Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 11 November 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to John Walker Lindh. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Taliban

[edit]
American Taliban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism used by bloggers and op/ed writers, no reliable sources use this term in reference to the subject of the article as written. The only reliable source citations using this term are those referring to John Walker Lindh, which might be an appropriate redirect target for this article. Horologium (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Doran

[edit]
Mark Doran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO. no real assertion of significant achievement. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cicerone

[edit]
Cicerone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This doesn't appear to be a topic. It is a word for a guide. The article doesn't assert notability, rather, it appears simply to attempt to define the word. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. SilkTork *YES! 23:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanol and global warming

[edit]
Ethanol and global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was Prodded as an interesting but non notable essay about a single research study. Prod was removed, but it is worth reaching a fuller consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Himesh P

[edit]
Himesh P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have been unable to identify any reliable third party coverage that suggests notability of the subject of this advertisement-like puff piece. Few references have been provided for the weak claims of notability in the article. Bongomatic 22:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Rothenberg

[edit]
Jennie Rothenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. A non-notable editor and writer. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mountainlair

[edit]
Mountainlair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced for more than a year, and I think it's inherently non-notable and non-"sourceable". The building appears in news stories merely as the venue for events; as best I can tell, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about it. The article itself is written in a promotional style akin to college admission brochures (and that's my guess about who wrote it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- to those of you saying it is notable: where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Notability isn't a matter of intuitive impressions. In addition, the single source now on the page is not independent of the subject. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article still needs a lot of work. It is inadequately sourced, but it is not a case that the sources don't exist. It's just that nobody has yet devoted the time to upgrade this article to what it should be. I do disagree with the assertion that this means the source is not notable. Brian Powell (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DrPython

[edit]
DrPython (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Belanger

[edit]
Michelle Belanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is just the author self-promoting herself. Clearly fails at notability and it is by no means encyclopedic knowledge. To support these claims, we can see the same author, Michelle Belanger, spamming Wikipedia with her own books and trying to take down credibility from other works. For this check history of edits in the Energy Vampire article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_vampire&action=history) and see all the edits by the user Sethanikeem promoting Michelle's books, ideas and hatred towards other views and works. Then do a simple search on the Sethanikeem nick online and see it is used by Michelle Belanger, the author, in several forums and online services (A few examples are Flick, LiveJournal and the Witches Voice, among many many others. Any simple search will easily show this.) This kind of attitudes is fully against Wikipedia policies and nothing more than self-promotion in trying to gain notability for personal gain. More attitudes from this author against the same works that she tried to take credibility in her Wikipedia edits can be found also across the web, mostly in forums. Her use of several different nicknames for her own manipulative agendas is a common thing, that again, can be easily verified by online research. So in the end this is a non notable author, publishing teen-oriented nonsense about the existence of vampires, by the use of occultist overtones to manipulate people over her views, that in the end have no credibility and are not supported by any well established and believable scholars or publications. In no way this can be justified for a Wikipedia article. GustavusPrimus (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no independent reliable source to establish notability. Promotional.--Boffob (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - The reasons for deletion seem to be valid and I can't really see enough notability in this article for being considered encyclopedic knowledge. Not to mention that seems to be touching on the realms of a hoax.

In support of the mentioned reasons for deletion, I also found this article about the supposed author, on Encyclopedia Dramatica. The nick Set Hanikeem is refered as being her alter-ego, and some form of pre-historical priest that she is trying to create a new cult based on. For further research on Michelle Belanger, the article can be found on the link: http://www[dot]encyclopediadramatica[dot]com/Michelle_Belanger
Cristina Torres (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is described in Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines, as one of its first pillars (check WP:5P):

"Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects."

Despite all of this, the article can be considered Wikipedia:PROMOTION and based on the research information provided in the deletion request, seems like all of this is connected with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

The fact of the author self-promoting herself and spreading links, texts and references about her own book, which can be verified in Wikipedia history logs, represent more than enough reason for deletion. 193.137.158.79 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete. Regardless of how the article started, it now belongs to Wikipedia and can (and should) be edited unmercifully to make it NPOV. The newspaper coverage demonstrates notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, if a reason to delete due to a conflict of interest (i.e. spam, lack of notability or verifiability) is enough to warrant deletion (which is what I sense from reading the argument), then COI comes into play to reinforce a valid reason for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: promotional. Alexius08 (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets the usual inclusion criterion. I see no reason to make a special exception in this case, seems punitive to suggest so. WilyD 13:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a Wikipedia:PROMOTIONAL article. Well-writen, but lacks notability. Wikipedia's aim is keeping a record of encyclopedic knowledge, not advertisement. From my point of view there is not much of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which couldn't be used as an argument for deletion. SydLyra (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Since the author herself is spamming different Wikipedia articles with publicity on her book to try and bring some notability and fuss around her pseudo-intelectual work, I believe that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies. As a Wikipedia Editor just mentioned in a commentary above, although COI alone does not warrant an article deletion, it can reinforce the other reasons for a positive and obvious deletion of a strictly promotional article, that serves only the author's purposes.

Wikipedia:PROMOTION is the key in here, added to the spam in other articles that is easily verifiable. GustavusPrimus (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedily deleted by another admin. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gonyea

[edit]
Andrew Gonyea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is WP:HOAX. It states he was NASCAR driver of the year 1946-1951 -- NASCAR wasn't founded until 1948. No mention of Gonyea at NASCAR website. Creator of article, User:Gonyea's only other contribution is to DKE. There is an Andrew Gonyea at DKE fraternity at U of Mich. — CactusWriter | needles 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be fake, although out of my cultural field of expertise. Cristina Torres (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal cosmology

[edit]
Fractal cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research synthesis. The only thing in this article that has been noticed by third parties were the attempts to measure the universe's fractal dimension which have been laid to rest in the last decade or so. That information can easily be discussed in the large scale structure article. The author draws together numerous disparate sources from the out-and-out crank to some relatively respectable ones. This isn't, however, an accurate, verifiable synthesis nor does "fractal cosmology" actually exist outside of this author's own webpages. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tu quoque. The point here is what is to be done with the article and this nomination. The earlier redirect and comments here show that the nominator thinks that the topic should exist on Wikipedia. Deletion is therefore not appropriate and a merge proposal should be made instead. This AFD should therefore be speedily closed as I indicated. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One should also avoid ill considered accusations. A neutral discussion of edit history in no way constitutes an attack. Dlabtot (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no need to delete this article. Fractals, as applied to the large scale structure, represent a sound physical model that deserves a special article in Wikipedia. This is necessary to explain the problems and achievements of the fractal model of the universe to readers, which is difficult to accomplish in Large scale structure of the cosmos article without overburdening the latter with excessive details. I agree though that the article needs a cleanup. For instance, the last two sections should be removed, because they are just book reviews. However the article itself should stay. Ruslik (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
As the primary author, I must remain neutral here but can offer additional info/insight, and redress inaccuracies in the above comments. I'll try to keep that tone, in this forum. Let me know if I get too evangelistic (i.e. - on a soapbox).
I've been studying the relationship between fractals and cosmology for more than 20 years, but hesitated to make any related contributions on WikiPedia, for fear I'd be tempted to write about my own work. This I have not done. I have steadfastly avoided references to any of my own papers, links to my website(s), etc. The reason I chose to create the Fractal cosmology WikiPedia entry was finding out (through a web search) that the topic name was redirecting to "Infinite Hierarchal Nested Universes" which covered a lot of material this article does not, but seemed rather unscientific, or 'over the Fringe line.' That is; it focused mainly on the views of those somewhat outside the world of established Science, and covered none of what work had been done by serious (or respected) researchers closer to the mainstream in their field. This is what I attempted to document.
FYI; I think I got the topic name (or saw the term) Fractal cosmology on Max Tegmark's web-site. I believe his statement was "Fractal Cosmology is dead!" but the term had a nice ring to it, and I saw it as a topic that was gathering momentum. My initial response was "Huh?". But I digress.
I have begun filling in the references for papers cited with journal publication info, as many did appear in peer-reviewed journals.
Re: merge suggestion - I agree that the application of Fractals to Cosmology has been mainly in large-scale structure, but this is increasingly not the case, as progress is made in quantum gravity, theories of ultimate unification, etc. Understanding the structure of spacetime appears crucial to resolving some of these issues. Moreover; dimensionality appears to be different at the microscale, in every flavor from String Theory/M-theory to Loop Quantum Gravity, Noncommutative Geometry, or Causal dynamical triangulation. And this raises the question of handling the transition from the ultra-small to larger scales, and how this affects renormalization of forces.
More later, JonathanD (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. - To see most of what was in "Infinite Hierarchal..." which has since been deleted, go to the link for the pages translated from Russian, at the bottom of the article. - JonathanD (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, this is a huge WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violation, and this comment is from the writer of the article and apparently the progenitor of the theory presented... Verbal chat 16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm ... I am struggling to see how the conclusion "this is a huge WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violation" reasonably follows from the above comments by JonathanD. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. In the above it says any references to "Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals" should be omitted. Is there something wrong with that journal, or just these particular papers. ? (from Delaszk (talk · contribs), who forgot to sign it).
    It's under the control of a "rogue editor", and publishes a substantial amount of utter gibberish. Some of the things it publishes are probably good -- maybe even most of them -- but unfortunately publication in that journal doesn't serve as a reliable indicator of validity. looie496 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cosmology covers the universe's evolution from its origin to its old-age or ending, and thus includes Physics from the ultra-small to the ultra-large scale domain. It admits observations, but gives us little opportunity to experiment, as we can see neither the universe's inception nor its full extent in the laboratory. Therefore what constitutes the empirical in Cosmology includes both Particle Physics and Astronomy, but is not limited to these studies. For that reason, much of what cosmologists use as evidence is data collected for other reasons, or in other disciplines.

The fact that I have shown how many different findings point in the same direction is significant to notability, for this topic, in my opinion. And I have included info from a wide range of sources. Thus, there may be a small amount of Synthesis involved in creating the article, since those studying the Planck-scale domain, for example, may not be aware of how their findings impact the evolution of Large-scale structure or the exact mechanism of inflation, but the collation of such info does not constitute Original Research.

If one reads the recent article on Causal dynamical triangulation in Scientific American, for instance, it is readily apparent that the authors of that theory are quite aware their work has profound implications for Cosmology, though it was originally framed as a theory of Quantum Gravity. Likewise for Martin Bojowald's recent article on Loop Quantum Gravity, in the same publication. The cover of that issue states "The Big Bang is Dead" so it's quite obvious he understands that the dynamics of reality in the ultra-small realm can affect how the universe evolves. And the list of those exploring those connections keeps growing.

So I deny Verbal's claim that what I've done is Original Research, or a unique Synthesis that is a theory of my own, and not something apparent to other scientists. Yes, I have theories of my own that involve this subject matter, but I have refrained from expressing my own opinions on the topic. Instead; I have solicited input and opinions from most of the scientists I cited (once I'd written something), to be sure I was taking a proper journalistic approach to this article and documenting their beliefs, rather than re-interpreting what they had published to fit my own world-view. And when some replied (several did), I corrected any inaccuracies they pointed out immediately.

Thus I'm fairly certain I haven't mis-represented any scholarly work on related topics, in order to create the appearance of a relationship, or for the purpose of proving any point of my own. All I did was highlight what was already in evidence from one source or another, and point out the obvious connections.

Thanks,

JonathanD (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is good that WikiPedia archives past versions of a document, so that we can see what has been cut away, and so that relevant pieces can be reclaimed or restored later. I'm not clear either, why some of those references are considered offensive. I suppose the real question is "What constitutes Fringe science, what is pseudo-scientific, and what is over the fringe into non-scientific garbage?" I don't have a problem with C, S, & F or Professor ElNaschie and his theories. And I do not mind that some want to stick their heads in the sand and avoid change. I just wish they would refrain from compelling others to do so, where it's clear new answers are emerging, but it's uncertain what those answers are.

Perhaps it is simply the Einstellung effect, where the existence of good answers, or solutions that worked before, obscures the existence of better answers and solutions. Or maybe a paradigm shift in cosmology is required before people realize that we can't pick and choose, but must find answers that conform to both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, that explain all the observed data and not merely a convenient subset, and which don't exclude part of what we know to explain some other piece.

JonathanD (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been updated to address some of these concerns, and to remove external links that fail WP:EL etc. Verbal chat 10:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits blanked whole sections of the article, including removing the entire "See also" and "External links" sections, so I reverted them. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Verbal has re-blanked those sections, including the "See also" and "External links" sections. The page has now been fully protected for 3 days in its shortened state. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article would benefit from more people editing it, preferably editors whose training and experience (ideally in cosmology) better qualifies them than JonathanD to write on the topic. (No offense intended to JonathanD, the same criticism can be levelled at me on the articles I've created.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cosmology begins near or just beyond the frontiers of scientific observation and extends our knowledge, by logic, reasoning and speculation, to the limits of human imagination. Cosmological models either describe the beginning and end of time and space, or deny that time and space have a beginning or end. A successful model yields testable hypotheses about the shape of things just beyond what has previously been observed; but no model can ever be subjected to rigorous proof at infinitely large or small scales of either time or space.

Therefore, cosmology is, and must always remain, in the realm of philosophy and religion. A cosmological model is not a religion, per se; it is an aspect of religious thought which may or may not be incorportated into a religion---along with a particular theology and morality. When not incorporated into a religion, a cosmological model is mere philosophy.

The Big Bang model, based upon a religios belief in the finiteness of both space and time, has spawned a number of hypotheses testable outward to the limits of triangulation and inward to the limits of particle accelerators. Extrapolating many orders of magnitude both outward and inward, its conclusions are based on unproven assumptions and shaky, though somewhat convincing, logic. The popularity of Big Bang among the academic elite entitles it to special recognition, but not to be sheltered from the mere mention of competing models. Currently, cosmologies of finiteness enjoy a privilaged position which amounts to an establishment of religion.

I shall be disappointed if Wikipedia joins the ranks of governments and institutions in presenting the finite-universe liturgy as scientific fact while essentially burning heritical tracts like the article on fractal cosmology. I don’t see you burning articles on Islam to protect Christianity. For that matter, I don’t see the Flat Earther Society article being marked for deletion. I’m quite certain that it is more unscientific than any form of fractal cosmology.

The future of the Fractal cosmology article should be to bring it more into conformity with Wikipedia’s standards of formality, completeness, correctness and informativeness. First and foremost, it should concisely define what fractal cosmology is in generic terms. Then, it should briefly describe a number of specific fractal cosmological models, or at least attempt to categorize the known models.

The word “fractal” does not appear in the Cosmology article. Once this article is up to Wikipedia standards, the Cosmology article should be linked to this article with an additional row in the table of cosmologies. Perhaps the hierarchical universe concept of Kant and Lambert belongs in the fractal cosmology category. --Onerock (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Good_Times. The history is intact should any editor be interested in performing a merge, or creating of list of characters from the program. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Gordon Woods

[edit]
Penny Gordon Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to parent article (the show), without the unsourced plot details, there's not enough left to sustain an article. - Mgm|(talk) 21:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as for the other characters to an article for them all. Individual ones in such a list need not be Notable--there is no such requirement for indiviual items of article content. No reason given applies as an objection to this--suitable descriptive content can come from the fiction itself. As for keeping a separate article, at this point it does not really make sense until there are some kind of sources. Lets work towards a compromise on these. DGG (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 22:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two weeks it's time to shut this one down. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meelad Air

[edit]
Meelad Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Small charter airline. Does not meet the notability standards at Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Airlines. A7 speedy was reversed, so it's AFD time. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 17:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Cosmology Group

[edit]
Alternative Cosmology Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable group has not received the third-party notice required for our inclusion guidelines for fringe groups. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Letter to the Scientific Community. The article is essentially trumpeting original research and has no place in an mainstream encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The existence of this group does not disprove the hypothesis that the set of notable Big Bang denialists is empty. That they have been able to organize at least two conferences gave me pause, but ultimately there is no way to write an article without reliable non-trivial coverage. I did find a couple (disparaging, but those are fine for WP:N) blog mentions, so maybe they are on the make. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge The group is getting mentions in places such as Forbes magazine. If there is too little to say about them yet, the content might be merged into an article such as Non-standard cosmology since it is a useful search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gibbs

[edit]
Jeff Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources on him, and he doesn't seem to be of enough importance to merge, plus there's nothing sourced to merge. (which one would he be merged into anyway?) Wizardman 20:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wagon wheel festival

[edit]
Wagon wheel festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable event, seems to be an advertisement for a future event. Via Google, seems to be mentioned only in publicity-related materials. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsen Naveed Irfan

[edit]
Ehsen Naveed Irfan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources support notability. Unreferenced BLP. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a welcome template with a tutorial and a bried explanation of how articles are included on the editor's discussion page. It's a lovely article but it's not appropriate for WIkipedia's encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, whats the meaning of this ? this is the 3rd time I am creating this article? Why dont somebdody help in what its lacking, rather than deleting !--Nesh3 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wah Kee

[edit]
Wah Kee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has been tagged for a few weeks and no one has added andy sources. I don't think this is the sort of information that should be on Wikipedia unsourced (sort of BLP-ish for an organisation). Searching has revealed nothing by that name except several hundred fast food shops. If a society is so secret that there is no reliable information on it, then it cannot be in Wikipedia. dramatic (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The passing mention in the online reference you added is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of such a group, so I'm happy to remove the hoax template, but it isn't the level of sourcing necessary to prove notability. dramatic (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monali Thakur

[edit]
Monali Thakur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Singer who placed ninth in an Indian Idol competition, with no noteworthy coverage to speak of. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No policy based reason given for keep, not much to merge. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon Common parkrun

[edit]
Wimbledon Common parkrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe the article fails WP:N, as I have not been able to find a reliable, independent, and secondary source offering non-trivial coverage of the Wimbledon Common parkrun. BlueVine (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because I believe it also fails WP:N, because I have been unable to find a reliable, independent, and secondary source offering non-trivial coverage of this run either:

Richmond parkrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article creators have not indicated any notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not delete - the event is popular - not by itself grounds for keeping, but it shows it is non-trivial. And there are plenty of independent sources that refer both to the event and to the parkrun concept. The local media consider it worthy enough to report on a weekly basis. Have added a brief section to the article to link to these sources. Will do the same for Richmond parkrun which has also been flagged for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispyhull (talk • contribs) 10:24, November 13, 2008
  • I believe you may have misunderstood my application of the phrase "non-trivial" in my first post in this discussion. I am not contending that the runs are trivial. When I used the phrase "non-trivial" in my first post, I was referring to the fact that I could find no independent, reliable, and secondary sources which are offering significant coverage of the run, in as so far as its coverage extends beyond listing race details, individual times, records, and other relatively trivial information when compared to information about the race's importance for the community, history, e.t.c.

I do not believe any of the sources listed on either the Richmond parkrun article, or the Wimbeldon Common parkun article, mean that either article satisfies WP:N.

  • 1)Richmond and Twickenham Times (located on Richmond parkrun article): After searching its website, I have indeed discovered reports of Richmond parkun races [3]. However, these reports merely detail who has won, and other basic race details, which I do not believe qualifies as non-trivial coverage.
  • 2)Reuters article on parkun (located on both Richmond parkrun and Wimbledon Common parkrun articles): This article's focus is on the parkun franchise in general. Shows that the parkrun franchise in general is notable, but not the two races specifically, imo.
  • 3)Richmond parkrun entry on Runners World (located on Richmond parkrun article): Unable to access the area of the website concerning the run, as I need to become a member. I have now become a member, and I have discovered that the entry is an internet poll, in which people can vote for what they think of the run. According to WP:Reliable Sources, an internet poll is not a reliable source of information, and WP:N states that a source needs to be reliable in order to be considered as to whether its subject is notable.

Other sources on the Richmond parkrun article are either parkrun franchise articles, which do not classify as independent, or a link which takes you to a website that is about the park where the run takes place itself, as opposed to focusing on the run.

  • 4)Wimbledon Guardian article (located on Wimbledon Common parkun article): After searching its website, I have indeed discovered reports of Wimbeldon Common parkun races [[4], but like the Richmond and Twickenham Times website, these reports merely detail who has won, and other basic race details, which I do not believe qualifies as non-trivial coverage.
  • 5)Wimbledon Common parkrun entry on Runners World (located on Wimbledon Common parkun article): Could not access the part of this website regarding the run, as I need to become a member. I have now become a member, and I have discovered that the entry is an internet poll, in which people can vote for what they think of the run. According to WP:Reliable Sources, an internet poll is not a reliable source of information, and WP:N states that a source needs to be reliable in order to be considered as to whether its subject is notable.

Other sources listed on the Wimbledon Common parkun article are parkrun franchise articles, which do not classify as independent.

As a result of the problems that I believe exist with the sources I have listed, I still do not believe either article statisfies WP:N.BlueVine (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to have been covered substantively in newspaper and magazine articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note you can only vote once in this process indicating your preference. You are welcome to comment as many times as you'd like though. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted demolished by Waggers as a non-notable group. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brio Realty

[edit]
Brio Realty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, could almost be considered for speedy (under advert). No non-category pages link to it. - chicgeek talk 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. self promotion and web content without any claim of notabiliy (WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7) SoWhy 22:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Phamicles

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

No indication of notability, published two weeks ago, google knows nothing about it although this story collection is originally published online. Clearly fails WP:NOTE.
PROD (with two editors supporting it) was declined by the author, it was previously speedily deleted as an A7, and is a borderline G11 blatant advertising as it is. AmaltheaTalk 18:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball keep NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Route 817

[edit]
West Virginia Route 817 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NTSR: "Roads are notable if they have been analyzed and discussed in multiple independent sources, discussing things such as their impact on a region." Fails WP:USRD/NT: "the article should still make some claim of the highway's individual notability, such as historical significance, press coverage, etc. Highways that have very little to say about them (i.e. those that are extremely short and have no historical significance) may be better suited to a list". -- Jeandré, 2008-11-12t18:57z 18:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Manchester United Chants

[edit]
List of Manchester United Chants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC) YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can't help but think this is a notable subject. I wonder why everything has to have "list of" in the title, but I guess that's personal preference. Is there even a Manchester United Chants article? Wouldn't that be the place? But I think the subject is A-okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I add some external links will it be kept

And if I link it to Manchester United pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRatedRKOLegendKiller (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful for the glory hunting United fans to check for chants. Good list for the most popular and well known chants, rather than every chant. Manchester United have a larger amount of chants, which is why this article should be kept.

I will add sources and external links at a later date to make sure this articles sustains Wikipedia standards. (User:TheRatedRKOLegendKiller) 02:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Provinces of Peru. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most populous provinces in Peru

[edit]
List of most populous provinces in Peru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think that this article is unsupportable because the implication of the topic, which is reflected in the list, is that it isn't a list of all of Peru's provinces, and the concept of the subset of those provinces that are the most populous is undefined and undefinable. There is no obvious cutoff. I think that the population data should be included in the table at Provinces of Peru, —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would not be very hard to add one extra column to Provinces of Peru with population data and make it sortable. This article would no longer be needed and Provinces of Peru would be more useful. Suicidalhamster (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Directorate of Military Intelligence. MI-13 was also mentioned so same goes for that article also. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MI18

[edit]
MI18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only known fact is that it never existed. The non-existence of both MI18 and MI13 is documented by the template UK Intelligence Agencies. ninety:one 18:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's adequate coverage for this non-notable non-entity, I'm willing to support that. I saw all the MI#s had wikilinks, and looked at several of the articles, but I didn't realize one was a redirect. It still seems rather fun for MI18 to have its own page. What if something doesn't happen and there's more to add about MI18's non-existence? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there was official information to release, it either would have been released by now or will never be released. Without such information it would be merely guesswork, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ninety:one 21:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Searched under the wrong name, there's a lot on this person. Speedy withdrawing. (NAC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angela LeBlanc

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

Supposedly a published author, but a google search for her name didn't turn up with anything. Reads like an advertisement, totally unsourced, and likely fails WP:BIO Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Angela Narth (also Angela K. Narth) does have substantial coverage. Suggest renaming article to Angela Narth as there is no substantiaton of the name Angela LeBlanc in any coverage I could find. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am not sure if I am looking in the right place, but I cannot seem to find anything on the WP policies about whether having a book on the bestseller list is a notable honor for the author. I assume being on the bestseller list will not confer notability on the book as per WP:NB, but does it confer notability on the author? Theseeker4 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but Angela is the subject of multiple, non trivial sources under her pen-name, which satisfies WP:N by itself.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavior

[edit]
Slavior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-article about a non-notable non-band. Damiens.rf 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me what is non-notable, or what makes this a non-band? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenMech (talk • contribs)

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

The result was merge to Who Framed Roger Rabbit. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Roger Rabbit (dance)

[edit]
The Roger Rabbit (dance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article, non-notable topic. --EEMIV (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted per A7. It was so blatant I deleted it before coming to this discussion. Was also a G11.  Frank  |  talk  20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oral Anna

[edit]
Oral Anna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability but seems to be quite famous in her field. Asserts notability, is well known Plitty (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of baptist colleges and universities in the United States

[edit]
List of baptist colleges and universities in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is already a a category for Universities and colleges affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention [7]. This also appears to be a straight copy from the reference - not sure if it's a copyvio. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator. JPG-GR (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KUSW

[edit]
KUSW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Radio station which does not assert notability. GNews shows no hits, [GHits] as a whole brings up very little 'meat'. The PROD was contested per Wikipedia:NME, which is not a policy, however it states that "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming.". None of these have been shown in the article - the station has only been running for two years, for example - and I feel has been created purely to fill in a redlink in an infobox. The correct criteria is WP:CORP, which says: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.. This article has none of those sources, and I can't find any on the internet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the article being vastly improved, and no longer being a stub which fails to assert notability, I'd like to withdraw this nomination, without creating a precedent for future discussions, that is. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Radio station does not appear to be notable. Doesn't appear to be covered using third party sources and I can't find any news articles about it. I originally prodded the article. All hail the muffin! 17:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC) comment added by Panyd (talk • contribs)
Since when were radio stations automatically notable? I can't see that at WP:N or WP:CORP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems appropriate to keep unless there is an appropriate consolidated list with the same information. But that would be a loooooooong list. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia policy does NOT say "radio stations are automatically notable." According to WP:NME the station must have a large audience, established broadcast history or unique programming, which is not demonstrated for this station. There is nothing in the article that indicates notability of this station, so the article should be deleted, as there is nothing in a search to indicate notability of this station. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good points. I checked out the section, it also says "Editors might consider creating a table listing the radio stations in an area which might be redirected to rather than creating dozens of stub articles." My issue is that the information be included and the topic redirected to appropriate article, but I don't think this needs to be a stand-alone article. But if no place to merge exists... then this should be kept until it is created. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to create such a list. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Entertainment, which says:
      • Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. Stations that only rebroadcast the signal of another station should be redirected to their programming source (e.g. CICO-TV is a redirect to TVOntario.)
Not being able to find free references using Google doesn't mean that references don't exist. Someone with access to broadcasting and advertising industry publications not available for free online may be able to find references to the station in those.
Stubs are useful because they provide basic information and serve as a starting point for expansion. This article is a stub, and should be kept. Redirecting the article reduces the chance that it will be expanded to be more than a stub. If someone wants to create a table listing details for every radio station in New Mexico, they can do so, but then someone else will argue that categories are better than lists and try to delete get the table deleted. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points, but what you link to isn't a policy - it's a list of common outcomes. If someone has access to references asserting notability for the radio page, then someone can add them - otherwise we have none, and the article fails to assert notability per WP:N. This article does very little other than fill up a redlink. If someone has anything that pushes it beyond the boundaries of non-notability per WP:CORP, let me know, and I'll happily withdraw the debate once the references are added. In the meantime, it isn't notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A search of other publishing databases NOT available free (such as Lexis Nexis) throw up no third-party references to KUSW, nor does JSTOR which is usually better at finding obscure references. The muffin is not subtle (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep after significantly expanding this article, adding several references from both primary and secondary sources, and noting that government-licensed full-power broadcast radio stations have long been found to be inherently notable as they serve a significant population over a definable geographical area. (If you haven't looked at the article very recently, I humbly request that you review it again as it has been much improved over the original nominated version.) - Dravecky (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per expansion, cites multiple sources beyond the nearly-inherent notability of licensed radio stations. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Radio station articles are automatically notable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 12, 2008 @ 23:31
Again - where does it say this? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where it says this, but in previous deletion discussions it has been made clear by admins and others from WP:WPRS that radio station articles are inherently notable. Plus, the precedence set by those previous deletion discussions makes the "radio station articles are inherently notable" arguement all that more solid. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 13, 2008 @ 02:04
Since when did admins and wikiprojects have the deciding word in global policy changes? Admins have no more say than normal users, Wikiprojects are bound by WP:N just as everyone else is until there's a policy stating otherwise, and precedent, while a good rule to go by, is not binding. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above - let's keep this discussion there :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The thrust of the "broadcast media" section of WP:NME is to argue, without using the controversial idea of "inherent notability", that most broadcasters are part of the local infrastructure and geography, in a way that other sorts of businesses are not. While the essay does suggest creating a table before generating dozens of stub articles, this is not a stub. Anyway, it looks like sources were found, so the AFD is moot. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 01:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daiichi Sankyo's Acquisition Of Ranbaxy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Daiichi Sankyo's Acquisition Of Ranbaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I prodded this before I learned that it was a recreation of previously deleted material. This article reads like a news release and suffers from serious neutrality issues. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break Even (band)

[edit]
Break Even (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only notability is that they've toured with other bands. No sources found at all. Also listing their albums (one was already at afd):

Young At Heart (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Break Even/Something More Split (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band is notable. They're popular in Australia and tour with other notable bands. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Merging is really out of the question, a band that is notable should have their album articles seperate, if the band isn't notable - adding the albums to the band article isn't going to help. Okay, so Break Even have played with Rise Against[8], toured with Parkway Drive[9][10], Carpathian[11] and they're currently co-headlining an Australian tour alongside American band Ruiner[12]. But i think the main thing that should avoid their deletion is the fact they have a debut album out early next year, bands of a similar size have in the past charted quite high on the AIR charts and made a name for themselves, sure you can say we should delete the article until that day comes, but i don't really see the point. I think the article just needs a nice clean up. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claims that even if proved would satisfy WP:MUSIC. Bongomatic 03:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also, I note that hoax is not a speedy deletion criterion. kurykh 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last life

[edit]
Last life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable book. Google returns exactly one hit for "Last Life" and "Brock Publishing" - this article. TN‑X-Man 15:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hocker

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable author. Last paragraph indicates that the subject may be notable for one event only. No reliable sources provided, none found. TN‑X-Man 15:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that is the same article DarthPanda mentions. I looked at when I made the nomination and felt that it only goes to show notability for one event. I could not find any other coverage. TN‑X-Man 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That is indeed the article I mentioned, and this therefore falls under one event as Tnxman307 says. Cheers, DARTH PANDAduel 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseIt's certainly a judgement call. One large feature story on a clever prank in a major paper (picked up by other media and spread rather widely). But he's also an author [14] and has had short stories published, and has an upcoming book on the beatles. I suspect he'll be back even if he's deleted, so to my mind the best approach is to clean up what's there and make it encyclopedic, but I respect that others set a higher bar and perhaps look forward to debating Mr. Hocker's merits again soon? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Levison

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

Contested PROD. Completely unreferenced, orphaned article about an entrepeneur who gets relatively few google hits. Delete. roleplayer 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had similar requests turned down in the past, because the article makes claims of notability, without backing them up. Speedy, accordingly to some admins, is only for those articles where no claim to notability is made. Unfortunately so many of Wikipedia's rules are open to this kind of interpretation, so I thought I'd be sure. -- roleplayer 18:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King's Revival Church International (KRCI)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
King's Revival Church International (KRCI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church. Article is a thinly disguised promotion for the church's senior pastor. No reliable sources provided and I cannot find any in-depth, independent coverage. TN‑X-Man 14:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the first part of your reply was the most significant: If the article is accurate. I haven't been able to find any verifiable info on this church, which leads me to believe that this is either a hoax or quite an embellishment. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 23:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Zaki

[edit]
Aamir Zaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article lacking sources or any indication that the person is notable except for peacock language. Google News returns no hits. GDallimore (Talk) 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the original author hasn't edited an article since May 2006... GDallimore (Talk) 11:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - demonstrating notability is easier than pissing in the shower and not half as fun.[17][18][19][20][21][22] Although Pakistan Dawn covers his the most, added with Christian Science Monitor and USA Today the usual inclusion threshold is easily surpassed. WilyD 12:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have wiped the slate clean and started again with the article. I have included the sources you provide except the usatoday one which is a copy of the CS Monitor article. Any further comments or desire to improve the article before I withdraw the nomination.
  • Keep. As Wily so eloquently said there is no problem finding sources that show notability. A Google News Archive search (remembering to select "all dates") is all that was needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WITHDRAW NOM. Been away for a few days, sorry. I've amended the article, and while it's now a stub in really bad shape, it's not a deletion candidate filled with unsourced claims apparently serving no purpose except promotion... GDallimore (Talk) 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Midlothian High School (Texas). Note: This applies only to those information that can be salvaged into this article. It is not a classical merge, rather a "take those few bits that are worth saving and delete the rest"-merge. The result here was "delete but merge relevant information", so I closed it as merge which is the nearest possible one-word-option. Regards SoWhy 09:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panther athletics

[edit]
Panther athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The school (whichever one it is) may be notable, but this article is nothing more than a list of its athletic achievements. Non-notable, fails WP:ATHLETE. ukexpat (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HairyPerry 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Midlothian High School Panthers, then merge to Midlothian High School (Texas), where it can be mentioned in context of the school. Panther athletics can then be deleted with no harm nor foul. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't have a problem with moving this information into a sub article of the school. But this information is notable and encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: All sources but one are for scores and playoff brackets. The one mentions a particular person (not mentioning the school) who got amnesia following a wrestling match. I do not believe that demonstrates notability for Panther Athletics. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In looking at the article history, I note that we have a new editor whose first project has been to create the article about the high school. With that in mind, I'll apologize to BWShoes now for any comments I've made that have been harsh. New contributors should always be welcomed, and it takes some time to become acquainted with Wikipedia's many rules. No matter how long we've been here, all of us sharpen our writing skills as we go along. I think that the work by BWshoes on the article about the high school has been great so far, with mention made of various aspects of MHS. It appears also that the section about the school's athletic achievements got disproportionately large, and that it was then spun off into this particular article. Finally, I suspect that there have been other people -- could be a well-meaning teacher, perhaps some friends -- who told the editor that he "has to" or "ought to" include all of the area and regional achievements, perhaps on some misguided notion that it would hurt someone's feelings if they were left off. After being pressured to include everything (or at least back to the last 20 years in a 68 year old high school), what started as a concise article has gotten out of hand. Well, you're under no obligation to put all this information in, and if you merge some of the stuff back, as DoubleBlue suggests for an option, you're under no obligation to merge all of it back. Stay with your original goal of a balanced, concise article about Midlothian High, without trying to please everyone. If they think that more should be added, let them take the heat for it. Like the sign says, it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the article is kept, it needs some radical pruning / editing to remove personal names etc. CultureDrone (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the high school, but do NOT REDIRECT. Panther Athletics redirecting to a high school would be rather absurd, giving that there are D1 teams with the nickname that are much more likely search terms. matt91486 (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to the school. Agree with no redirect--lots of other more notable schools and programs have the name "panther" and it would be inappropriate to redirect.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe it is possible for an admin to do a history merge that would permit the unusual deletion of the source article under GFDL rules. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answers in Creation

[edit]
Answers in Creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet or conform to any wikipedia guidelines, either the Notability Guideline, or the Reliable Sources guideline, (nor have any reliable sources been found for it), etc.; since tagging with the Notability and Reliable Sources tags, the concerns have yet remained unaddressed.

tooMuchData

04:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs) 2008/11/12 04:53:40

  • I originally nominated it for speedy deletion, but one of the editors asked me to do an AfD; out of courtesy I have, though honestly I do not think, after reading through the guidelines, that it matters. At any rate, it gives those editors time to brainstorm and perhaps come-up with some other course of action; respectful courtesies like these may be unecessary, but I guess it's always worth some cordial civilities for others' sakes. : )

    tooMuchData

    03:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was bold redirect to Manuel Bretón de los Herreros. Both articles are nearly identical. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breton de los Herreros

[edit]
Breton de los Herreros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page already exists under the correct name of this Spanish author (i.e. Manuel Bretón de los Herreros and with expanded text. Zarzuelauk (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 12:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Derangement Syndrome

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bush Derangement Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Most ridiculous thing i have ever heard, no such thing exists it belongs on wikijoke. Xx1994xx (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Reliably sourced, notable. More so than it was the during the first two deletion attempts. In any event, nominator failed to list valid reasons for deletion. There are plenty of ridiculous things on wiki and ridiculousness isn't a factor in notability. Dman727 (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mere use of a neologism does not ensure notability. The term is simply a rhetorical trope used in political discussions which are already fully covered elsewhere. I would welcome proposals for a good merge target. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some reliable sources: Google News Archive : where I see many reliable sources discussing it over a span of years, besides the reliable sources cited in the article. The Right used it to discredit any criticism of the actions of Bush. The Left actually had people who developed clinical depression in the face of the man's actions. (A friend said "I prefer a bottle in front of me to a frontal lobotomy.") BDS became widespread in the U.S., with Gallup reporting that 50% "Strongly disapprove" of Bush, per the Washington Post [23]. Edison (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not for political reasons (as I know some people who might be suffering from this "syndrome") but because it follows the classic dictionary definition template: Nothing but a definition and list of sightings (trivia/example farm). Therefore, it's not encyclopedic. --Rividian (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't oppose all neologisms: if the phrase has been used in reliable sources, as this has, there's nothing wrong with it. After all, Where's the beef? was a neologism, and it would quickly have deserved Wikipedia coverage if there were a Wikipedia in the 1980s. Article has enough sources to stand on its own, so no real reason to delete. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 'Where's the beef' might well have failed WP:N back when it first became current. Its notability derives in part from its longevity. This is not (yet) the case with either of these purported derangement syndromes. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- this just is not real, The Washington Post columnist used this as a sarcastic term and even if it is supposed to be taken seriously then one man(even if he does have a degree) can not make a real medical diagnoses without years of research and others. Obama and George derangement syndrome need to be deleted because both were just made for a political agenda and wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Reply Since 2003? This one has over 90k Ghits, over 300 Gnews hits, and has been a staple of center-right bloggers in America for the last 5 years. It's gone far past the "just coined term" threshold into a term politics junkies all over the country recognize. RayAYang (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- We can't be basing notability mainly on google hits, wikipeida specifically states that google hits are a bad argument there are a lot of things that are notable but can't be on wikipedia.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment- Just go ahead and delete it and all the other conservative articles. You're going to anyway. Why bother debating? Does it ease your conscience? Capsela (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Obama Derangement Syndrome is, at this point, utterly marginal in its usage. The subject of this discussion is not. Bush Derangement Syndrome has been in prominent circulation since 2003, being the subject of multiple newspaper columns, hundreds of blog entries, etc., many of which are referenced in the article and prior deletion discussions on the page. Even today, at the close of the Bush presidency, after the close of the election cycle, and more than 5 years after its inception, searching for it finds 30 hits on Google News in the past month alone, with the references on the lead page coming from such non-entities as Scripps News, ABC, the Times of London. Any argument that the term is marginal is 5 years too late. RayAYang (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is no publication called the Times of London. But simply because The Times (or in this case The Sunday Times) makes reference to something does not make it notable, and does not make the name used the 'proper' name for the phenomenon described. Exactly two Google News searches from the past month mention 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' without also mentioning Obama - those that do mention Obama often do so in connection with the newer coinage 'Obama Derangement Syndrome'. So while this debate is not about the newer term, an awareness of the bias it introduces into your research would be healthy. Most of the 36 hits on Google News are from very small local publications - often ones whose remit is limited both by geography and by religious affiliation. The Sunday Times article only mentions the term in passing, in an opinion piece which is substantially about President-designate Obama. Incidental mentions are not a sign of notability, and opinion and editorial articles are not reliable sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alex, you missed my point. My point is that 5 years after its introduction, this term is still in casual, common usage. Much as, say, "invisible hand" is still in casual common usage some 300 years after its introduction. The usage might be limited to the set of people discussing economic effects (a rather "marginal" use, to borrow your language), but the phrasing is of historical note and memory. Casual use of a term is a definite sign that it has passed into the lexicon, and not a short-term wonder to be soon forgotten. As for significant coverage, that is well addressed in the article, and the overall scope of the various hits on search engines, which number in the tens of thousands. That the phrase "invisible hand" might, in any given month, only be used by a comparatively small number of publications does not detract from its encyclopedic value, either. RayAYang (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equally, you may have missed my point. The recent spike in usage of this term is correlated with the forthcoming change of administration; it is therefore not evidence of the persistent usage of the term in the intervening period. Secondly, usage of a term is not the same as documentation of it. The use of a term by partisan bloggers (on either/any side) does not constitute documentation in a reliable source. If multiple, reliable sources could be found commenting on this term, I would be somewhat more sympathetic. The comparison with 'invisible hand' is absurd; most economics textbooks use that expression, whereas no politics (much less psychology) textbook uses, or is going to use, these terms. They are many orders of magnitude apart. But in any case, the mere existence of a phrase, even if verifiable, is not notable. It's just a rhetorical trope; perhaps it belongs at wiktionary or urbandictionary. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One final remark. I think that you're wrong to characterize the recent usage as a "spike" -- we can pick a random month, and check how many Google news hits there are on the term; I more-or-less randomly picked March-April of 2007, and got 25 hits then, as well. It's a well known term of our modern political lexicon. It is well used, and I think the article provides ample documentation of its history and use, more than passing the requirements of notability (which are quite lenient). RayAYang (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. WP:COI is not a deletion concern. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 06:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Newman (Professor of Geopolitics)

[edit]
David Newman (Professor of Geopolitics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-written bio, no sources, in style of a resume. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dockum

[edit]
Dockum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason Lofzang22 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC) This article is totally incoherent nonsense, from the first to the last line:[reply]

First off, there has never been a noble family called "van Dockum", and most certainly there have never been "Barons of Dockum"; the title of baron did not really exist in medieval Frisia/Netherlands.

Secondly, there were in the late middle ages, a few noblemen who were guardians/lords of a lordship Dockum, but these people all belonged to completely different and unrelated families. For example, there was a nobleman called Ofcke Riemersma (Riemersma being the surname of his family) who owned the lordship Dockum and called himself at times Ofcke van Dockum. Similarly, there was a Feijo van Dockum, who owned the lordship Dockum, but whose actual surname was Heemstra. Feijo en Ofcke were not related; they belong to two completely different families, who happened to own the lordship Dockum. So there were lords of Dockum (as in owners of a lordship, not as surname of a single family!!!), but this was a title of possession and it belonged to different families at different times. The lordship has not been in existence at least 400 if not 450 years!

Given this fact, people who were called van Dockum can impossibly be descendants of a noble family called van Dockum, because there was never such a family. Hence everything in this article is complete nonsense. It's just a collection of facts regarding different families who happen to have the toponymic surname van Dockum. Logically, they don't appear on the list I mentioned nor anywhere else.

Also, there is no such thing as "THE coat of arms of the lords van Dockum family, because the lordship was owned by different families who each had their own coat of arms. Check this website for the coat of arms of the city Dokkum [1]. On this page the origin of the coat of arms of the city Dokkum is explained; nowhere do they mention that this was the coat of the lords of Dokkum, because as I already mentionned there was never a noble family called van Dockum. The already mentioned nobleman Ofcke Riemersma (a.k.a. van Dockum) who owned the lordship Dockum, used these arms. However, Feijo Heemstra (a.k.a. van Dockum) who owned the lordship as well, never used this coat of arms, he used those of his own family, that of the Heemstra family.

Please check this excellent resource on the Frisian nobility [2], you will never find the name "van Dockum", because there was never such a family.

This article is a travesty because it wants to make people believe that people who have the toponymic surname van Dockum are descendents of a fictional noble family.

If the article needs to be rewritten, then rewrite it. The fact remains that Dockum is a surname and does seem to have coats of arms/family crests in different places. And isn't it probably true that those who migrated to other countries came from the town of Dokkum, even if they are not related? So there's a connection to be drawn, even if that connection is only to say that people who use these surnames in modern times are probably descended from inhabitants of the town of Dokkum. All of this needs to be sourced. I can't read all of the sources the original author of the article used, so I'm not up for it, personally. But the article needs to be written neutrally, and not with some vendetta against the articles first author, who seems to have written it in good faith and citing several sources. The vitriol isn't helping your case, in other words. I say no for deletion, yes for thoughtful and sourced rewriting. --rikker (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This I wrote in the talk section yesterday: "I belong to the von Dockum family and I live in Denmark and work in Sweden. I have changed the article so that it is in line with the information I got regarding my family. The family is an old European noble family and the family archives (old letters, ship log books etc.) confirm the relationship with the general von Dockum etc. Further; the family had the lordship over Dokkum, and stayed there at least during the 15th and 16th century. The family crest presented by the author is the same as the one used by us (I didn’t know however that it is the same as the town now uses…). Though it seems that the coat of arms are the same I can however not confirm the relationship with Offe van Dokkum nor the title of “Baron” which is not used by us. I have not seen a letter of introduction to a “friherrelig stand”/title of ”Freiherr”. This said, it should be remembered that a lot of historik information was lost in the WWI & WWII so I can not exclude that another part of the family rightfully uses the title “Baron” or “Freiherr”. I can however confirm that the there is only two families using the name von/van Dockum, Docka or Dock in Denmark and Sweden of which only one is related to us and the other one (which is very small) is believed to have been given the right to wear the name Docka. I also know that the family traveled to England, Scotland and USA, but I do not know anything about the Texas branch or Christopher Dock. The remaining European family members are quite few and the name should not be compared to “Smith, Jones” or any other frequently used name; in Denmark at least, no one is allowed to use the name unless we say ok.
I hope this clear up some questions. I do not want my last name or the history of my family used or displayed wrongfully but I do not appreciate the “tone” of some of the comments; however I do not believe that (or care if) the family still is listed as Dutch nobility but for the “history professor” it might be fun to know that not all the families of the old lords of Dokkum have died out."

Even though I concure with Lufzang that it can not be so that every person that uses the surname in the USA is related to the European family (even though they may in some way be connected to Dukkum), I think it's an interesting part of history and I aprove the use of my family name and history. It would be interesting to know the insentetive for the auther to write article (as well as for the anger Lufzang feels - he seems to be blinded by some personal rage, since he misses the true historical conections in the article. I say no for deletion but it should be clearly stated that not all the families that uses the name belong to the noble family branches.

/H. v. Dockum---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.217.25 (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC) — 83.250.217.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

REPLY

In all honesty, do what ever you like! just don't call your family noble, since you obviously don't belong to the Danish nor the Dutch nobility, and that 's pretty much the end of it; if you want to be self-delusional about your roots, that's fine with me. and since there are several non-related families with the surname 'van Dockum', the phrase "I approve the use of my family name" sounds really funny. The page is just a colllection of nonsense.

Those with Wikipedia accounts, please sign your comments using four tildes: ~~~~.
On another note, as far as Americans go, I am an American Dockum and am not aware of Dockums who have traced their genealogy back to Dokkum, though it is commonly believed in my family that we are descended from a group of brothers who moved to the U.S. at least 300+ years ago. I can only directly trace my ancestry to the late 18th century, before that I do not know. I am certainly not trying to claim nobility, and I think I probably fall under the category of descendants of one-time inhabitants of the town, that's all.
I'll also point out that among Dockum genealogists here (and there are not many), there is confusion due to the use of Dockum and Dockham as alternate spellings on censuses and other records. There are probably other groups of Dockhams who may have come from England or elsewhere who now spell their name Dockum and vice versa, and it is unclear how they are related. The largest concentration of Dockums in the U.S. these days are in the Oklahoma/Texas area and the New England/northeast area. Dockum is a very rare surname in the United States, though, completely incomparable to Smith or Jones, and so it's not unreasonable to think that most of us are related to a small number of families who emigrated, or else the number of Dockums would be much larger by today. This is all a very interesting discussion, ire of the slighted nobility notwithstanding. --rikker (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails verifiability. This article appears to be a vanity genealogy lacking reliable sources. There could be articles about several individuals with variations on the name who have done something notable, but the whole point of the article is to assert unverified genealogical claims that all people with variants (or at least many families) with variants of the name are descended from nobility. The nominator makes a credible argument that persons claimed to be the noble ancestors were from different actual families (not named "Dockum" or its variants.). Edison (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No to deletion - I have come across a noble family named von Dockum from Preussen and it would be fun to see how this article develops... --- Ari from Poland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.105.58.30 (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


DELETE Ari, saying that you "came across a noble family von Dockum" is insufficient; solid references are needed. the preposition "von" does not give any indication whether a family is noble or not. Also, if there were such a family from Prussia, there is no proof that they are descendants of the medieval lords of Dokkum. Lofzang 22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lofzang22 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of these statements concering Dutch van Dockums are incorrect. User:StevBeltman

So is this article worth saving if it's edited back heavily? Still seems like there's something worth saving here, even if it's all heavily qualified. Many surnames have a page like this, it seems. Dockum = surname, Dockums are spread throughout Europe, connection to Dokkum town, modern things named Dockum (fossils, towns). --rikker (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Athaenara (talk · contribs). See Athaenara's closing comment below. (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Training in Communication

[edit]
International Training in Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self sourced article that reads like an advertisment with no evidence of notability or any references, would need considerable effort to make encyclopedic if sources were available. MilborneOne (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kay O'Hara

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kay O'Hara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Modern pin-up model. Lacking reliable sources. Google news search turns up nothing that appears related to this particular Kay O'Hara, except a passing reference in a car blog and a press release, both in German. This has already been drastically trimmed from its original link-heavy version (see talk page discussions). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is gained through the appearance on the top 10 list. Just because she's not in the news at the moment doesn't mean she isn't notable: how often are newspaper articles written about pin-up girls (or porn stars for that matter)? Themfromspace (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree (with respect)...notability is gained through multiple independent reliable sources. Just a mention of a person does not confer notability. For these cases, I always use myself as an example. I don't believe I am notable enough for a page, yet multiple independent reliable sources mentioned me. The notability criteria needs to be a little higher than that. --Kickstart70TC 05:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silencer (Swedish band)

[edit]
Silencer (Swedish band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. It's a tough thing to search for on google too given the name of the band. Either way, it fails WP:RS too. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Junior Hockey League

[edit]
Wisconsin Junior Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax Bhockey10 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The league was a scam, I've been skeptical about this league, There is no games listed and I've heard reports the league was a scam.--Bhockey10 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete "Scam" might be a bit strong, though it might also be accurate. It seems this league was created with big dreams and little funding. It did exist briefly, it seems to have folded, and it generated very little notice, if google search is any indication. Resolute 03:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This AfD was listed based on the fact that this article is a HOAX; however, this is not the case and it is very deceiving to state this. Firstly, as can be seen by the league's website, there did exist a league. It seems as though, like Resolute said, this league formed, existsed briefly, and then disbanded once it became clear that the founder was not interested in paying his bills. The legal troubles of this league can be seen in the following legitimate news article: [24], [25], [26], [27]. Further, this article states that games were indeed played: [28]. Here are some articles discussing the creation of the league and tryouts for teams: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. I don't want to spend hours on my comment here, but if need be, I could easily find more articles. Clearly, this article is not a hoax, rather, a league that was never really able to find its feet. The true question to be asked is if this article passes WP:N, and by the sources I just posted, one could argue that it does. Anyways, I would hate to see those users commenting on this AfD do so without a proper background, so here you go. But for the time being, with this article listed as a hoax, it's an easy keep. – Nurmsook! talk... 18:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Hope diamond#Curse per Juzhong (talk · contribs). Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Hope Diamond

[edit]
Curse of the Hope Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No context to establish what this article is about, and no sources. Possible speedy A1 candidate. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Devon

[edit]
Simone Devon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod(2). The article is badly sourced, and there is no evidence that the subject passes WP:PORNBIO, or had any other claim to notability. Tatarian (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Non-admin closure. LeaveSleaves talk 13:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Whitmore

[edit]
Matty Whitmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just a contestant on Survivor, and contestants are considered notable only if they win or do something notable outside the show. It's also just a copy of the cbs.com bio. Sam Blab 12:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn with no other arguments for deletion broached. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project E

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

I had originally suggested that this be speedy deleted as a potential hoax. I have listed it here instead since the creator is arguing on the talk page that it should not be deleted, thus I feel that a wider consensus is required. My rationale is that I could find no online references to the topic. I have not read the one reference cited within it, and am content to be convinced by decent short quotations from that reference that this is indeed a verifiable topic. If verifiable, is it notable?I suggest more than a cursory glance be given to this. If it is notable and verifiable then deleting it because there is solely one reference would be unencyclopaedic, too Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squatting (framework)

[edit]
Squatting (framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(previously prod - notability still not asserted but prod was removed).

Non-notable software/package; makes no claims to notability, google search finds nothing close to a reliable source. Blowdart | talk 12:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:V and WP:N - No major 3rd party news coverage. References are blogs, google groups, etc. At present, this product is pretty much an unknown, a fledgling library of programming functions with no following. Programming technique of using a code library (with other development products) is common place. - DustyRain (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - In reply to your points... 1) re: "No major 3rd party news coverage" & "At present, this product is pretty much an unknown" - All true. If I knew beforehand that these are essential requirements for a Wikipedia entry then I would probably have made this entry a bit further in the future. So please forgive me if I've wasted anybody's time over this. 2) re: "a fledgling library of programming functions" - No it is a framework as defined by Wikipedia itself at Software_framework. Squatting uses Inversion_of_control has it calls the user program where as a library would be called by the user program. This distinction means it does fall in line with the other frameworks mentioned. 3) re: "...with no following". Yes it is new and if it needs to reach a critical mass before it can become notable then yes unfortunately it as not reached this level yet. 4) re: "Programming technique of using a code library (with other development products) is common place" - Transposing your question to it being a framework instead and actually it doesn't appear to be common place. I cannot find any clear example that any other web framework as this feature. The closest I found on web is this link... http://static.springframework.org/spring/docs/1.2.x/reference/webintegration.html ... however Spring (I believe) is a application framework and not a web framework. So this "Squatting" feature is certainly "unusual"... perhaps even "unique". Is this enough to make it "notable" in Wikipedia eyes? Draegtun (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have updated article with more information while this "non-notable" request was put in.... hopefully now it meets any requirements. If not then I'm not sure why Camping framework (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camping_(microframework) entry succeeds where as this Squatting entry doesn't? The Squatting entry itself does actually (now) contain more detail & info that its Camping (counterpart). As for Google search.. Squatting is a relatively new thing but it is growing and like Camping is notablly different than your normal type of web framework (also check out WebPy for Python for something similar) and so it is "notable" in the Perl & programming world (IMHO) and deserves an entry here while it grows (Note... I originally added Squatting entry because I came across it on the Wikipedia list of frameworks but the link was this undefined page). PS. I'm still new to Wikipedia entries so forgive me for not entering "objection" in correct place! Draegtun

comment OK so; the page needs to meet the WP:Note notability guidelines which it doesn't. Using another page's existence isn't, unfortunately a valid reason. The camping framework page probably isn't notable either; but it is established and links to a conference presentation on it; which is a vague indication of notability. The perl monks discussion is basically an announcement rather than any proof that your(?) software is notable enough for inclusion. --Blowdart | talk 12:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Camping was a closest example because its notable resemblance & inspiration. There are many other frameworks which have entries on Wikipedia (I link to Catalyst in the Squatting entry) which Squatting sit alongside (or on top off!). Doing quick google on "squatting +perl +framework" provides of 18,300 hits... so there as already been quite a bit of traffic on it. I think both Camping & Squatting are notable for them being Web Microframeworks and therefore both deserve entries on Wikipedia.
To clarify what maybe an important point... I am NOT the author of the software... if you go thru the Squatting mailing list (via Project Homepage on the entry) you will see that I have had multiple conversations with John Beppu the author. Also (if it helps) u can see an article about Squatting on my blog... http://draegtun.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/using-template-toolkit-with-squatting/ So my involvement with Squatting as been as a user only and hence I feel qualified (enough!) to provide an Wikipedia entry on it. - Draegtun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draegtun (talk • contribs) 13:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying your link to the project. A couple of things; blogs (even your own) aren't reliable sources. Now if you can find a reliable or notable source and add them that would go a long way to proving notability. If, as you say, it's a new thing, then it's highly likely it's not going to be notable. --Blowdart | talk 13:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if these clarify as notable sources... http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5/index.cgi?web_frameworks & http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5/index.cgi?squatting My reservations are because I added these to Perl 5 Wiki which is why I didn't include them in the Wikipedia entry. Note I have added other entries to Perl5 wiki so I'm not Squatting biased! So Squatting is notable in the Perl world and the Perl foundation is considering giving a grant to John Beppu for further Squatting development.. http://news.perlfoundation.org/2008/11/2008q4_grant_proposal_squattin.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draegtun (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW.. the Perl foundation grant link does clarify Squatting "notable" feature that it can be mounted on top of any web framework (Beppu originally mentioned it could even be mounted onto PHP... ie. different language). Draegtun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draegtun (talk • contribs) 13:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would help if I added link! This is where Squatting proposal was accepted in 2008 Q3 grants but not funded and is now in the 2008 Q4 round of proposals. So acceptance of proposal does show "some" signs of it being notable? http://news.perlfoundation.org/2008/08/2008q3_grants_results.html - Draegtun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draegtun (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No appropriate references, wholly unencyclopedic in tone. Bongomatic 15:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. re "No appropriate references" - I haven't included the Perl5 Wiki or The_Perl_Foundation references in the article because I believe they're not encyclopedic to what Squatting does. I can if this is required. re "wholly unencyclopedic in tone"? - Article written using Camping (microframework) article as a guide. My intention of to bring it more inline with how the Catalyst (software) article is written. If neither of these are appropriate then could u provide me with a reference to writing this in an "encyclopedic" style Draegtun (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crunkcore

[edit]
Crunkcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism/"scene", no real references beyond blog sites.

As prod was removed, AFD submitted. Blowdart | talk 12:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Feel bad for the new editor who has done a good job with this article, and who should definitely stick around, but I had a good look and couldn't find any good sources for this on the web (where they are most likely to be found for this sort of thing). And the two bands listed as crunkcore in the article that themselves have articles here do not seem to identify as crunkcore. Sounds like a truly horrendous idea, btw, so will probably be notable soon. :P 86.44.21.224 (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Orchid

[edit]
Mad Orchid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, seems to be vanity page. [roux » x] 11:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FreeOrion

[edit]
FreeOrion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not explain how the subject is notable (WP:N), and is completely unreferenced. (WP:V). Prod with notability concern was removed last Jan with the rationale "I was certainly happy to find out about this game here on Wikipedia. The game is in active development.", without addressing the issue. I added a request tag for 3rd party references last June, which I see now was promptly removed, again without addressing the issue. A web search for sources is tricky, as is often the case with free software, due to the large number of download sites, forum mentions, and other unreliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teddi Barrett

[edit]
Teddi Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Milos

[edit]
Greta Milos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bestial Black Metal

[edit]
Bestial Black Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possibly an attempt to coin a neologism, the use has single-handedly introduced the subject into wikipedia [35][36][37][38][39]. The article contains no references, inline citations or external links for verifiability, something which the creator acknowledged when creating the article. The lack of incoming wiki links, only further increases the possibility of WP:HOAX Flewis(talk) 10:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Distros and catalogues do not count as reliable sources. You need non-trivial coverage in independent third-party sources; in this case, what you need is something like a commercial, print-copy book, magazine or newspaper for example. There may well be appropriate web-based material out there, but make sure you avoid self-published sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) treelo radda 00:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maruti Suzuki A-STAR

[edit]
Maruti Suzuki A-STAR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to just be an advert for the vehicle. No sources or content apart from specs. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Adaptive Two-Level Management for the Flash Translation Layer in Embedded Systems

[edit]
An Adaptive Two-Level Management for the Flash Translation Layer in Embedded Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Chitty

[edit]
Graham Chitty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't verify this. Wimbledon entrants are pretty well documented online, but not this one, it seems. Hoax? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD A7 (web). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SkoObid™

[edit]
SkoObid™ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability established. Appears to merely be an advertisement the site. Oscarthecat (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Tomás Botía Rabasco

[edit]
Alberto Tomás Botía Rabasco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:PROD contested by an IP user. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE for not having played in a level higher than Segunda Division B, which is not fully professional.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

* Abraham González Casanova

Thanks and have your say. --Angelo (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Hmm, might of read the sources wrong, I had enough look, looks like I read crystal balling instead of what actually happened, if the case is he hasn't played I guess he should be delete also. Govvy (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with a side of salt. 7th time is a charm and no evidence of notability StarM 20:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suthan

[edit]
Suthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been CSD (speedy) deleted 6 times. Following an editor request I've restored it to get more input through this AfD. Meets neither Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers nor WP:MUSIC. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break Even (Demo)

[edit]
Break Even (Demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable demo album. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Icewedge (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessiqa Pace

[edit]
Jessiqa Pace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A model whose claim to fame is headlining a swimwear catalog. This does not strike me as sufficient notability within her field. bd2412 T 06:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 20:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Jaleel and Company

[edit]
S. M. Jaleel and Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has nothing form which it is notable as it has no presence of any sources or coverage. As well, statements such as "S.M. Jaleel also prides themselves on successfully competing against such soft drink giants such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola" really sound like an advertisement. — Do U(knome)? yes...or no 06:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC) — Do U(knome)? yes...or no 06:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I haven't had the time right now to take-it-on. In the short free time I have leftover I've been trying to add appropriate referencing to other articles I've done that should have been referenced right off the bat. I didn't quite know how to do it in the past. Anyway- As far as the notability of this company. The next time you're in the supermarket in your area take a look for their most popular item the "Chubby" juice drinks for kids ( http://www.chubbykidsclub.com/ ). You may have probably passed them a bunch of times. They've literally become the replacement of those sugar & water "Teeny drinks" that used to sell in the stores... Many of the large supermarkets in the US now carry the Chubby juice drinks. If you see it, take a look on the back you'll likely see the "S.M. Jaleel & Co. Ltd." name. CaribDigita (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treechada Marnyaporn

[edit]
Treechada Marnyaporn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable - porn actress doesn't seem to pass WP:PORNSTAR. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 know this close is difficult, so let me outline why I decided to close it as "no censensus". Numerical it's 12 deletes vs. 7 keeps, but with various "per noms" or "per policy XY" votes, those numbers are not as convincing as one might think.

What I think can be said is that both delete- and keep-!votes agree on that this article is a mess with much speculation. The problem is, how to deal with it. First group advocates deletion based on the fact that they think it cannot be salvaged into an article compliant with WP:FRINGE and other related theories. The latter group thinks that this is in fact possible and that the sources in the article are enough to establish notability of such alleged encounters. Both groups make good points and I can't see any reasoning to be really "win" this debate. So, as the article already exists, this close will essentially default to a "keep". But this is only a view of the consensus at the current moment. If the keep-!voters are not providing the cleanup they think possible, consensus might easily change to delete this in a new AfD. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not encyclopedic in the least. Also, no standard for inclusion can be agreed upon. Are human beings UFO-related? How about cattle? God? Ghosts? Lightning bugs? Where do you draw the line? Answer: at deletion! See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UFO-related entities and the previous gem Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged UFO-related vehicles. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Yeesh! What a mess! The most dubious of hypothetical creatures being presented as known facts, even to the point of listing their planet of origin, and then haphazardly organized into tables. I think I need a hat made of tinfoil to prevent this dreck from turning my brain into greyish-red puree. Reyk YO! 05:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of these "creatures" are being asserted as fact. The facts are that they have allegedly been seen and that ufological explanations for the sightings are popular in some circles. Sometimes origins have for the entities have been reported. That's all the article claimed. Alleged is even in the article title, weren't you paying attention? Abyssal (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we can put the notable "encounters" in List of UFO sightings. This is not about "encounters", it's about "alleged UFO-related entities". ScienceApologist (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. This article is about the entities themselves. It needs work. But I still think it's a keeper. We have to know what we're up against... ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, now that I think of it, should someone make a hard copy of this information? We don't know what kind of computer interfering technologies these beings possess. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That these entities have been allegedly seen and that ufological explanations for their origin are popular in some circles is easily verifiable. And to say that the list is indiscriminate is not necessarily true either. Common sense should be used with additions and Wikipedians are generally trustworthy on that count. Abyssal (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, the only way I think this could be salvaged is by beefing it out with detail on how much of this stuff has been shown to be groundless nonsense, but then again... Delete Mangoe (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to include a bit about the skeptical perspectives on the entities I don't see why not, but are you suggesting we should delete the article because it needs that but you're too lazy to assist in adding it? You'd rather screw over the Wikipedians who have worked on it rather than to assist in fixing it? Abyssal (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The list is useful, but cluttered with claims dubious even by UFO standards. That alone is not sufficient to delete the entire article. Claims that the list is indiscriminate are mere cynicism. It's true that just about everything has been said to be UFO related by somone, but common sense application of notability policy can filter the wheat of popular, long lasting perceived associations between UFOs and list entries from the chaff of claims of individual cranks. In the long run Wikipedians will sort through this easily it's a bit cynical to delete the whole article because you doubt this. No compelling reason for deletion has been given. Abyssal (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant with our existing, extensive coverage of UFO minutia; original research by synthesis; list criteria (whatever that is) not supported by reliable sources. Tom Harrison Talk 15:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list is no more redundant given other UFO coverage than the List of US presidents s given Wiki's coverage of politics and history. "Original research by synthesis" is an oxymoron. If you're only synthesizing the ideas of others you're by definition not coming up with your own ideas. List entries are easily supported by reliable references. It's not hard to source the statement "some people have speculated that Chupacabras were dropped off by UFOs" or something similar. Abyssal (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the wiki-speak. About original research by synthesis, see WP:SYNTH. Tom Harrison Talk 19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "synthesizing" inherant in compiling the list is not aimed at advancing any position, so that policy (that I was unaware of, sorry) still wouldn't apply. Abyssal (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
US Airforce and Optical illusion are not entities in the sense the title meant. J Allen Hynek was never said to originate from a UFO. Abyssal (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Abyssals arguments and I'm happy to see this article has a strong advocate. I've thought about it quite a bit, and it's just an interesting article (almost as good as Sideways bike also up for deletion recently). Even the table format (which is very unusual) seems rather suited to presenting the information. If someone wants to add refuting evidence of the contacts with these beings, or sourced refutations of the beings existence then they should do so appropriately in the article. That would make it even better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the title doesn't say that. The air force is an "entity related to UFOs"; therefore the title is ill-formed. OK, so what should it be? Well, if you can come up with an accurate, descriptive title, then you would have a point. But if you cannot, it means that the category itself is ill-formed. Maybe if it were renamed List of purported alien beings, it would be more accurately defined. Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I'm not sure just what the title should be. Possibly beings, not entities--Notable and encyclopedic. Personally, I think every individual one of them entirely non-existent, and the list to be a list of an idiotic mix of fantasy and self delusion; & I think my view to be at least the very solid scientific and more general academic consensus. What the popular consensus may be is another matter entirely, and is a discouraging matter to contemplate. (Yes, i do have a definite POV about UFOs and associated things.) Notable then as popular concepts, and it is a very useful Encyclopedic function to bring them together. If anything, doing so supports, not opposes, the SPOV--I'd think any even partially rational person who might nonetheless think some one of them possible might well have second thoughts upon seeing the list. But what people make of it is up to them. We don't tell them what to think. If they should think, what a wonderful diversity of things in the universe, that's not our fault. The articles on the various ones present what evidence, positive and negative, there is. I don't think it helpful to conceal this stuff, or de-emphasise it. It is not the SPOV to deny or de--emphasize or hide the existence of irrationality, or pretend the widespread acceptance of nonsense will go away if we don't talk about it. How can anyone who actually posseses a SPOV have any lack of confidence is what neutral presentation about UFOs will demonstrate? DGG (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I put a notice on the Cryptozoology project and Paranormal project discussion pages. Earlier I also mentioned the AfD on the UFO discussion page. I thought the people working on similar articles should have an opportunity to weigh in and assess the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of these reports is easily verifiable. Why does everyone keep saying this? Abyssal (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The arguments for deletion seem to be two-fold: 1) the article is bogus and 2) it needs references. In regard to the first issue, any editor is welcome to add referenced content debunking or disputing the existence of the alleged entities. And secondly, a lack of references is due cause for a references needed tag, not for wholesale deletion. And finally I would note that the article has 12 references to articles from various well regarded newspapers and magazines. This decisively establishes the notability of the topic and the need for inclusion of this subject in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Rest assured this comment has not been influenced by any otherworldly influences, that I know of. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with midnight here. The arguments put forward in favor of deletion are either bunk or an incitement for clean up. No good reasons to delete (a drastic course of action) have been given yet. Abyssal (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree that this is an accurate and complete assessment of the arguments put forth for deletion. Whether or not these entities exist is, I agree, irrelevant to this discussion, though of course it remains relevant to presentation of the article. The lack of referencing issue is based on the original synthesis policy - what makes these items notable as this list? The good faith argument is made that such sources do not exist, not merely that they are not presented. More specific discussion of list articles and when we should and should not create them is outlined at WP:SALAT. The policy being implied by the nominator is, I believe, the indiscriminate collection of information section of What Wikipedia is not. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to answer "what makes these items notable as this list?" What makes a list of US presidents notable "as a list"? A grouping of closely related and notable ideas naturally deserve a list, I think. And that's what these are. I don't know what you want me to say about it.
I don't doubt that the argument that the list is unsourcable was advanced in good faith, its just that the argument is nonsense. Pure and simple. Is it really a stretch to believe that paranormal researcers have suggested that the Chupacabra may be an escaped alien pet brought here on a UFO? I've seen a dozen or so TV paranormal shows and everytime the Chupacabra comes up that hypothesis is mentioned.
And what about the list is indiscriminate? All entries have had specific, deep ties to the UFO phenomenon alleged for them. The list is even broken down into very specific categories of connections (entities reported in abduction scenarios, ce-3 entities, etc). It's hard to call the list indiscriminate. Abyssal (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix it. Being a mess and unsources are reasons to tag, or better yet, fix. The subject matter itself is notable, even if a bit "unusual" (or crazy). It is absolutely verifiable as plenty of newspapers love to write about this stuff, which itself demonstrates notability. I'm not a fan of the word "entities" in the title, but that is a matter for the article talk page or a bold editor. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsalvageable unsourced speculation. — BillC talk 08:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question I see 12 inline citations. Did you mean that it needs {{refimprove}}? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I mean that the material—the theme, if you like—of this article is beyond salvage. To start at the beginning, the very first item in the tables is: Feline humanoid, origin: Sirius; temperament: benevolent; description: feline-like humanoid. Do we have a citation for feline humanoids coming from Sirius? more importantly, could such a citation exist? We are spared a drawing in the last column, but what are such drawings other than someone's fanciful artwork? The tables continue in the same vein for dozens of entries. Energy beings were a creation of Star Trek. The article on the Flatwoods monster doesn't even support the "temperament: possibly aggressive" label. Material like this just doesn't belong in a serious encyclopaedia. — BillC talk 23:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Usually I consider the "theme" as the topic itself, thus the confusion. I think the concept of the article (if we started with a blank page) *is* notable. If you agree, then it is just an issue of editing, not deleting. Some of the content is sourced. Other parts are sourceable, but not sourced. The other stuff can be deleted. In other words, I agree there is lots of junk in the article, but it can be fixed by doing something other than a delete. I think deleting when it can instead be trimmed with a hatchet (or chainsaw) is just a waste. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that the "theme" of the article is beyond salvage is simply IWISHTHISDIDNTEXIST. We do not need sourcing to show that the feline humanoids come from Sirius. We just need to show that such has been published, and there is sufficient information for that and for all the other ridiculous entries here. Notable nonsense is notable, and the arguments here that it's all utter nonsense are -- while perfectly correct statements of the real world status of these suppositions-- simply not relevant. DGG (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be notable, notable nonsense must be documented in third-party sources. Can you point to a third-party source which verifies the contention that people believe feline humanoids come from Sirius? Can you find anything other than the ramblings of UFO-believers that indicate some notoriety for this point-of-view? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SA, a third party source in this context is anything published by other than the alleged being. This is not a list of organisations that promote the idea that there are such beings-- (though, come to think of it, that might be a pretty good list also; certainly there have been accounts of such groups emanating from other sources, such as those who think they're ridiculous). DGG (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? We have WP:FRINGE for a reason. You may not like it, but that's not a reason to ignore it. This is a fringe theory. In order for it to be included on Wikipedia we need documentation by people who don't believe in the fringe theory that the idea exists. We don't have that. Therefore, Wikipedia does not deserve to have this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete vague and pointless with a vague and pointless title. Unmaintainable list- anything could be vaguely related to UFOs. Sticky Parkin 12:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve/clean up - My thanks to DGG for articulating at some length the crucial philosphical rationale for keeping articles like this, rather than attempting to exterminate them from Wikipedia. Of course it's lamentable that there are all too many credulous people whose ignorance of the scientific method predisposes them to believing in nonsense -- some of whom have reached the highest levels in government. What I find truly discouraging is the efforts by some Wiki editors to suppress information on notable subjects simply because they have what I would call an allergic reaction to those subjects -- an extreme case of WP:ITBOTHERSME. That said, there are some glaring flaws in this article that need to be dealt with. I would start by completely removing the column labeled "Temperament", which I think lends an air of silliness to the whole thing. Framing the contents of the entries in terms of "alleged" or "described as", etc. would go a long way toward presenting the info in a more neutral way. Example: The Hopkinsville goblin -- should say "Allegedly sighted near the Kentucky towns of Kelly and Hopkinsville". Cgingold (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE outlines what nutty ideas are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. This particular collection of nutty ideas is not referenced to non-believers, therefore it cannot be sustained by Wikipedia -- there is no way to write a WP:NPOV article if the only sources that exist discussing bunk are credulous. In any case, there is no argument that can be made for this subject being notable if the only sources which discuss it are those of true believers. That's what you're missing. If you would prefer a different, less exacting and non-WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, try wikinfo. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FRINGE - A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. The Washington Post seems to qualify. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that article serious? It seems firmly tongue-in-cheek to me. Whatever the case, the article is referencing the following to it:
  1. Nordic aliens come (or allegedly come) from Venus and/or the Pleiades ("and/or" ?)
  2. Nordic aliens are abducting entities.
  3. Nordic aliens have "various" origins.
Not one of these statements is supported by the Washington Post article.
The "Get a Piece of the Rock" LA Weekly link is dead. — BillC talk 02:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LA Weekly link is fixed. Everyone here already knows the article has problems. This just isn't the issue at hand. The purpose of the AFD isn't to argue content, it is to establish if the subject matter passes one of the criteria for inclusion. Debating the content is for the talk page of the article, or better yet, fix it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? The article is called "List of ALLEGED UFO-related entities." You're willing to tear down other peoples' work when you didn't even bother to read the title? Abyssal (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable nonsense "speculation" plenty of RS's on the variety of space aliens vacationing on Earth, e.g. the Wash Post article. This is essentially a classification of some fictional archetypes, all that is different is that the primary works of fiction do not label themselves that way. If they did, and there were the same amount of outside notice and appropriate RS's (e.g. skeptical magaznies), would there be any doubt that this is a normal, encyclopedic topic?John Z (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should human beings be listed? How about cattle? No obvious standard for inclusion, not list-worthy. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged UFO-related entities and the previous gem Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged UFO-related vehicles. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Educational Media Service

[edit]
Asian Educational Media Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable club at U of Illinois. No third party references outside of homepage. Nothing important about it. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjoy Das

[edit]
Sanjoy Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable poet. Article does not establish any notability. The text in the article is highly promotional, and possibly self-written by subject. Article also lacks any references from third party sources. Ragib (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mastan Malli

[edit]
Mastan Malli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing nom for User:RegentsPark. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable mountaineer who is one of 189 people who have climbed the seven summits (the seven highest peaks in seven continents). Only Everest is truly high and the certainty of his having climbed everest is in doubt. This link verifies that someone with a similar name was on an Everest expedition but apparently was not one of those who reached the summit. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 20:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a total of 229 people have summited the 7-summits, of which this gentlemen was the 186th. Commercial trips are now organized for such purposes (See here, for example, for trip reservations for Aconcagua, South America's highest mountain, some of whose upcoming dates are already filled up). Why is this such a distinction any more, eludes me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list of successful summiteers (on Everest) suggests that he did get to the top, but notice that between 17th and 25th May 2006, the summit was scaled 190 times. Is this really notable any more? I don't think so. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How reliable is this list? I notice it lists Mastan Malli as being from the Philippines rather than from India. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 03:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm not sure. The name of the country might refer to the expedition rather than the nationality of the climbers. I'm sure all the sherpas are not American nationals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if climbing Everest is notable any more. The day before Mr. Malli's supposed climb, 12 members from an Indian expedition summited Everest, and 6 of them were not sherpa, and very likely Indian nationals. It's likely that Wikipedia has no pages for them. Similarly three days later another 4 climbers from another Indian expedition got to the top. I'm sure there are many Indian nationals who have scaled Everest more than once. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but I think mountaineering can be seen as adventurous sports. Just like WP:Cricket allows bios of players who have played in first class cricket of any country I think in this area, a person scaling Everest is also notable. If we list down all players who have played in Ranji or Duleep trophy without even getting a berth in Indian national squad then total count will be easily 10 times of 189, the figure of mountaineers who have scaled all 7 summits. There is no limit on how many bios WP should have. Requirement is that the person has done something notable and if so deserves a place in encyclopedia. --GPPande talk! 11:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Everest number is a lot more than 189. Over 2,500 people have climbed Everest. In 2007, in the little window of five days that the mountain condescended to allow human visitors, there were 260 successful summit climbs. That is more than 50 a day. For the 7-summits, the oldest climber was more than 75 years old. This gentleman's website claims he is/was the fastest 7-summiteer, but that's not true either, according to Seven Summits, and never was. The fastest climber (who has a Guiness Book citation) moreover doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Apparently, Mr. Malli has now given up on "mountaineering," and is planning to run marathons in each of the 29 provinces in India. I'm just concerned that the Wikipedia page is being used by the gentleman (or some fan) for publicity. But, since I arrived here accidentally, this is as far as I go with my opinions. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't imagine how he could possibly be seen as notable, unless we grant Pande's idea of him being an sportsperson competing at the highest level of amateur competition (sorry for the redundencies!). Good idea, but I really don't see how this is sufficient: we grant professional and top-level amateur sportspersons automatic notability because it's assumed that sources will be written about them, but I don't think we should assume the same about mountaineers — especially because it's not a competitive sport, so it's much harder to measure the "winners" and the most "successful". Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You guys sucked me in by renominating. I'm afraid this character is notable if the article content can be verified. How many people from India have climbed all 7? Andhra Pradesh? And are we to believe there wasn't substantial media coverage? Plus there's the seven summits on seven different days, which seems like wonderful folklore. I have to say I think this guy has a place in the encyclopedia. But maybe I'm wrong or crazy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that there doesn't seem to have been any media coverage other than a couple of fluff pieces that have obviously not verified the claims. Also, the seven summits are not universally considered an achievement. None of the seven are considered difficult and Everest is the only really tall peak and, as fowler&fowler says, approximately a gazillion people have climbed that one. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 15:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There, in fact, does not appear to have been significant media coverage, as evidenced by the fact that Google News has nothing on him, and a straight web search yields primarily Wikipedia mirrors. While having climbed the seven tallest mountains on each of the seven days of the week is indeed likely to be unique, it's really rather contrived, and doesn't amount to much beyond being a seven-summiter. (Which, as noted above, isn't something which we write articles about generally.) Zetawoof(ζ) 10:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established the usual way. I see no reason to make an exception in this case; rather, we should apply the usual standards. WilyD 12:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on how notability is established? I don't see 'significant coverage', nor do I see 'reliable sources' for the claims and achievements. A google search of "Mastan Malli" reveals 119 articles, about a half of which refer back to wikipedia (a red flag by itself!) and none seem to provide the WP:RS that would verify the claims. Thanks!--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. waggers (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Sanchez

[edit]
Louie Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable StarTrain1 (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) treelo radda 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crip Walk

[edit]
Crip Walk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no claim to notability, and very marginal sourcing. Superm401 - Talk 04:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And John Kerry went to Yale. What's your point? There are two problems: 1) the article doesn't explain what the subject is, it just says it's a dance. So it's fatally flawed in my opinion. And 2) sociology is a recreational pursuit of acadmics that shouldn't be encouraged. But I'm going with reason 1) This article could be made encyclopedic, but it's just not any good as it is. So it should be deleted or fixed. That's my reasoning, flawed though it may be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), as the consensus of this discussion has determined the subject meets notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen

[edit]
Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person is only notable for one event. The only notable thing about this person is that it is claimed that she was the first person that was born in Antarctica. Schuym1 (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There doesn't seem to be much more to say about her, but she has an interesting claim to historic significance. A merge to another article might be OK if there's a way to do it without losing information, but I think the page is fine where it is. Zagalejo^^^ 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was notable enough to get referenced in at least three books. A search for Solveig Jacobsen + "South Georgia" turns up (apart from the book already in the article): Robert Headland, Chronological List of Antarctic Expeditions and Related Historical Events (1989), 256; Elizabeth Chipman, Women on the Ice: A History of Women in the Far South (1986), 171; perhaps also Beau Riffenburgh, Encyclopedia of the Antarctic (2007), but that won't let me see even a snippet. N p holmes (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge No appreciable notability on his own. But as part of the history of those explorations quite appropriate. Plus I don't know how to make those fancy letters with my keyboard. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see the argument for merging, though I can't imagine where it would merge to and not look obviously shoe horned in. That she is notable, albiet only through a quirk of nature, seems like a poor deletion rationale. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would merge here Antarctic Convergence and Grytviken (if he's not already there which he likely is) and redirect this article to the second location. Better to have one good article detailing this history than flotsam and jetsom scattered about. But I am outnumbered. Does the first born in every far flung region get an article? Just seems to me he is tied to the history of the place and whaling etc. and not a historic or notable person apart from that context. It's like an article on the apple that fell on Newton's head. "It was red. And ripe..."ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable enough to be referenced and unique enough to deserve an article in HER own right. Only notable IS notable, I really can't see any rationale for delete at all. I don't see convincing arguments for a merge either, any merge would look like it was shoe horned in and dare I say it the objective of this project is to build a quality encyclopedia. What is proposed is hardly conducive to that. Justin talk 11:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do satisfy the general notability guideline, and it would appear to me that, in a general sense, being the first person born on South Georgia (and, depending on definition, Antarctica) is an unusual enough distinction to be worthy of an article given that sourcing is available. But this appears to be the only reason why she (and she was a she) passes notability, and we should consider whether a biography article is necessary per WP:BIO1E. I think a merge would be reasonable, except that I can't think of a suitable merge target. I don't think Grytviken is broad enough, and given the complete lack of history on Antarctic Convergence I think merging this in there would look horribly contrived. So, since the information does belong on Wikipedia, I'll say keep, without dismissing a possible future merger if a target is found. Pfainuk talk 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established the usual way. Inclusion should not be decided on ethical judgements about who deserves to be notable, but historical judgements about who is notable. WilyD 12:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – IMO certainly notable. Can't see the point for merging.--Zenit (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable enough, well referenced so it doesn't harm the encyclopaedia. No reason to delete. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Border Declaration

[edit]
Smart Border Declaration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable "declaration". Part of the ongoing North American Union conspiracy theory. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. It is confirmed by references on Canadian and United States government websites, and there has been extensive coverage on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border on border-crossing and other border-related issues. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as A9: Non-notable music by artist with no article here by User:TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. --AmaltheaTalk 14:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Dust (album)

[edit]
Out of the Dust (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article for an album by an artist which doesn't even have its own article. This is apparently the artist's only album and the artist alone fails notability at WP:MUSIC, as very few sources of the band could be found. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW.. Smashvilletalk 15:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

[edit]
March 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
March 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 26 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 29 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 31 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

per explicit violation of WP:NOT. These are just days in a year, any year. These articles appear to be by their very nature trivial and are, without exception, indiscriminate collections of information about coincidental events "on this day in history". Each also contains a list of births and deaths of people with otherwise no connection with each other. Most notable individuals and events already have their own articles, and I suggest few would be motivated to find out what else happened (hypothetically) on the day of the Lindbergh kidnapping, or on the day Roger Daltry was born. This series of articles is logically the least likely route for individuals to search for an article except to fulfil WP:INTERESTING, or to earn Greg's Sewer cover barnstar. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with what Ohconfucius wrote above. Well said. I would suggest though, that these articles not be truly “deleted,” but temporarily placed in non-article space so they may be picked through for data to use for expanding articles like August 2003 or August 1, 2003. I think it was a colossal violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) to have created ‘on this date throughout history’ articles in the first place as they are nothing more than beyond-worthless trivia and far too few readers take the time to wade (muck) through them. And when you consider the fact that their contents were virtually never  germane to the article from which they were linked, it’s doubly wrong that editors linked to them for so long. Greg L (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is this a joke nomination? Why is March selected for deletion rather than, say, April? A recurring date is notable. I think it would be very easy to imagine someone searching for information about a date - for example, a disc jockey searching for 'On this day...' information to fill his breakfast radio show, or a personal assistant trying to figure out whether a particular date would be suitable to hold a meeting (since it may be a holiday for certain religions). It is well documented that acts of civil disobedience and terrorism are more likely to occur on the anniversaries of previous such acts, and someone in security or policing might keep track of such dates. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No such massive deletion drive should be undertaken without some sort of broad consensus in centralized discussion. I personally find these date articles highly useful. --Soman (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually useful. As in, being actually used.
Page views for selected dates for October 2008
Page views for March 5, by month
  • January 2008 - 14,351
  • February 2008 - 16,961
  • March 2008 - 65,252
  • April 2008 - 17,218
  • May 2008 - 16,930
  • June 2008 - 15,468
  • July 2008 - 5,067 (only half the month seems to be available)
  • August 2008 - 14,253
  • September 2008 - 12,035
  • October 2008 - 11,610
So for the first ten months of 2008, at least 190,000 page-views for March 5, not counting the few thousand redirects from '5 March', 'March 05', etc., just for one page. Certainly more objectively useful than Australian Research Council, Julian Vereker, Public Housing Estates on Tsing Yi Island or even Mass versus weight. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is this nomination in good faith? We have a whole WikiProject dedicated to these articles, and if the nominator wants these articles to be deleted, the discussion really ought to start there. I appreciate that Greg L and Ohconfucius take exception to these articles, but they need to obtain consensus if they want wikipedia to delete them. Taking this to AfD does not seem to be an act of consensus-building, but rather an attempt to undermine the status quo, against existing consensus. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per other commenters; also note that these are not indiscriminate, as (among other things) people, events, etc. that happen on 364/365 or 365/366 of the year aren't supposed to be listed on any one of these pages. Also consider that newspapers, radio stations, etc. often have a "this day in history" column or notice: as these pages don't violate core policies, and as having something of this sort is often seen, it would be appropriate to ignore rules such as the trivia bit noted above, even if we admit (which I don't) the applicability of that argument here. By the way, this isn't a joke: these two users already discussed such a thing at this currently-running AFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's intended to be a joke - I know that the two users are engaging in a campaign to get rid of these date articles - but I disagree with how they're going about it. The dates that have been nominated seem to have been chosen indiscriminately. We just alerted the appropriate WikiProjects; the two campaigners did not, despite being aware of their existence. And if the users did not reasonably expect this AfD to pass, then this is a case of WP:POINT. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the 'ideal' group of articles to nominate for deletion in batch, and I true that I could have done March or January, so yes, the choice was initially arbitrary. I am no stranger to mass deletions and have succeeded in same before (for example here and here). If this succeeds, then the remainder will be tackled in good time. For all this screaming of blue murder, there is still no coherent argument why this series needs to be kept, as projects cannot live outside policy. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having a point is not the same as trying to make a point. It's a sincere nomination, so please try and defend the series of articles on its own merits. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Precisely. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003 is a good-faith nomination and so is this one. Please desist with the accusations of bad faith and stick to making arguments that persuade others to your way of thinking; you may well need it as other editors come here to register their votes. These lists of random, disconnected trivia are going to need a lot of good arguments to defend them because they don’t have much in the way of socially redeeming value that I can see. The information they contain should be organized into articles like August 2003 or August 1, 2003.

    Right now, we have “July 20, 80,000 BC: Man invents fire” and “July 20, 1969 AD: Man sets foot on the Moon.” They have no connection whatsoever other than the date. Greg L (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the absurdity of the given reasons, the attempting at making a major and drastic attempt to eliminate several hundred pages, and the strong suspicion that this is all part of that peculiar crusade to eliminate any and all date linking on Wikipedia--those crusaders seem well represented here--then yes, I'd say implying bad-faith is not only accurate, but warranted. And you'll have to do better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'd also advise you use real examples instead of absurd ones made up from whole cloth. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates are inherently notable, and notable things happen to happen on these notable dates; sometimes these notable things even add to these dates' notability. That's a lot of notability. So what if these notable dates are the only things that "connect" the notable events thereon? Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree that this degree of conflict with an established WikiProject (already built up through consensus) should be grounds for a speedy keep. The success of this AfD would essentially destroy the WikiProject, and it strikes me as uncivil (c'mon, WP:AGF) outrageous to start, or at least not to withdraw the nomination for, such an AfD without prior discussion with the WikiProject (given that the nominator is aware of the project's existence). Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single person on this planet has to deal with birth, death, food, water, oxygen, and (except for some people with unfortunately short lives) March 1. Dates of the year are things that everyone, everywhere confronts every year of their lives. Dates are things that people more than a few years old recognize by name. Each one of them has occurred thousands of times in recorded history. They are an integral part of history. They are inherently notable. This AfD is, with all due respect, absurd. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the top of the [[speedy keep page: 'It is a generally accepted standard that editors should' [emphasis mine] attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense [emphasis mine] and the occasional exception. '
But regardless of any attempt to invoke bureaucracy as a way to denigrate an opinion, I stand by my !vote: this is attempt to avoid wide scrutiny for a massive--and entirely unwarranted--change. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is Wikipedia. A case could be made that the articles on different kinds of molecules or various TV series are indiscriminate collections of information. I don't find the nomination convincing and feel no need to defend the existence of these articles, sorry. JuJube (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not indiscriminate; to take a really obvious example, the commemoration of the events occurring on 5 November in 1605 and 1688 was traditionally linked. More generally, there is a genuine semantic connection between things occurring on the same day of the year. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The pages are not indiscriminate, events are linked, there is a connection between things occurring on the same day of the year and are not trivial. Also the nominators disregard for even attempting to start a discussion at an established WikiProject before nomination is uncivil.feydey (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easy to demonstrate notability with newspaper "This day in histories". WilyD 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep. We even systematically link these articles every day from the front page, for goodness sakes. They are a gateway to typically some of the best, most interesting, most well-developed content we have on Wikipedia. And there is significant interest in what happened on a particular day - for instance on a particular person's birthday. See also the currently open RfC on whether dates of birth and dates of death should be linked, which some people (and bots) think should be forbidden. We shouldn't be deleting these lists; nor should we be trying to remove all links to them as if they were some mad old relative that we were ashamed of, to be kept hidden away locked in the attic. These lists are good and useful, and something Wikipedia should be proud of. Jheald (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Whether we like it or don't like it, the Wikipedia format for linking dates to articles is to say "November 12, 2008" instead of "November 12, 2008". It is what it is. This discussion was a spinoff of the discussion concerning deletion of August 1, 2003 and other articles, where GregL and Ohconfucius suggested that the current format is unsatisfactory. To answer the question about why one discussion is different from the other, the difference is that the "August 1, 2003" group is a departure from the rules, while the "March 1" group is consistent with the rules. I have no complaints about Greg and Confucius bringing up the subject for discussion, in the course of which folks now know that they can join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. It's kind of like what Joe Friday said when he arrested someone for possession of marijuana --- if you don't think it should be illegal, work on changing the law; until then, don't fault me if I'm enforcing the law. Just my opinion, ma'am. Mandsford (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not accept the above BBC link as a demonstration of a relevant deletion criterion in this debate (said to be notability - not that I ever argued it wasn't notable) because WP is not the news]]. However, I can accept the fact that the series of apparently trivial articles is linked to the main page is good enough for a speedy keep. I would withdraw my nomination, in the sincere hope that those editors who have been throwing the kitchen sink at my nomination can see there are genuine concerns as to the quality of these articles, and work to construct articles which are more encyclopaedic and less newspaper-like. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I personally found your 'concerns'--and your characterisation of the pages--to be groundless in the extreme, you will find no assistance from myself. Perhaps you can move elsewhere with your crusade. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete g3, WP:SNOW, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elbow game

[edit]
Elbow game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for games you and your classmates made up one day, even if you claim it isn't one but can't substantiate said claim except via a thrown-together personal website whose sole contents are a purported copypaste on this topic from a nebulous source. Vianello (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rahsaan Basek

[edit]
Rahsaan Basek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Written by (!) User:Rahsaan Basek (implying a conflict of interest.

The image looks like it is not free, either. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 03:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Fifth Element. MBisanz talk 03:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plavalaguna

[edit]
Plavalaguna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Unsourced unnecessary fork from The Fifth Element; a minor character in this film, whereas even the main characters don't have their own articles, and there is nothing to indicate independent, or any, notability of this character. Most of the article is a straight lift from its parent. Rodhullandemu 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion Interesting essay on the music, no indication of notability. Might be worth a sentence or two in the actress's article. -- Nevard 08:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generation rx

[edit]
Generation rx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Term doesn't exist at all (checked Google), PROD removed by User:IHeartOscar. Speedy also removed for some odd reason. DARTH PANDAduel 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Speedy wasn't denied but removed by another user. I suggest you tag it again for speedy and monitor that no one removes it. Both contributors are SPA, possibly socks [48], the creator even indulging in vandalism [49], [50]. LeaveSleaves talk 02:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term exists sorry its not on google buddy thanks for your useless opinion though. If you dont like the page then leave it serves a purpose and it has relevent information for those interested in the subject. So go bother someone else with your lame removal junk sorry you arent interested just go away. PS your a total joke for putting time into this posting clearly you have nothing going for you so good luck w that...thankssssssssssssss —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHeartOscar (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC) — IHeartOscar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete (possible speedy, though I don't think it qualifies). The article seems like a made up point of view. Also, the author and his likely sock are indulging in borderline vandalism/attacks; it is reasonable to say that this is an extension of the same. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Term does seem to exist: [51], not sure what Darth Panda searched for. No opinion on notability or keep/delete, but perhaps allowing the AFD to proceed isn't that bad an idea. IHeartOscar is about to get blocked for personal attacks, so hopefully the AFD can continue in peace. --barneca (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was clearly consensus to not keep any of the individual articles, and no consensus between merge and deletion. So I choose merge as the outcome here because (1) lack of consensus between deleting something and not deleting something normally defaults to not deleting, and (2) the List of Episodes article can be improved (expanded) if we merge, but since merging and deleting presents a GFDL copyright issue, it would not and could not be improved if we delete the redirects. Mangojuicetalk 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escape to Beer Mountain: A Rope of Sand

[edit]
Escape to Beer Mountain: A Rope of Sand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm also nominating the following articles for the same reasons.

Episode Two: Election Blu-Galoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A.D.D.: The Last 'D' Is for Disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Film Fest: Tears of a Clone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sleep of Faith: La Rue D'Awakening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Homecoming: A Shot in D'Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plane Crazy: Gate Expectations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Room of One's Clone: Pie of the Storm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raisin the Stakes: A Rock Opera in Three Acts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Litter Kills: Litterally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Snowflake Day: A Very Special Holiday Episode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Makeover, Makeover, Makeover: The Makeover Episode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Changes: The Big Prom: The Sex Romp: The Season Finale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:PLOT and WP:NOR. There's no reason to create specific episode articles for a series that's barely notable in the first place. I see no point in using their titles as redirects to List of Clone High episodes (which is better off being merged to Clone High in the first place since its a short-lived series). Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an episode's article. Check List of Clone High episodes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Lorette

[edit]
Ashley Lorette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fictional character. The universe in which she exists is a redlink here in Wikipedia, and the article mentions no one as her creator. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge NAC Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Griffin

[edit]
Rod Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is the correctly spelled version of Rod Griffith. I think that this page should be deleted and Rod Griffith renamed to Rod Griffin in order to preserve its editing history. Skarebo (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

probably easy for an admin just to merge the two, given that they are indeed the same player.Londo06 06:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to merge here: the content from Rod Griffith was copied to Rod Griffin. Before that the later page was but a simple redirect… Skarebo (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farandona

[edit]
Farandona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently an elaborate hoax. No google hits (for those who rightly realise that ghits are not the be-all and end-all of sources, let it be known that botanical systematists really have their act together when it comes to online databases, and for them to all overlook an extant genus simply beggars belief). The editor's other contribution, Paraceratherium giganteum suffers from the same symptoms, suggesting an elaborate hoaxer. Hesperian 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paraceratherium giganteum

[edit]
Paraceratherium giganteum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently an elaborate hoax. No google hits, except for an article on the Spanish Wikipedia by the same editor. The editor's other contribution, Farandona suffers from the same symptoms. Hesperian 01:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucknow-Estherton, Pennsylvania

[edit]
Lucknow-Estherton, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about two actual places (Estherton, Pennsylvania and Lucknow, Pennsylvania), but merges them into one community for an uncertain reason. There's a claim that they're a census-designated place (CDP) — note that some CDPs are double-barrelled, such as Maple Heights-Lake Desire, Washington — but this isn't a CDP. Look at this Census Bureau map, page 19, where you can see that Dauphin County has no CDP with "Esther"; indeed, such a name doesn't appear in a search of the entire document. Essentially: there's no reason to have this double-place article, and (as we have an article on each of the two communities) no ideal place to redirect it, so it needs deletion. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 20:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elahe Hiptoola

[edit]
Elahe Hiptoola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Empty biography of a Bollywood actress: a name listing, followed by a list of spotty references. A speedy candidate, really. CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if an article doesn't even attempt to claim notability--if the writer can't even be arsed to add ONE SENTENCE in doing so, there's no point in having it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Probably mostly because the list is very bad. The notability discussion appears odd to me, because we are not discussing whether these judges each deserve an article of their own, only whether they deserve a list. But this discussion does not rule out adding such lists to the articles about the individual courts.  Sandstein  16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Magistrate Judges

[edit]
United States Magistrate Judges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is merely a (very incomplete) list of individuals who are largely nonnotable (as expressed by DGG here [52]). Many magistrates are part-time Magistrate#Federal_judicial_system. JJL (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as noted: it seems that being appointed by the appointed federal judge really doesn't make these people qualify as those who have held national political office. I'm assuming that some people who have held this office have gone on to hold higher office or become notable otherwise, so a category would be useful, but a list of these people isn't. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If DGG says it's not notable it should be deleted, twice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... The list has the potential to be useful and interesting and honestly, I like it. It wouldn't hurt us to keep it, as a list is better than a category for this. Unfortunately, those are all the exact wrong reasons to keep an article. Delete because my personal observations aren't policy, and per DGG's previous comment which succinctly explains the existing consensus in these matters. Additionally, I would strongly disagree with ChildofMidnight and state that a single deletion is sufficient, but only because I enjoy disagreeing with him on occasion. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will be interesting to see whether the famous (infamous?) DGG weighs in. I reread his comments in the other matter, and I believe his opinion is fairly represented. But do magistrates as a group become notable? It seems that you found it so DB. I will await DGG's judgement to further the current discussion, but I stand ready to switch sides if this information is deemed encyclopedic and notable as per your thoughts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Magistrate#Federal_judicial_system. United States Magistrate probably ought to redirect there also, while it occurs to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I may possibly have been wrong about whether they were individually notable, and the matter needs a more general discussion. My personal opinion continues to be that they are not individually notable as a matter of course, though it is possible that the chief magistrate of each district is notable. I am not an authority on the federal judicial system, and the opinion I gave in another matter was a restatement of what is well established for US District court judges, but I see now there has never been a real discussion of the matter of the magistrates, & I may have incorrectly assumed consensus there. Certainly their names will appear in newspapers in connection with cases, but the question will be the significance of their role. Certainly, unlike US district judges, their decisions are not reported and do not set precedents--that would be the argument against the individuals being routinely notable. Some of course will be in any case -- such as Alan J. Baverman. I certainly did not mean to cut off discussion of that. We do not go by authority here--everyone makes mistakes, and in this case, I am simply unsure. In any case, although they are not notable individually,the question is whether the list violates NOT DIRECTORY or whether, since there are relatively few of them, this is appropriate background information. Perhaps it would be better to add this information to the articles on the individual district courts. Three is room for great expansion there, andthere are certainly very full sources available. DGG (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your idea: Perhaps it would be better to add this information to the articles on the individual district courts. sounds reasonable, as it still allows the information to exist but in a format that is more accessible and wouldn't rely on individual notability. (which I think is lacking, regardless of utility) Most people would be looking for this information by district anyway. I guess you could convert this to disambig page listing the states articles, or not? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys volunteering to maintain state by state lists? Sometimes you just have to let go... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am saying Delete, and that is where the information should go if someone wants to include it. After deleting, if someone wanted to make this a disambig page instead of a list, fine. I have no strong opinion either way. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know I am in the minority, the list is incomplete (bad) but of people with specified terms of office (8 years) who wield substantial influence in the federal court system. I suspect many mayors are less notable. Collect (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the very least their terms need to be included. At least that way we'd know if the people on the list were current or not. I strongly oppose keeping this article. Trying to make Wikipedia into a useful directory is noble, but it isn't pragmatic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many lists are on WP now. Many of less notable categories of people. Collect (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My issue isn't with the list per se. But that it requires constant maintenance and updating, not to mention that it should include dates and isn't complete. Who's going to maintain it? I just don't think it's a prudent effort. A list of province, or presidents, or buildings over 40 stories doesn't require the same kind of upkeep. I think that's why there's an aversion to becoming a phone book. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would actually be easier to maintain than a list of Ambassadors. Which WP happens to have -- in plenitude. It would have under five hundred names in all likelihood , and, since most new Federal judges are nominated from the list of Federal magistrates, it would allow give people an inkling of who might be named to the bench in the future. http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/JudgeReq.nsf/FAQs+about+Judges'+Procedures+and+Schedules?OpenView is a list for the 9th circuit, the largest. Collect (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matrudevobhava

[edit]
Matrudevobhava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Film with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch and gnews aren't turning up notability, however language issues may be hindering my search, so bringing to AfD instead of prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding this. Glad to withdraw the nom as long as the copyvio issues with this site are taken care of. Should the article get moved to the correct spelling?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know yet how to myself do such a move, but would certainly agree that it should be moved to the "most common" English language spelling and have an (aka) added to the lead-in. I have discovered that many times in translation of Hindi, Telugu, etc. names to English, there are spaces between words that are eliminated or added, and letters that are eliminate, added, or substituted. For instance, in recent work on a film called "Vamsi", I found it online also called "Vamsee", "Vamshi" and "Vamshee". This makes searches a bit tougher.. but when comparing cast and crew one can usually find the correct spellings. This same holds true for names of the individuals involved. Quite a headache, but can usually be dealt with on a one-by-one basis. I'll be glad to deal with the author's copy-vio problems. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Have done a major trimming to remove copyvio, and a rewrite to remove peacock. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! I've replied on my talk page with instructions on how to move a page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Or nomination withdrawn, take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Lights

[edit]
Prairie Lights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Simple bookstore without notability; it asserts importance, to be sure, but there are no good sources. Google reveals some thirty thousand sources when searching "Prairie Lights", but all I saw were (1) sites associated with the bookstore, (2) tangential references, or (3) bits from local newspapers that aren't enough to confer notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article was prodded two years ago, but prod was removed by author. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford International Film Festival

[edit]
Oxford International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film festival. A grand total of three mentions in the Lexis archives, only one of which (Richard O Jones, Dayton Daily News, April 6, 2008, "Oxford film festival getting bigger, better") is an actual article about the festival. The others are JUDY WELLS, Florida Times-Union, May 18, 2008, "Film fest entry has local ties" (mention in passing: "So far it has been accepted for the Savannah, Sarasota, Hoboken International, Johns Hopkins and Oxford International film festivals, but as Suzanne said, 'The Jacksonville one was the most important to him.'") and Matt Hildner, The Pueblo Chieftain, April 25, 2008, "Film on the range: Home-building effort chronicled in movie" (mention in passing: "Earlier this month, it won Shiveley the award of Emerging Artist from the jury at the Oxford International Film Festival in Ohio.")

Also nominating J.C. Schroder (23-year-old film director whose primary claim to notability is founding this festival) and Star Com Productions (production company whose primary claim to notability is producing this festival), both created by the same editor and then both edited by his apparent alterego. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that I'm not an alter-ego -- apologies if my edits moved the article in the wrong direction (I am, indeed, new to Wikipedia). I believe the festival fits the notability requirements, but could certainly do with the inclusion of more of its press coverage as references. J.C. Schroder's website lists press/media for himself & the festival at http://www.jcschroder.com/press.htm As I don't maintain that website, I don't have access to all of those articles, but will see which ones would do best to supplement the information in the wiki article. A starting point would probably be its listing in the Hollywood Reporter (4/5/07 - Hollywood Reporter - Prints Oxford Film Festival Listing) and discussion on NPR (4/6/07 - National Public Radio 88.5 (WMUB) Hour Long Radio Show "OIFF & MAFIA"). I'll try to find better references to them than the founder's website. Getsource (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and another note. Another editor removed the prod for OIFF because they noted that Wrath of Gods made its US debut there. That's true, but it's actually a Canadian movie and showed two months earlier in Canada. In any event, notability is not inherited and I don't think that that makes this film festival worthy of inclusion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 early. There's no way this is going to survive. Alex Muller 16:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete Rights Denied to Gays and Lesbians by Proposition 8 in California

[edit]
Concrete Rights Denied to Gays and Lesbians by Proposition 8 in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a clear example of advocacy and not encyclopedic in nature. Thmazing (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD was incomplete. It is listed now. J.delanoygabsadds 00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCRD LBL

[edit]
RCRD LBL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability per WP:CORP. Most of the article is a long list of "Notable artists" on this "exclusively-online record label that offers all of its music for free via Mp3 downloads". Two citations given, one from the NY Post and the other seems to be a blog about a press release and another article on the subject. If this does pass the "Notability" screening here the article needs expansion to make it read less like a promo piece and the list should really be reduced in size Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I did do my "homework" and that is why the AfD is worded as it is. I did a search and came back with a lot of hits as well - brief mentions, press releases, reprinted and rewritten press releases all about the launch of the service. The Rolling Stone link above is not "significant coverage" of the subject at all, it is barley a blip in the article as a one line mention of the intention so start the service. The link to The Independent is not much better as it is an article about online services that is only a listing of services, including this site which says it has an "impressive array of free music from new and established artists." I already mentioned the others - the NY Post is a "Significant" article, but it is about the "plan to launch" the site, not an article about how the last year has gone. The WSJ is the same type of pre launch article and makes the observation that "It is unclear, for instance, whether music fans will view as credible a blog that exists largely to promote its own commercial products" and that is my part of the reason I brought the article to AfD. RCRD LBL has been "available" and it has been a little over a year since the pre-launch hype and I could not find any significant coverage of the label to meet WP:CORP. We can take this in another direction as well - is this "blog" notable per Notability (web)? Criteria 1, except already disallows the above Rolling Stone and Independent articles. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the article has been tagged there has been no work done to it. It should be noted that this article was created February 15, 2008 and other than acts being added to the list of "notable artists" there has been no substantial work done or notes/refs added. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The key thing here is that sources found above show that the article can be improved to an acceptable standard and Fulmerg has stated that they will improve the article if the result of this discussion is to keep it.--Michig (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, the key thing here is that the sources cited have already been used and the ones not used can not be used. The key thing here is that we have an article that is about, to quote one of the sources, a "blog that exists largely to promote its own commercial products" that has had almost zero "significant coverage" past pre-launch hype. The idea is to try and expand an article when it is tagged and then when an AfD discussion is happening. To simply come into a discussion and voice a "keep" because a quick search on Google turns up hits without actually reading those "hits" defeats the entire reason we have Policies and Guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are at least 3 good sources giving significant coverage to the subject. That's enough to have an article here. I'm well aware of policies and guidelines, and have read the sources - I'm not sure where you got the idea that I just did a quick search and didn't read any of the results. I think you needs to spend some time reading and, more importantly, understanding the policies and guidelines here, both on deletion processes (and the work that should be done before nominating an article for deletion), notability, reliable sources, and last but not least, civility.--Michig (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romuald Rat

[edit]
Romuald Rat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article, about a British paparazzo who was one of the first photographers on the scene of the death of Princess Diana fails WP:BLP1E, namely "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This should be a straightforward decision to delete, particularly given the scanty information about Mr. Rat, and the rather accusatory tone of the article. No objections to a redirect to Death of Princess Diana being created. For clarity, I should note I originally speedily deleted the article under WP:CSD#G10 but following a protest from User:JoshuaZ have restored it and brought it to AFD for consideration. fish&karate 11:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Footnote, not article. It's all covered by WP:BLP1E.--Boffob (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for the article to be deleted. The information may be used in Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. And that's not merge. LeaveSleaves talk 12:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're keeping the information then that's a merge and the contributions of the editors should be acknowledged per WP:5 and WP:GFDL. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden is correct; if information from this article were to be incoprorated into another, then the history of this article has to remain visible to satisfy attribution as per the GFDL. fish&karate 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phenom (band)

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

Does not meet notability criteria for musicians and ensembles - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What an enormous number of words for an article on a couple of, well, nobodies (yet!) who haven't done anything but set up their MySpace pages. Let's wait till they put out an album, and another one, and get some coverage. And if the consensus is keep, I can't wait to start editing this article down to a sentence or three. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiredawg

[edit]
Wiredawg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability and NPOV (identified many months ago). Bongomatic 12:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think that this article is appropriate for Wikipedia, for several reasons, primarly the lack of multiple, independant, reliable sources documenting the use of the term. While the two sources posted by ChildofMidnight (whose efforts to save the article I respect) demonstrate that the job descriptions are for actual positions in the United States Air Force, the term "wiredawg" and "cabledawg" do not appear in these, and no connection is demonstrated between the terms and the professions. The third source, a social networking site for people who self-identify as wiredawgs, is only used to prove that the social networking site exists (and that's all it could reliably be used for, in my opinion). Looking outside the article for sources: Google has 683 unique from 95,800 total hits for the search string [wiredawg OR wiredog], and 249 unique from 88,600 total for just [wiredawg]. However, the results are polluted by a number of personal web pages, forum usernames, or webpages containing the statement "Wire Dog item", which are all unrelated to the United States Air Force profession. Google News provides only one result, where the term wiredawg is the name of a form poster commenting on a news story. Books is nada, while Scholar has one hit, a thesis written by a student of the United States Air Force Institute of Technology. There are other problems with the artice: it appears to contain original research and unsourced speculation ("Currently, there is talk...", "It's been reported..."), and contains attempts to communicate with readers ("More information is needed, please update if as details are made known.") Long story short: The term Wiredawg exists, as slang to refer to people in a specific job role within the United States military. However, there are not enough reliable, published sources to produce a verifiable article on the subject, nor to demonstrate that people identified as wiredawgs because of their job role are more important or notable as a group than people given another nickname because of their profession. -- saberwyn 06:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I suppose the article could be broken up and moved to "Voice Network Systems Technicians" and "Cable and Antenna Systems Technichians". Or should if be "Air Force Cable and Antenna Systems Technicians"? As far as I can tell they self identify as Wiredawgs, so I'm happy to go with their good judgement and group them together. And here I thought Bongo was always trying to consolidate! ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avenging Annie

[edit]
Avenging Annie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no independent sources for this article on the sole single by an artist whose article also has no independent sources. It reads as original research, especially since the artist has contributed to the article himself. It's had 35 years to make a mark, but does not seem to have done so. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. A Google News Archive search comes up with some sources: the Boston Globe calls it "Pratt's biggest and only significant single success" and a "radio hit" that gave Andy Pratt "15 minutes of rock fame" and confirms that the song was covered by Roger Daltrey (as does the New York Times) and Bruce Springsteen; the Washington Post says it's "Pratt's biggest hit" and the News & Observer a "1973 hit"; according to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette it was "a moderate radio hit" and to the Chronicle Telegram a "a nationwide underground hit"; the St. Petersburg Times says the song is "a lost classic" and the New York Times (I think this is the clincher) a "major cult hit". It's difficult to use these to reference the article without better access than Google News because in most cases only snippets are available, but these sources would seem to add up to some notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EQMS::LIMS

[edit]
EQMS::LIMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be notable software, but I don't know much about this field. Some news coverage, but I'm not sure it adds up to much of anything. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nodd

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

Unsourced. No real claim to notability. Competition does not appear major, band appears to have only placed in regional section. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Cap In Trade Plan

[edit]
Continental Cap In Trade Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable "plan". Part of the ongoing "North American Union" being pushed by conspiracy theorists. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unhappily Ever After. MBisanz talk 03:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Malloy (character)

[edit]
Tiffany Malloy (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant coverage of in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:FICT. No refs. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While the numerical !votes are clearly in favor of deletion, the consensus is not so clear. I thought about it, consulting the relevant guidelines and policies, but in the end I have to say that concensus is for deletion, although not as clear as it might seem. SoWhy 12:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English royal descent from Muhammad

[edit]
English royal descent from Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't appear verifiable and is not properly backed up by sources. Just one news article with information of questionable value and reliability. PAETBb (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even as a "best attempt", this article is nothing but speculation. Now if a certain speculation is notable, then it should be included, but the article right now does not assert any notability for this or any other speculated lineage linking the British royal family to Muhammad. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be article about something that didn't happen. If Wiki were too post an article about all the things that might have happened, that could have, well it would certainly have alot more articles. Dman727 (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully - there is no reason for the page to exist. No one doubts that Elizabeth II descends from the Franks, she and well over a half-a-billion other people. No scholar discusses her descent from Franks, as opposed to any other peoples, and the line given is just one of a million possible descents, arbitrarily chosen, connecting Elizabeth to the people at the top of the pedigree. Agricolae (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not claiming it's not notable; I'm claiming it's not verifiable. The entire theory rests on the highly debatable identification of one particular Spanish queen with a possibly different Moorish princess. There's no proper source for this, and the article is essentially a piece of OR turning on this point. I would be very interested in a verifiable article on this topic, but this isn't one, and there's no prima facie evidence that one is currently possible. Perhaps it might be incorporated into the article on Zaida of Seville? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The truth of the theory is of course not verifiable. But the existence of the theory is verifiable, just like Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's very easily verifiable. In fact, I personally verified it before making a comment here. WilyD 16:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the claim is untrue does not mean that the article should be deleted. We have other articles on rumours and allegations, and as long as we clearly say that the claims are not established (which we do) then there is no problem. Otherwise articles like Flat earth and Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories would have to be deleted. Note that the reference (though there is only one) clearly establishes that there are a number of people who do believe this stuff. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added another reference to show that this is a widely believed, or at least discussed, matter. Even Burke's Peerage gives it some credence. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quoting the article, "There have been attempts to establish the descent of the medieval English monarchs from the Islamic prophet Muhammad. None has yet been successful, and no such descent is generally accepted." This also doesn't provide any evidence that this theory passes WP:FRINGE. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article (like the other one I mentioned above) is not really about the English/British royal family at all. I think it actually gives undue weight to a small minority within the many European royals and nobles who may be descended from Zaida of Seville and thus (perhaps) from the Prophet. I'd urge a merge with the article about Princess Zaida. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
undue weight does not prohibit an article about a fringe theory, otherwise Flat earth would be deleted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't like Flat earth; it's like having an article about the geography of Zambia according to flat-earthers. There is nothing peculiar to the British monarchy in this article; it's an arbitrary slice through the genealogical web of European and North African nobility. The key facts, such as they are, have nothing to do with anyone English at all. It's effectively an indiscriminate collection of information. Do we need articles showing how the French, Bavarian, Prussian, Tuscan and Danish royal families were descended from the Prophet (or from Pepin the Short, or from a random Roman)? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't say that this is impossible, since one can't decide about truth. I can only say it's highly speculative. This article doesn't gather the requirements to be in an encyclopedia, and therefore it should be deleted - unless there is a clear claim that the facts aren't confirmed, and that this is nothing but speculation. Plus, enough reference is needed to make it encyclopedic. I'd say make a new, more intelligently built artcicle. SydLyra (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Marginal genealogy sites can be fun -- it appears I am descended from Mohammed, Minerva and Thor. Speculative? Yes. Very. Properly caveated, I see no harm. And it is not close to "flat earth" at all. As for comparing to other articles, many are more speculative than this one. Collect (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' The real question here is whether there is a notable controversy over this matter. I don't think a few idle speculations on the part of genealogists and a slow-news-day "gosh, everyone is related" news story constitute anything notable or even very interesting. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have modified the page to reflect the thought of modern historians, rather than uninformed genealogical hobbyists. If you think it is worth having a page just to say that a genealogy based on more wishful thinking than historical knowledge is frequently propagated, so be it, but I don't think it can be justified. Agricolae (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had heard that there were claims for English kings descending from Muhammad. The claims are real, and having an article clearly stating (as it currently does) "There have been attempts to establish the descent of the medieval English monarchs from the Islamic prophet Muhammad. None has yet been successful, and no such descent is generally accepted" told me the claims are (at best) dubious. That was exactly the answer I needed. If the article wasn't there I wouldn't have had my question answered. Kiore (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there is a fairly widespread myth that there is a connection like this for the Hapsburg family, then having an article either documenting or dismissing it would also be useful. Even if the erstwhile Austrian royal house doesn't merit an article, the British monarchy is still regnant in the 15 independent commonwealth realms and other current European monarchies such as Spain's descent from it it is possibly more interesting than other royal houses, but that might just be my Anglo-centric viewpoint. Kiore (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep in some form. Whether or not it should be merged, and if so what the target should be, is one for talk-page discussion. Consensus is that this material should be kept in some form/location. StarM 04:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Middle School shooting

[edit]
Pine Middle School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not meet the standards of notability. It was a shooting that occurred two and a half years ago at a middle school, and there is not an adequate amount of information needed to be used for this article. The article has no place anywhere here except for the list of school attacks. Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 06:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=0CIXLdxhQMAC
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_12&oldid=1081072660"