Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 1: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
NewAtThis (talk | contribs)
347 edits
No edit summary
NewAtThis (talk | contribs)
347 edits
relist to permit more debate and for people to take a look at new sources provided and for more to be found at lexus nexus
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayelle (lesbian)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovan Smith}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovan Smith}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charming Associates}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charming Associates}}

Revision as of 11:21, 1 April 2008

< March 31 April 2 >

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 Speedily Deleted - Created by indef banned user. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gayelle (lesbian)

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

Proposed new term for lesbian. Non-notable neologism. Essentailly the article is spam for a clothes shop. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still delete. After looking at the new version of the article, I'm afraid my concerns still haven't been addressed. The article is better formatted, to be sure, but it still lacks the necessary proof of notability. --erachima formerly tjstrf 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blog that mentions wikipedia, mentions the disambiguation page Gayelle (disambiguation) and was written before this articleNewAtThis (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary is not used as a source for this article it is simple in the external links.NewAtThis (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually only the source is listed, i need actual link to the CBS News and Logo sources. the only Google News articles I can find are to an unrelated cable channel in Trinidad and Tobago Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black HoleStrange Frequencies 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a marketing term and it is not trade marked it is reserved, hipshe is trade marked and it is not presented that way. I simply thought that when a term is reserved or trademarked we are obligated to put in the (r) (tm) (C) alongside the name. I removed them. Move Product? what product? Its a term and social movement. I wouldn't say Hillary Clinton is trying to sell product for selling bumper stickers and t-shirts.NewAtThis (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, advertising for what? And second of all I have nothing to due with the gayelle or sapphic chic people. I'm not trying to advertise anything. I do think in the quest for all human knowledge we should mention things such as this. And when an editor makes a good faith claim that there are good reliable sources such as CBS to back it up maybe a good faith search and trying to back him up would be in order instead of trying to destroy a new article without giving it a chance. As for your accusations of my thinly veiled questions, veiled as what? What are you insinuating?NewAtThis (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this once and i'll say it again. You'll need to produce the CBS source for it to be used in the article. Simply mentioning it does not help. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more, however that doesn't have anything to do with notability. Perhaps this should be elaborated in the article. Do you have any sources for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAtThis (talk • contribs) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not just notability. It's that the term is a neologism. The Wikipedia community, especially the denizens of AfD, do not care for neologisms. The movement is too new to give the term time to enter the general vernacular. Three months isn't enough. DarkAudit (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After being asked to reconsider the revised version I find it improved but still failing notability. Sources 1 and 2 are the same article in a slightly different wrapper, the bulk of the remaining sources are blogs or the self-interested Sapphic Chic website, and source 11 is the "Neology" blog which only goes to proving that WP:NEO applies here. None of this goes to proving notability, only that a few bloggers will respond to a press release for an attention grabbing "funny" story. If pressed again I will change my vote... to Strong Delete. - Dravecky (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per pretty much everyone, this seems to be another P.C. spin job. Also note that the primary editor, User:NewAtThis, has copied the page to his/her userpage. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to ask if anyone else thought it bizarre that an alleged reliable source added to help disprove the position that the subject is a neologism was in fact a blog titled Neology. I see the thought has already occurred. There is nothing to warrant a change of my position. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Same here. New sources are more reliable, but indicate only that the term is a protologism attempting to inject itself into the culture, not that the term has currency or any importance as of yet. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with everyone above, None of the sources featured are reliable sources and User:NewAtThis has yet to produce the actual article from CBS News about the term. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:NewAtThis has also canvassed my Talk page to change my vote based on added "new" sources. I am not seeing anything much more than blogs and similar "every passing breeze" mentions. There is nothing new that would change my "delete" vote above. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT ON THE SUBJECT YOU WITCHHUNTERS!please don't let your personal opinions influence this discussion, keep it to policy, and don't bring my user page up. thank you.NewAtThis (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'What's wrong with aussienews and the daily telegraph, they are legitimate sources, I think the advocate has brought it up too.70.1.209.112 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have? Then prove it. DarkAudit (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with Tango Magazine, Naughty Trends Magazine, Anodis, Aussie News and The Daily Telegraph as sources?NewAtThis (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. Random question, though...why was this relisted merely two days after it started? There's plenty of debate and consensus to delete looks pretty clear... --SmashvilleBONK! 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment, or radom answer... NewAtThis did it to permit more debate and for people to take a look at new sources provided and for more to be found at lexus nexus see diff. I delisted it as there is no need to duplication. If an admin looking at this believes more debate is needed s/he will relist, typically he will take the new info into account (and there's always Deletin Review if he does not) - Nabla (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge about one cited sentence to Lesbian, and redirect. It's a neologism that a few are writing about, but there's no need for a separate article. Aleta Sing 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Sources in article talk about the term and are non-trivial. Not sure it has really gotten beyond the neologism stage yet though. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May be a good reason for this term to get a sentence or two at lesbian. I just don't see that there's enough for a separate article here. Friday (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicted. I think the subject meets the formal notability guidelines - it is a commercial organization that has filed a trademark for a new lifestyle brand it is creating and sells clothing under that trademark[www.cafepress.com/sapphicchic]. The trademark was filed a couple years ago by an individual living in the Bay Area, California. As part of that effort it has gained some publicity worldwide (with substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) for promoting its brand name as a new term to describe its demographic. Or vice versa - it's a movement that trademarked its name and sells tee shirts. In any event the article, if it survives, should be modified and possibly renamed to be about the organization, not the neologism it's trying to create. However, this article was created by a sockpuppet of a prolific disruptive user, QRC2006 / Boomgaylove, who has made a mess of Bay Area, California articles about queer issues and geography. That clouds the whole issue. Wikidemo (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. This article has been proposed for deletion several times in the past month; the new nomination appears to be trolling and in any event not a reasonable or good faith nomination. Wikidemo (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Smith

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

This article is about a verifiable but very WP:LOCAL article and is largely complete WP:BOLLOCKS with wide and far reaching libel issues, NPOV issues, original research. The subject is not notable. He is only mentioned in passing in most of the sources which are all free trash newspapers from the Bay Area. No mention in Los Angeles or New York trash newspapers, no mention in legitimate San Francisco Bay Area newspapers. Articles which are about him are trivial mentions such as concert and entertainment and arts sections that report on concerts. Also a non notable rap magazine. And apparently the artist's album notes too, album notes are not appropriate secondary sources, they are not available online either and are not verified. This article while well formatted does not meet our standards and should be deleted. NewAtThis (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Northern California actually.NewAtThis (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad; I don't know California well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which case may I respectfully ask your grounds for thinking the sources to be notable?  RGTraynor  16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation; currently fails WP:BAND Black Kite 09:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charming Associates

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND for me, it has been created as both Charming Associates and The Charming Associates several times and always ended up speedy deleted. Let's have a proper AfD and settle the matter ;-) Snowolf How can I help? 11:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the criteria here. Being listed on a database does not equate to notability. WilliamH (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the criteria for disogs.com, in order to be added one has to be notable.Voncrass (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand my my comment that the article doesn't establish notability. The reference count there stands at, well, zero. If you've got some references that support notability, jump on in and {{rescue}} the page.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That weblink is a self-created profile (with www.myspace.com/voncrassknave given as a webpage, raising WP:COI issues) and has no suggestion that this group actually won or placed this competition; indeed, there is a "Finalists" section distinct from the "Shortlist" section. What makes these "3firstcutawards" (which have a mighty 95 G-hits) a "major competition?"  Ravenswing  16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... with a grand total of 56 unique hits on the UK Google [1], not a single one of which is from any mainstream media, and the bulk of which are Myspace, Youtube and blog sites. By what stretch of the imagination can this be claimed to be a "major" competition?  Ravenswing  20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete. Surely coverage on Capital Radio (one of London's largest stations) counts as mainstream media?

http://www.capitalradio.co.uk/article.asp?id=386292 Are there any wiki moderaters from the UK that can get involved in this as they will have better knowledge of the UK media and awards in this country? Voncrass (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a press release. (On London's fourth largest station, according to its own article.) About a non-notable competition, in which the band in question wasn't even one of the finalists, as WP:MUSIC would require. As in a major competition. Such as the Grammies, or the Van Cliburn competitions, or the MTV Music Awards.  Ravenswing  15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep Disruptive AfD by a possible sock; subject clearly appears to be notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isahaya Park

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

possible hoax, original research, no reliable sources, no sources, not verified, etc etc NewAtThis (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. There are a number of good policy-based arguments on all sides, but despite thorough discussion I do not see a clear consensus to delete, redirect, or merge the article. --jonny-mt 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiva Kahl

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

per whoever nominated NewAtThis (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested PROD post-deletion. Original PROD rationale was, "NN performer. 12 appearances on Letterman in five years isn't a lot, especially with very little else in the way of appearances. Most of the press coverage on her official site is trivial, and GHits are brief mentions only." SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW, account under investigation for bad faith edits. Porterjoh (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Terra

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

Non notable, no citations, no sources, no reliable sources, no secondary sources, no tertiary sources, only one link, largely promo ad, all original research, not verified. NewAtThis (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Keep: nomination withdrawn. —BradV 03:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbetarbladet

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

non notable newspaper mini stub, no reliable sources, no in text sources, no secondary sources, likely a translation of a similarly non notable but slightly (slightly) longer stub in swedish. NewAtThis (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC) WITHDRAW NOMINATIONNewAtThis (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomNewAtThis (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as 1170+ Google News hits and over half a million Google hits lend credence to the notion of notability. My Swedish is a bit rusty so perhaps, as an expert on the Swedish media, you can outline why this apparently major Swedish newspaper which serves a large geographical area and is itself widely quoted is not-notable. - Dravecky (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; although my understanding is that "Arbetarbladet" just means something like "Worker's Newspaper", raising the possibility that more than one paper bears this name. This would appear to be a daily newspaper in the major city of Gävle, which would seem to make a fairly strong case that this is a reasonable stub on a notable topic. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without sources, it is OR, i hardly call 68K a major city.68.27.12.1 (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misinterpretation of WP:NOR, which seeks to limit original conclusions. ("Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found.) It is not the same thing as lacking sources. We have {{unreferenced}}, suggesting that we have many articles waiting for someone with the access and inclination to add them. --Dhartung | Talk 01:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaji sani labaran

Alhaji sani labaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extremely short article about a politician (possibly Nigerian). No hits in Google for this name. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. There's a good chunk about the PDP online considering how few online sources there are about Africa, and some indication that the surname (?) Labaran is often connected with the party. Alhaji is probably an honorific, not a first name. I couldn't find a list of founding members, or any indication this person is an active Nigerian politician or officeholder. --Dhartung | Talk 10:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, 'Alhaji Labaran' gives some more google hits, but it seems they can refer to more than one person. Alhaji Labaran Inuwa is the National Organising Secretary of PDP[6][7], which would be a notable person (PDP is the biggest party in the most populous country in Africa). There is also 'Alhaji Labaran Abdu Maderi', who is a Kano State legislator[8], who would also be notable enough to have an article. Unclear if Alhaji Sani is the same individual as any of these. --Soman (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No there is a slight difference here. Many people take 'alhaji' as part of their name, they have it as their name in passports, id-documents, etc. In west africa, there are many 'Alhaji's who never did hajj themselves, is sometimes a name inherited from relatives, etc. ~Many people have no other 'first name' than Alhaji, at least in day-to-day-conversations. --Soman (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Kwang- do

Choi Kwang Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This martial art is not notable. The few sources that assert any kind of notability come directly from the style's own website. RogueNinjatalk 10:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The style is notable, as we can all clearly see, Choi kwang do is world wide and mentioned in every martail magazine, we have proved notable, this is just another dig at me from rogueninja. Not notable are you kidding, its one of the largest martial arts in the world, see the locations on the web site, also see indian times, also see tae kwon time hall of fame, aslo combat all of fame Ralph Allison, there si 400 schools in th uk and 1000s across the world, usa, europe, asia, canade, new zealand ect. laughable10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above was left by User:Diamonddannyboy, the page's creator. RogueNinjatalk 11:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes thank you RogueNinja for to sign, but thanks for point that out, cheers.Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see history from other editors saying that it meets notable ctriteria, kwang Jo Choi the found of Choi kwang do was one of the original Grand Masters of Tae kwon do a korean fighting art, he was responsible for the spread of Tae kwon do to the USA, Kwang Jo choi meets WP:ATHLETE criteria at the highest level. Aslo he heads the large internation organisation Choi kwang do, but the Kwang Jo Choi article has not been put up for deletion, more personal again I believe. We have also used other reliable sources from around the world, not just the CHoi kwang do web site, but article from combat magazine, tae kwon do time, men health and Hindu times from india, it world wide, and very notable. Thanks again. 11:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RogueNinja may have bias interest in martial arts hence the name Rogue Ninja, Ninjas were sent down from the moutians of Japan to kill the enermy the samuri, yet the samuri live on, Sun Zu said you must know you 100 % and your enermy 100% if you know you 50 and your enermy 50, you will win half and lose half, this is all said in a friendly manner and is ment to lighten the mood of a some what un funny AFD. Good luck my Ninja Friend and may we meet again on the battle field of this mighty editing war. Pil-Suhng!!--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion I have no idea what you just said. You claim to be a native english speaker on your user page, but I dont think that is true. RogueNinjatalk 11:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please explain, what did you not understand, about the above message, I am tring to lighten the mood, yet again you make personal attacks about my English, I am from England I speak English, I am tring with you Rogue, why the attacks my friend why ? What do you meen, is it some wikipedia Joke about my editing that only newbies dont get, please fill me in, what is the problem, can I do any thing to resolve this issue.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe this will help to prove notable, now choi kwang do is based in Alanta, do we agree, so why if it is not notable, is it being talked about in a UK magazine [[9]] mmmm let me think !!! In the words of Bruce Lee, 'Don't Think feel' feel the positive energy Ninja, feel it my friend, Karma --Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I don't believe that the comment from RogueNinja was about your ethnic background. It is, I would suggest, fair comment to say that your use of the English Language has certain "quirks". I would also suggest that it is not doing your cause any favours to leap to an assumption that somebody is doing you down because of your Romany background. Please WP:AGF, and unless something is VERY clearly an ethnic attack, assume that it isn't. Quite apart from anything else, it is in your interests to do so, as if people feel that they have to tread on eggshells around you, lest you interpret it as an ethnic slur, they will undoubtedly be less inclined to work with you. Mayalld (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article looks well sourced to me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The article has established notability, and while it needs work there isn't a case to answer - at least not on the grounds on which it's been nominated It has several articles referenced, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the website, and most of which are reliable sources. The article did have significant problems, and needs a fair bit of development, but I can't see any problems that wouldn't be handled through the usual editing processes. - Bilby (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I totally agree with keeps, I believeRogueNinja may have a conflict of interest with choi kwang do coming from a traditional back ground of karate, I to come from a traditional back ground, and have sent friendly comments to Rogue about Choi kwang do see his talk page, hopefully he can see the benefits of this art, problems with most people in martial arts and across the world is they believe there is Karate, kick boxing and Judo, and that it, how ever there are many martial arts, but only one uses biomechanics and that CKD, it is notable, hopefully we can iron out any other bits that need doing.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please can we Not get into style vs style, 'what-the-public-believe' and linage wars as they are completely irrelevant in an AfD debate. P.S claiming it is the only one to use biomechanics is tenuous in the extreme, as there are, as you point out many marital arts. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was not getting into style Vs style or Linage im not in martial art politic, I have trained in most of the traditional styles and have over 30 years martial art experience, Choi kwang do is the only martial art using Biomechanics because it it a modern science and not a traditional style using lock out movements.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err where dose Tai Chi use lock-out movements? My point is you do not know about every MA out there, for example boxing & other sport arts include aspects of biomechanics, though they may not refer to it as such --Nate1481(t/c) 09:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "I have trained in most of the traditional styles" Ok there are over 100 styles listed in {{Martial arts}} and some of those, jujutsu, karate and kung fu for example, are collective descriptions of 30+ styles so even ignoring 'modern' ones we are talking well over 200 different styles listed on wikipedia (and then their are those not here...) Please don't try and overstate you experience, while you may well be very experienced in you area remember just how big a topic this is. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to above I have trained in the more known martial arts, such as Karate, kickboxing, Tae kwon do, Judo, Ju jit su, Mauy Thai, BBJ, Boxing, and Kung fu , I agree there are many types of these arts ie Kung fu, wing Chun, wing tzun, tai chi, Tai Chi does have lock out movements'puch hands', and boxing does not use biomechanics, as the arm loks out at speed in a punch and retracts the same way, this is not boimechanics, just simply pushing off the rear foot is not biomechanics, I am and agree with you experienced and am a ABA boxing coach, so I know what I am talking about, but lets have this debate out side the afd please.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Your correct other sports do use biomechanics, ie Golf, baseball and cricket, the golfer follows through with the club, a boxer does not follow through with a punch, he needs to hit, then retract the punch quickly, biomechanics are also healthy for the body. I also have a degree in sports science and am a fitness instructor, My degree was with the Greenwich university before you ask.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is sourced, and while it needs some improvement in some areas, (e.g. more secondary sources a primary source for training police/military is not good) there is not good reason to delete it as their are multiple 2ndary sources given and would seem to establish notability. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did any of you actually read the sources? They fall into 3 categories. 1)They dont load, or cant be found online. 2)They talk about the grandmaster of the art, not the art itself. 3)They fail WP:RS. RogueNinjatalk 16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read them. (Well, I had to, as I sourced most of them) :) Just to clarify: The two articles in The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution specifically discuss both the style and the grandmaster, as evidenced by their titles. The Cairns Post article is specifically about the style and the opening of new training centers in the region. The Times of India article is about an individual proponent, but he goes into some detail about the style. The Hindu Times article is short, but is about the introduction of the style to school girls. Both of these are available online. The Emergency Nurse article was a bit of a surprise - it specifically discusses the style as an option for emergency nurses. Odd, but notable. :) The Positive Health Magazine article is entirely about the style, online, and quite long, but I'm suspicious that it reads like an advertorial, so I wouldn't count it toward notability. The TKD magazine article is sourced from the organisation's website, and I would rather see the original. But while it is an interview with the Grandmaster, most of it is about the style. (I won't be happy until I confirm that it is a faithful copy of the original, though, but I suspect it is above board). The Newton Kansan is online and discusses the grandmaster and the style, but it also reads a bit like an advertorial, and I don't know the source, so I'm suspicious. In short: at least half of the references speak to notability. I'm not sure what links were broken, but I tested all the references, and they seemed ok. And there is no problem with using articles that are not online: they need to be able to be checked, but being online isn't a prerequisite. Otherwise we'd have an awful lot of trouble with books. :) - Bilby (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did they fail WP:RS, could you give some details? I skimmed for mentions & found them in the online ones & pointed out the primary source problem as the only exceptional claim others seem average. It dose need a re-work for tone in places. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was it sourced @ that point? --Nate1481(t/c) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The last Choi kwang do article was done by another author, who did not source any of the references, this one strongly meets notabilty, no case to question, again talk has a bias because he trains in another style, and strongley supports koo self defence--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I'm aware, this isn't a reason for deletion unless the new material simply recreates the old. In this case the new material has been created from scratch, is sourced, and needs to be judged on its own merits. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry Read the above wrong LazyDaisy accused PTluw777 of being a sock puppet and vandalism on previous choi kwang do, so has a bias.
  • Keep I used to subscribe to Tae Kwan Do Times and remembered Choi Kwang Do was even on the cover one month: TKD Times Jan. 2007 With all the other TKD Times references and the other references listed in the wiki article it seems to me that this is a valid and recognized martial art, though clearly not as well known as Tae Kwan Do or Muay Thai. The initial comment of it not being notable is clearly wrong and seems to come from a biased opinion. --Fortec —Preceding comment was added at 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC) — Fortec (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unanimity that the page should be deleted. In addition, I find the nominator's arguments to be particularly persuasive and the secondary sources in the article are weak. TerriersFan (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinnett ARES

I prodded the article and just noticed that it had under gone AfD before, so I'm bringing it back. The article fails WP:N, the group is not notable. They have never been covered by a non-amateur radio publication and have never recognized for their services by any source outside the amateur radio community. Having big radios isn't notable, providing a service to the community during a disaster and being covered in the news for it is. The article fails WP:V and WP:OR as it doesn't cite a single secondary source, being based only on first-party sources and/or first-hand accounts. As for the arguments of the last AfD. It should not be redirected to ARES, no other articles link to the article and redirecting a local chapter to the national organization serves no purpose. It should also not be merged, the article has no information that would be useful to the Amateur Radio Emergency Service article. BJTalk 10:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, fails WP:BAND. Black Kite 09:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scene Aesthetic

The Scene Aesthetic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Seemingly very non-notable band. Prod removed by another editor without comment or alteration. tomasz. 10:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The band has released an album on iTunes, which received good "air time" there. I believe that alone should contend for notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Deadeye (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 April 2008
  • Delete iTunes doesn't mean ANYTHING about the noteworthiness of a band. Plus the article has been nominated and/or deleted once before. Plus, the article is too short and poorly written. Crash Underride 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was nominated for deletion the first time by the same person who nominated it this time -- not two separate people. Moreover, being too short and poorly written isn't grounds for deletion. It just needs some additions and cleaning up. --Crushti (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of notability provided in the article, unable to find any. Fails WP:MUSIC. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll concede that iTunes doesn't make a band notable. But it's not just a band that nobody except locals know. Red Deadeye and I have never been within maybe a thousand miles of a performance, but we both know its music. Furthermore, it's not just isolated recognition. I know tons of people here who are fans of the band. There are only two reasons why you might consider it non-notable: 1) their fan base and support stems from the internet and 2) their record producer isn't very well known. Well, in the former case, viral internet fads find themselves noted all over Wikipedia, and I feel that, in the latter case, a producer's lack of notability does not warrant a lack of notability for something. --Crushti (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You and others know them: WP:ILIKEIT. Viral internet fads are all over WP: WP:WAX. The producer's lack of notability is not a lack of notability for the band: We're looking for what is notable about the band, not what is not a lack of notability. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Stevens

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

Last time I recall, Wikipedia was not a repository for resumés. Yet that's exactly what this looks like. Not up to WP notability standards, either. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per lack of reliable sources or other clear indication of notability. Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Thoms

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

Author with one self-published book based on own thesis. Likely autobio. Speedy declined. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 13:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optivus Proton Therapy, Inc.

Optivus Proton Therapy, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable company. Article is pure marketing. Incorrect translation of Latin. Probable WP:COI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Stupidity

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

PROD removed by author without comment. This is an unsourced neologism and Wikipedia is not for first publication of something made up one day, even if the day is April 1st. JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete or maybe rewrite/redirect As it stands its mostly speculation about a possible future use for the term. Surely this violates WP:CRYSTAL. Keep if its usage as a term for the stupidity of AI systems can be expanded sufficiently, if there is insufficient to say then merge into AI article and redirect to appropriate section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment As suggested I've started a rewrite, but I don't have access to most of my journals from here. It is little more that a stub right now, but it covers more ground than the original, and there are a lot of supporting references once I get back, as well as three other areas in which the term is used in AI that I haven't touched yet (I don't want to add anything unreferenced at this point). The original article, as recommended, should have been deleted. Having looked into it more I still support my own and other's claims that the term is notable, in spite of the original article, so my feeling is still that the article should stand, subject to continued expansion and possible renomination if this doesn't work out in a couple of months. As an aside, I considered a merge, but the topic seems rather interesting and should be able to stand on its own. :) - Bilby (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it seems well written/sourced and notable to me. —ScouterSig 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOMINATION WITHDRAWN - Keep. After Bilby's rewrite, the article is now worthwhile and can clearly be a good basis for development. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Happy April the first to you as well. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

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

Non-notable local politician. Claims he was "elected president" of some micronation called the United States (whose article is currently up for deletion here). Only 8,420,000 Ghits. Man appears to be more of a comedian than a politician anyways. Fails WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There was a clear consensus that the page should be kept. The overall view was that the real-world context was sufficient. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion Hotel

The article contains in-universe information about a fictional concept. Since the first AfD, no convincing secondary sources have been added to the article, nor is there any clear real-world context. B. Wolterding (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Féliz

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

WP:COI bot identified this as possibly written by the subject herself. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and most probably WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Qworty (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand upon that? I can't find anything in WP namespace called "cool beans", and I don't see the connection to Gayelle or its AfD. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how can i expand on a joke? haven't you ever heard the expression cool beans? that's so gayelle yo. anyways, i say keep, she seems notable to me IMHONewAtThis (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete, fails to meet WP:BIO Dreadstar † 04:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Reinoza

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

Because it was created by user Reinoza, this article drew the suspicions of our WP:COI bot. Extremely minor, non-notable artist. No third-party WP:RS. Claims to have achieved notability through a "spiritual experience." You'll have to read this one to believe anybody would actually post such a thing, complete with copies of the non-notable paintings. Qworty (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:AUTO. No assertion of notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The artist is notable but the article need alot of work done on it.. The artist's statement needs to be removed and only the verifiable facts should be included since it was written by the artist himself. Callelinea (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons listed above. Also, article appears to be extensively edited by the subject. Tnxman307 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: awards and museum presence not even borderline for visual artist notability. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - from WP:BIO:
    The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. No, not without substantial manipulation of the word "peers"
    The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. No. "People have souls and it is that which I wish to paint" is hardly groundbreaking.
    The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No book, no film, and absolutely zilch on Google Books, Scholar, or Web - not the ultimate test, but very telling, especially for an artist whose artwork was entirely created in the 21st century.
    The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or significant libraries. The most significant monument seems to be this article. The most significant exhibition is the Galeria Claudia, which from what I can gather on Google seems to be a local "hole in the wall", a step down from a local suburban civic center. No significant critical attention (see previous paragraph). No permanant display beyond "CSIM-303 A Street", which doesn't seem to be mentioned as such anywhere outside this article.
Ergo, delete as failure to meet the notability critera. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep'It Looks like people do not google very well. Jorge Reinoza did not write this article. Reinoza is a project. We, Seven students from France, we are trying to let our countries in the Uropean Community to know about new American artist. We copy and paste from Reinoza.com (so, the intention of the web page was not to be in Wikepedia. We are creating www.reinoza.com has a part of our project) Us, the students, call ourselves "The dreamer team". We created Reinoza from thedreamerteam@gmail.com. It looks like the previous writers did not google "Museo de Arte Contemporaneo Alejandro Otero" in Caracas. http://www.maccsi.org/ It works directly with MOMA. We, the students, we are really learning the way that Wikepedia and all kind of searchers work. If you need our names, do not hesitate to ask for them. Thank you, and sorry for our English, at least we consider that we express better than Miss North Carolina, an artist under the previous critical points of views because Shes was exposed in National T.V."The person is regarded as an important figure: Nobody need to be important to be an artist: Look at the case of Van Gogh that did not sell any painting, and was inside an asylum. (Was Van Gogh an artist?) What about the case of Marcel Duchamp. Is Duchamp an artist?

ART lacks a satisfactory definition. It is easier to describe it as the way something is done -- "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" (Britannica Online)

Artist

noun a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

This is a definition of Art from Britannica: ART lacks a satisfactory definition. It is easier to describe it as the way something is done -- "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" (Britannica Online)

A definition of Artist from Princenton.edu: artist, creative person (a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination) People does not need to be famous to be consider an artist. Remember: << 1 Corinthians 3:13 >> New American Standard Bible (©1995) each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. King James Bible Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Thank you (The Dreamer Team) thedreamerteam@gmail.com(User talk:Reinoza) 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- Dear Myke Cuthbert" You wrote: awards and museum presence not even borderline for visual artist notability. In France we understand they are important museums and artists all around the World.We a sorry if your vision is xenophobic. Now we understand a lot of the American system. It is a big lesson. We really want this article to be deleted thedreamerteam@gmail.com(User talk:Reinoza) 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The aritcle's author has now admitted, in the article itself, that the article's purpose is "to promote new Latin American artist in Europe using public and new technologies." I ask the user to read WP:SOAP. And no, this is not an American guideline. It is an INTERNATIONAL wikipedia guideline, and applies to the French Wikipedia as well. Qworty (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikepedia is trying to push itself as a public dictionary with an amazing marketing strategy. It is normal for any student that works in the XXI century to believe that it is public, like all the comments against wonderful museums and exhibitions that the users have no idea about. For our system education (In Europe in general) ethnocentrism and stereotypes are not valid: Ethnocentrim is Viewing other peoples and cultures from the standard of one's own cultural assumptions, customs, and values. You assume that American culture and American companies are the guideline of International standards. We have a big fight with Microsoft in Europe because the same problems. We really are happy because we are learning. We do not want to hurt our professor and his reputation. The idea of Wikepedia was ours We apologize again because we are learning. We are students. When we wrote "to promote new Latin American artist in Europe", we mean, to let Europe to know the existance of new wonderful artist from this side of the world. WE are from Paris, the most important artistic city in all the world, and you cannnot deny that. We learn from our classes that everything in America is politically correct, and people has to live with misunderstandings or misinterpretations. WE had in our plans to promote 10 New American Artist. The dreamer project is a big project. After this experience, we decided to write to the media in France to let then know the way that wikepedia works and the opinion of the experts in Art from wikepedia and America. Thank you! thedreamerteam@gmail.com(User talk:Reinoza) 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Referred matter to the United Nations General Assembly for consideration. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States

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

Obviously non-notable topic. Just look how short and poorly sourced the article is. Google only returns 924,000,000 hits. Useight (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus, which defaults to keep. However, there is some confusion here. This isn't an article about a nightclub. It is an article about one particular evening's festivies that happen to happen at a club. A club Night. The Club itself, as pointed out below, doesn't have an article. Without references and other improvements, and with more clarity, I would support a renomination in 4-6 weeks. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nag Nag Nag

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

Hard to see how in the world this is notable. No notability asserted. No WP:RS presented. And what's with that photo? This should have been deleted long ago. Qworty (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 08:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1987 (number)

1987 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't know where to begin. I have no idea what criteria this would fit, but it just feels so wrong. It's not patent nonsense, but it's close. Withdrawn due to significant improvement.Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The moving idea seems the best.Aiden Fisher (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since User:PrimeHunter fixed it up it is a worthwhile article and further underlines the Interesting number paradox. Aiden Fisher (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. Mathematics articles aren't my strong suite though. If you want to get it started I'll glady help out though.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure) with strong consensus to merge left to article editors to act upon. Sole delete preference was from indef blocked sock. Skomorokh 01:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie McClung Elementary

Nellie McClung Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, sites no references for notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge/redirect to Calgary Board of Education as a quick Google search seems to indicate that this is within there jurisdiction, otherwise delete. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 08:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable schoolNewAtThis (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Calgary#Education. --jonny-mt 13:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almadina (school)

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

Non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, sites no references of notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio from [14] Pegasus «C¦T» 11:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Caribbean Players (footballer)

Eight Caribbean Players (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

More like sports commentary from a school newspaper rather than an encyclopedia article. Opinion piece, no notability established, no sources. Deprodded. Weregerbil (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No censensus to delete on WP:RS/WP:BIO discussion after 16 days. --JForget 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry George (entrepreneur)

Terry George (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is purely promotional; subject does not meet notability requirements by a long way; page maintained by the article's subject; subject has promoted himself on many other articles. Claims within article vary between the grossly inflated (his 'status') or demonstrably untrue (1st Civil Partnership in the UK) Strongly suspect articles maintained also by meat - and sock-puppets. Alchemy12 (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same editor also further self-promoted his business on Mr Gay UK article. Article now brought to WP standards by other editors. Alchemy12 (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another WP:AUTO, based on the other contributions of the creator. No reliable sources, though notability could be considered marginal considering the state of Mr Gay UK and Bent (magazine), where he is mentioned, and where the account in question has also edited. It doesn't seem like enough to warrant trying to clean up this article, however.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've referenced 9 of the claims with reliable sources (Times, BBC, Yorkshire post), including the civil partnership claim (see the article talk page for caveat). Searching for and reading the references has convinced me the article deserves to be kept as the guy is notable enough. Definitely meets the "basic criteria" at Wikipedia:Notability (people), not sure what category he would fit into for "additional criteria" though. The article is too promotional (mostly in it's phrasing and the silly external links) but that can definitely be corrected by rewording it while sticking closely to the references added. The article is mainly maintained by User_talk:Daxuk. I don't think he is the article's subject although he obviously knows him as he's a photographer and has taken the photographs of him on the page. Ha! (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a meat-puppet query on Daxuk open at this time. IMHO a couple of appearances on low-grade TV shows and a lot of self-promotion doesn't add up to being notable. Civil Partnership claims remain untrue: see article talk page. At best, they were one of dozens of 'first couples'. --Alchemy12 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1.) I've based my opinion on reading the sources and the criteria - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". He meets the criteria because of the Times and Yorkshire Post articles (2.) It would have been fairer, in my opinion, to request the meatpuppet/sockpuppet check [16] first and then nominate the article after you had been proved right. Note that being a meatpuppet (if you're correct) is a bad thing, but the article's subject needs to be assessed on the criteria in Notability (people) (3.) WP: AUTO (if you're correct) is a bad thing as well but it strongly discourages someone from creating their own article rather than forbidding it. Neutrality and verifiability are it's concerns. You have already removed one claim that was not verifiable, which is a good thing, the rest of them seem more verifiable and haven't been removed. If you believe it's not neutral, you could balance it out. Ha! (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) I read the sources, too and came to the polar opposite conclusion. Unless this very minor sort of 'personality' qualifies as Notable here these days. If so, I'll quote my own appearance in the Guardian newspaper and set up my own article! (grin) Plus, even the Civil Partnership photos suggested a press/publicity stunt (what was that giant red shoe all about?!) 2) Don't see how you arrive at a scale of fairness on that one, but you're entitled to your opinion. 3) Yes, I could balance it out but a) I wanted the wider WP community to judge it as is and b) a couple of the alleged sock/meatpuppets on related articles have just re-inserted stuff they liked a couple of times. I've better things to do than enter a pointless edit war on an article that may well bite the dust anyway. Whatever, I've simply drawn the article and the editors to the attention of the wider WP community: how it goes from here is not up to me. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Thought I'd have a stab at tweaking the article (I have a cold and nothing more thrilling to do). Reads a bit less like a promo now, hopefully, but still not notable in my books. Others may disagree. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1.) I don't believe sentences such as the one including the (grin) comment are helpful. I recommend sticking to facts. (2.) What I'm getting at (sorry, I really should have been more open and stated it) is that I think it's possible you're using one (unproven) claim to support the other. If you have proved the puppetry and then done the AfD then your allegation of puppetry wouldn't be an allegation, it would be a proven fact. (3.) I cannot assume good faith in your edits any more. See my comment on IP 81.159.211.87 below. Ha! (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't notice, I have said plainly both here and (I think) on the puppet page that this is my first time doing this. If you can't cut a newbie some slack... I'm pointing out that I believe the article to be iffy and possibly cobbled together my sockpuppets. One may support the other, but I have not made that assertion. That plus your knee-jerk reaction below kinda makes me feel free to set aside WP:AGF for you, too. Jeez! --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Can anyone vote on this? New to this. Anyway... Boils down to "has small column in low-circulation publication, been on telly a couple of times, owns a pub, not straight." If that's notable then so are half the people I have ever met. Promo piece and WP:AUTO 81.159.211.87 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that from this edit it appears that Alchemy12 and the IP address 81.159.211.87 are the same. The relevant section is "Forgive me if my replies are perhaps not swift. As I say, right now I have to jump through a few hoops to see anything updated on this site. Will have a word with some technical bods. 81.159.211.87 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC) : please note, I now have an ID as (finally) we have a stable IP address here. Alchemy12 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)" (I haven't squashed the two comments together, they were written together like that in the same paragraph). That IP has also made changes to the Terry George article just after Alchemy12 has. In my opinion there's more going on here than a simple AfD. Ha! (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are one and the same. And yes, I wrote the comment you quoted. I'm hardly hiding that, I said it outright! The battery on my notebook ran out so I switched to my Mac while hunting for the power brick. I guess I was still logged in to WP on one and not on the other, didn't notice. As I don't use the Keep Me Signed In Option (shared computers) it's highly probable. But so what? Is it the vote you don't like? I did ask if I was meant to. Is it me personally you don't like? Bad day? Anyway, all rhetorical. Think it's better to just let you get on with it. --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, sod it. I'll just delete both alerts if I can. If this is the sort of crap reasonably conscientious editors have to put up with no wonder they're so thin on the ground. --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) given lack of delete preferences apart from the nominator. Skomorokh 01:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kali's teeth bracelet

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

Non-notable, briefly produced fetish item without any verifiable reliable sources. Neitherday (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It's not the most prominent thing in the world, but its existence seems to be fairly widely known among BDSM-type enthusiasts of male chastity play, among whom it still has a few fans who construct home-made imitations of it. It's also mildly notorious among those in the know for the role it played in certain versions of an extreme female-supremacist ideology. It's unfortunate that User:Neitherday can't seem to get past the fact that the main statement from the circle of individuals responsible for the original creation and/or promotion of the device ca. 1997 which is now still publicly accessible happens to be located on Geocities... AnonMoos (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that so little about the creation of the device is available demonstrates it's lack of notability. Neitherday (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot more information available on the web about ten years ago, but the great majority of it has suffered from "link rot" and the decline and fall of the Femina Society. Maybe some of that info is still available in old Usenet postings at groups.google.com and old versions of web-pages preserved on archive.org. I don't see how such material would really make a great difference to keeping the article (since sufficient information about the extreme matriarchal ideology of the Femina Society and the role that the KTB played in that ideology is still fairly easily discoverable by simple Googling), but if you think it would make a great difference, then I'm willing to dig around for it a little... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems as if you are basing the notability of this product on the its purported importance to the "ideology" of the Femina Society. However, I question if the Femina Society itself is notable. I come up with less than 300 hits on Google for "Femina Society", and many hits of those are not referring to the fetish group at all.
There are many short lived commercial sex toys out there, they don't all deserve a page on wikipedia. Neitherday (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- I just got through telling you that most of the websites originally relating to the Femina Society have disappeared over time. Furthermore, the KTB was not a "short lived commercial sex toy". It was barely "commercial" at all, since it was a handcrafted item sold in relatively small quantities by female supremacists mainly to other female supremacists, and the ideological motive was probably at least important as the profit motive. And the original inventors or sellers of the item didn't really view it as a "sex toy" in the usual sense at all, but rather a device by which a woman could maintain and increase her rightful dominating power over a man. And it's not really "short-lived" either, since while it soon stopped being available through the original sellers, a small but steady stream of enthusiasts have continued to craft their own home made versions over the years (many of the pages turned up in this search refer to such attempts: "kali" @ tpe.com). I don't know why you always bristle when I refer to the fact (which is true) that the Kali's teeth bracelet originated from the female-supremacist ideology held by the members of the Femina Society, but this habit of yours is becoming distinctly annoying by this point. Frankly, I wish you had just left the article "Kali's teeth bracelet" completely alone, since none of your edits have been real improvements, and the article seems to have been better off before you started subjecting it to your attentions. AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OWN, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Neitherday (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a violation of Wikipedia policy to realize that not everybody can usefully contribute to every single article. Part of being a good Wikipedia editor is knowing your own limitations, and gracefully refraining from editing articles which you're realistically unlikely to improve (I certainly have my own areas that I stay away from)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ad hominem attack. The usefulness of my edits is not defined by whether or not you agree with them. This page is for discussing the proposed deletion and not your views of me. Neitherday (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction: This search ("kali" OR "KTB" @ tpe.com) should turn up all the pages on the most prominent Internet chastity belt information site which refer to the device... AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first link JeremyMcCracken provided is a site selling a similar product.
The second link JeremyMcCracken provided is probably the best link I've seen for Kali's Teeth, but only briefly mentions it. I don't believe a brief mention is enough to help establish notability.
The first link provided by AnonMoos doesn't mention Kali's Teeth at all. The connection to Kali's Teeth Bracelet must be inferred. It is likely that the creators Kali's Teeth probably took inspiration from the older devise depicted. However, that does nothing to establish the notability of the modern Kali's Teeth Bracelet or the Femina Society. Neitherday (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second link proveded by AnonMoos is a USENET post. USENET posts are not reliable sources.
There is still nothing here that demonstrates that Kali's Teeth Bracelet is anywhere near notable enough to warrant it's own article on Wikipedia. -Neitherday (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- I consider it to be much more probable that the modern KTB creators invented their device completely independently of Dr. Foote's patent of 1906 (the details of the two devices are quite different). However, it shows that the basic idea has been recurring from time to time. And you asked for more information about the Femina Society, but when I turned some up, then you didn't like the format it was in. If you want information about the Femina Society, then archived Usenet posts will be the best way to find it, since the great majority of Femina Society websites have been down for years, and I don't have too many old URLs to try at archive.org. Frankly, the combination of your adherence to narrow rigid technicalities of the letter of policies, together with your habit of making broad sweeping assertions about the subject-matter which happen to be factually wrong, is exactly what I haven't liked about your attitude towards this article from the beginning... AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I request that you keep your comments focused on this deletion discussion and not on your opinion of me. -Neitherday (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the various versions of this are widely advertised, and appear in the sort of fiction you'd expect to find them. Sources are findable, though they probably wont be from major newspapers--though one never knows these days. DGG (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptishish's Shadow Debute

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

Non encyclopedic content. Ctempleton3 (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Jane Fry

Beverly Jane Fry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:BIO as no secondary references to importance given. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) given lack of delete preferences. Skomorokh 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2B1 conference

2B1 conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unimportant conferance less than 150 people attended. It appears to have no encyclopedic importance. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2B1 conference was a significant milestone in the development of the OLPC project, which is of considerable encyclopedic value. --Iwoj (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to the proper page on the OLPC project. In and of itself, the conference doesn't seem notable, although it is certainly notable in regards to it's guiding said project. That is where this information belongs. Celarnor Talk to me 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The conference occurred in 1997 and the OLPC project did not begin to appear publicly until around 2005. From how [this article] recites a tongue-in-cheek history of 2B1 in relation to the OLPC project, I would suggest that the 2B1 article be allowed to live on and evolve its own body of text before being merged. It may hold some useful corollary content to not only the OLPC project, but other projects relating to education, technology and development. Give us a week to flesh out the article. --Iwoj (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be inaccurate to consider the 2B1 conference a predecessor to the OLPC project. The 2B1 conference informed the OLPC, but it was by no means the sole contributor to the OLPC concept, nor was the OLPC project the only notable outcome of the conference. --Iwoj (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What were some other ones, and where can we find sources verifying this information? Celarnor Talk to me 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I stand corrected. I couldn't find any other outcomes besides Nation1 and OLPC, despite the many fascinating people who were there. I've merged the text. How do with delete and redirect this page? --Iwoj (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You replace the existing page with #REDIRECT [[OLPC Project#Section you put it in]]. You might want to wait a day or two before actually doing it, however, as someone else might be able to turn something up to demonstrate the notability of the conference that we weren't able to find. Celarnor Talk to me 09:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I want to agree with you, I can't find anything I can use to relate the two. Celarnor Talk to me 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I fail at search. I'll fix it. :P Celarnor Talk to me 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Jessee

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

non notable, poorly sources, doesn't meet wp BIO NewAtThis (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I will vote however i please.68.27.12.1 (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ebendorf

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

WP:BIO criteria not met. WP:BIO states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Note Number 3 is critical in WP:BIO "Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references..." this means no matter how many reproduction of original artwork that is put in books does not count toward significance. Unless author can provide sources to the significance of this person (other than reproduction of original artwork.) I move to delete this article. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily confirmed as a major American jewelry/metalwork artist. Needs more sources, but a retrospective exhibition at the Renwick Gallery is not the same as an exhibition at any old gallery, it is recognition of historical importance among the pantheon of American artists and artisans. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If the Smithsonian Institution has cause to call him a notable artist, display his art[23], and interview him at length, plus if his artwork is widely published, then he's clearly notable. Does this article need rewriting? You bet. But reliable secondary sources are widely available [24] [25] from 1970s New York Times articles to an article in Antiques and Arts Weekly in March 2008. - Dravecky (talk!) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but only on the basis that I have actually heard of the guy! Article needs rewrite and better sources. --Alchemy12 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I admit that this is not a very good article, but I believe Robert Ebendorf is an artist whose biography is worthy of being a wikipedia article. If you google the man’s name or pick up a book about contemporary jewelry or metalsmithing you will find extensive information on the man and his artwork. I still have not finished the article, and this is the first time I have ever tried to make an article. Yesterday’s content was just a test run and is being added to today. Ginarheald (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for move

That page already exists at Robert ebendorf, move Robert ebendorf to Robert Ebendorf. – i123Pie biocontribs 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - noteable and sourceable. There's no need to delete as any material at the other instance of the article can be merged -- Whpq (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a personal exhibit at the Smithsonian American Art Museum , documented, so there's nothing more to be proven. Thats what notability consists of. And we don't delete for the absence of third party sources when the available ones are Reliable enough to show notability. Ginarheald, what is needed most is reviews of the exhibit and his work, in published sources. But Dravecky, they just have to exist, not to be readily available. And Alchemy, whether one has heard of the guy is irrelevant either way. DGG (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. Nom requires advice on AFD nomination and procedure as this is clearly a bad nom. Porterjoh (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Ezzell

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

This guy seems not to be a famous homerun homer, article is patent original research, no reliable sources, no sources, no links, no internal links, not verified NewAtThis (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First ghit verifies that he played in the major leagues *and* there's actually RS coverage minus the one military records link, they're all him. Newatthis' Drive by AFds are getting old. I think s/he may benefit from a mentor. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was the future of this essay is now. Honestly I have never seen a conglomeration of words that look so meaningful and yet so devoid of real meaning, either on-wiki or off-wiki. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Is Now

Future Is Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is a pure essay. Cites no sources in any usable way. Fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non admin close). Dustitalk to me 19:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Natochenny

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

There are no sources retaining to her notability, even if she is a voice actress. The article fails to address her Notability. In my opinion, the page is considered vanity. If you have any questions about this proposal, please let me know on my talk page. Harold26 (c) 05:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pokemon is such a major TV-series that anyone voice-acting a major role as Ash Ketchum (the series' main protagonist) is notable. She has not voice acted the role as much as Veronica Taylor, but the notability between the two is comparable. I am having locating the best sources with Google, because there are message boards and wikis, but that she actually is the voice actor is at least independently verifiable. [27] Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO [28], [29]. I just don't see much in the way of significant coverage from reliable sources. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 11:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - fails WP:BIO--Alchemy12 (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep With a bit more work & less vandals it will become a great artical Richardson j (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is a voice actress/actress, and just about every famous (or somewhat famoue) actor/actress, stage, TV or otherwise, has a page here on Wikipedia. NoseNuggets (talk) 12:25 PM US EDT Apr 1 2008
    Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents (not a vote) - You see, just because she's a voice actress/actress, does not exactly mean she deserves a page, no offense. Not to mention there are other minor-to-major errors there on her page: No sources, no citation, and she is still not exactly notable, despite voice acting since around June-August 2006. In addition, her page is targeted by vandalism because of people who hate her voice acting. What's next? A Wikipedia page on the Rangers suck chant? Harold26 (c) 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a voice actress of a main character in a very well know and notable animated television series, she pass the criteria in WP:BIO#Entertainers. Granted that the article could use sources, but much of its content is based on the credits of the works she has been involved in. The remaining information, if not sourced to credits or other reliable sources, should be removed per WP:BLP. --Farix (Talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think she's covered under the additional criteria of WP:BIO. However, voice actors are not specifically named, so she may count either as a "creative professional" or an "entertainer" - but I think either way she's covered.

    One of the additional criteria for "creative professionals" is: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Surely Pokemon, massive franchise that it is, has been the subject of many independent books, articles and reviews even only since 2006. And if being the voice actress for the main character doesn't count as a "major role in co-creation", well, then, what does?

    On the other hand, one of the additional criteria for "entertainers" is that they have: had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. She has played the main character in the Pokemon TV series since 2006, as well as two Pokemon movies. In addition, she played the main character of Alicia in Bullet Witch. These are significant roles in notable productions. (She also did the voice of the "Pokemon Trainer" in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which seems like a slightly less major role but having not played it I can't be 100% sure on that.)

    So, whichever way you swing it, I think she's notable. And, by the way, a page being the target of vandalism is absolutely no reason to delete it! Vigilancy in reverting the vandalism, yes; deletion of the article, no. Also, Sjakkalle has provided a source that shows she is the voice actress for Ash, and here's one that shows she was the voice actress for Alicia in Bullet Witch: [30] These can easily be added to the article to solve its complete-lack-of-sources problem. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnotable dub voice actress who fails WP:BIO. Completely unsourced except seemingly from her own MySpace page and IMDB. Collectonian (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Part II - Well, if Tourette's Guy is not considered notable per our guidelines here, then I guess Sarah Natochenny isn't either, no offense to anyone. Even if she is the voice actress of Ash Ketchum, she just doesn't fit the mold of our notability guidelines. It's a tough decision, but the reason why I don't think she is notable is because she only has 2,680 Google hits [31]. She fails the "Google test", and that is one of the crucial parts of my notability test. So far, 4 for and 6 against. This looks to be a close race. Harold26 (c) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the number of GHits is a critical part of your notability test, then it is a flawed test. See WP:GHITS as to why a Google test is not an indicator of notability or non-notability. The existence or non-existence of a article also does not reflect on the notability of a different subject, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'll also remind you that AFD is a discussion, not a vote. Those with stronger policy based comments will be waited more then those that are WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and your comments falls into the latter category. --Farix (Talk) 11:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KittyRainbow's excellent analysis. (The "Pokemon Trainer" in Brawl is a playable character by the way.) Also, the nominator apparently doesn't understand what "vanity" refers to, or rather referred to, within Wikipedia policy. It applied only to pages created by their subjects. --erachima talk 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments I didn't know that, erachima. Sorry about misunderstanding the vanity policies. Harold26 (c) 01:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is the voice actor for one of the most recognisable TV shows and voices the main character, there is no doubt she is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreement to Close AFD - I think we came to a good agreement about this debate. Just make sure sources are added, they're verifiable. This debate can be closed now, but make sure it doesn't get wrecked by Sarah's "haters," because they're quite common. Harold26 (c) 06:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popstarz

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

No WP:RS provided to establish notability. Only sources given are websites run by the parent company. Google search also fails to provide reliable third-party sources, just a lot of self-generated pages. Article has been edited by a user named Popstarz, who was identified as a problematic user by our WP:COI bot. This user created Tommy Moss, Trash palace, and The ghetto (club), which are all spam relating to the Popstarz company, and which are all up for AfD. Qworty (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ghetto (club)

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

This article is brought to us by the same self-promotional account that gave us the related Tommy Moss and Trash palace articles, which are also up for AfD. No WP:N asserted and no WP:RS provided. It's all spam, all the time, through and through. Qworty (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. There are a number of good policy-based arguments on all sides, but despite thorough discussion I do not see a clear consensus to delete, redirect, or merge the article. --jonny-mt 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiva Kahl

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

per whoever nominated NewAtThis (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested PROD post-deletion. Original PROD rationale was, "NN performer. 12 appearances on Letterman in five years isn't a lot, especially with very little else in the way of appearances. Most of the press coverage on her official site is trivial, and GHits are brief mentions only." SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trash palace

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

Just another bar--notability has not been established or even particularly asserted. No WP:RS. Author of the article also posted Tommy Moss, who works for the same company, Popstarz, that owns the bar. Author has the same name as the company, which made our WP:COI bot suspicious. Apparently this is one of a series of self-promotional business articles that were added on the same day [34]. Probably all of them should go. Qworty (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Moss

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

Non-notable padded resume, identified by our COI bot as a possible violation of WP:COI, due to the fact that the article's author bears the same name as the company Tommy Moss works for. There are many people named Tommy Moss who show up on Google, but none of them appears to be this one. Notability has not been established, and no WP:RS have been offered. The only references are links to websites run by the company Moss works for. Qworty (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete both per lack of reliable sources or other indication of notability noting, however, that Janmedia hasn't been tagged in connection with this AfD but for its own. Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforest Media Server

Rainforest Media Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A newly released and not yet notable software product. Wikipedia does not allow this sort of advertising, we are not a database of companies either. In this consideration I'd also like to include the parent article Janmedia for deletion, as there is not verification by reliable sources of notability. Keegantalk 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Nelson

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

Non-notable person and personal essay possibly written by the person itself. BoL (Talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Other editors may have missed the claim which if verified would pass WP:BAND: "...in her family's musical group "Those Nelson Kids" as they toured the U.S. during the summers of 1972 and 1973." If she toured nationally, no matter how long ago, she's notable. --Eastmain (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although a number of comments support merging the article, they all come with some serious caveats that do not appear to have been overcome. --jonny-mt 13:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drama Riding

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

Non notable neologism. Google hits were all related to this article. Prod removed without explanation. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article created by a very new editor. Please be patient. --Una Smith (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this article isn't badly written, but it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I suggest looking for another wiki where the editor can take their contributions. Terraxos (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is more about a behavior than a new name for that behavior. See Talk:Drama Riding. --Una Smith (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
--Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was tagged with merge before it was brought to AfD ([38]). The edit you are referring to is probably where the AfD notice was removed from the page. —BradV 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I checked diffs and Bradv15 is correct. --Una Smith (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: if the merge tag preceded the AfD tag, does the merge take precedence? Or do we continue here? --AeronM (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precedence is relatively unimportant on Wikipedia; consensus is very important. Consensus means we discuss until we all agree, with civility and without driving anyone away. --Una Smith (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a real type of riding seen a the top horse shows today. It's been a problem for many years. Even George Morris, one of the greatest horsemen, has spoken against this type of riding. with me and in writing. I even have an article about him talking about proper form over fences. It's on the January 7th 2005 issue on the Chronicle of the Horse magazine on page 8 and 9. I have pictures I have personally taken myself at a top horse show to prove this riding is dangerous and I also have pictures of what correct riding form looks like, even on a back cracking hunter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiona22 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best argument for keeping is to edit the article to meet Wikipedia criteria. Can we do that? --Una Smith (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the originator has provided refs which show that the phrase is indeed used and by whom (George Morris), so the issue would appear (to me) to be: does the article merit its own page? IMHO, i think that even if the page is fully fleshed out and perfectly referrenced, it is still more a merge item than a stand-alone item, at least at this point. --AeronM (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dittos. (OMG, I am agreeing with Aeron again! LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 03:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, are you feeling unwell?? (!) --AeronM (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suttonians Disco

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

unreferenced and unencyclopedic article on a non-notable local disco at a rugby club, not even worth merging to the article on Suttonians RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Notwithstanding that I have !voted in this discussion myself, I feel that this should be closed, as it is one of very many bad faith AfDs created by this user, who is a possible sock (see here). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie Buddy

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

Non notable topic, no reliable sources, only one link, not the subject of non trivial published secondary sources. Not verified. Does not assert notability. NewAtThis (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the mid to late 1990s, there were several magazines devoted to nothing but Beanie Babies and other Ty collectibles. Some newspapers even had a Beanie Babies column. I bet there are lots of articles about these things, although the magazines probably aren't electronically archived. Zagalejo^^^ 08:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly redirected by myself to L3 (CERN). The page's content was exactly the same as L3 (CERN), so I feel that this is a non-controversial redirect and probably didn't warrant discussion in the first place. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L3_experiment

AfDs for this article:
L3_experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is a nearly exact copy of L3 (CERN) Mjamja (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'll go ahead and create a redirect to The Vines for convenience's sake, but as I don't consider this part of the consensus feel free to change the redirect target in the future. --jonny-mt 13:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factory (Single)

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

Per WP:MUSIC, there needs to be significant coverage for albums and songs to warrant their own single in reliable independent sources. The article itself mentions that the single was strictly limited in number of copies. Also, searching doesn't reveal much coverage beyond lyrics and download sites and unofficial reviews etc.. [41] Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homo nudus cum nuda iacebat

Homo nudus cum nuda iacebat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced future album. Sceptre (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Nomination withdrawn, sole remaining delete preference rendered obsolete in light of The Heymann Standard. Skomorokh 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Proletariat

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

This was already speedied as a copyvio, that's no longer the case. Unfortunately it does not pass WP:BAND. While RS coverage is hard due to a) band's age (although they're active now and should have coverage) and b) the name, there is no evidence of it and the label doesn't appear to be major, note it's not Old Homestead but rather Homestead. Also not encyclopedic and promotional, but that could be fixed if they were notable. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn thanks to Edgarde;s work, see note below[reply]

  • Keep as sourced (could use more) and notable (I'm listening to them right now, FWIW). Came to this AFD after looking this band up. Promotional tone certainly needs fixing. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've performed some cleanup for tone and formatting, and added a source. Could use some work in the grammar/writing, but my head's not there at the moment. I hope the closing admin will consider the current state of the article. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, thanks to Edgarde's work below. I still think we need a DAB page, which I'm about to create. This will stay here because I think people searching for the working class are unlikely to use 'the' and if they do, the link atop the article will point them home. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 22:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Begoun

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

This article had an expired prod on it, with the reason: "Almost an A7 - promotional bio." Maybe it's on the adverty side but I'm not sure it should be deleted, since she is a notable personality, so I'm bringing it here for further opinions. ... discospinster talk 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waddle

Page was made again on here, but used as a different thing. This song was never a single. It is a song that was released, but it hasn't been on an album or isn't a single. Y5nthon5a (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Nominator and all other delete voters changed or withdrew their opinions after the article was improved. (non-admin closure) --erachima formerly tjstrf 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Wrote And Recorded This In Less Than Five Hours

I Wrote And Recorded This In Less Than Five Hours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

seems made up and yahoo search doesn't get anything at all. Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Really, really weak delete. Withdrawing Vote. Seems like the sources are reliable but still, it still sound hoaxy. I mean - all the names of the albums are all the same except for a number added on the end. It just passes WP:RS but it hasnt been even released yet, how do we know if it is going to be. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Zachary Jaydon

The result was delete and salt. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toddst1 (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Faulks

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

Recreated formerly deleted article (which was never tagged as such, but has perhaps been sufficiently rewritten to not qualify as CSD). Contested prod, but still NN. The content of the article and the type of detail before I cleaned it up points to COI by either Faulks or someone he knows (there are quite a few redlink contributors involved in this article, and things that no one person would know unless they were involved directly in all those events). There are no independent sources supporting his notability. Top hits: his Myspace, this article, a forum, a blog, and LinkedIn. That spread is not what I would expect of a sufficiently notable individual. MSJapan (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Carpenter

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

Musician biography that does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music), has no reliable sources, and is not written from a NPOV Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanooze

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

no references to prove vague assertion of notability cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of persons who have won Academy, Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild, and BAFTA Awards

List of persons who have won Academy, Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild, and BAFTA Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a replication of several list that already exist.Aiden Fisher (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you have to? Celarnor Talk to me 09:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not create them? The only way this is synthesis is that there aren't other versions of it. Creating them solves the problem better than deletion, as we don't lose coalition of information. Celarnor Talk to me 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that the people have won awards should be listed on the articles of those people, not within the list itself. If there are people without such references or without articles, they should be removed from it.
Apologies if my post was unclear. There is no source calling these "the Big Four". That's why this is an arbitrary combination of otherwise unrelated facts. Look at it this way: whose idea was it to list these things together? If a secondary source, then we have an encyclopaedic article. If an author, then we have WP:OR or WP:SYN, depending on whether reliable sources back up the indivudal bits of information. It's true that any bold editor could create a list of any logical combiantion of bits of information. That's no argument for keeping such articles. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Singularity 06:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline

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

This article is nothing but a image gallery of various skylines, and only has a paragraph on skylines. There isn't enough here to warrant it's own article. Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longetivity is not a reason to keep the article. It is just a four year old image gallery, and we don't need one on Wikipedia. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Violence

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

Unreferenced, Original research and commentary. The current text sounds entirely like a blog/op-ed piece. The author/creator of the page removed my prod notice, so I'm putting it up for AFD here. --Ragib (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Ragib (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural note: I have declined the speedy deletion. Neither OR nor POV nor Unreferenced are valid speedy delete criteria. AfD is the correct venue for this. - Philippe 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well guys , I authored this article , and I admit is is basewd entirely on Original Research. Well , I live in the city of Kolkata in India , and I have seen first hand what the degraded status of Muslims in that city is. Thank you and PLEASE do not delete the atricle - I'm building on it , tracing the sources etc. I'm new to Wiki.
Shantanu786 (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I have just edited my article as well. I have made some major changes which I'm sure would enable it to qualfy for Wikipedia Standards.
Shantanu786 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on your talk page. —BradV 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect three, merge one. There is enough support for merger here (which is a form of keep) to make deletion inappropriate, but strong consensus that these albums do not demonstrate notability sufficient to merit stand-alone status. The albums are all already mentioned at Vitamin Records (with which String Quartet Tribute has recently been merged). The track listings at The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Hypnotize and The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Mezmerize are redundant to the albums being tributed, and without compelling reason this information should not be merged to the parent article as it currently exists for space concerns. (See WP:MUSIC); these articles are accordingly being redirected. The body of The String Quartet Tribute to Dream Theater includes additional information which can be incorporated into the parent article and has been merged as a footnote. The track listings at Arteries Untold: The String Quartet Tribute to Hawthorne Heights and The String Quartet Tribute to Dream Theater are unique arrangements and may be appropriate for inclusion in some form or the other in the parent article; because of space concerns and precedent within the article, they have not been. The article Arteries Untold: The String Quartet Tribute to Hawthorne Heights has simply been redirected. This is easily remedied by referring to the history of the redirected articles if the contributors at Vitamin Records deem the inclusion of track lists appropriate. If unfamiliar with merging, please refer to Help:Merge for proper procedure to follow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Mezmerize

AfDs for this article:
The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Mezmerize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable album by a tribune band. The only thing they mention are redlinked names of who created the album and the track listing. The track listing is pointless because you can find that at the Mezmerize article. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Hypnotize
Arteries Untold: The String Quartet Tribute to Hawthorne Heights
The String Quartet Tribute to Dream Theater Tavix (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only thing "special" about the DT one is that it had a packaging error, according to the article. The other references refers to who picked/played the songs. May I ask how that gives notability? Tavix (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was released by a group who has released hundred of albums, was a tribute of covering 20 years of a band that is notable, contains a unique track listing that could not be found elsewhere like the Mezmerise and Hypnotize tracks can, and had a printing error. By all rules, every single album that the String Quartet Tribute has put out is notable: they have released many cds on a major record label, some of which have won awards. -Violask81976 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheFanNJ

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

A overly promotional article about a non-notable author that lacks reliable sources to back up some unlikely claims to notability. (For example, it's claimed that "Women vs. Ice cream" was nominated for an "Outstanding Achievement in Poetry" by the National Library of Poetry, yet there are only 4 ghits for the title, none of which come close to being reliable). Bfigura (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Singularity 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montachusett Regional Vocational Technical School

Montachusett Regional Vocational Technical School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about a nn trade school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Keep per improvements to the article establishing secondary coverage. —BradV 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy keep. Sorry, but the Cabal is going to have to work a lot harder to exact domination of the Wikipedian world as we know it. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human

Not notable. Humans have not been written about by anyone who is not human him- or herself, therefore there are no independent sources. Without reliable, third-party sources on Homo sapiens, this article does not meet our notability requirements. Delete. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION. 

4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1

DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL.

Believer is far more EVIL than a False God, for Google cut back my Site from 34,000,000 to 4,000,000 in 1 night for the above Statement. 1 Day1God exists only as Evil.

I thought Google was free of such evil bias, predjudice 

and shenanigans that block real truth from being known.

Once before, Google cut back my site from 89,000,000 to 34,000,000 in a single act for something I said, that/s Evil Google is ONENESS EVIL as I experienced and you can see. Evil people propose Time Cube Trim.

I call down a Demonic Curse upon the Evil Americans who ignore Earth's 4 Corner Days within a single rotation of 4 quadrant Earth. Believing in a God when there is proof that there is no God, dooms humanity to a Hell of Horror. America is 1/2 way to it's Hell. The American "Bill of Rights" - "Freedom of Speech", is BullShit. MisEducators suppress The Time Cube Principle and will not allow Students to discuss or debate it's merits and application. Also, the Academic bastards will not even allow Time Cube on their web sites. On Yahoo, Time Cube - 81,000,000 and on Google was once 89,000,000 - until 

cut back to 3,000,000 by ignorant believers.

 Ptolemy said Earth was center of Universe.

Ptolemaic System was correct, but why? Because the BINARY of the masculinity SUN and femininity EARTH revolve as the Cubic Creation center of the Universe.

ONEism is Evil Mathematics, & DEATH OF HUMANITY. All Creation Born of Opposites.

More reasons later. Sceptre (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was funny. If there is a serious point to be made here, it might be to illustrate the reason that for a feature of the article human that has brought it under some criticism on several occations: It's written as if it were a report from Dr. Phlox to the Denobulans or some such; as if it were written by an anthropologist from another planet reporting back to the central committee or something. I maintain that this is not only inevitable; it's a good thing - it's not going to be easy to maintain objectivity. Chrisrus (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2011 (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 srsly keptz. Send your rickrolls this way, I'm going non-admin on this one. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rickroll

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

Srsly guyz. Sceptre (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You don't give a reason. Celarnor Talk to me 06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try not to take April Fools' jokes too seriously. —BradV 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was actually serious, but I, as the closing admin, didn't understand that. It has now been reopened for discussion. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As weird as it sounds, not everyone on Wikipedia is media-savvy (no offense intended to the nominator) and understands just how widespread and covered this is. Celarnor Talk to me 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I do not see how this article would need to be deleted. The content is notable and verifiable. Also, you did not give out a reason for this nomination. Mythdon (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was rickrolled five times yesterday (dang, almost got to 50 Cent level...maybe next year). It's got the notability and everyone and their mother has cited it. Better this clean-cut thing than other memes involving a goat seeing, or women with a cup (links withheld to save everyone's sanity). Nate • (chatter) 09:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per extreme notability. I'm thinking we might have to Snowball this nomination.--Piemanmoo (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I'm detecting some snow in this sector. Celarnor Talk to me 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ name="Shekhavat">Shekhavat, Munish (April 6, 2007). "'Belting' his way to glory". The Times of India.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_1&oldid=202518415"