', that denotes the vereniging. Most other speakers are members. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But he's not talking about the Vereniging Basisinkomen, he's talking about guaranteed minimum income, as do all the others. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - He is talking about the findings and conclusions of the vereniging with regard to basic income, not his personal findings and conclusions. Perhaps it helps if you point to an article in Wikipedia where it is different, and an organization meets your standards. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self promotion - GijsvdL (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Afd is about whether the topic is suitable for a wiki article. Discussion about the existing article can be discussed on the articles talk page. SunCreator (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources. If the article has shortcomings, COI or otherwise, fix them, but don't throw out the child with the bathwater. --Yooden ☮ 04:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reminds me a lot of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging (see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 5), another article created by Guido den Broeder about a Vereniging he was closely related with (the article can now be seen at User talk:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging. That one as well had at first glance a lot of sources, but in the end it turned out that none of them were reliable, independent, and indepth. In this case, the sources are either self published or about the Basisinkomen, but not at any length about the Vereniging Basisinkomen (the proceedings of a symposium, in German, are the most extensive so far). An article on an organization of dubious notability, created by their treasurer, who has had already an article deleted for exactly the same reasons and is well aware of the COI guideline... not much reason to keep this one around. Fram (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) The organization was not created by their current treasurer. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)</small made clearer Fram (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Afd is about whether the topic is suitable for a wiki article. Discussion about the existing article can be discussed on the articles talk page. SunCreator (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the topic is, judging by the sources in the article (and the talk page) and the sources found on the internet, not suitable for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I respect your opinion. SunCreator (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added some additional material to the talk page of the article (from the google search). This includes a prize nomination by Belgian political party Vivant to a long-time chairperson in recognition of all the work that she and the vereniging have done. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For context, prize nomination was for an honorary member of VBI, and she didn't win. I'm not sure how much discussion there was of the person versus the organization. And the political party providing the recognition above was only active in a single election, receiving apparently 0.002% of the vote. WLU (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"(With this nomination) Vivant also recognizes the efforts and openness of the Vereniging Basisinkomen in the strive for larger support for the introduction of a basic income." Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still is only a nomination for an insignificant or barely significant award. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - confronted with the issue of notability Guido came up with a list of 'Lidorganisaties' (member organisations) en 'Sympathiserende organisaties' (sympathizing organisations) both mentioning "per 1 mei 1989" (on May 1st, 1989). In the article the 'Vereniging Basisinkomen' it says "The organization was created in 1991 .." So that list might be applicable to an 'ancestor' of this organisation but if that's the best you have to prove the topic of this article is important enough, then to me that looks like a good reason to doubt its notability. - Robotje (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After having gone through the sources listed above, I have to !vote to delete this article. Just about all of the sources mention the organisation in passing. This would verify that the organisation exists and what they do, but this is not sufficient to establish notability. The VPRO coverage above, for instance, talks about the notion of a guaranteed minimum income, not about VBI. The Vivant award was a nomination of one VBI member for an insignificant award by an only somewhat notable party. The one sentence acknowledgements in several books do not create notability either, imo. The source that came closest to establishing notability was Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Hoffnung: Reformfähigkeit und die Möglichkeit rationaler Politik. But like the other sources, it verifies the organisation's activities, but it doesn't establish the notability of the subject. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has organized two major international events which have received full media coverage, a jubileum conference with media coverage, and dozens of study sessions and open discussions with notable speakers (i.e. with their own Wikipedia article, including scientists, members of parliament and trade union leaders). It received a starting capital from Dutch trade unions and political parties and for a long time was located in a trade union building. It received a subsidy from the city of Amsterdam for many years. Its representatives, in that capacity, have been speakers and session leaders on countless events organized by notable organizations (i.e. with their own article on Wikipedia) on invitation, which lead to further media coverage of the topic. Its work has inspired eight political movements to advocate the introduction of a basic income, and recently forms of a negative income tax were in fact introduced to the Dutch tax system. If topics like these no not belong in Wikipedia, then Wikipedia should be emptied or renamed to 'Pokemon Wiki'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the Dutch wikipedia is certain this isn't a notable organization. LucianoHdk (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue has never come up on nl:Wikipedia. Meanwhile, be advised that this is not a vote. It makes no difference how many single-purpose accounts are created or reactivated Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC) just to add the word 'delete'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, the account LucianoHdk (talk · contribs) was created on August 31, 2007, so it was not "created just to add the word 'delete'." A ecis^Brievenbus 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here for me is if 5 or 6 independent reliable sources (which only mention the topic) is enough for notability? My understand and reading of WP:CORP#Primary_criterion is that it is enough. The intent being that those source establish notability but the articles contents does not have to come from independent reliable sources, as it can come from source that are not independent of which there are quite a few. So for me it's a clear keep but others may disagree WP:CORP is only a guideline after all, so I don't wish to speed another moment looking at the topic. SunCreator (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Portage Public Schools.. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amberly Elementary School

AfDs for this article:

Aside from being non-notable, it discusses educating aliens from other planets; this article is complete nonsense. Frog47 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portage Public Schools, its parent school district. No WP:RS coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry was created for instructional purposes only. My students were very impressed with how quickly this was edited. I am removing the nonsense paragraph now that we are done with our discussion. • Pbutts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You really shouldn't create pages for instructional purposes- use existing articles and edits for your observations. Also, you may want to consult this link for some general information. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, lighten UP!!! Considering all the pages that get created here, there is absolutely no need to tell a teacher "You really shouldn't create pages for instructional purposes". Since Amerly Elementary School is a real school, it's perfectly legitimate for someone to create a page about it. In fact, it's not uncommon for articles about schools to be created so that students can learn about Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that these articles generally do not stay up very long either, but Wikipedia really is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Mandsford (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the history. There was initially some nonsense about how it was a school for space aliens. JuJube (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks JuJube, I was hoping to portray the kinds of articles that might wind up PRODed or here if classes all over the world did experiments like that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - non notable school Dreamspy (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nicely per Gene93k. See WP:Don't Discourage The Teachers. Ezratrumpet (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informavore

Transwikied article, that only consists on dictionary content. Speedy deletion per CSD A5 was denied. If kept, please focus on subject rather than on the term Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 11:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems like non-dictionary content on this is available, and it looks like a notable term. (I thought it was a neologism at first, but apparently not.) It definitely needs expansion away from being a dicdef, though. Anturiaethwr (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - dictionary content is not a reason for speedy deletion. CSD A5 applies to content that has been transwikied to Wiktionary only. Neıl ☎ 14:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Informavore was transwikied to wiktionary 04:26, 7 February 2007. I realize that given the timespan, the use of A5 it is up for debate. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page does not exist as a full page on wiktionary ([18]) - it's sat in their transwiki holding pen, still, which is why I couldn't find it ([19]). It seems like it could be readily expanded beyond a dictionary definition, so keep. Neıl ☎ 19:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonist incorporated

Group does not appear to be notable - I don't think that any there is any reliably sourced information available with which to verify the content of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the 27 non-wiki ghits, only two refered to this group, and neither showed a whiff of notability. Odd that an internet based group would get so few ghits if it was truly notable... --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable evidence of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article definitely needs work, and "Antagonist" itself was not notable, but it was part of a dot-com that had at least minor notability as part of AOL's "Greenhouse" business unit. I added some (hopefully) reliably sourced and verifiable content to the article, in the hopes that it can be salvaged in some way, perhaps as part of an article regarding its parent dot-com. ANTPogo (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Although there is some debate about where to draw the line in terms of inherent notability and royal succession, it appears that consensus is that 5th in line is notable in and of itself. Certainly this should be reconsidered if a later, more concrete, consensus develops that would exclude this article. Pastordavid (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Eléonore of Belgium

Simply not notable. She is a 1 day old baby born to royal parents. So what? She can have an article when she actually does something in her life in, say, 10 years. Editor of the wiki 10:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in her own right. One can be the member of a notable group, listing, etc, but that does not make an individual notable. Maybe once she has official duties or is known for something other than being born. Charles 10:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep She is notable, since she is the 5th in line for the throne. Happy138 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable in her own right. She could be listed on the page of group she is now a member of, but she does not qualify to have her own page. Jackmantas (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Some people may well be anti-monarchy, at the end of the day she is still notable, regardless of age, due to being of royal descent. With the obvious caveats of protection for a child, there's no reason to delete; in the event of tragedies, she would be Queen of Belgium, no? Minkythecat (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to step in: I am a monarchist and I vote to delete this. Obvious caveats of protection for a child? Eventually would be queen of Belgium? Sorry, but I don't know how these could apply anywhere for the qualification of keeping this article. Maybe you should read the discussion on the article's talk page. Wikipedia is not a genealogical respository. The only places this princess is notable are in her parents' articles and in the article Line of succession to the Belgian throne. That's it. Do you know how many pointless or unnecessary articles we would have if we gave every single British dynast an article? Notable groups exist, not everyone in them is notable. Maybe you should follow what you say on your user page? Charles 12:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, we can't give a page to every single British dynast, because some of them are completely unnotable, ie they are so far down in line, and their royal connection is limited to a great-grandparent, so they have no title, the monarchy they are descended from was abolished, etc. However, we do have articles for all of the British dynasts who are current members of the British Royal Family. Eléonore is a dynast of the Belgian royal family, and she is actually a member of that family, and moreover, the daughter of the future king. Morhange (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to say that they are not notable? I could write an article on most of them with more than is written about little Eléonore of Belgium. How many times do I have to say that other people having articles doesn't justify this one? Really, Viscount Windsor shouldn't have an article nor should Lady Louise. Look what's written about them! Royal watcher cruft, painful attempts at worthwhile articles. Daughter of a future king does not matter, there is no guarantee that that will happen and if I were to hypothesize as well I would say that Eléonore will likely never become queen. Notability is not inherited. Picture that written in big font 10 or so times as I'm too busy to do it myself. Charles 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL. Just a hint there, tiger. There's somewhat of a difference between this page and some of the fluff in wiki. Minkythecat (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility isn't an issue which needs to be brought up, nothing uncivil has been said on my part. Charles 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not; examining the user page of respondents to attempt to debase their arguments for/against points is of course entirely civil. My bad. Now, this is my last response to you or your comments; the AfD will take it's course and the community decide... Minkythecat (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep royal house is always notable. Especially 5th to the throne. To delete is ridiculous. Migdejong (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it always notable? Show me where in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I know royal houses are always notable and lines of succession are, just not the people in them always. Thank you! Charles 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to being in the top-10 list in succession. While I disagree that being in the royal house is automatic nobility, being high up in the line of succession is. If this person were 40th in line it would be a different story. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the cut off at ten? Charles 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten is a bit arbitrary, but it's a convenient number for European monarchy other than England. For England I would go as high as 20 or maybe 30, for relatively insignificant monarchies I might limit it to the children of the monarch or even the heir-apparent. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limit articles to people who have actually done things, list the others where appropriate (lines of succession). Wikipedia is terribly inefficient and long-winded when it comes to this stuff. Charles 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being fifth in line to the Belgian throne, she is definitely notable. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every time there's a royal birth somewhere there's this same pointless discussion with the same inevitable conclusion. She's a princess and she's fifth in line for the throne and, regardless of her age, that's notable. The 'child protection' argument for deletion is specious as well, she's a member of a royal family, she's a person in the public eye no matter how young she is. Nick mallory (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...because people continue to vote "keep" without elaborating on their positions and default to a baseless argument of "royalty = notable". Charles 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding royal=automatically notable: In this case, it's not important that royal=automatically notable. The fact that she's 5th in line for the throne and that this particular royal family is famous makes her notable. If she were a new Saudi Prince and 527th in line for the throne, or even 20th in line, then you could legitimately claim the person isn't notable. Ditto if she were 5th in line as King of a non-famous royal family, such as some of the tribal kings in third world countries who are neither head of state nor head of the national government. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Nick mallory. She's notable. If Prince William had a child, would his article be deleted? Eléonore is fifth in line to the throne of Belgium and the daughter of a crown prince, which makes her notable. People are going to be interested in her no matter what, because she is born into a royal family. Morhange (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have opened a general discussion about the automatic notability of royalty and members of other seemingly notable groups. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The baby is notable in herself, and there is going to be an article on her sooner or later anyway.--Berig (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW? At 8 to 4 in favor of keeping, and the likelihood of anything happening to tilt the discussion in favor of deletion being approximately zero, if nobody else says "delete" within 48 hours of the original proposal, I think we can Ignore All Rules and speedy-keep this thing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let the AfD run its course. A snowball keep would be a misapplication of the snowball clause. 8 to 4 in favor of keeping is not grounds for a speedy keep. If it were 11 to 1 in favor of keeping, that would be different. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the arguments for notability above. Also, reccomend against a snow close. The delete arguments are not without merit and this AfD is a healthy one for the project. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs
Keep per the above - sufficiently high in the line of succession to be worth a mention despite her lack of personal achievements to date. I also concur with Gwynand that a WP:SNOW close is not necessarily wise when there are valid delete arguments. ~ mazca ^talk 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First off, this should definitely not ba snow, and I will nominate little British babies for deletion once this is over. The arguement that royalty=notability must have forgotten that Notability is not inherited. So far, she has done absolutely nothing in her life except being born to notable parents. As to the users who say she is simply notable, how so? Those who argue that an article will be created sooner or later must know that in "later" you must mean 10 years fom now, when she actually takes on official duties. Perhaps if she becomes queen we can have an article. But currently, her rankings don't mean a thing, as people who are 20th in line of the throne have done more notable things in their lifetime than she has. Should they have an article? No! This article is nothing more than a factoid with templates, telling where she was born, who her parents are, and who her godparents will be. Perhaps her family will always be in the spotlight, but not her, at least for another few years. If she brings an attention to a cause because she gets some sickness we can have an article. If she for crying out loud does something that does not involve her relatives we can have an article! All the relevant material can and should be merged into her parents' articles.

Also, I may note that the de or fr wikipedias do not have articles on her, and they would be where information would be. Most of the keep votes seem to be WP:ILIKEIT or some sort of policy that hasn't been adopted yet. We do have a thing called Wikinews for up-to-date info and this article will most likely remain a useless factoid for years to come. Editor of the wiki 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability of royal infants in general: I very strongly disagree that notability is not inherited when it comes to The Baby Crown Prince, and I disagree when it comes to other babies very high in the line of succession such as this girl. I agree when it comes to babies some distance down the line of succession, and I strongly agree when it comes to babies way down the line. IMHO, if the US Constitution said that the President could name the top-10 people in the line of succession to the Presidency without appointing them to an actual office as is the case today with Cabinet members, everyone in that list would be notable by virtue of being on that list. If he was allowed to name the top-100 people in the line of succession, those lower on the list would not automatically be notable in my opinion. The same logic applies to royal births. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Please give me a policy for this. Absolutely nothing can be written about her except factoid-like information that would better belong in the parents' articles. Editorofthewiki 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll do better than that, I'll quote WP:N:

“

This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. [emphasis mine]

”

- - - And follow up with a quote from Wikipedia:Notability (people):

“

This notability guideline for biographies is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. [again, emphasis mine]

”

- - - davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uh, I think that the common sense is nort to keep people who have done nothing in there 1 day of their living. Come on, just because she in 5th in line doesn't mean that she will be queen. Editor of the wiki 00:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm satisfied, in the absence of any other standard such as the rejected Wikipedia:Notability (royalty), to include holders of titles, heirs apparent and presumptive of heads of state, and the progeny of both of the above. Outside of that circle, again inclusive of holders of titles, there isn't any need to have separate articles on the children. To Editorofthewiki, I'm always leery of the "it isn't on the other-language Wikipedia" argument, because all of those are smaller than EN Wikipedia. (The argument does work in the other direction for the same reason.) Also, it's not the DE but the NL ... and there is one there.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable. Lucifero4
- Irrelevant. Editor of the wiki 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least partially establishing notability: Her birth was announced in the Sydney Morning Herald, the newspaper of record for Sydney, Australia. You can argue that it was her parents, not her, that were newsworthy, but even so, I added it as a reference. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS. We do have a thing called Wikinews for people that have done nothing except being born and being royal. Editor of the wiki 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Welcome to the world of royalty, Eleonore. If you were a "commoner", these same people wouldn't think twice about deleting this oh-so-sweet article. Mandsford (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I can't believe this was even nominated. StAnselm (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Member of a royal family. Wikipedia has lots of articles like this, like Princess Alexia. Mr Store (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of which should be deleted, by the way. One fault doesn't justify another. Hopefully a sensible policy or guideline will come into existence to get rid of these pointless articles. Charles 04:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is the male-line grandaughter of a King, and daughter of future king. I really wish that people would realise that royalty are notable for being royalty, they don't need a seperate point of notablity. --UpDown (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they do. She's just a little baby that has done nothing in her life. None of you are acting on any relevant policy and you are simply saying that royalty=notabilty. Let me ask you a question. Has this baby ever actually ruled a country? In fact, she hasn't only not ruled a country, but she doesn't even know she is royal yet! Most of these votes seem to be because you want to be royal or some other idea that notability is not inherited. Editorofthewiki 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it does.The whole point of royalty is that they are famous for being who they are. You really can't seem to understand that basic fact. You last sentence is totally unsupported and verging on uncivil. People have different opinions, we believe royalty are notable for being royalty, you don't. You seemed to be getting awfully worked up about this and I don't see why. Accept that not everyone shares your view.--UpDown (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I accept that most people here probably haven't read what Wikipedia is not, such as it is not a genealogical repository catering to royal watchers solely on their interest. Charles 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Editorwiki and Charles. Honestly, I'm not aware of anyone who was "fifth in line" who ended up as the ruler of a nation. The little princess should be mentioned in an article about Belgian royalty, sure, but her own biographical page, no. Like every baby born on April 16, she's "special", but she's not special enough for her own article. I can see where the heir apparent or the heiress presumptive might rate an article, but fifth in line, no. However, Ed and Chuck, looks like we're in the minority on this one. I don't get it either. Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was always told that even if you are right, expect people to disagree with you. This, however, is just laughable. I can see very, very little persuasion the side of the "keep" people. Their numbers are seemingly greater given the people who have replied so far but I don't need to tell people they are wrong for much longer when it is so painfully clear! Charles 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You really are bordering on being offensive, in assuming that everyone who disagrees with you does so purely because they're stupid and/or misinformed. In the absence of a definitive policy on the notability of royalty, it really does come down to peoples' personal opinions on what's notable and what isn't in this context. Someone who, quite feasibly, could ascend to the Belgian throne is, in my view, pretty notable. This is obviously a matter of opinion but it doesn't give you the right to accuse everyone you disagree with of being 'wrong'. ~ mazca ^talk 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You really are doing nothing but causing grief by trying to make a speech on personal opinions. I, personally, find a lot of what happens on Wikipedia to be offensive to the sensibilities of most people but you will not see me point it out over and over again unless it directly relates to the subject at hand. If you have an issue, take it to my talk page. Eléonore obviously doesn't meet the criteria for being notable in her own right. End of story :) Charles 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wait, where are all the times I've 'pointed this out again and again'? As far as I noticed that was the first time I've even mentioned it, and I felt it was worth mentioning because the only two people arguing for this articles' deletion are doing so by repeatedly stating that the keep votes are all somehow incorrect or misinformed. ~ mazca ^talk 21:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Most of the keep voters are blindly saying she is notable without explanation. We really need to establish that guideline. Editor of the wiki 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Mandsford: In ye olde England, several people who were way down on the list usurped the throne. I don't have data to prove it, but I suspect that some of the 1st-in-line successors to long-lived monarchs were 5th or further down the line when their predecessor took the throne. All that needs to happen for this little princess to inherit is for her to outlive her older siblings and for them to die childless. While this isn't terribly likely in modern times, children dying childless happened frequently in the time before modern medicine. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - 5th in line- its enough V1^t 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Member of a reigning Royal Family daughter of the heir apparent to the throne has received much coverage in media I have found articles in many languages through Google News. Her birth has been covered. Today she has been presented to the media and more to coverage to come with baptism she's clearly notable. - dwc lr (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the news now in Google. Princess was born, gives her names, weight and length. That's it. My, oh my, how notable! Charles 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone agrees with you get over it. - dwc lr (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, actually, that is the very definition of notable: The birth was taken note of in major media outlets. What it is not is terribly informative. What it may be is trivial. Yes, you can be trivial and noted-and-therefore-notable at the same time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the references are trivial. Whoopee, she was born at so-and so and weighed so-and-so. If she was born to any other family this would be undisputable, but since notabilty is inherited, her notrable parents qualify her for an article. Editor of the wiki 21:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable in Belgium. Just because she isn't some pop slut that every yank tabloid is drooling about doesn't mean she has no significance anywhere. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to her father, Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant, the heir apparent, whose own article is not that long. The article about Princess Eleonore can be broken out again when there is more to say about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ironically this could have been done by any editor and probably would have gone uncontested. Now that a lot of people are watching the article any redirect without discussion will be reverted. In any case, if there is a redirect it should be a regular revert not the delete-and-create-redirect that usually comes out of AfDs. Since her public life and as much of her private life as the popparatzi can get will probably be chronicled in the press, by the time she's in grade-school we will probably have much more than her birth details to go on. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that a regular redirect should be created, and I should have been bold in doing so, but whatever the result of this afd, I will do so anyway, since the closing admin will probably do a votecount without examining the arguements. Ah well, this will be a landmark afd. Editor of the wiki 16:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, please create a section so the redirect can point to the right place. That way, incoming wiki- and external-links will point to a place that makes sense. Also, given that there will likely be objections, possibly even strong ones, please discuss it on the talk page before doing it. I think you will have a lot of support for a redirect but you may or may not have consensus or even a majority. If there is no consensus to redirect, please keep it the way it is to avoid a time-wasting edit war. If there is no consensus, you can always reopen the discussion every few months until a consensus develops one way or the other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus do you mean a votecount of editors? As in this, the afd is likely to fail despite the illegitamate points of several users. Listen. I'll just be bold and do it and if anyone disagrees, I will discuss on talk. While I hate saying this, the article is simply royaltycruft. Editor of the wiki 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you'd discuss it on the talk page first, rather than possibly violate WP:POINT Minkythecat (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how again am I disrupting Wikipedia? I am actually helping it by removing unencyclopedic info. I will Be Bold, and in case someone disagrees with it, I will be happy to discuss it. Editor of the wiki 20:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you then run the risk of people reverting you, causing you to potentially 3RR. If it's discussed and agreed by consensus then, that's a far more practical way to do it. Minkythecat (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally if you don't agree with someone's point it doesn't make it illegitimate. In the absence of an official policy on royalty, as I said before, it comes down to what people personally feel is notable and it seems pretty clear to me that the consensus is strongly against you in terms of how notable royalty are. While a closing admin shouldn't merely votecount, when the difference in numbers of keep and delete votes is this massively different it's hard to claim the other voters are all wrong. ~ mazca ^talk 21:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, close enough in the line of succession to a European monarch to be inherently notable. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vote Keep because being of the immediate family of he who is effectively Belgium's crown prince qualifies as being notable enough. Look how many examples on wikipedia we have. Both children of the Earl of Wessex have pages, and he is not even a crown prince. Prince Philippe is expected to be king someday and when he is king, his children will be even more "notable" than now.--Ashley Rovira (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Editor of the wiki 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ashley has a point actually, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an official policy anyway. As the child of the next in line to the throne of Belgium she is just as notable as if (god forbid) the Duchess of Cornwall gave birth to a child of Prince Charles's, or for that matter as notable as Prince Henry of Wales was when he was born. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the Earl of Wessex's children should really be deleted. One fault doesn't justify another, I imagine people are intelligent enough to realize that. Wait until this princess is actually notable in her own right before giving her an article. Charles 19:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The fact that she is born into a reigining royal family is reason enough for her to have her own page here, I think. Royals are interesting people because they are royals, their rights derive from this and nothing else - whether we're republican or monarchists should not have anything to do with this discussion. --Rosegarden (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suggest you acquaint yourself with pages like WP:INTERESTING. Charles 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is strongly against you here Charles, I hope that you don't believe you yourself have a royal perogative to 'boldly' change long established norms against the will of the overwhelming majority here. The whole point of a royal family is that they're notable for who they are, not what they do. You may agree or disagree with the concept of royalty but by any reasonable definition of the word, this young lady is notable. I hope you will abide by the decision of the closing administrator here, otherwise you're going to waste a lot of people's time for no good reason. Nick mallory (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the only way to waste one's time on Wikipedia is to do it one's self. Most people haven't spent enough time here for it to be wasted. I see "royalty = notable" and not much more from many people, most of whom I imagine just watch AfD because they like to vote (?). Am I correct in believing that you are implying that I am unreasonable in believing this baby is not notable? I can assure you that I could push the same belief about the "other side" but it would get me in trouble now, wouldn't it? Your statement "The whole point of a royal family is that they're notable for who they are, not what they do." is false. The whole point of a royal family is to provide dynasts and successors and suitable marriage partners in political matchmaking. Will you produce articles on every single royal simply because they are "just notable as they are"? Honest question. If it doesn't make sense, neither does saying all royalty is notable. Charles 10:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus seems that this is not necessarily a POV fork, but rather a fork of a long article in accord with summary style. The title, however, strikes me as a little POV, and I would suggest renaming as discussed below - but that is an editorial decision for the talk page and not an AfD decision. Pastordavid (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of outside support in the Warsaw Uprising

"Research into the lack of support of the Warsaw Uprising is (according to historians such as Norman Davies) currently very difficult due to lack of access to archives". Maybe that explains why this reads like a personal essay and lacks proper references. Sadly, I don't think Wikipedia is a great place to remedy the fact that this subject is inadequately covered (under this title) in the sources. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherently POV title. Merge anything salvageable into Warsaw Uprising. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article wasn't tagged as nominated for deletion; I have done so. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)
Keep It has some citations; it could use more, but it looks like good information. The tone's only a little iffy; I wouldn't say it reads like an essay. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an essay at all but a historical truth, but the title of this article is too provocative. It remains me of the witch hunt conducted by the once London based Polish government in exile responsible for failing of the Uprising years ago, and they still looking until this very day - who to blame? - anyone but us. greg park avenue (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious POV-fork. The world knows that the Soviets probably stopped across the river to let the Uprising be crushed, but that can be dealt with within the uprising article. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV, un-encyclopedic, maybe merge with Warsaw uprising. Yopie 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
Delete as a POV fork. The lack of support was obvious, but it should be treated in the main article instead.--Berig (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork. The alternative is "Lack of outside support for ..." articles on all losers of wars (and this wasn't even technically a war). --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really don't see a problem here. Four years ago in August, the article was initiated as a split from main article on the Warsaw Uprising. It was since expanded from 5,487 characters to 19,942 characters including a list of reliable sources. What it needs is a good edit from the League of Copyeditors, that's all. Please keep things in perspective. --Poeticbent talk 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Properly sourced, and a legitimate spinoff of material too large to incorporate into the main article about the Warsaw Uprising. Mandsford (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subarticle of the Warsaw Uprising; an old FA. It was suggested during the FA process to split up some long sections of the article into the subarticle to make it readeable. I am not disputing that this article can use much improvement, but to delete it as a fork would be an error. It is a notable historical issue and the article contains valuable content not used elsewhere on Wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not a POV-fork, it should be elementary to demonstrate its independent notability by producing a couple of books or academic papers specifically addressing the lack of outside support and not the uprising in general. Once that's done, I will change my !vote. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many specialized scholarly articles related to this issue: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and many others.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Piotrus. Those books are in Polish and are therefore biased and cannot be used. Ostap 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to Ostap's point, but the English books don't deal with "lack of outside support" so much as "the Warsaw Uprising as part of the War overall", which might be the location for a suitable article. They don't quite back up this article. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So no updates on this, then? I'm sorry, but that means that it doesn't need a separate article, and can be dealt with quite effectively within the main article to the degree that it is important. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't you can't but personal attack by Ostap should be dealt with. greg park avenue (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm, Greg. I know Ostap well enough to be sure he was just being sarcastic and he doesn't mean that :) That said, Ostap - remember WP:SARCASM (no need to confuse others who don't know you like Greg).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see. You gave him a barnstar and that's why he calls you silly. Nice touch! greg park avenue (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not the best article, but too much for the Warsaw Uprising article. Ostap 01:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Rewrite: If outside support in the Warsaw Uprising constitutes a notable subarticle, then it should be moved to an article by that name: Outside support in the Warsaw Uprising, with salvageable NPOV content no longer tarred by the title's POV brush, and any essayist commentary removed. WilliamH (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that as the most sound suggestion and in Wiki style until now. To balance the POV fork I would also suggest to add the other side POV neglected until this time by the emigree publishers - a section titled "Vatican support during Warsaw Uprising" or lack of it, but it supposed to be titled just like that to presume good faith and hope that something survived. greg park avenue (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the title is better.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move to the new title Outside support in the Warsaw Uprising. greg park avenue (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a better name be Foreign support to the Warsaw insurgents? If we want to get read of all unclear issues; outside could refer to the AK's planned assault of leśni on Warsaw which was stopped by the Germans, and support in uprising could be misrepresented as support for the Germans by the non German auxiliaries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Foreign" is OK with me, sounds even better in retrospekt to "Lesni" meaning Home Army guerrillas. "Insurgents" smells of New York Times milder name for terrorists, too politically correct, doesn't apply for 1944 Uprising. greg park avenue (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The word "support" implicitly suggests an allegiance as opposed to mere involvement, so I propose to disambiguate this even further with a move to: Foreign involvement in the Warsaw Uprising. This could detail foreign assistance provided to both Poles and the Axis. I don't agree with the word "insurgents" though, it sounds too politically motivated. WilliamH (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the right word - "allegiance" - the merit of this article is "support" - no one then in 1944 expected mere involvement from anyone - only from those who pledged allegiance meaning France, England, Home Army guerrillas, later Soviet Union and the Roman-Catholic Church in Rome with its pledged since centuries moral support. So I stay with your previous version, slightly modified Foreign support in the Warsaw Uprising. greg park avenue (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + Expand This article should simply be an expansion of a section in Warsaw Uprising and there is no POV in the title (that fact that outside support was very weak is supported by mainstream historians). The only problem is that it seems this article is shorter than corresponding section in the main Warsaw Uprising article. --Doopdoop (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. As Piotrus noted, back in 2004 many people believed that articles longer than 30 or so kilobytes should be split onto separate sub-articles. This proved a disastrous tactics as main articles got updated to 2008 wiki standards while sub-articles are neglected and did not change much since then. Virtually no in-line citations, no pics, nothing. Having said that, I'd support re-integration of all sub-articles listed at {{Warsaw Uprising}} into the main article. If that's not possible - I see no need to delete it. //Halibu tt 22:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable issue often cited in WWII literature. Yes, more sources needed, but there are SOME sources and the article is usable as a starting point Randroide (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-notable, researched and vital to understanding of several historic and even current issues.--Molobo (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep+Move. Notable and referenced subject. Needs to be renamed. Visor (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the last few !votes are puzzlingly content-free. Relata refero (disp.) 08:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. If kept article should be renamed to a non POV title. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject "Lack of outside support in XYZ" is a shame to Wikipedia. If that is tolerated, anybody can come along claiming that "lack of outside support" is responsible for anything that failed, from uprisings to sports teams, books, movies, etc. And BTW: there is a certain online encyclopedia which is rapidly losing support, inside and outside, due to the incredible shenanigans tolerated there. -- Matthead Discuß 15:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to clarify my position on this discussion. I certainly think that 3rd party involvement in the Warsaw Uprising is notably encyclopedic; the thing I find most problematic is the title. I understand the keep sentiments put forward by contributors to this debate, but "Lack of" is strikes me as a troublesome POV fork. If consensus deems the article worthy of keeping, great, I just think it would be far more balanced and appropriate to give the article a title which doesn't allow partiality to be implicitly suggested. I don't really have much else to add. WilliamH (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Perhaps you are right about the title. But nominating an article for deletion is not a proper way to discuss renaming.Biophys (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Quite right. WilliamH (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. POV title and fork. If there is something in this article valuable, which needs preservation, such info can be transfered into WU article.M.K. (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy-K. Consensus makes it clear. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wreck (book series)

Repeating my PROD rationale: "No assertion of notability, no independent sources given; largely a plot summary". PROD was contested with request to list the article on AfD. B. Wolterding (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a book series, published by a major publisher, as opposed to a vanity publisher. I think one article for the series, which this is, is the way to go vs. independent articles for each book. The books were first published in Finland, so maybe someone there could add good sources. Regardless, it needs to remain tagged for sources. Frog47 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book series by a notable publisher.Henry Merrivale (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable book series by a notable publisher, parodying a notable topic. I think independent book articles are viable but for now an overview article like this is fine. 23skidoo (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being published by a major publisher is not a valid rationale for notability. Millions of books are published in this way. The question per Wikipedia:Notability (books) is whether substantial independent sources exist. So far I do not see any. As long as there's only the plot summary that can be written, that's not what Wikipedia is for. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review your searching methods. Google News is a good place to search for news coverage. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually important to read the sources, not to simply count search results. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notable book series by a notable publisher. A quick search gives plenty of coverage. (Note: The last article mentions the subject in the complete text as another parody). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the seven sources you give, four are actually about the movie Star Wreck, not about the book. One is, as you mention, about an entirely different parody. The other two seem to be identical by the abstract, and may be about the book we're talking about; unfortunately I can't read them since they are only available for a fee. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can check them at your local library via ProQuest. The sources all mention the book, albeit in varying degrees of detail. Others may think it isn't notable on its own, but its clearly notable in its relation to the movies; at the very least, it should be merged to the article on the movie. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article needs reworking but the book series is notable, sources are widely available, and notability is both asserted and easily established. Any talk of merger with the wholly unrelated series of short films is misguided and unwarranted. Indeed, the book series pre-dates the series of parody films. - Dravecky (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree that article needs work, but subject is notable ArcAngel (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a mess at the moment, but the subject matter is notable enough and a good article can be made from this. Rob T Firefly (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others. Cleanup issues don't warrant deletion. Rray (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect to Frenzy (World of Darkness). Stifle (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wassail (World of Darkness)

Non-notable fictional "disease" or "syndrome" that afflicts vampires. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 07:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:N and should be deleted. If anyone wants to do a list later on, they can userify this. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into World of Darkness. Not notable on its own. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Noremon (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Definately not notable on its own. Even though I am quite familiar with the game I have heard this term used maybe once. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other forms of Frenzy (Frenzy and Rötschreck) have been merged to Frenzy (World of Darkness). I think this should go there also. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just merged the contents of this article to Frenzy (World of Darkness). I think this discussion should be aborted and the article changed into a redirect page. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Øyvind Hammer

Not notable, no secondary sources, bordering on advertisement. Should not be confused with a notable paleontologist by the same name. Punkmorten (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was the most extensive RS thing I could find and it barely rises above trivial mention (an introduction, and a quote or two, in an article about the athlete he coaches). The quotes are things like "nothing surprises you when you're prepared", pretty standard stuff. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Article's assertion of notability is vague, but includes "working with" an athlete, whose article doesn't mention this person. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of article is non-notable. Jackmantas (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per reasons already given. Minkythecat (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Korna

Bio of an aspiring young poet who graduated from college last year. Fjmustak (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough to merit inclusion. Punkmorten (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above erc ^{talk/contribs} 07:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Probably an autobio, as the creator has made only one edit outside the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference in works redlink, references a blog. Non-notable. Minkythecat (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Werewolf: The Apocalypse. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metis (World of Darkness)

Non-notable fictional werwolves. No references outside of fan sites and original game book sources. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 07:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 07:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:N and should be deleted. If anyone wants to do a list later on, they can userify this. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Werewolf: The Apocalypse. It's non-notable on its own. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Percy Snoodle. I am not sure what and how can we merge some information from there. If it is possible please do so.-- Magioladitis (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hartly

The page is a biography of the user who created it. Please feature this sort of content in your user page instead. CycloneNimrod (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. Notability is not established. Paradoxsociety (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Paradoxsociety, so tagged. JuJube (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G11 by another user. Non admin close. See log for details. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon blankenship

Clearly a biography on the user in a place other than their user page. CycloneNimrod (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure vanity page, written up as a bio (or maybe autobio?). No notability, no resources, just a description of somebody who's apparently got some rap mix tapes and is ostensibly really good at basketball. Sorry, but being good at b-ball isn't notable unto itself, you gotta be a pro and be really good. Look at Magic Johnson. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an autobiography of someone completely non-notable. A clear case for a deletion. vlado4

(talk) 07:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article creator is an SPA; I'll also point out that the article subject is supposed to be notable for his basketball/rap skills, while being fifteen. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page of non-notable subject. Minkythecat (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant vanity autobiography of non-notable subject. Borders on an A7 speedy, though I guess the general vain tone of the article "asserts notability" despite the lack of evidence for it! ~ mazca ^talk 19:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underground following

Little more than a dicdef coupled with a dash of original research. Prod removed by author without comment. JuJube (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anturiaethwr (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - removal of PROD without comment shows WP:COI. We also already have cult following.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This also repeats what we have at cult following and cult classic. ie, the example of Blair Witch Project is by no means underground. It was an independent film with a cult following that made $248,000,000. That's not really underground is it? Also, i'd propose a delete of two other dicdef articles created by the same author; Breakthrough album and revolving lineup Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:DICDEF, with no potential to expand beyond a dicdef except by becoming a WP:COATRACK for "my favorite movies and bands" type lists. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to underground culture, perhaps? So Awesome (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or cult following, which would make more sense Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Djsasso (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Superstar

Unsourced information; unconfirmed info of being Flo Rida's next single Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 04:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources I can see. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no sources. EraserGirl (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calculus Mortuus Amulet

Appears to be a hoax. 0 hits on Google and Google Books. No references. Biruitorul (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it isn't a hoax, it doesn't seem to have any notability. Parkerjl (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fairly cool-sounding hoax. Anturiaethwr (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either a hoax or very non-notable. Either way, it can't be verified, so out it goes. Bfigura ^(talk) 06:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a hoax. Editor of the wiki 10:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference seems totally unrelated to the article. I asked about it on the talk page but got no reply. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I own this, and would prefer to keep its secret for myself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is definately a hoax.--Berig (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stolen by rouges? As in Dark Ages admins? If this isn't a hoax, it's in-universe fiction and someone forgot to say so. Either way, fails WP:V. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every book with any ref is in Latin, if you speak the language, then by all means google it, I have several books that I am going through right now to post more "facts" and it doesn't help that I have no experiance with HTML.. DO NOT DELETE, I am waiting for my 4 days to pass so I can upload a photo from a book FROM THE LIBRARY.

Google yielded me no results in Latin. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe; it's a pity BJAODN isn't around anymore...Ben Standeven (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre

AfDs for this article:

A list of victims of a school massacre certainly cannot be notable can it? Perhaps the few who are can obviously keep their respective articles, but otherwise, a deletion or merge is necessary. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, and perhaps even WP:NOT#DIR seem to back my nomination. Jmlk 1 7 04:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wiki is not a memorial, in that wiki does not exist to catalog everyone's family and friends who died. However, these people died in a very notable event, several of whom are themselves notable. I would require much stronger reasoning to go for delete, and two previous failed noms seem to support keep. erc ^{talk/contribs} 05:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument that a notable tragedy makes each of the victims notable enough to be listed by name would extend logically to a tsunami which killed 200,000 people or a war that killed 20,000,000 people, wouldn't it? Ready for a list of people killed in World War 2? Edison (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is notable. I initially felt that a merge was necessary, but the main article is already long enough to warrant this list as a separate article. Parkerjl (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL . Memorial purposes are the only reason for listing these names as if they were inscribed on a monument. We do not need a list of these unfortunate victims any more than a list of everyone killed in a plane crash, hurricane, tornado or a fire. The catastrophe or mass murder may have been significant and notable, but the random victims generally are not when they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. If they took actions which affected the course of events, as in inciting or attacking the killer, or holding the door shut to give others time to escape, then their role should be stated in the main article. Edison (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep. as per above. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Really. The second line of which states that people being honored must be notable in some way, which I think the victims here collectively are. MEMORIAL is meant to prevent Wikipedia from becoming littered with Memorials to Great-Grand Uncle Jimbo, not to prevent notable tragedies from being recorded. Bfigura ^(talk) 06:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. As the prior !vote stated: The Event (the "notable tragedies") are notable, most of the people do not acquire notability for being peripherally involved (that would be inheireted). Another supporting argument keeping this Memorial at bey would come from the spirit of WP:BLP1E. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having read the 2 previous discussions I am persuaded that it is either merge or keep. Having looked at the (long) article, merge would lead to a necessity to break out a separate article not unlike this one. (A list of people does not confer or imply individual notability.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The incident itself is, no doubt, notable. I don't think that a list of the victims violates WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Reason: This list is not primarily of memorial purpose. It gives real faces to a horrible crime. That is, in my view, notable. --Abrech (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While people that are involved in a notable event don't necessarily gain notability themselves, I believe that these did, due to the nature of the event. I agree with many above that a merge would be appropriate; however, the main article is too long as it is, so it should stay. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would your line of logic then allow 'victims' of a notable bridge collapse' to be similarly listed? How about a notable Roof collapse? The nature of the event makes the event notable, does it not? What you (and some others) are suggesting is an exeception to the rule because this event was special... but...Every event is special to someone. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Being shot by a madman does not entail notability.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But these are not subjects of an article, merely mentioned in a list. No-one is claiming that each is individually notable. This is a red herring. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a Wikilawyer, by asserting that the "list" is the subject in question, rather than the "victims of the Columbine High School massacre." Lists in any case don't assert notability.--WaltCip (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiki isn't a memorial, nor are these people notable except for the tragic way in which they died. Given they are notable for that event only, the only rationale for me to keep would be if listed in the page for the event. Minkythecat (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing here that is not already in the main article Frog47 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this can be anything other than a memorial. The people listed are only tragically notable for being victims of this massacre - but Wikipedia is the place to list things which are notable in an encyclopedic sense. Even if this is merged into the main article, I think the names and pictures wouldn't add much information. --Minimaki (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, I don't think this list is suitable under "Not a Memorial". The victims can be listed in the main article, but otherwise the event is notable, but the victims (sorry) aren't. And just for the record I'm not in favor of listing the victims of 9/11 in Wikipedia other, except for the fact that a number of them achieved notability before and as a result of actions on 9/11. But we have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise we're going to have people wanting to create lists of victims everytime something bad happens, whether it be a bad bus crash or a school shooting i.e. Dawson College, Montreal, etc. 23skidoo (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, particularly since there is already a list of the victims in the main article. I can understand the feelings of those who want to keep the article, but this is exactly why there is a rule that says that "Wikipedia is not a memorial." Separate lists of victims are not to be made, ever. Although that may seem like a harsh rule, these 13 persons are not supposed to be considered more worthy of a memorial than 13 people killed in a bus wreck in Zimbabwe, or in a car bombing in Baghdad. Mandsford (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG MERGE If any of you have run into me before, you probably know how sensetive I am about the whole ordeal there. Defineitly a merge. KC109. (I'm in the process of making a new sig)— Preceding unsigned comment added by KC109 (talk • contribs)

If you have run into me before, you know how sensitive I am about making Wikipedia a valuable resource.--WaltCip (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... yeah... ok... I don't see how this taints that at all. Merge to main article. Definitley not the whole memorial policy thing. Why do we have the Virginia Tech list still up? P.S. nom... that list isn't going anwhere... fourth nomination. (Still working on that sig).

Redirect to the main Columbine High School massacre page. Other than the birthdates, just about all the information on the list of victims page is already on the main page, where it belongs. I am neutral about whether the birthdates should be merged to the main page.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not about whether or not the page is a memorial. It is about whether or not the event is notable, and there is no question it is. I can see it being merged, if the information is kept intact. Certainly, no information should be deleted whatsoever. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article. The information is quite relevant there, per Brian Waterman. Ezratrumpet (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this is sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial. The event itself is notable and more than adequately covered in other articles. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, notable, and verifiable). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. This list belongs on the main article re: the event, and not on its own separate article. Since the list is already there, this should be deleted. Justinthebull (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply. This policy tells: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. These people are not my or anyone else here relatives, and they are notable as victims of a notable terrorism act. Biophys (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it does not apply. Please explain more. A/ Your saying that nobody ever related to one of the listed victims has never, and will never, ever edit this article?? B/ Your saying that these people are notable for something other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to main article - most of the victims are not likely to be notable enough to warrant having their own articles. The main object of lists is to identify notable subjects for articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [[WP:NOT#MEORIAL does not apply here. Yahel Guhan 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put into main article. Elluminate (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Frog47, adds nothing really new to the main article.--JForget 22:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. If you disagree, please go right ahead and open a DRV. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

AfDs for this article:

A completely unencyclopedic article. Perhaps a couple of the victims are notable in their own right, but being one of many victims of a famous crime doesn't exactly bring notability does it? Furthermore, this article does nothing more than list the victims, certainly not conforming to guidelines under WP:LIST. All this can easily be merged with the parent article. Jmlk 1 7 04:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Speedy keep~~ As the ~~fifth nomination~~ fourth nomination, I would expect compelling argumentation for the deletion of this article, which I just don't see in light of ~~four~~ three previous noms. erc ^{talk/contribs} 05:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps speedy keep is too strong, as the article has drastically changed from the previous noms from a well-researched article with lots of facts to a mere list. I wonder what concensus there was for the change, as I can't find it. In any case, I changed my vote (let's not kid ourselves here, this is a vote after all) to keep, as I still think stronger reasoning is needed. erc ^{talk/contribs} 05:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL . Memorial purposes are the only reason for listing these names as if they were inscribed on a monument. We do not need a list of these unfortunate victims any more than a list of everyone killed in a plane crash, hurricane, tornado or a fire. The catastrophe or mass murder may have been significant and notable, but the random victims generally are not when they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. If they took actions which affected the course of events, as in inciting or attacking the killer, or holding the door shut to give others time to escape, then their role should be stated in the main article. Edison (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I would suggest a merge with the Virgina Tech massecre page. I don't think it needs its own seperate page. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Really. The second line of which states that people being honored must be notable in some way, which I think the victims here collectively are. MEMORIAL is meant to prevent Wikipedia from becoming littered with Memorials to Great-Grand Uncle Jimbo, not to prevent notable tragedies from being recorded. Bfigura ^(talk) 06:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. As the prior !vote stated: The Event (the "notable tragedies") are notable, most of the people do not acquire notability for being peripherally involved (that would be inheireted). Another supporting argument keeping this Memorial at bey would come from the spirit of WP:BLP1E. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think the list is appropriate as an independent article, the list is populated by people who are by and large not notable and appropriate information on the roles of several of the victims is incorporated into the (featured) main article on the massacre. Wikipedia is not a memorial and I don't think that having lists of victims sets a good precedent - will there be a list of victims for every bombing in Iraq that's been reported on, or a list of all the murder victims in New York City in 2008? Guest9999 (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki isn't a memorial, nor are these people notable except for the tragic way in which they died. Given they are notable for that event only, the only rationale for me to keep would be if listed in the page for the event. Minkythecat (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree the "not a memorial" argument applies here. The victims can be listed in the main article -- there aren't that many. And of course if any of the victims are independently notable, separate articles are warranted. 23skidoo (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that WP:N states "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" as the notability threshold, this list applies, since the victims, as a group, have received such coverage. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL has to do with honoring departed friends and relatives, while this article has to do with documenting an important aspect of a significant historical event. HokieRNB (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability the group of victims in any tragedy gain from press coverage is not inherited by the individual victims. A famine, flood or earthquake is notable and any large group of victims is notable, but that does not justify listing each individual name, like a memorial. Edison (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Virginia Tech massacre (and remove trivial location section breaks). --EEMIV (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Wow, thanks a lot for picking this week to nominate this article. Yeah, Wikipedia is not a memorial, but you don't have to be a jerk about it. Mandsford (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep do not merge so as not to clutter. -- Y not be working? 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above Keep and don't merge for the same reasons. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 13:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main Virginia Tech massacre page. The list of victims is important and should not be relegated to a separate page. Personally, I like the formatting in the main Columbine High School massacre page (placing the list in sidebars), which I believe would not clutter up the main Virginia Tech massacre page.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not about whether or not the page is a memorial. It is about whether or not the event is notable, and there is no question it is. I can see it being merged, if the information is kept intact. Certainly, no information should be deleted whatsoever. (Statement is the same as Columbine, as feelings are the same). Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this is sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial. The event itself is notable and more than adequately covered in other articles. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, notable, and verifiable). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this clearly violates WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and has been kept until now because of our strong and misguided tendency to conflate news with encyclopedic content. Eusebeus (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply. This policy tells: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. These people are not my or anyone else here relatives, and they are notable as victims of a notable terrorism act. There also numerous arguments presented during several previous nominations. Perfectly satisfy Wikipedia:Lists.Biophys (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to main article - most of the victims are not likely to be notable enough to warrant having theri own articles. The main object of lists is to identify notable subjects for articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate lists of victims are unencyclopedic. That the event is notable does not make listing all victims a must. This is a memorial, unless someone is willing to defend creating lists of victims of every event. I suggest you then start by "List of victims of World War II", certainly at least as notable as this and had _only_ 60 million victims - Nabla (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be a very important list that lists important information. Yahel Guhan 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Defense Budget Trends over the past 50 Years: An Annotated Bibliography

An essay / annotated bibliography. While this may be a notable topic, the article is pretty much pure original research / synthesis. Prodded, but author declined. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, for the reasons above. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Military budget of the United States. That is a more encyclopedic coverage of the budget in question. ~~It should not be a simple redirect, since this article seems to contain references and apparently sourced statements about budget growth and "black budget" that are not in the target article.~~ I say "apparently" because the lack of inline refs leaves it up in the air where the essay writer got his facts.Edison (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an essay, and all WP:SYN. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, and it's an OR essay. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to user space. This is simply a personal essay/notes. While it could be used for research in other articles, it's certainly not appropriate for mainspace. Vassyana (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Ros0709 (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of WP:NOR. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: to date, eight similar articles have been created within a short timeframe. There is ongoing discussion about them here. Ros0709 (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NOT multiple offender. There's no obligation to keep it around in any form, the author should have known better. WillOakland (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the various other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are apparently dumps from a University of Florida course. (cf. "About the author" at the end of this article). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)ps: not likely a multiple offender, but apparently all SPA accounts of students of the same course.[reply]
Delete this and all the other "annotated bibliography" articles which appear to be dumps from a Florida university KleenupKrew (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - While tragic WP:NOT#NEWS -Djsasso (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaid Meerwali

WP:NOT#NEWS - doesn't look like this man had any claim to notability in life, and his death appears to be tragic but ultimately not notable. There appears to have been a short burst of coverage at the time of his death, but no enduring impact. Gets 297 ghits. Mangostar (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A tragic story, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Anturiaethwr (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly I agree, perhaps someone should invent wikiobit so that everyone can have their 15 minutes of wiki. EraserGirl (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 - Non-notable person. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 06:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Alexander McCowan

An autobio of a 17 year old. Non-notable except for a claim to be running for president of the US in 2008. Somewhat unsuprisingly, a google search reveals only a handful of promotional blog postings and no reliable sources. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Christopher Alexander McCowan wrote everything in that page. It's about me and just because I am not famous doesn't mean I don't have the right to let people know about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by President08 (talk • contribs) — President08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Sure you do. Just not here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, the fact remains tat you don't seem to meet the notability requirements here at Wikipedia, you provide no reliable sources, there is a major conflict of interest in your authorship, and you write this as if it were a promotional page, complete with a list of favorites. We are not, amongst many other things, a place for self promotion, let alone of a teenager who is running for president. The only external link you provide is a Myspace page - this is not even near reliable for sourcing purposes. We are an encyclopedia. For what it's worth, by the way, the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, specifies that you must be no less than thirty five years old to run for the president of the United States of America - and frankly, sir, you are not even old enough to vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, for the reasons above. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no reliable sources, no chance at becoming president (apparently not aware of the age requirement). Accounting4Taste:talk 04:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think one of his online petitions was aimed at getting around that. :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7 erc ^{talk/contribs} 04:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (probably not eligible for A7), not notable. Merely running for prez does not make you inherently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7. Clearly non-notable and irrelevant; an 18-year-old is not going to get around the constitutional requirement of 35 years. Moreover, the American public would never vote for anyone so young. Paradoxsociety (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Pure self promotion, but I can't bring myself to a speedy on account that he claims notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete per CSD A7. A meaningless claim to have "run for President" is not really a claim of notability. Never on the ballot anywhere, since ineligible due to age. Edison (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can we please, PLEASE revive WP:BJAODN for this one? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't believe this part: "is the youngest person to ever try to run for President of the United States although this is not notable because he was not on any ballot because of his age. (who knows what the age requirement is)." Yikes. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7; wiki isn't a vanity / social networking site; subject totally fails any credibly inspection of notability. Minkythecat (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why are we wasting time at AfD with this? The author is a red-letter account = no user page = userify this and move on. Nothing in logs shows this has been tried; my apologies and a delete !vote if it has. Xymmax (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that userfy would apply here, but then what I know of this (in the "tl;dr" version) is "generally, only things pertinent to Wikipedia should be here, with some wiggle room". This takes the wiggle room as I understand it and wiggles out, and then runs all over the bloody house. It's particularly silly, I think, and therefore my pointer to BJAODN - and at this point the only reason I'd speedy is for WP:SNOW, but I personally want to see this run the full course. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 Why on earth should this run a full course? It should have been A7 deleted immediately. Aleta ^Sing 03:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. I see no evidence that the subject is actually running for president (compare another ineligible candidate, Roger Calero). The article also contains WP:BLP violations with respect to the subject's relatives. By the way, McCowan isn't even the youngest presidential candidate of 2008 -- that would be Susie Flynn, who's not only younger, but fictional to boot. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated Bibliography: The Future of International Accounting Standards

A pure original research-y essay on accounting standards. (The author thoughtfully notes that this topic was picked in conjuction with his honors thesis). Maybe a good paper, but not for an encyclopedia. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC). I am also nominating the following related page as it appears to simply be a duplicate of the essay:[reply]

Delete as nom, for the reasons above. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely original research, not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. The author should write a book instead. Parkerjl (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please publish elsewhere. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an essay. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NOT multiple offender. There's no obligation to keep this in any form, the author should have known better. WillOakland (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to user space. Like the other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are personal notes. The editor is however apparently familiar with the subjects at hand, and should thus be encouraged to integrate the information from those essays into the appropriate articles. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like the various other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are apparently dumps from a University of Florida course. (cf. "About the author" at the end of this article). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)ps: not likely a multiple offender, but apparently all SPA accounts of students of the same course.[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G6 - uncontroversial maintenance. Pedro : Chat 08:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threshing-board/Old

Unneeded sub page. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 03:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the page is not showing correctly. I am referring to Threshing-board/Old

These votes were placed while the AFD pointed to Old.

Weak keep- I think this is a semi-useful disambig page, and we should keep it. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 03:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I don't see why this is more unnecessary than other disambig pages. Merkin's mum 03:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? How else are we supposed to disambiguate between things called "Old"? PC78 (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard disambiguation page. Zagalejo^^^ 04:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks reasonably needed to me. Maxa megalon 2000 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wha? Unless we're hiring Miss Cleo to manually redirect incoming searches, I think this is a somewhat necessary disambig. Bfigura ^(talk) 06:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subpage As it's not needed, and just duplicates content on the main page. (Although couldn't this just be handled with a prod or a G6 Speedy?) --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as leftover from a translation per Talk:Threshing-board/Old, thus eligible for G6.
- So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am confused by this discussion since it is not a disambiguation page. But this is not needed in any way. Punkmorten (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Records Management Taxonomy

Neologism, fails WP:Not: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm loathe to just right this phrase off as a neologism per [25]. It appears to be in widespread use by various enterprises and companies. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that it's uncommon in certain contexts. Wikipedia policy even admits that neologisms "may be used widely or within certain communities" but the fact remains that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is context beyond a simple dictionary definition. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another dubious non-notable neologism that seems to have an agenda, for it seems to have been designed to give the appearance of scientific rigour to the humble practice of records management. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - some evidence of use beyond spammers. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar (cuban music)

Amagon rosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) formerly authored Kumar y mate and was speedied through CSD G7. I have reason to believe this article is essentially the same as Kumar y mate and hence should be seen as speedy dispute. Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 02:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is what I find for news hits [26] and [27] and [28]. This fails WP:MUSIC. All non-notable mentions, the article merely cites a blog, which in and of itself, isn't damning, but made me try some in depth searches. I have concluded that the noms suspicions is correct. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar y mate

I have written this article through this name because it was deleted the first time with "Kumar y mate" because it was nearly the same as the name of the artist "kumar" and otherwise it was more relevant to have Kumar with cuban music because it is cuban music. Now I can writte in the article that the name of kumar is Kumar y matte, gives links leading to articles and youtube video.

Do you think i will be enough not to delete the article on wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amagon rosh (talk • contribs) 08:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Plvekamp (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danza contemporanea de cuba

Amagon rosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) formerly created Danza Contemporanea de Cuba (note capitalization) and the latter was prodded by Tone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Since Amagon rosh recreated the page with a similar name, this should be considered a prod dispute. Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of coverage in reliable sources at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22Danza+Contempor%C3%A1nea+de+Cuba%22&ie=UTF-8 --Eastmain (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Look at the article: it talks about a person, and yet the title is about a company. The only thing about the company is that it used to be called this and is now called that. Well, that's not an article. So, could someone write an article about this dance troupe? Possibly. Is this article a keep? No. Can someone build from this? No. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal Keep Plenty of what look to be valid mainstream media articles to make it notable (altho in Spanish), and 3rd party references provided. The body of the article is horrible, it needs to be rewritten by a knowledgable editor (it makes the article sound like it's about Ramiro Guerra, but if you read further in, you'll see it's not). If I were familiar with Cuban dance, I'd fix it myself. I'll assume good faith here. Poor writing is not a criterion for deletion. Let's make this a stub and let editors build on it. Yes, I think someone can build from this. Plvekamp (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Klein (bodybuilder)

Delete Not notable for Wikipedia consideration. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Atyndall93 | talk 01:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per those above; fails WP:NOTABILITY. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I put in the stub in hopes that it would get fleshed out a little more. I didn't have Klein's exact competition history, and didn't say anything about his being one of a series of probable steroid-related deaths, but thought someone else might be able to flesh out those aspects. In any case, I think the article is in decent compliance with the notability guideline for athletes:WP:ATHLETE RivGuySC (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There's enough there to possibly indicate some semblance of notability - if the stub can be fleshed out, sure. Otherwise, delete. Minkythecat (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only national media attested is the cover of a magazine as, we assume, an anonymous model. The various products released don't do it. After all, we get loads of bands who "release" things, but we ask that there be some serious sales or national review, so I'm not getting the sense that this person is clearly over the line. It's true that it's possible that he's notable, but we can only assess what we see. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete for the third time by User:Esanchez7587, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridin Slow

Non-notable single, fails WP:MUSIC ukexpat (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, article deleted. Please close. – ukexpat (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Fisher

an unreferenced obituary about a good but rather nonnotable person. Hence verifiability problems. In particular google search did not help me to become wiser. `'Míkka >t 00:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't seem to find any info on him either, nn. Atyndall93 | talk 01:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Thin boy 00 @096, i.e. 01:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I feel like a tourist (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, detailed searching reveals nothing significant: [29] and [30]. I see our page at the top of course. This is a few yards away from WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, although it's not really written in obituary form, so I can let that slide. Bottom line..fails WP:BIO. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Anturiaethwr (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a biography of a common honest man. Not notable delete.(Lucifero4)

Delete No notability. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration Lullaby

Non-notable album by non-notable artist who is also the author of the article. Speedy tag was removed without comment by an anon IP. --Finngall ^talk 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn. `'Míkka >t 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- has no substantial content, references and a unremarkable artist. Atyndall93 | talk 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Speedy templates should never (or rarely) be removed without comment. At minimum, Replace speedy tag. Thin boy 00 @098, i.e. 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Connecticut

Delete Lack of notability and references Ecoleetage (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, Google search turns up nothing, nn. Atyndall93 | talk 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refrences - delete. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, per above ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 13:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close Possibly bad faith nom by SPA; Zhou is very, very notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Enlai

unknown chinese figure between the 1940s-1970s. Hardly well known Creamycoffee (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep & close. Obviously notable. Bad faith nom by a user whose sole edits have been the AfD of this article. PC78 (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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