Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 28: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
{{subst:afd3|pg=Luke Morgan (defendant in landmark drunken driving case)}}
Adding David+Carleton+Boyle to list using NPWatcher
Line 105: Line 105:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Hope and Charity (UK band)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Hope and Charity (UK band)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Jessie}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Jessie}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David+Carleton+Boyle}}

Revision as of 17:09, 28 December 2007

< December 27 December 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Morgan (defendant in landmark drunken driving case)

Luke Morgan (defendant in landmark drunken driving case) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod and prod removed. Myself and another editor tried to help the author of this article in bringing it up to standards, 2 weeks later he has done nothing to improve it or provide us with info so we can improve it (see his talk page. The claim to notability in this article is that this person was the defendant in a landmark case, but that's clearly not true (it was a trial case), and the outcome isn't really that shocking: He was accused of car theft, but never intended to steal the car, so he was acquitted on that charge. Not uncommon (that's why we have the crime of joyriding). Summary: Neither the person nor the case are notable, despite the fluff piece used as a source. UsaSatsui (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Seems fairly straightforward. If this gets resistance feel free to poke at me on my talk page for a more in depth explanation.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm not an expert on Irish law, but I'd be very surprised if this is the first time that the doctrine relied on by the defence (theft requires an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property) has come up in the Irish courts. In any case, the title is misleading - the "landmark" nature of the case is due to the legal definition of theft, not drunken driving. Tevildo (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Written like a novel and unreferenced. This is not just a stub. Thinboy00 @775, i.e. 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Unreferenced & non-notable. Mh29255 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:COATRACK (biography intended to introduce the novel defense theory). Fails WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 19:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only claim to fame is involvement in an completely unremarkable court case, and the alleged "precedent" is not even mentioned in the short amount of coverage cited. I can find no additional sources. Hut 8.5 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a court case can be notable for any of a number of reasons. It may establish legal precedent, it may etablish a de facto precedent in the sense that it teaches lawyers how to acomplish their results by using certain tactics, the case or the results may be infamous in a way that is notable, etc. However, this article merely asserts that this case changed the law without explaining how. It seems to have been made by a lower court (a district court in Ireland is the court of first instance, i.e. the trial court rather than the appeals court that usually considers the larger issues). Therefore I doubt that it changed any legal principles. The comment that it changes the way drunk driving trials are held in Ireland seems to be a bit of exagerration or is perhaps based on an incomplete understanding of the law. Every case, in isolation, might be interesting in how it relates to the law and legal tactics but few are notable. This article would have to argue, and show, why the case is worth knowing about. Additionally, even if the case is notable it does not make the parties notable. If it is found notable it should be renamed and directed to an article about the case, not the defendant. Wikidemo (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia policy is that we don't pretend that an article on a specific incident is a "biography" of one particular person involved in the incident. If the court case itself is notable, write an article on the court case, and, if necessary, redirect the title to there. *** Crotalus *** 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikidemo is correct. As of now this is a biographical article about a person based on their (unwilling) participation in a legal matter. If someone wants to scratch out the legal case info and present it as a legal case, without the BLP material, then that can be considered separately. --Lquilter (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunplus Data Group

Sunplus Data Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable company. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for a mention of Sunplus Data Group in a reliable secondary sources and was unable to find anything. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Redirect. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sally hurst

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

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's been open long enough and consensus is clear.--Kubigula (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard stegmann

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

This article should be discussed among editors and decided as to whether it meets WP:Notability standards. I have mixed feelings, but am leaning towards 'delete' because of the very small amount of Internet linking to the books written by this author. Also, the publisher of Heywood Jablomi is "Signature Imprint", which is an extremely obscure publisher as near as I can tell. Also, the author's website[1] claims a total of 43 books sold, which may be a joke, hard to tell. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HERE YE! HERE YE!

in regard to the notability, in fact NOBILITY, of American Humor Writer, Leonard Stegmann, it seems worth noting his contributions in the blogosphere as well. Leonard Stegmann, is one of America's first official, "blogumnists" (term coined by me, sandra kay, ttgp, fellow writer, poet, playwright on a television program, in a word, TV30.ORG, 09/19/06 #IAW0610), writing and posting entertaining columns at leonardstegmann.blogspot.com 5 DAYS A WEEK, beginning in June 2005. His comments, to comments, setting etiquette standards for current and in-coming bloggers.

and to refer to leonard stegmann LEONARD STEGMANN! as non-encyclopedic? -oh, you obviously need only spend a few moments reading his posts! he is exactly where i turn for all my knowledge of current events, popular culture, political hindsights, and new vocabulary words! he is my encyclopedia! how else would i know how much howard stern earns per show? or that larry king wears suspenders! LEONARD STEGMANN is america's LINK to the other side. CHARLIE ROSE AND LEONARD STEGMANN, what more do you need? KNOWLEDGE AND LAUGHTER.

i credit leonard stegmann, with, quite literally, saving my life. our God blessed friendship, well documented in the over 12,000 comments at leonardstegmann.blogspot.com. it would be foolish to delete a man contributing so much to the literary world, the blogosphere and humanity in general.

DO NOT DELETE! he is a living legacy in progress. a genius of a different kind.

i know

i own 43 of his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.120.158 (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete After reading the plea about this "blogumnists", and now finding out he has a BLOG that he contributes to 5 days a week, I must say, it is suprising that the article only has 4 sentences. I found tons of blog entries and little else. Please feel free to point me toward the other references and change my mind. If he did all the things that the AC/IP pointed to above, where are the links? Pharmboy (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Article has zero value, zero sources, and zero notability. It was created by an account with 0 edits prior to its creation, and the long winded keep arguement was made by an IP with no edit history whatsoever. Furthermore, without sourcing, does anyone believe there is a book entitled "Heywood Jablomi" (come on 3rd grade joke) THe internet essays of 1840-1880 (or something like that). Seriously, without sourcing.LessThanClippers (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a crap. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some random blog + a few microscopically-tiny-press'd books = not much notable. If they are as notable as the pleas and the blog post where this AfD was hyped upon indicate, then it would be not a problem to find the sources? Meatpuppets appear to have been summoned; now please tell them to find Reliable Sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't expect many actual meatpuppets, as it appears only one[2] blogger actually reads the stegmann blog. And, judging from the style of writing, the four comments[3] to that Jan 1st stegmann blog entry seem like sockpuppets. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 (non notable web content) by me. J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otaka's scoop

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

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 (non notable group} by me. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supply-N-Demand

Supply-N-Demand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy G1 by Nlu. Tevildo (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loval Intelligence Agency

Loval Intelligence Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 12:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ny yankees playoff (by year)

Ny yankees playoff (by year) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Orphaned and obsolete with New York Yankees seasons already existing. Ksy92003(talk) 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Stormie (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson K200

Sony Ericsson K200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cellular phone. Too few substantial third-party references exist to write a meaningful article about this product. Indeed, after removing un-encyclopedic catalog information (an unreferenced "features" list), there's really nothing left. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Wikipedia is not a cell-phone catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom, fairly straightforward.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No refs presented to satisfy the notability requirement. There were some articles mentioning it when it was released, based on the manufacturer's press release, but substantial coverage is needed. Absent substantial coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources about a particular model, it makes as little sense to have an encyclopedia article about every model of phone made by Sony Ericsson as to have separate articles about every model of hammer sold by Sears Roebuck [4]. Edison (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We should not be hearing all of the cell phone deletion nominations in isolation. It is a solid, well written article about a popular phone with good sales. There is a general tendency to keep these articles, and fairly complete encyclopedic coverage of the major phone lines (that is, until people start taking pot shots at them and the articles get deleted randomly according to who happens to comment on and close the nomination). If someone has a point to make that they don't think individual cell phones should have articles they should take it up at the policy level, not trench warfare here at AfD.Wikidemo (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable by reliable sources, and per Wikidemo. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just another mobile phone. No notability of it's own. - fchd (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not aware of any "non-notable" cell phones from Sony Ericsson. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikidemo. Greswik (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 by Od_Mishehu. Tevildo (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domus Pauli

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

Reads like advertising of a church. It was tagged for speedy deletion, but deletion template removed by user. It does not meet notability criteria. NAHID 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Manor

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

Unreferenced article about a single, seemingly unnotable ride at a theme park. Mostly just a detailed description of the ride with quite a bit of stuff that reads like original research. Tagged as unreferenced since March and still unaddressed, seeming to indicate there are none available. Collectonian (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but eviscerate. Nine months without any references is WAY too long, and most of the details are, well, too detailed for Wiki anyways - Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this article reminds me of the 50K plot outlines of little-known fiction books. However, I think that there is precedence for this article (and, frankly, I think it meets notability guidelines). I anticipate WikiProject:Disney will want to keep this article, too. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:WAX. Thinboy00 @786, i.e. 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this article is deleted, the same fate should be upon almost every single Disney theme park ride article, and there are lots of them. That said, a thorough rewrite is in order. SergioGeorgini (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 11:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is more than reasonable to assume each and every Disney theme park ride should warrant an article on Wikipedia. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it needs a clean up, but just because some people think it is not notable, doesn't make it not notable. Maybe it doesn't get the same attention as The Haunted Mansion or The Pirates of the Caribbean, but it looks to be one of the most amazing rides at the park, with vast differences from Haunted Mansion. --blm07 08:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, well after reading most of the texts and headlines. Some of them are fan-created not from any source. Like almost everyone here says, it needs clean up and also to expand. But using their own knowledge, which it is good. The article is great, but it needs to be longer, the history of the attraction, and a story of Phantom Manor. I recommend taking some outside photographs from http://happy-haunts.com and putting it into the article to improve. It does not need to be deleted for obvious reasons, because of it's flowery sentences. It really needs to be retyped with true facts of the attraction. So, KEEP this article. It does not violate Disney's copyrights at all. Please don't delete. SilverWerewolf 1:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both after transwiki. Sandstein (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 13198 and Executive Order 13199

Executive Order 13198 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Transwiki to Wikisource. Corvus cornixtalk 22:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to Kultur Shock. While I have closed Kultur Shock's own AfD as keep, I do not believe that these articles stand alone, as none of them contain any content other than a tracklist and a non-free cover image. No prejudice against converting them back into stand-alone articles in the unlikely event that some reliably sourced content can be added. --Stormie (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Came To Take Your Jobs Away

We Came To Take Your Jobs Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete nn apparently self-released album from band that is either nn or just barely so (to be determined below), and three more also:

I am also nominating:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - while it is hard to determine the exact notability of the band due to so much of the coverage referenced being in non-English-language publications, there is sufficient evidence that I have to say "when in doubt, don't delete". --Stormie (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kultur Shock

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

Delete fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "considerably wide press coverage" is just a bunch of grassroots and non-substantial music sites fromthe looks of it. Just because they have done tours doesn't mean anything. A band could fund their efforts for quite a long time and still not be notable. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. While the article doesn't assert enough notability to pass WP:BAND, that page does mention that it should be treated with common sense. Perhaps the 3 international articles (if the Bulgarian & Turkish do indeed relate to them) make this band enough of an exception. alex.muller (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is about the band that is representative (one of rear) member of alternative Balkan music (WP:MUSIC#7). The band had has released two or more albums, (the next one will come in January 2008.) (WP:MUSIC#5). They also have made an international tour, and they are going on another one in march (WP:MUSIC#4). Thus article is related to the articles on few different languages. I agree that this article is not very well written, there should be more validated resources, but this doesn't mean it should be deleted, it is unfinished, not unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nveljkovic (talk • contribs) 00:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Convert the "Press" section to proper referencing. [5] demonstrates sufficient notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and the article will be moved as well. --JForget 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish slave trade

Jewish slave trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has no prior versions that are free of POV pushing. It was created by a single edit account, and it has become a coat rack. I believe that there is insufficient NPOV content to support a separate article. Any useful content can be merged into Slavery or one of it's sub-articles. If this discussion results in keeping the article, then it must be moved to an NPOV title such as Judaism and slavery. We already have Islam and Slavery, and Christianity and slavery so we should follow that convention. Jehochman Talk 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Amended 19:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You raise a good point. Atari400 16:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really have a vote one way or the other in terms of deletion. But, while I agree with Tarc's comment about how "being prone to POV edits" is not valid for deletion, I think that this should follow the convention of the other two major religions as stated by Jehochman. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to Judaism and slavery. There is the potential for an encyclopaedic article here, despite its status as a magnet for POV pushers, but the current title does not seem neutral and is potentially inflammatory. 'X and slavery' seems to be the approach used for other religions, so should be used here. Terraxos (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do note that we have Arab slave trade under a similar name, but that article is somewhat better referenced than this one, and anyway I can't think of a better name for it (Arabs and slavery seems even worse). Terraxos (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Worse, perhaps, but logically more correct. After all, it was not Arabs that were being traded, for the most part, such as the case with the African Slave Trade. Atari400 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that those are sub-articles of History of slavery. There is almost new mention of Jews in that article. I suggest merging NPOV content from the present Jewish slave trade into History of slavery. When there is enough content for more than a short section, per manual of style's summary style guidelines, we can create a sub article for Judaism and slavery, as we have for the other, larger religions. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fundamental problem is that many of these pages, at least at the time of their creation or through further edits, become not just highly POV, but actual attack pages. This particular article is not unique in that regard. Personally, I think the article should be renamed and rewritten to reflect current scholarly views of the matter(mostly debunking the notion, but in a historical context). Failing that, it probably should be deleted. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen, as too many editors wish to inject their own personal feelings into the matter. I learned that the hard way, just trying to rename another article into something more academic. Also, you seem to think I am the one who actually created this page, which I do find amusing. Atari400 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Renaming/moving the article to Judaism and slavery, might be a good option then as it should, as long as the article was cleaned up, cover the scope of both topis fairly well.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyme Minister Chris

Rhyme Minister Chris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No verified notability, no sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. JodyB talk 15:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as nonsense. Joyous! | Talk 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Beatie

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

I declined the speedy because it claims to be a notable, important person. I strongly suspect this to be a hoax but that is not a CSD justification. The sourcing is poor and does not verify notability. This, in my judgment, fails the following: WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. JodyB talk 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Speedy) Delete As far as I can see, the information in the article are false, especially the one about the mayor position. I still think it falls under CSD-G1 (patent nonsense) if not anything else - check this (from part "The Mystic Aphrodisiac Hand Gesture of Sexual Magnetism"): "The Gesture is his most powerfull move, and he uses it to attract the opposite sex with a 100% success rate. The gesture stirs within a woman what no man has ever been able to, which means he can have any girl he wants, without trouble." and I've marked it now as such. Peasantwarrior (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. There's just too much to list, but for starters, his claims of being the mayor of Harrogate conflicts with the official web page [7] Yngvarr 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Patent autobiographical nonsense. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC as per JodyB above, as well as WP:COI for good measure. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Pat Clarke

Mary Pat Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As a person whose entire notability is for serving on the Baltimore City Council, she fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria for Politicians having never served at the international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office nor recieved significant coverage other than for the routine duties / election of a city councilperson. Toddst1 (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she's the most notable city council member she may not be the est trial balloon. --Lquilter (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikee Lee. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikee

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

Not only is the page ambiguous, the said person (Mikee Lee) is not notable beyond being a housemate for Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition. Also, it uses only one's given name as the article title, not the appropriate name for it. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - it had at least 2 days to expand but failed to do so. --JForget 00:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smasher Films

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

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply started a page. It will be completed soon, and will be a complete encyclopedia of Smasher Films history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms (talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Actually, maybe merge this with Universal Studios. We are a similar company, who both put out good films, so I would be relatively happy for the merge to happen, even if we are a better company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms (talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Google search reveals only one 49 second "film" on YouTube, an alleged trailer for a movie that doesn't exist. No mention at all of this "established" film company on imdb.com.-Hal Raglan (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the film will be completed shortly, and we don't have an imdb page yet. We currently have around 20 films which are released on DVD (Debt and Dead, Live Another Day...I hope), so we are quite established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Let's see if we can get yet another "merge" vote from Smasherfilms. Prove how you are established, and I will reconsider. Telling us that something "will be completed shortly" is most certainly not grounds for a Wiki article. I need to see that your films and/or company were reviewed or covered in multiple significant, reliable third sources. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Why should the article be merged into Universal Studios? What association does the company have with Universal? Do they distribute the films? What does the "...I hope" comment mean after the films listed? Does Smasher Films actually have titles released on DVD or not? Why does a Google search show nothing at all for the two titles mentioned? Can links be provided to reliable sources that have reviewed any of the films? The simple fact is that the article, as it stands now, shows no notability, or even existence, of the subject film company. If the article can be expanded, it should be done now.- Hal Raglan (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no meaningful content. If you really want an article for this, wait for it to come out and then make an article, not a "comming soon" page. Thinboy00 @804, i.e. 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Marasmusine (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BattleTech 3065

BattleTech 3065 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about a community-hosted server running tabletop games. The community and server are not notable. SharkD (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A search finds no reliable sources, nor any other sources that indicate there's any out there we have yet to uncover. Because of the age of the server, it could be possible it had a large influence on online gaming as a whole. If an editor with more experience in the field can prove this to be likely, I'd gladly reconsider my opinion. I could not find any evidence of such influence myself. User:Krator (t c) 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Darris

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

This article quotes no sources. Google produces no references which do not arise from Wikipedia. I believe the whole thing to be a hoax. Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most of the article is bogus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.132.123 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to the Holy Rosary Academy dabpage. This was created at the same time by the same author of Holy Rosary Academy (Alaska). I've moved the infobox there, and otherwise the content is the same. Edit history is intact. –Pomte 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy rosary academy

Holy rosary academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete this because it is an exact copy of the already existing Holy Rosary Academy article! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 18:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that it notable. Strongly suggest adding some of the sources identified below to the article. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Island of the Aunts

Island of the Aunts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable book, tagged thus since March. May fail WP:BK, but it is a close call for me. It's been mentioned in reviews in the news, by quite a few different newspapers, but not much else of an impact. Montchav (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rosenkranz

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

Seemingly non-notable. Little mentions of him on news. Previously prodded by myself Montchav (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and his book was praised by Dick Cheney, who wrote a foreword for it. See here. I'll go about adding more information to the article. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' WB's 2008-2009 shows

AfDs for this article:
Kids' WB's 2008-2009 shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable information that shouldn't even need its own article Matty-chan (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 18:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living Greyhawk Gazetteer

Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game guide. No reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of D&D publications. Gavin Collins (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gavin: Would you be willing to remove your AfD here on a good faith basis to allow me 24 hours to complete edits and a merge to the Greyhawk or World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting (don't know which yet, want to see what people want first)? That way I can work on the article(s) in question and do a proper redirect. Web Warlock (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you will get a concensus to merge from RPG editors, so I decline. I doubt this article will be deleted if it gives you any comfort, even though it should be deleted or merged with a notable topic supported by reliable secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - at this point I am waiting to hear back to see what everyone else has to say. I could do this either way, but in the end I think a Merge would produce a more useful article. Web Warlock (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Web Warlock. Relevant material about this book, and various other books, would likely be better served in one article that would address them all, including all sources and such for each. As to Web Warlock's suggestions, probably one article at Greyhawk would be best including this book, and others such as World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Disagree with the merge. This is a book and has a large number of reviews associated with it. If that isn't enough real-world notability it is a large part of Living Greyhawk, and 8-year long running game with a huge number of players (not to mention websites). Hobit (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point of view. Right now I no longer have the bandwidth to look up more sources for this. I was even diving into LexisNexis just to be sure I covered all my bases. Web Warlock (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that it's probably going to be kept by a "no consensus" decision, this article will only be brought up for deletion again soon enough. Merging this article, with others that are related, will create a stronger overall article that will have lots of secondary sources. See the proposal at Talk:Living Greyhawk Gazetteer put forth by User:Webwarlock. I think that putting together all of the relevant articles into one is a much better conclusion. Frankly, even if this article is kept with a "keep" conclusion, I still expect to see it put up again for deletion in the future (despite my good faith in the process). The number of websites devoted to the Living Greyhawk campaign isn't really relevant in terms of the WP:N guidelines for notability. The preponderance/lack of "Google hits" isn't a valid measure of (non) notability by themselves. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets notability and verifiability guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Referenced, with reviews that demonstrate notability within the field, a field that wikipedia should be covering according to the first pillar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overall there appears to be a disparity regarding how sources are being evaluated between members of the RPG wikiproject and everyone else. By the standards that usually applied to articles, none of the sources provided are reliable. For example, this is a noticeboard, which doesn't wouldn't usually be considered a reliable source. Also, none of the magazines listed appear to be independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Greb

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

Possible hoax. Already prodded a couple of times. Montchav (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickerson Farms

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

seemingly non-notable restaurant/bee farm. Previously speedied by me, rejceted by admin Montchav (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus, (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Hall High School

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

Another school previously prodded, no claim of notability Montchav (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus, (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orillia Park Street Collegiate

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

Another School with unclear notability Montchav (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While in principle I agree with you, I wish you lots of luck getting any kind of consensus for that as an actual policy statement. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of the Desert School

Our Lady of the Desert School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another school AFD. No claim of notability made in article Montchav (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Alan Fox

Richard Alan Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable. Claimed he is vice-chairman of a national organisation, and is seemingly a respected doctor, but not much to back up these claims Montchav (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge & Redirect per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert "Bud" Marquis

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

The article covers the person based one event, against WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Anything useful from the article can be added to Eastern Air Lines Flight 401, but that article saw fit not to mention him, and at best all that is needed is a mention, which doesn't reach the level of requiring a merge. Prosfilaes (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect. That article should mention him. Redirects are cheap, and the survivors certainly make much of his role. --Dhartung | Talk 18:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article should mention him and more than just his name. I agree with above, merge and redirect. --Gnosbush (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Agreeing with Dhartung, after the 35th year anniversary of the crash Mr. Marquie (now 78 years old) is getting a lot of notability but I think an encyclopedic summary of his role would fit better in the context of the event. That would change in the future say if some of the awards he has received were then also given to other notables and he needed to be referenced further. But until then I still see his notability and therefore his encyclopedic relevance as specific to this event. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. The recent news coverage of this man is the reason I looked up the crash article in the first place. His role should be expounded upon in the article, but since he is notable only for one event, barring further information he shouldn't have his own article as of yet. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, then. It looks like it's close to snowing, if someone feels like closing this and redirecting it; on the other hand, there's a case that a redirect is too dramatic to do with only six hours discussion on the day after Christmas.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soor Plooms

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

I created this article, but I can't determine from the sources whether it is truly notable. Generates a considerable number of Google Scholar and Google Books results, and featured in an Oor Wullie cartoon, but I'm not convinced about notability. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like every time I create a new article, I have notability doubts, and nominate my own new articles for deletion regularly. Is this necessarily a bad thing?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. It's definitely better now. I just wasn't sure how to wire the source information available into the article, and you've done it well. My initial doubts arose considering whether the coverage is more than trivial, but it definitely is, and it's not advertising for a brand-name product in any way. Definitely notable and this AfD should be closed as keep.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Stormie (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Boulevard

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

version of article at time of AFD-nomination: This appeared as a PROD-nomination, though it had previously been deleted via AfD. No reason was provided in the PROD, but the real reason why I'm bringing this here is that the prior AfD was clearly closed on the basis of vote-counting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Stormie (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Christian School, Canberra

Trinity Christian School, Canberra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without change to article. Non-notable school, no assertion of notability, no references. Article written in promotional style. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep following the useful changes made by JERRY and after reading this [10]. I will leave this discussion going however, rather than withdrawing the nom, as others than me have suggested deletion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO, the second reason was the faux pas, the first reason was just plain inaccurate. JERRY talk contribs 04:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite a rewrite the article still lacks an assertion (let alone a demonstration) of notability; it still reads like a prospectus, so it still meets the number one criterium of Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, and comes perilously close to criterium 11 of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General_criteria. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tens of millions of high schools in the world? Are you sure your stats are correct? With the earth's estimated population at 6 billion, let's for the sake of argument make the extremely liberal and likely over-estimation of 1 billion of the earth's population being in high/secondary school (ages 14 to 17) at any given time. If high schools have an average count of 1500 pupils (mine had 3000), that would bring a rough estimation of 666,666 high/secondary schools in the world. --Oakshade (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although users are certainly free to discuss merge. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uka Uka

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

Unnotable video game character with no real-world significance. Article is almost entirely game plot regurgitation, Original research "supported" by a glut of game quotes. Tagged as such and suggested merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Tagging was labeled vandalism. On closer inspect, the list of character covers this one adequately enough, so merge is probably not needed anyway. Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable character. Plot summary is way to long, the sections that refer to character development are unsourced. All sources used are primary sources. I doubt there are any reliables 3rd party sources to sources this article. Ridernyc (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not "non-notable", never has been and never will be. He easily fulfills the criteria set-out. Plus you're insisting we delete something a simple edit would fix. CBFan (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    if it can be fixed with a simple edit stop fighting with everyone and fix it. Ridernyc (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We did that, and Collectonian blatantly deleted it. Realisticly, if you want to delete Uka Uka's article so badly, then you'd have to delete EVERYONE else's articles except Crash's and possibly Cortex's, because otherwise it promotes biasey. And don't say that, it's uncivil and not very professional. CBFan (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide a diff to backup your unfounded accusation that I deleted your attempts to provide REAL-WORLD notability. Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will, ONCE you post proof of REAL-WORLD notability for any OTHER fictional character. You're clearly being biased. CBFan (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, CBFan. Collectonian, darling, no offence but do you have some sort of pathological grudge against fictional characters who have not been heard of by every human being on the face of the planet? Saying that Uka Uka is a non-notable fictional character is preposterous, he's a major antagonist from a well-known and successful game series which has had quite a bit of merchandise. There is no original research because all the statements in the article are backed up with quotes from the game series to support them. There are references, citations and external links and all the allusions made to Uka Uka's personality are drawn from a variety of information provided by the games themselves and the production notes. None of this is original research at all. Furthermore the references to the plot all describe Uka Uka's role in the games and his effect on the storyline. It also contains a short section on his character's creation and a long and very interesting section on his personality. If you're going to delete the article on Uka Uka you might as well delete Ganon as well. Not that that would be such a bad thing. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted that CBFan has canvassed other users to "save" this article, including: User talk:Freqrexy, User talk:Illustrious One‎, and User talk:Cat's Tuxedo‎. Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that I never did anything of the sort, and that Collectonian is telling lies about me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBFan (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He most certainly is not. You are canvassing, which is inappropriate. In addition removing others' comments is extremely inappropriate. I suggest you desist. I (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are beating a dead horse, because we've already made a compromise. CBFan (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. As the nominator, I still stand by this AfD, and I stand by my ANI report of your behavior in this whole affair. My recent edits on the remaining articles is simply finishing the plan I had started before this mess started, per your implication that you would not block it, and an attempt to do what was unable to be done here. Collectonian (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And, as I told you, I am no longer interested in continuing this silly affair now that we've made a compromise. I'm now for merging, not keeping. CBFan (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Collectonian (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any secondary sources that establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). If this character has real-world notability, could you please provide evidence of such? The article needs more out-of-universe information—it currently has only two paragraphs of real-world content at a glance, and even this is filled with unsourced speculation ("It is thereby possible that Uka Uka's (and Aku Aku's) voice is computer-generated") and generic text that fluffs up the paragraph, such as "a number of different concept designs were conceived...before the final design was decided on", which could be said about any video game character, really. Problems like this are typically associated with non-notable characters, which I suspect this might be. Pagrashtak 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have yet to provide proof, not only as to why you want only Uka Uka deleted, but also as to why you don't want every fictional character who has an article deleted. Uka Uka is a video game character. He is not a real character. He exists in a video game universe. You have a very poor argument on your behalf, which, as far as I can make out, is "He is a video game character so he can't have an article". And, as I've said before, and as many Crash fans will agree with, Uka Uka has appeared in 10 games, 4 of which were canon, so he is easily notable. CBFan (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, did I ever say I want the article deleted? Please don't put words in my mouth, it's incredibly rude. Secondly, the burden of proof lies in the other direction—it falls upon the supporters of the article to prove notability. All I did was ask for someone to provide evidence of notability, as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), but I have yet to see it. That the character has been in 10 games does not show notability, as the games are not secondary sources. Pagrashtak 20:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a simple case of mistaken identity, there's no need to flip. Besides, we've reached a workable agreement. CBFan (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the above reasons. Pagrashtak 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Compromise already sussed out between myself and Collectionian, there is no longer any need for this as far as I'm concerned. CBFan
  • For God's sake, what are you nutters on? This is a brilliant article about a notable character from a notable computer game and you've got it in for him. If you're going to delete the Uka Uka article you're going to have to delete the Crash article, the Cortex article, the Coco article and all those other Crash Bandicoot articles. It would be the most ridiculous genodice since all the Fictional villains categories were deleted. --Illustrious One (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why we're merging them. Not Crash's article...his is staying. And before anyon says anything, I didn't even tell him anything concerning that one. CBFan (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But I think most people would agree that this article doesn't deserve to be merged. Uka Uka warrents an article of his own. --Illustrious One (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought it was already compromised several weeks ago that only various notable characters would end up getting articles. With Uka Uka appearing in four canon games and 6 spin-offs, that warrants more than enough information to build an article based on him when matched up to other characters. But if a merge has to happen, then that means another line would have to be drawn concerning which Crash characters would have their own articles and which would not. Freqrexy (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd agree with the Illustrious One that this boarders on a personal attack. I agree that some of those arguing for keep aren't on the best of behavior, but grouping all "defenders" as "five-year-olds" is a rather broad brush. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support Marasmusine's solution, if not past experience showed me that it is usually just a small plot summary that is merged, while all the nice out-of-universe information is left out or put together in a "out of universe information" section at the top of the list article. The theory behind merges is that sometimes information is better presented in a large article (note my mergism userbox). I don't think that is the case here: the information on Uka Uka (which we all agree has some place in Wikipedia) is better presented in its own article. User:Krator (t c) 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection I agree. --Illustrious One (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a major character in a major series. Further the article is really quite strong, I'd hate to see it go. Any merge involves a LOT of material. Also, as a bit of trivia, 14,500 ghits on an English-only search... Hobit (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't address the concerns of the nominator—namely the lack of real-world notability and over-reliance on plot repetition. Pagrashtak 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, a major character from a major series is notable. On the plot, I'm not too worried, WP:PLOT's major task is insuring that we don't end up with Readers Digest summaries here (see WP:PLOT talk page). I don't think this is that or anything close to it. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not inherited. It is not sufficient to say "major character from a major series". You must show why this particular character is notable in the real world—not within the game series—and back it up with reliable secondary sources. If the character is indeed notable, this should be an easy task. Pagrashtak 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. If the base article is too long, spilling out makes sense. It's the base article that matters for notability, the rest is just organization. WP:NOTPAPER
    WP:NOTPAPER is not a catch-all to add fancruft. There's a CB wiki on Wikia which would be a thousand times better to develop this articl on than WP is. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see latest draft of WP:FICT (in talk). General view is that spilling out can make sense if it helps the article. While not binding (hey, WP:FICT isn't either) it shows the direction of consensus. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be added in the series game characters article, not have a article of its own. Ihsbislns (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Ihsbislns[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget. 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ok, when I searched, the news coverage mostly referred to a notable sailing boat. From your searches, there does appear to be significant news coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close and keep. The nominator has been blocked for disruption and after reviewing all his edits it is clear that this AfD proposal is part of that disruption. Bduke (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Bristol Spelæological Society

University of Bristol Spelæological Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not worthy of it's own article/waste of bandwidth Sab Cav (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warlock (Charmed)

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

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Redirect to the LoE per WP:EPISODE. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an episode of Charmed. WP:EPISODE isn't relevant here. Jay32183 (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, I completely read this wrong or something, guess I was a little too tired at the time I looked at this or something. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This worries me. As writing sytles/guidelines change will all articles that lose the interest of people be deleted/merged down to the bone. If something _was_ notable, it is still notable per WP:N#TEMP. This is a back-door way making notability temporary and makes for a horrible precedent. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is, was it ever notable? I never watched the show and can't tell, and the article makes no claim of being so, having not a single secondary source. And the more time has passed since the show's cancelation, the less likely it becomes that someone establishes notability or that someone can properly judge real-world notability. What's happening/should happen is to cut down on the Plot and Original Research to give the article/topic a better real-world/in-universe balance as outlined in WP:WAF. Leaving the page history intact (by merging or redirecting) also enables editors to retrieve plot information when they wish to improve/expand this topic in an encyclopedic manner later (if they wish to do so). – sgeureka t•c 14:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Trim&) Merge with Magical beings in Charmed per sgeureka . Regarding the "does this make notability temporary": If it can't survive in time, this may just show we were wrong to ever think it was notable, and this is most likely the case here. Greswik (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the real-world notability of this character. The article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and its in universe style fails WP:WAF. This article needs to be deleted and transwikied to an appropriate fansite. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect (or merge for consensus) to the page Magical beings in Charmed per sgeureka echoing the points made above. Lots of Charmedcruft that needs to be cleaned up. Eusebeus (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging may not solve the problem, since no reliable secondary sources have been provided for Magical beings in Charmed. Moving all the in-universe information to one place does not the fact that there is no real world context provided for the topic. Jay32183 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could do it. I have a stack of books here on metaphysics, witchcraft and the like and quite a few of them mention Charmed and how it's mythology relates to real-world myths, the work of Margaret Murray and so on...I can easily provide 6-8 independent third party resources, some of them academic papers (cultural anthropology is an academic discipline after all as is media studies). I am curious to see where this merger is going first. BTW the earliest I can provide these would be Monday. Web Warlock (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • see the last few references for the Book of Shadows (Charmed), I added those and most of them are also valid for this article (most pagans have an issue, one way or the other with the term 'warlock') I also have a couple others besides those. Web Warlock (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here are the sources I will be adding. They deal with this very topic in varing detail. Buckland for example was very amused that a warlock character was named after him.
Buckland, Raymond (2002). The Witch Book. Canton, MI: Visible Ink Press. ISBN 1578591147.
Illes, Judika (2005). The Element Encyclopedia of Witch Craft. Hammersmith, London: HarperElement. ISBN 000719293.
Genge, Ngaire (2000). The Book of Shadows : The Unofficial Charmed Companion. New York: Three Rivers Press – Random House. ISBN 0609806521.
Morrison, Dorothy (2001). The Craft: A Witch’s Book of Shadows. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications. ISBN 1567184464.
Aoli, Peg (2005), "Enchanté...Not", in Cruise, Jennifer, Totally Charmed: Demons, Whitelighters and the Power of Three (1st ed.), Benbella Books, November 1, 2005, pp. 240, ISBN 1932100601 Web Warlock (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Result was transwiki & redirect. Already done, so this is a procedural non-admin close. <eleland/talkedits> 19:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basted egg

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

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 yeah, what they said. —Random832 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPT Scam List

GPT Scam List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. I can't really see this becoming encyclopedic. RichardΩ612 13:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 standards of notability per WP:MUSIC. --Stormie (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Flame

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

I declined a speedy delete request because of some assertion of notability. However I will leave it to the wider community to decide if this band is notable. Their label has an article but it is not a label in the usual corporate sense of the word. A former member is with a band but it is borderline as well. JodyB talk 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you and that is why I brought it here. But I could not delete the article under CSD because I thought it failed WP:N. The article does seem to assert notability and that makes it ineligible for speedy delete. Sounds like a lot of process but there is good reasoning behind doing it this way. -JodyB talk 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know, I understand your motives - I was merely indicating that my opinion hasn't changed, that's all. There is some assertion of notability, so yes, the community should take a lengthy look. Wisdom89 (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine, sorry I misunderstood. - JodyB talk 15:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of this page, I am very happy that it is no longer considered for speedy deletion. Thank you all for opening a discussion. However, I must argue that the article is necessary, if not because their music is available world-wide and that they have a large fan base, then because the former member is now a part of a band that is deemed "notible" by Wikipedia standards. This former member is also now part of another band called Gorgeous Frankenstein with Doyle von Frankenstein and tours with Danzig. I was reluctant to play the "seven degrees of separation" game in my article, but perhaps it is necessary? Sincere thanks... Collectivehunch (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand your point Thinboy00, however, the guidelines for notability for a band clearly states that a band is notable if it "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Andrew Winter (A.K.A Jesco Devilanse) became a part of the group Blitzkid (notable on Wikipedia), and then later joined in a new band with Doyle Wolfgang von Frankenstein, a former member of The Misfits. Collectivehunch (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never claimed that Andrew "Stripes" Winter (A.K.A. Jesco Devilanse) was a member of the Misfits, however he is now in a band with one of the most famous people of the Misfits, Doyle Wolfgang von Frankenstein. The name of the band that they are both currently in is Gorgeous Frankenstein. You can check the article here, or the official MySpace here. Collectivehunch (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for misreading the text of the article. However, the assertion of notability here is that someone from this band went on to another band, Blitzkid, (which is only barely notable enough for an article), and is now in Gorgeous Frankenstein, which seems to be notable only for the fact that it contains a former member of an even bigger band (and for which there is no article). As someone who works on band articles, I would never bother to write an article on someone as non-notable as this. I still give it a Weak Delete. Sorry. I suggest copying the text to re-add the article if they do anything more notable (like get signed), in case it's deleted. -Freekee (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Custom writing service

Custom writing service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vaguely promotional tone, but more importantly this is already covered in Ghostwriter and Essay mill. Lankiveil (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information Generation 3

Information Generation 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Essay of original research, neologism Dougie WII (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was non-admin keep per consensus. SorryGuy  Talk  08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paizeis?

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

An album that didn't perform well. There are no sources supplied. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy closed. the wub "?!" 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevena Tsovena

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

This article describes about Nevena Tsoneva, hence the title of the article is typo. There are much more description on the article Nevena Tsoneva, so it seems to be better to delete this rather than merge this to Nevena Tsoneva. --Peccafly (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XCritic

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

Disputed speedy deletion (see Talk:XCritic for a discussion). This article was created by the subject. It has sources but fails to assert notability. Talk page discussion from author admits that the website is just starting out. Article reads like an advert and there's a clear CoI in it being authored by the subject. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails to assert why this is notable. Overly fine level of detail such as what the sites first review was (IMO unencylopedic). If most of the unencylopedic information was removed, there would not be much of an article left. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revised based on your feedback, eliminated first review striped down to encyclopedic infomationGkleinman (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references you have added are a.) not reliable sources or b.) do not assert the significance of this site. You references to Janes guide appear to be one of the only statements that assert the signficance of this site, which however appears to be related to the site in itself making it unrelaible. I still believe this needs to be deleted. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Author is a newbie, so first iteration may have come off more like and ad than an article. The desire is there to make this article compliant with wiki guidelines. Rather than delete the article I'm asking for some help on bringing it into spec. I'm also committed to working on the article further as well as ensuring other authors who have information or sources related to the article contribute so that it IS more balanced. So rather than delete it, can you please have some patience with me as I work this article? Thanks Gkleinman (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Author is not a newbie when his first edit was back in 2005 (admittedly with a huge gap until the start of the month). --Blowdart | talk 12:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't recall when I registered but I am still learning. Rather than delete, please work with me to get an entry for this notable site so it is compliant Gkleinman (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please re-evaluate based on revisionGkleinman (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revised, please re-evaluateGkleinman (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
does a site which reviews adult material automatically get deleted? we're working to help advise people on adult entertainment and want to connect that in a scholarly way to wikipedia. Again I ask for assistance here.Gkleinman (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep being pointed to WP:NOTE and keep using excuses why you should stay rather than attempt to address the issue of notability. Instead you've waved WP:BITE and now you're wondering if it is because your site is about porn. Again, no. Your site is new and you have made no attempt to prove notability. So, again, please read WP:NOTE and address those issues rather than attempting to duck and dive and claim persecution. --Blowdart | talk 13:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i thought I had addressed notability with 3 independent sources - Investor's Business Daily, AVN and XBIZ. I will work to add more, but I was referring to the note that was added re: list of deletions I don't mean to wave WP:BITE at everything, I am really working here to bring things to spec. But I am asking for some patience and some help. Gkleinman (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those make for notability, they're reprinted PR puff pieces or links to the fact you ran a competition. The only thing that's even close is the Investor's Business Daily and that doesn't reference the web site other than pointing out the person they quoted was employed by you. --Blowdart | talk 13:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I revised it with the sources more appropriately placed. They may seem like puff pieces, but in the adult industry AVN and XBiz are considered definitive sources.Gkleinman (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The pornographic nature of the site is not an issue. Insufficient objective evidence of notability is. Normally, notability is proven by continued interest over time by reliable sources. Failing that, recognition by RS of durable achievement or importance will do. Editor conflict of interest here hurts as well since a neutral point of view is needed and we don't have enough to do a NPOV rewrite. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reads as an advertisement, also fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTE per above. Wisdom89 (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The sources are just barely adequate, and more can probably be found. "Continued notability over time" is not the criterion. Notability is the criterion. A new site can be notable, if it attracts enough attention. "Durable" achievement is not the standard. Achievement is the standard, and we go not by what we think achievement, but by whether there are sources. (The exception, of course, is for transient news events under NOT NES, but this does not apply to other sorts of articles.) COI is not reason for deletion, just for looking carefully. "We don't have time to a NPOV rewrite" is the wrong approach entirely--we always prefer to improve articles, rather than delete them. It has taken years to get a NPOV approach on many articles. If it is desired to change the fundamental nature of WP:N, the Village Pump is the place. DGG (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is in my opinion abusive to nominate articles initially lacking sources for notability immediately after they have been written, rather than simply ask for additional sources. Newbie or not. All editors deserve time to develop an article. DGG (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use disruptive words like "abusive" about established editors when they are acting in good faith. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the sources are pretty marginal; they're either basically press releases or they are passing mentions of the site. If the site were to go down tomorrow, these sources would not be enough to justify the notability of a continued article. That said, it's a very new site, and if it keeps going at this rate, the sources will become enough soon, and we'd just have to recreate the article in a few months. But that's somewhat crystal ball gazing (prediction is very difficult, especially about the future) so I won't kick and scream too much if the decision is to delete for now. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Added a third party review of the content "Jane's Guide" this should satisfy the notability issue "Jane has been quoted as an "expert in the field" in articles by the following publications: Wired.com, The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Orange County Weekly, The Boston Globe, U.S. News and World Report, The SF Gate, AVN Online, MSNBC, WNYC (National Public Radio affiliate) and many others." notability of Jane's Guide as Definitive source in field.Gkleinman (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Err yea except the janes review is of the site you spun off from, not XCritic itself, so to my eyes it's not applicable. --Blowdart | talk 13:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which are one in the same. Also Jane's is going to do an updated review, but that takes time. Again more time here will resolve about 90% of the issues. Gkleinman (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment if they were one and the same then you don't need two seperate articles, xcritic could be merged into DVDTalk. Time is not an issue, you're free to recreate with better citations and proof of notability should the delete happen. --Blowdart | talk 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment actually you make an excellent case here for why the article needs to exist. The spin off is NOT one in the same with DVD Talk it's actually now owned by a different company and that fact is important to be out there (the wiki is the only place where that story is spelled out). Also the updated Jane's Guide review of XCritic is forthcoming. So a delete is unnecessary. Gkleinman (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentSo make up your mind; either site is the same as you said above and thus the Jane's review is applicable, or it's different as you have just said and the Jane's review is not. Forthcoming counts for nothing BTW. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Blowdart | talk 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think you need to recuse yourself from this Blowdart it's clear you have an issue with me as an editor Noticeboard#Gkleinman_edits, ive tried to call a WP:Truce but you skoffed at it User talk:Blowdart. It's important to note that the ENTIRE deletion path was initiated by you. If you continue to make this personal I'm going to call for WP:MediationGkleinman (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the "deletion path" was initiated by me, not by Blowdart, and your edits were brought into the spotlight by you yourself, when you started complaining to the admin noticeboard that you weren't be left to get on with your self-aggrandizement. The "truce" you've tried to call is actually that this AfD and being called about your self-promotion on your self-penned biographic article should stop (nothing about what you would do in return; just that you should be allowed to get on with it). I for one support the idea of mediation: it's a useful step on an inevitable path that will see us parting company. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the original db-spam tag which caused the first attempt at the page to be deleted wasn't mine either; I had used db-web. I also find it interesting that for someone who claims to be new you're very well versed in the wikipedia mediation and complaints procedures. --Blowdart | talk 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well given dealing with someone who is being unreasonable I've had to learn quite quickly about the process here. Gkleinman (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify who is being unreasonable in your eyes. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 23:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously i feel the AfD unreasonable, I raised the issue about Blowdart on the admin page as if you look at his talk page he does get a number of complaints about his speedy delete tages. I'm more than happy to have the discourse here especially CONSTRUCTIVE comments that I've actually taken and updated the piece with. I think the core issue to me is that looking at WP i see pages that have far less creditable sources and yet it seems there's little that will sway some of the editors here. If you break down the issues, I feel we've met WP:NOT by siting key sources from the adult industry plus a quote from Investors Business daily. The issue of WP:COI is inherent to the fact that I as editor of XCritic created the page. But again this page is far from the only page on WP that has this issue, and its one which will be resolved as others contribute to the page.

Ultimately I think I've put forth an extremely solid case for Keep and spent the time here as a newbie to learn how things work and what is needed. If you compare the first iteration of the page with what's there now you'll see a lot of work has been done to make it conform to WP standards.Gkleinman (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


One thing i think would be helpful is to have more time. The entry was JUST created. The possible issue with WP:COI will be resolved, but it's not something that can be done under the gun. I propose that there be a stay of execution here for 1 month and then if it doesnt pass muster revisit the deletion argument. Sound fair?Gkleinman (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Delete. The reliable sources currently in the article aren't strong enough to convince me it should be kept. I'd switch my vote to Keep if the article could be rewritten before the end of this debate so there is no remaining content referenced to a non-reliable source. WP:COI is not by itself a reason for deletion, but it's a reason to be very cautious in the AfD. I can imagine the survival of a very factual, very small article, but I don't imagine the creator of the article agreeing to that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Updated my vote to a full Delete after looking more carefully at the sources. There is no information in the current article that I can see as derived from a reliable source.
  • A guy from XCritic was quoted in Investors Business Daily, but only to ask him a question about HDTV formats in the adult entertainment business. In other words, the content of that interview is not a source of any usable information about XCritic itself.
  • Even if we stretch our definitions to include Jane's Guide as a reliable source, we find
(a) Jane's offers a review of DVD Talk, not XCritic, the subject of this article.
(b) Jane's review has only nine sentences, of which none seem to be relied on for any of the text of the current article.
(c) Jane's review can't be construed as high praise: There are good and bad reviews on the site, so they don't appear to just be running ads. That doesn't set the bar very high.
  • AVN's commentary on XCritic offers such hard-hitting language as the following: "We're excited to have two of the hottest up and coming new contract stars contributing to XCritic.com," said XCritic editor Chris Thorne. "We can't wait to see what's next." What's next could be a Wikipedia article, if there were any sources we could trust that did any serious evaluations. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see X-Critic being the subject of only one independent article. Everything else was either a press release or the mention of the website is ancillary. I feel it flunks WP:WEB, and there's the issue of WP:COI in considering the arguments for notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well referenced enough to pass significant coverage, albeit barely. The three year span of coverage in the references invalidates flash in the pan claim, which shouldn't have been applicable in the first place.Horrorshowj (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, considering XCritic started in October 2007, I don't think there actually was a 3-year span of coverage. Coverage about DVDTalk is only relevant towards considering DVDTalk's notability, not XCritic. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah but Xcritic is effectively a spin off from DVD Talk, and as part of DVD Talk as an individual section it was/is very notableGkleinman (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Xcritics's notability must stand on its own in order to have an article on wikipedia. It should not derive its notability from DVDTalk's notability. You are always free to include information about XCritic in the DVDTalk article.Vinh1313 (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't merge with DVD Talk as the site is specifically now NOT associated with DVD Talk anymore.Gkleinman (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So why do you keep insisting that a review that's now over 4 years old, referring to DVD Talk (and doesn't even mark it as notable) is applicable to your new site? --Blowdart | talk 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because this site is a spin off from the other one and the review goes directly to the content which is spun off. Gkleinman (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not inherited just because its a daughter organization/company of another site. As mentioned, it must stand on its OWN for an article to be written. It cannot feed off the notability of something else. Wisdom89 (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that AVN and XBiz, the two leading adult trade publications have covered XCritic should be more than enough to satisfy notable. Additionally the site has been referenced in a few adult film credits including a major release [13] but how do you cite a film reference? Again I think we've satisfied notability and will continue to add citations as they appear. I know WP isn't a crystal ball but I feel we've shown enough for a recently launched site to satisfy notability. Gkleinman (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was USERFY. JIP | Talk 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpraj

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

Does not seem notable/important enough to have a wikipedia article. Delete. Peasantwarrior (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt it is a common South Asian first name. Google search only returns 453 (first number it gives is 5,210) unique results [14]while Sarah returns 149,000,000 a lot more (first number Google gives is 171,000,000, but the final result is probably much less) results.Peasantwarrior (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Leave, As different people may have different opinion so I assume that I am not challenging any particular opinion. I ask for an apology if so. This name is a good nominee to be included in wikipedia. If it seems that this is not so common name then the common word can be deleted from so that it is not claimed as it says. If my opinion can be considered then I would like to bring this in your kind notice that I have seen lots op people with this name including some of the famous people. Infact there are 2 more persons in my company who share this name. Rest is up to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushpraj (talk • contribs) 13:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless this can be turned into a disambiguation page. Articles on names, unless encyclopedic or disambiguation pages, don't belong here. utcursch | talk 11:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for User:Pushpraj. Needs reliable references, which surely exist (a book on names?). Please contibute using reliable sources, not from personal knowledge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch

AfDs for this article:
    Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The creator of this article has recently created articles that are variations of one Chabad type. So far at least three others have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossi Lazaroff, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of Brazos Valley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. This article is about a fund-raising organization of the Chabad Hasidic movement of which there are thousands similar ones in the world. Wikipedia is not Chabad.org meaning that it is not here to further the publicity and propagandistic aims of the movement. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated {{Chabad sidebar}} template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. IZAK (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Keep I feel that this deletion attempt is a bit hasty, this subject should be expanded on as it encompasses the entire Chabad movement in Texas. If anything, more needs to be written about this, more articles should be created as well. At present the article is underdeveloped, but that is no reason for deletion. Culturalrevival (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chabad of Brazos Valley

    Chabad of Brazos Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The creator of this article has recently created articles that are variations of one Chabad type. So far at least three others have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossi Lazaroff; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. This article is about a synagogue of the Chabad Hasidic movement of which there are thousands similar ones in the world. Wikipedia is not Chabad.org meaning that it is not here to further the publicity and propagandistic aims of the movement. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated {{Chabad sidebar}} template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. IZAK (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not merge the few crumbs of info that exist in all these articles into your A+++ grade article on History of the Jews in Texas? Lobojo (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete References do not show Notability. Springnuts (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. References establish existance but not notability, and wikipedia is not a directory. Karanacs (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Apparently this group exists. Not much more can be said about it, and there seems little likelihood that much more will ever be said about it. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete or merge into Texas A&M University#Student life The organization has the core notability requirement of multiple independent sources which cover the organization in detail, so an inclusionist argument could be made for a keep. However, it doesn't seem to meet any of the standard criteria of WP:ORG, and the sources don't demonstrate anything that makes the organization especially remarkable. The articles seem of a run-of-the-mill sort analogous to wedding and obituary announcements, which ordinarily don't support a notability claim. They all describe very ordinary, common activities like the organization opening its doors, a Friday night dinner, an education program, and other very standard things that this type of organization typically does. They tend to indicate that this organization is similar to hundreds of other Chabad centers, and indeed tens of thousands of religious organizations catoring to university students, throughout the United States. They don't suggest any special basis for notability. However, the organization could certainly be mentioned as part of Texas A&M University student life. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of sites running the LiveJournal engine

    List of sites running the LiveJournal engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. This list is an indiscriminate collection of websites which apparently have one thing in common: they run a particular software, the pertinence of which fact escapes me. The list is also subject to a lame edit war about whether a particular website should be included or not; see WP:ANI#List of sites running the LiveJournal engine, Talk:List of sites running the LiveJournal engine. Sandstein (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete In my opinion, lists like this are better handled as categories to which items notable enough to warrant their own articles can be added. GreatestJournal and DeadJournal both appear notable enough to have their own articles. I'm not sure if any of the others are. Neitherday (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but trim. The two news stories already cited provide the reliable secondary sources needed for most of the list, and the active populations of these sites range from the size of a small town to the size of a small country. Remove anything that has no secondary sources. Note that this article was, until very recently, a section in LiveJournal; it would also be acceptable to me to merge it back into that article, but I think it should not be deleted altogether. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. One of the reasons for me proposing the move was the section gave Undue weight to other communities and issues other than the LJ virtual community. It is hard for the LiveJournal article to be complete and balanced because it is a service, software, and a company ... maybe the issue is which takes priority. --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • True. Which is why I'm happier with keeping the list as a separate article than merged back in. But it is highly relevant for the LiveJournal article that some LiveJournal users have migrated to other hosts with similar software, as the News.com article indicates, so this "List of..." article is convenient as something that can be linked to from the main LiveJournal article in that context. In the context of WP:UNDUE, I think it would give rise to similarly unbalanced coverage of LiveJournal if we were to remove any mention of these alternative sites and the user migrations to them from the LiveJournal article, as I think would be likely to happen if this list is deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: To me, it sounds like we should have a separate article for each function (service, software, company), then. Should we split the LiveJournal article into three parts? If so, this page can then be easily merged into the LiveJournal (software) page. Admiral Memo (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This list appears to be a coatrack existing as a proxy for standalone articles on a series of websites that can't meet the standards of WP:V by themselves. If kept, it should be pruned back to a list of websites (as opposed to a series of promotional blurbs about said sites). I generally don't like to advocate deletion for sub-articles that are forked off from larger ones for reason of length, but I don't think this material should've ever been a part of LiveJournal in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A mere mention is documentation, not undue weight. The weight of the list itself is evidence of the LJ blogging engine being notable independently of the LiveJournal website. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    True. However, the content in question is not a mere mention of sites but is a fairly detailed list of other sites running the LiveJournal engine and why/why not they are better/worse than the original LiveJournal engine. So the list should stay because that is what it is, a list (but then Sandstein notes Wikipedia is not a directory). OR it should go and the sites on that are votable enough could have their own article while LJ merely states the presence of other sites. --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 02:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mäkmélíâ/Makmelida

    AfDs for this article:
      {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M%C3%A4km%C3%A9l%C3%AD%C3%A2/Makmelida}}
    Mäkmélíâ/Makmelida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Looks like something that was made up one day. May be eligible for speedy deletion since The author acknowledges that "There are no Sources that even mention Mäkmélíâ as a language."[19] -- Shunpiker (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cordectomy

    This defintion has been moved to wiktionary.

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

    Tonytypoon (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pigman☿ 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    International Soulville Records

    International Soulville Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable record label. Only ever released one single. Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Stormie (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Viral records

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

    Non-notable record label with zero incoming links and spam. Lugnuts (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mickey McFinnigan redirected to "Peter's Two Dads" - character only appeared there, no real content in character article not in episode article.

    Bertram (Family Guy) redirected to List of characters from Family Guy - I have added references there to the two episodes in which he appeared, no real content in character article not in those episode articles.

    Thelma Griffin redirected to List of characters from Family Guy - I have merged in a small amount of descriptive content.

    --Stormie (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mickey McFinnigan

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

    Three NN characters with no real-world significance and have only been in a few episodes and can easily covered at the List of characters from Family Guy. Scorpion0422 07:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also NN characters:

    Bertram (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Thelma Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilanatalk(recall) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Patronus Charm

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

    This article is written in an almost completely in-universe style, and, so far as I can see, it does not warrant an article and should be integrated into Spells in Harry Potter. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World by Fionna Boyle - Page 178
    2. Looking for God In Harry Potter by John Granger - Page 141
    3. Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter by Galadriel Waters - Page 181

    Also, the style in which an article is written is not a valid reason to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • SIZE is just a guideline. We have hundreds of lists that size and more; if you wish I can find you examples. No, that would just be doing something for the sake of it. Common sense should always be applied, and fracturing a topic because the full content is very large so far as the amount of text it takes to convey the full information makes no sense. Creating articles on subjects that do not merit articles is an extremely poor way of fixing a problem in any instance. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment the references present are either from fansites (not reliable), the author (not independent of the topic) or do not mention the topic in question at all (only related through synthesis). [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
    Comment And what about the references Colonel Warden found? AfD is not about deleting working articles that aren't well enough sourced; if there's a passable article, and the subject is notable, then it stays, even if cleanup is needed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Since many people are disobeying WP:WAX, maybe I should too. (For the record, this is sarcasm) Let's see, a far more notable spell, Avada Kedavra (redirect to a section of a more general subject), doesn't have it's own article, thus this shouldn't. In fact, all three Unforgivable Curses have only one collective article. The more used and more well known Expelliarmus doesn't have its own article. As for the complaints about size, I guess I'll violate WP:WAX again by citing List of England international footballers (alphabetical), which is just one of the many articles several times larger than the spell list mentioned. The size argument can also be refuted with the argument that WP:WAX is not a policy, by citing that WP:SIZE is not a policy either:

    The prose, tone and style (or lack of it) are mostly irrelevant in this case. Nousernameslefttalk and matrix? 05:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As in the case of the Unforgivable Curses and the Disarming Charm, they each do not have their own article because they have a singular effect. The Killing Curse kills, the Criciatus curse tortures, etc. The Patronus Charm has varied effects, and have a far more facets of their use than any other spell you listed. I reiterate: Keep. Nevermore27 (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly does the Patronus deserve an article? Do we really need to list every character's Patronus? Do we need to list every character killed by the Avada Kedavra curse in the books and each death's significance? Do we really need to explain the special role of the disarming spell in the books in a separate article? THe Patronus has two purposes; more than any other spell, I admit. However, one of them (the messengers) is extremely small and can be condensed into one sentence. More than half of the rest of the article can be cropped off as useless information. I reiterate: Delete Nousernameslefttalk and matrix? 18:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but I'm a bit confused having now read the essay; the main reason given for not deleting things is that the time taken up by deletion debates and discussion could be better used. However now that a deletion debate has opened for this article surely the best way to try and make sure less time and effort is expended in deletion debates would be for it to be deleted so that it couldn't be nominated again? Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
    • The article is clearly verified, I don't think anyone disputes this fact. However, verification does not always give notability; just verification. In this instance, there are no sources that indicate that this specific aspect of the Harry Potter universe has independant notability. It has does have significant coverage, but those sources are not independant of the subject. Fansites and author interviews are not independant, and thus they do not grant notability. Because the subject does not have independant notability, it should not have its own article. I believe that this article should be redirected to an anchor title in the List of Spells page, and move the sources too. I (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find annoying that no one will address the cites that Colonel Warden brings up. Furthermore, fansites are of course independent; how is a fansite any less independent than a published critic?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fansites are (generally) independent, however they are not reliable as reqired by the primary notability guideline (A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject) - one reason for this is that they do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Anyone can start a fansite and put up any kind of information they want, true or otherwise. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
    • No, fansites are not considered reliable, but they're not less independent. Of course putting up a webpage shows so much more fanaticism than spending ten years of your life getting a Ph.D. on a subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It relates to your dismissal of people as fanatics. And few if any people get PhDs so they can have a well-paying occupation; people who want money get MBAs. People who get a PhD in modern literature become professors, people who spent more time in school than 99% of the populace, to become better paid than 87% of them (according to our article). I've read academic works on Alexander Pope that failed to understand why anyone might have had a legitimate beef with him, a fanatic position if I ever heard of one. As people who spend hours furnishing their fansite, how is that any different from spending hours on any other hobby?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the argument is void now anyway considering you just admitted that it was irrelevent except in regards to my supposed "dismissal". And I'm not dismissing people as fans. I am telling you that they are. Are you trying to assert that people who run a fansite are not fans of the subject matter? No, you couldn't be - that doesn't make sense, much like some of your other arguments at this AFD. I care not to bicker any longer. Kind regards, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • no idea but I'd not call those "very vaguely related". The term is used in the articles in a meaningful way. And we are talking ABC, Time, etc. Is that enough? Eh, I just edit here. 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


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

    The result was Withdrawn with no !votes placed, so no need to keep it open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Honorable George F. Fitzpatrick

    Honorable George F. Fitzpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    If the claims in this article are true, then this person is certainly notable, but I can't find any references. This may just be because records of Trinidad and Tobago's government from the turn of the century are difficult to find, but even so I would think that someone with as distinguished a career as the article claims Fitzpatrick had would leave some trace. Taking it to AfD just in case I'm missing something. Lankiveil (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The history remains and any content can be merged in by any editor through the normal processes. Chick Bowen 06:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel

    Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is the descriptionof a minor US political office. Per WP:BIO this is an appointed ad-hoc office that is not in the Constitution, is not elected or senate-confirmed. Most of google hits are for invites and by-lines. Simply not more notable than the President's butler or the Chief of Staff's chief of staff. This doesn't say a person holding this position can't be notable, just that on its own, the position is not notable. Mbisanz (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect to Executive Office of the President of the United States (I think that's the relevent article). Generally, official titles, positions, terms, etc. that are not notable on their own but singularly notable as part of something bigger that is notable, should be redirects to that larger concept. --W.marsh 06:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per W.marsh. This position is subordinate to the Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel, from what I can tell (our own EOP article says it's a "third level" position, less prestigious than a Deputy Assistant), and is well down the salary list[20], beneath many deputy assistants. About the only thing notable about either position is that several people who have held it have later held more important jobs. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per above. Without imputing bad faith on anyone's part, I believe this article was created by the editor mainly to help build a case for notability for his/her article on Eric Motley, DePRODDED by the editor without comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that article I will be getting to later. I just need to look up the individual in greater detail. Mbisanz (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my attitude is not so much that I want to build a case for notability in such instances by starting a new article. In borderline cases, I don't make snap judgments about an article; I say, "Create 'em all and let the deletionists sort them out." I also view the {{prod}} template as just someone prodding me to add a reference or something to take care of some verifiability issues or whatnot. Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, but the PROD notice does ask that you offer an explanation in either the edit summary or Talk page when removing it, and if you've cared enough to create an article I should think you would welcome the chance to explain why you think it's worth retaining. It is requested, at any rate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure some users use PROD and AFD to push for sources, I try (and sometimes fail) to avoid that sort of thing, since a deletor should at least make sure they can't find a reason to keep the article. I'm stilling working on the Eric Motley issue. I want to see how exactly he gained his various public offices, since Sarsaparilla is an experienced editor who I doubt would push a COI issue. Mbisanz (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that it was because of his ties to the Republicans (the spoils system) but let me research... Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised that this is an issue for you two. Of course it's a partisan appointment. It would be in any administration. That in itself doesn't discredit Motley, not for me, anyways. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the story of his appointment is at the end of this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/10/AR2006061001040_5.html Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was snowball delete --Maxim(talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Canucks.com Message Board

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

    Non-notable internet message board, no independent secondary sources, and a constant vandal magnet (for some reason). Removed/vandalized PROD. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was deleted ~ Riana ⁂ 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Rosenbaum

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

    A previous AfD ended in delete. The article was later recreated and, despite the caution from ArbCom and basic WP:COI policies, has almost solely been developed and maintained by the subject of the article. (User:Rosencomet is reasonably believed to be Jeff Rosenbaum according to the findings of an Arbcom case.) When I recently began overhauling the article along with User:Kathryn NicDhàna, it looked like this. Looking hard at the references, Kathryn and I found them to be ridiculously padded. After revamping the article, it looked like this. Look at the talk page for some discussion between us and Rosencomet about the sources we took out. Many simply included his name in a list of "thank you"s in a book introduction, or a quote from him about the Starwood Festival (of which he is the primary producer and promoter). None of the references cited any of the article content, as they were about Starwood, not Rosenbaum. Few of the remaining sources in the article are WP:V or WP:RS. If you look at the Reference section, you'll see most of the sources are to the website of his group (rosencomet dot com). His published work consists of part of an article in a rather limited circulation zine Green Egg and a one page interview with him, again discussing Starwood, not any details about himself. The music is on tapes/CDs published by his group (self-published) and the spoken word entries listed are panel discussions that he apparently moderated (again, self-published) at these events. I looked for sources while revamping the article and the best are in it now. I've put a fair bit of work into this article, trying to improve it and its sources, but he still doesn't seem notable by Wikipedia standards. And I don't think there are enough good sources to support an article about him. Pigman☿ 06:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, does not seem to be notable in the wider community, as there are very few non-trivial third-party references about him. His festival may be notable, but he is not. Lankiveil (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Redirect to Starwood Festival - nearly all sources are in connection with the festival. Addhoc (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge or delete both this and the ACE article, I missed this AfD tag for some reason and was just about to place a notice suggesting a merge into ACE. An article about Association for Consciousness Exploration could discuss both Starwood and Winterstar symposium- if either of these are very notable despite the hard work of this one particular Wikipedia editor, whose username may be inappropriate really as it is too linked to the group and person concerned. Merkinsmum 13:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. --Tom 14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Agree with Merkinsmum and others. Article should be about Jeff Rosenbaum and not his associated enterprises, merchandising sites, etc. Unless there are enough WP:RS per WP:V references for Jeff Rosenbaum as a standalone article on the merits of his achievements rather than on the names, products etc. he has promoted , this article should be deleted as non notable. Promoters on the level of Bill Graham are notable in their own right, aside from the acts, merchandise they promote. Mattisse 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - per Merkinsmum. I think an article about ACE, with subsections on Starwood, Winterstar, and other projects, might pass muster. But only if it's done by people without COI. I'd say "merge and redirect", but there's very little in this article that's not already covered in the others. Maybe a couple sentences. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - doesn't have sufficient non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. (In fact, as this article has been deleted previously, shouldn't it have been speedied as a re-creation of deleted material?) Terraxos (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep by no means am I an expert on this subject, but I trust the judgment of Fred Bauder in the previous discussion and believe this person to be notable in Neo-Pagan circles. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It is true that Fred Bauder voted to Keep this article in AfD when it was in Arbitration and Fred Bauder was one of the active arbitrators. Mattisse 23:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    WARNING - Rosencomet is now engaging in WP:CANVASSing, specifically of the Wikipedia:CANVASS#Campaigning and Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking sort, as he is only posting to people that have supported his position in past AfDs or content disputes: User:Viriditas, User:Septegram, User:Modemac, User:Dave Null. Rosencomet, I will repeat this on your talk page, but if you continue after this warning, what you are doing is a blockable offense, especially as you have done it multiple times before. This is your only warning. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Keep Jeff is a notable figure in various spiritual communities and in the world music field as a record producer and performer. I have seen him sit in with Muruga & Stephen Kent during Rhythm Fest 2 at Nelson Ledges, OH and with George Clinton at the Taste of Cleveland show. I have also been to several of his lectures at various festivals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittala (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC) — Vittala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I saw him dancing with the Pope, but unless his outstanding macarena has been noted at length in WP:RS, (for which unfortunately neither Vittala nor I, nor anyone discussing their memories on a wiki qualify) it's just my anecdote. Also he's involved in organising a couple of events, acts are bound to get on with him, if it may get them work. Rosencomet- you're defending arguments at an AfD on yourself- don't you feel bad and think you should step back a bit? Yes I know it was just a 'clarification' but even so. Merkinsmum 13:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As someone who has authored a book on fringe groups (High Weirdness By Mail, Simon & Schuster, 1987) and who regularly deals with countercultural events of various kinds, I consider Jeff Rosenbaum to be quite notable not just within the pagan scene, which isn't all that big to begin with, but within the counterculture in general. While he does not have great author credentials he has impeccable "mover and shaker" credentials, in that he (and ACE) have been bringing togeher some of the most interesting weirdoes in the world for 25 years. Speaking strictly from a personal point of view, without Jeff Rosenbaum's help, diplomacy, and hard work, as exemplified in the ACE events, I would probably not have met half the creative individuals with whom I have subsequently worked. As a behind the scenes guy he is in fact more notable than many of the front-stage acts he has brought together. RevStang (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — Revstang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    (Moved from talk page by Rosencomet (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    • Delete. The reliable sources that are specifically about Jeff Rosenbaum don't look to be enough to justify an article. The best reference in the list is, in my view, the 2005 Nation article by Paul Krassner, but it has only three sentences about Rosenbaum. (Krassner is not exactly a neutral observer, since he performed at the Starwood Festival). There are also some mentions of Rosenbaum in alternative weekly papers, and there is a page or so about him in the Modern Pagans book. Though COI is not by itself a reason for deletion, it is fair to mention the issue in AfD debates. Wikipedia editors are on the alert for self-promotional editing and we see a good deal of that in the history of this article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor clarification. The Modern Pagans piece is not about Rosenbaum. It is a one-page, with photos, brief interview with Rosenbaum, ansering a few questions about Starwood. The only thing we could use it to source about Rosenbaum is that he runs Starwood. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    note - Per this diff User:Rosencomet and User:Jeff Rosenbaum are the same person. Both accounts have edited this AfD. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Not True. User:Jeff Rosenbaum account has commented only on the TALK page, NOT edited this AfD, and neither has voted here nor will.Rosencomet (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ??????? I've heard that (if it exists) Multiple Personality Disorder is a terrible thing. Merkinsmum 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion is not the answer to the problems.Bduke (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CIPFG

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

    Non-notable group founded by Falun Gong. A google search finds only 90,300 results, mostly from Falun Gong associated websites.--PCPP (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are other sources: Taipei Times, news.com.au published by News Limited, Strategic Forecasting, and the New Zealand Herald. Further, the google test is a very weak standard for inclusion. The organization meets the standards set by WP:NN. Further, the organization itself and its work are indepdent of the Falun Gong. David Kilgour, David Matas, and its Canadian leader Rabbi Reuven Bulka are all human rights activists who are not Falun Gong practitioners. Sources associated with Falun Gong (mind you, you have not even demonstrated that they are run by the Falun Gong) in this case are thus secondary sources. --Strothra (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note it seems that the nom might be canvassing [26]. While this may be a friendly notice, I remind the nom that such behavior should not be continued per WP:CANVASS. It's one thing to give people a friendly reminder concerning an ongoing discussion, but to state your opinion on it while doing so is another thing. --Strothra (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You tell me how does CIPFG meets WP:Notability. Does CIPFG contain long term notability, or is just some current and temporary event? Does the coverage contain in-depth sources, rather than copy-and-paste?
    The CIPFG is an internationally based organization with highly influential and well-respected leaders from multiple countries. It clearly meets WP:NN.--Strothra (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DISPUTE - "clearly"? Please cite some non-FLG source on CIPFG's international status. Here's a Canadian foreign policy weekly that questions CIPFG. Please note CIPFG's president John Jaw is a FLG disciple, and has admitted CIPFG's FLG association. Also note it's time of establishment in 2006 coinciding with FLG publication Epoch Times NY's now discredited "Sujiatun/Auschwitz" story.
    Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an absurd line of reasoning. If the head of Human Rights Watch is Catholic, this does not mean that the entire organization is also Catholic or biased toward Catholic countries/peoples.--Strothra (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what the above article cited said:
    "The CIPFG itself is barely a coalition in the real sense of the word."
    "CIPFG was "initiated" by Falun Dafa"
    This article from an established news source contradicts your unsourced claim.
    Bobby fletcher (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See [27] for Epoch Times's links with FLG, thus failing WP:RS. This has been clarified by Li Hongzhi, FLG's master himself [28]. And the supposed third-party sources simply reprinted CIPFG's statements, and is considered one coverage for the purpose. Concentration only in English and removing the sources that fails WP:RS on google [29], the term CIPFG concludes with 13,600, mostly a bunch of blogs.--PCPP (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop removing links to the Epoch Times and other sources you consider to be associated with the Falun Gong. The CIPFG is an international organization whose leaders are human rights activists - not members of the Falun Gong. Even if these sources were associated with the FG they are still reliable for the purposes of this article. Your last edits to the article purposefully removed legit sources such as the New Zealand Herald in order to craft the article in such a way that fits your POV. Please cease such disruptive editing per WP:POINT. --Strothra (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, nomination seems to be in bad faith. StaticElectric (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Keep, per StaticElectric. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Epoch Times are other FLG sources fails WP:RS for this matter, especially considering that the organization itself is founded by the Falun Dafa Association[30]. The president John Jaw is a FLG member, and just because some well know people are members of the group doesn't qualify the group as notable. You might as well create an article on Reuven Bulka's local book club if he's a member. The organization is only notable for one event ie anti-PRC protests based on the earlier mentioned organ harvesting allegations, and lacks long time notability. Past organizations FLG founded also include the disfunct Bring Jiang to Justice [31], Resign from the CCP [32], amongst others, so why not create a separate article for every FLG action and organizations? According to WP:NOT#NEWS " Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right...Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article."--PCPP (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello? This page has always been a stub linked to Falun Gong, with the organization's activities already mentioned there. Recreation of the separate article is nothing but repetition of statements already mentioned in the series of Falun Gong articles.--PCPP (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it be pertinent to determine if anything could be merged first? Perhaps that would be more appropriate. Wisdom89 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the organization's activities are mentioned in another article does not mean the the organization does not merit its own article. Many corporations and organizations are inherently notable particularly international ones. --Strothra (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but there are no non-trivial mentions of the organisation cited anywhere, and the external links in the article are to self-published sources. This source, where CIPFG is trivially mentioned, states that it is "a little-known non-profit organization registered in Washington, D.C. [which has so far] recruited five permanent academics and more than 20 professors, lawyers and priests in Australia" Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is a front organisation of Falun Gong and not independent of it in any way, nor does it pass WP:ORG. The namespace should be redirected there if not deleted. The organisation is not notable in its own right as all mentions of it are usually always in the same breath as Falun Gong and secondary to it. All mentions pointed to it above so far are trivial mentions. Furthermore, there seem to be a Falun Gong practitioners who active in wikipedia creating articles, or otherwise adding material blatantly of a propagandistic nature into other articles sourced from the Epoch Times (which incidentally is committed to the overthrow of the Chinese Communist Party) in order to create a Walled garden of Falun Gong related articles and make a WP:POINT about their allegations of persecution, torture, organ harvesting and other human rights abuses by the Chinese regime. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Surprising that a support of delete comes from the individual that was WP:CANVASS. Seems interesting. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting one friendly notice does not amount to Canvassing. You seem to add nothing but ad hominem attacks.--PCPP (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, look up Ad-hominem for proper usage. You seem to consistently engage in POV pushing via the removal of cited information in an article that is currently undergoing AfD. I suggest you stop. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Conservative Party of Canada Campaign Chairs

    Conservative Party of Canada Campaign Chairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is a random collection of information floating off on its own and unsourced Cloveious (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ITYM Canadian federal election, 2004. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MeatballWiki

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

    Navel gazing. While many Wikipedians (especially the older ones) have heard of MeatballWiki, it has no notability in the outside world. Although the article has existed since 2001 (created by an editor who described it as a "shameless plug to fill in dangling link"), it has virtually no secondary sources. All the inlined citations link to wikis and other forms of content that fail WP:RS. There are only two mentions of MeatballWiki in mainstream media, both of which are listed in external links. They are as follows:

    • A New York Times (Associated Press) article from September 2004: "At its core, a Wiki is an empty room, devoid of furniture and decoration, said Sunir Shah, founder of an online community called Meatball. Visitors bring the personality and mission, turning the Wiki into a library, a party or a conference room." [33] Note that the mention is only in passing.
    • A BusinessWeek article from June 2004: "The many guides to the wiki world are good to check out. One of the most popular is Meatball Wiki, a sort of community conscience for wiki makers and travelers, with tips and philosophical discussion about the nature of online communities." [34]

    That's it. Two sentences in reliable sources for a site that has existed for over half a decade. We need to hold ourselves to the same guidelines we apply to garage bands. MeatballWiki fails our web notability guidelines: specifically, "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (No), "the website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" (No), and "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" (No).

    Frankly, some of the arguments in the last AFD were nothing short of embarrassing. One user said, "This article has been on Wikipedia for over 4 years, and Meta often refers to Meatball". Another said that "it meets my "heard of this thing outside of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects a few times" gut feeling criterion". These should have been disregarded because they do not accord with Wikipedia deletion policy. If someone wants a Wikipedia: namespace or Meta article on meatball, that's fine — but this is not an encyclopedia article. *** Crotalus *** 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep --- And here on Wired. Why did you renominate this? Apart from the nom, it was a unanimous keep last time. --- tqbf 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It was kept before" is not a valid argument. Your citation of Wired is more substantial, but it still involves a small handful of sentences — no one has ever written an actual article on MeatballWiki in any reputable publication, online or off. It flagrantly fails to meet WP:WEB, and the arguments last time almost all amount to "I like it". *** Crotalus *** 20:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It wasn't just kept; it was kept almost unanimously, in a well-attended debate. Why have you chosen to nominate it again? --- tqbf 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Well-known and mentioned on Wired...definitely notable. The article needs help, but deletion is not the answer here. SaveThePoint (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Sometimes I wish it weren't the case (like fictional virtual game subcharacters or whathaveyou), but notability outside a particular community doesn't appear to be necessary for inclusion as long as the entry is sufficiently notable inside the community. ΨνPsinu 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I ask a question? It seems that the "standard" here is WP:WEB and this article doesn't meet it. Elsewhere it is suggested that other articles in a similar state are merged up into a parent article of sorts. So what's the parent article for MeatballWiki? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - notable and actually rather influential. It's not navel gazing to cover the history of wikis any more than it's navel gazing to cover the history of operating systems and LED monitors (you're using one now, aren't you?).Wikidemo (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, there are actually quite a few citations in Google Scholar demonstrating its importance to the Wiki community and history. --Dhartung | Talk 01:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Dhartung, said Google Scholar citations just need to be integrated into the article. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As I understand, the first notability criteria for websites boils down to asking whether the website has been the subject of published works, meaning hardcopy publications. However, these notability guidelines are "rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide" whether a website should have an article, rather than legally binding criteria set in stone. Let's try to look at the big picture. I think I have shown in my articles on the History of wikis and Sunir Shah (recently deleted without my having a chance to participate in the discussion) that Sunir Shah and MeatballWiki have both played a central role in the historical development of wikis, first because MeatballWiki was the primary SisterSite to break away from Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb, following the spectacular deletions of the WikiReductionists, and secondly because Sunir first applied to wikis a whole range of key concepts that have become a central part of wiki culture, such as WikiOnWiki reflection, wiki as community, barnraising, barn stars and more. The fact that this history is as yet only recorded on digital media does nothing to diminish its importance. Let's try to lift our range of vision and appreciate what is really important in the global scheme of things, rather than remaining tied to petty procedural questions which only hide the reality of the issue. Redeyed Treefrog (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, reliable sources are not limited to hardcopy. It does exclude sources with unclear editorial authority such as blogs and college newspapers. As wikis may be edited by anyone, they are generally not a reliable source. An article about a wiki may cautiously cite the wiki for information about it, but wouldn't be sufficient to demonstrate notability by itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for this clarification Dhartung. What you're saying then is that Wikipedia itself, as a wiki, is not a reliable source. But all of this enormous effort devoted to correcting or deleting articles would seem to be aimed precisely at making Wikipedia into a reliable source. This contradiction shows how much work still needs to be done to clarify the philosophical underpinnings of the whole Wikipedia project (to say nothing of increasing its internal democracy, which is so easily subverted by abusive use of administrative privilege). - Redeyed Treefrog (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of speculating, you should read WP:V. Wikipedia is definitely not a reliable source for WP articles. --- tqbf 14:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Wikipedia, as an enycylopedia, is a tertiary source. Wikis can be reliable tertiary sources; or at least we all hope so--otherwise we all are wasting our time. Wikis are generally unsuitable as secondary sources, due to unclear editorial authority. Wikis can be acceptable as primary sources, particularly about themselves--particularly those with good versioning capabilities (i.e. most modern wikis in existence). As most of WP's sources are secondary, other wikis are generally not good references for us to use. But citing a wiki concerning itself (WP cites project and metaspace itself when it covers itself) is generally, acceptable. --EngineerScotty (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Von Brausen Ratio

    Obvious hoax, seems like something made up at school one day. Exactly 0 (zero) google and yahoo hits. Carados (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was a non-admin keep per consensus. SorryGuy  Talk  08:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pearl Harbor Elementary

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

    Simple little elementary school, giving no reasons why it's notable other than apparently the rejected idea that elementary schools would be notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy Delete per author's request. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Webling Elementary

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

    Simple little elementary school, giving no reasons why it's notable other than apparently the rejected idea that elementary schools would be notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was No consensus. I'm not listing this as a keep because of the WP:ILIKEIT type keep arguments given. So the best thing to do for now is let it go and see if it can be improved, or if it fares differently next time. CitiCat ♫ 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lady Sings the News

    Lady Sings the News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Contested redirect. Article is nothing more then an original research plot summary for a non-notable episode. Ridernyc (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Limetolime (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Being well-written is not a criterion for keeping or deleting. Again, while WP:EPISODE is being disputed, the notability guide-lines beyond WP:EPISODE still apply. There are no references provided. Has this episode won any major awards, or has it received any significant coverage? The article is written as a plot summary, and there is a smattering of original research in both the intro and exit paragraphs. Yngvarr 21:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    nice to know we know only have to think something might be notable someday. Ridernyc (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Someone already merge it to List of Pokémon (201-220) --JForget 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sneasel EX

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

    Pokecruft. No hope for exapansion; we don't need an article about every pokemon card. Not even worthy of merging. Reads like a fan site to boot TheBilly (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete as stated no reason to have articles on individual cards. Ridernyc (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Adreamtonight (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Wizardman 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni

    Not a necessary page; duplicates the content of Category:Phillips Exeter Academy alumni. A category is a much less likely vandal target, as this article has been hit often and has several questionable names. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The midnight flyers

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

    Marked as a speedy, but another editor thinks it asserts notability. Their music appears available to some extent online, and at CD Baby, but I don't really think they have achieved encyclopedic notability yet, per WP:BAND. Article is unsourced, and I can't seem to find evidence of them being on a record label. No G-news hits, only 17 G-hits for '"The midnight flyers" band australia'. Just looked through history and contribs more thoroughly, and I think we're probably also looking at WP:AUTOBIO. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of songs of Oklahoma

    List of songs of Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Indiscriminate list of songs whose only common bond is that they mention Oklahoma or have it in the title somewhere. None of these songs have any other common bond, so this list violates WP:NOT#DIR, not to mention the utter lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well we have to start somewhere, remember wikipedia is incomplete! Lobojo (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Too much original research, too many entries are not notable (do not have their own articles). The intersection of song and state is too random. If the content was notable, then it could be merged to Oklahoma, but it's not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget. 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yossi Lazaroff

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

    Unnotable person who does not meet the WP:BIO requirements. Single Rabbi in a small town. Was CSDed under G7 but creator immediately recreated in its current state claiming it was "bad manners" to delete the article. Attempts to find notability about this person failed and despite creators claim that the person is notable, he hasn't provided any actual evidence. Collectonian (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    deletion/Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch]] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org ! IZAK (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Three pages of Google hits reveal nothing about this individual beyond his name and job title. This information would be much better organized under the heading of an article about the "Chabad Centre", since there is some tenuous notability attached via news items to that topic but none to the individual; this seems to be a WP:COATRACK for information about Jewish activities at the university in question. This article doesn't meet WP:BIO, there is no assertion of notability, and I can't find any information that would add notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No real evidence for notability. Religious leaders are generally notable only if they are well-known nationwide (like Pat Robertson or Joel Osteen). Your pastor, imam, or rabbi is generally not notable enough for Wikipedia. Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but renominate if not improved after an additional week. It's a topic on which it is relatively difficult to gather material--much in this field is not in Google. Asserting that someone is the head of a Chabad house at one of the very largest universities is at least a claim to notability, so it was never a valid A7, though it will not amount to notability if something considerably more to the point is found than the material presently in the article. But in any case I think it totally wrong to nominate an article for deletion because of lack of notability after less than two hours after it was started when it is clearly still being actively worked on. This would be true even if the ed were a newbie, but he's an experienced contributor with a history of building sustainable articles. (some of his earlier ones were deleted at AfD, but he seems to be learning, so i assume he will get this one right. If not, there's time to delete it later. We have WP:PROD for cases like this. It is in fact impolite to force articles onto AfD to get the improved when they are clearly being worked on. perhaps the previous two people to comment did not look at the timing on the edit history.DGG (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confusion: Wait a minute, the article appears to be a copied article from another wikipedia article (Judging by the [1]s and [2]s), but which one? If that one's alright, this one could redirect there, but if not, delete. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's from the creator copy/pasting the deleted article back in as text.Collectonian (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Maybe I'm missing something. Is this person only notable as a Chabad house rabbi? No offense, but rabbis are not notable simply because they head a temple, synagogue, shul or Chabad house. Similarly, profs are not notable simply because they chair a department etc. Perhaps he's significant for some reasons that have been covered by mainstream press? HG | Talk 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    we have yet to see, for the article is not finished. This is the Chabad house at what I think is the largest US university. The person appointed to this will is more than a local rabbi--such a position is usually given to someone of some distinction. similarly, the person appointed to chair a department, is usually notable also. The religious press outside the university is good enough in any case for notability--we do not delete everything not in the NYTimes. Incidentally, most university people are away this week. let's slow down a little.DGG (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get it. Looking at data from reliable sources, it seems highly unlikely that he's notable. He has zero hits on Nexis. He has 32 hits on Google, much smaller than many non-notable rabbis and average Joes/Janes. HG | Talk 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment if I had time I would add information from sources such as [35] but, as usual under the "underconstruction" label for articles one would be given a few days, at least two, to write an article. So here it is premature. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal. You already linked to the local Jewish paper above (which mentioned him incidentally, the article isn't even writing about him). Were every rabbi (or Jew) notable for having been mentioned a few times in the local Jewish press, then we'd be closer to a phone book than an encyclopedia. Ok, you don't need the NYT, but you do not better sources and a reason for notability. Anyway, an AfD should give folks enough time to identify some significant press or scholarly coverage of this person and his significance. HG | Talk 04:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BIO#Basic criteria = notability. HG | Talk 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I voted "keep" because Yossi Lazaroff is a notable religous leader. Among his leadership acitivites mentioned earlier, he is the head of the Student Unity Torah initiative at Chabad [36] and leads the Shabbat services at Chabad House at Texas A&M. [37]. These are two reliable sources. Bhaktivinode (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:BIO. Claiming that the subject is notable because he is the rabbi of a single Chabad House at a single university would basically mean that any clergyperson who serves a particular religious community at a university would be notable. I realize that some editors would support opening up the notability criteria to allow that, but I don't think that there is a consensus for that and I think that the current notability criteria should be maintained. I also don't see anything about the subject being the head of the Student Unity Torah initiative nationally or worldwide, just that he is the local organizer. The sources cited in this AfD and in the prior version of the article do not discuss the subject himself in depth; they just mention or quote him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because Chabad has thousands of such rabbis, see Shluchim or Shlichim today, and very, very few are notable in and of themselves. What is notabale is that the movement's late leader Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902 -1994) was able to educate and inspire so many of his young rabbinical students to take up posts in far off places and lands. These rabbis are basically religious functionaries and missionaries and they actively and assiduously seek their own self-promotion in the media and at political events, like blessing the opening of a local legislature, or lighting a huge menorah in public, and then getting that noted in a media outlet. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and as I have said many times, Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org, and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated {{Chabad sidebar}} template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. Perhaps it is time to create a list or policy about this, such as Wikipedia:Chabad and its rabbis. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A Rabbi is a leader amongst the Jews - Many Rabbis who are written in our open and free encyclopedia have no mention at all in the general non-Jewish media, this subject does indeed have, so i do not understand why somebody can dare to claim he isn't notable enough for this wikipedia. i see here a double standard when it comes to Rabbis of Chabad we shouldn't be stricter than all other rabbis--יודל (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:BIO#Additional criteria, esp section on Professionals. Whether from Chabad or any other stream of Judaism, no person is notable merely by virtue of being a Rabbi. HG | Talk 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was garbage. DS (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles V: Shredder's Back!

    Contested prod. This is likely a hoax, but even if it isn't, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

    Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles IV:An Alien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles VI: The REAL Secret Of The Ooze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Dawn bard (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Oxymoron83 09:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    D duplex

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

    non-notable electronic music group. Aside from the group's MySpace page, a few Google searches turned up nothing relevant except for a few trivial mentions of upcoming gigs. I believe they do not meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. As an aside, the article has a promotional tone and was created by User:Kenmifs, who may very well be Kenneth Mifsud, a member of the group. Lankiveil (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep as notable. AfD isn't the place to request cleanup or expansion. –Pomte 06:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The 4-Hour Workweek

    The 4-Hour Workweek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I was trying to help another user improve this article by offering suggestions. The article isn't very informative about the book itself, but it's a best-seller book. Many of the refs are blog, and the article seems a bit of a battle ground with little info on the book itself. Busy Stubber (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good source! Can you add this to the article? --Busy Stubber (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you check the article to see if it needs to be cleaned up? "Probably" covers a multitude of sins here. Please check the article before commenting. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you'd prefer Wikipedia to have a tenaciously-edited, poor-quality, unreadable article that doesn't focus on the subject and fails to provide any meaningful information rather than having no article at all? What a strange view to have of our customers (the readers, the 99% of people who visit but don't edit): "we know you'd prefer crap over nothing, so here's some crap we voted to keep on hand for you!". And the "Yawn" comment - wow, great way of showing respect for your fellow editors in a collaborative environment. Lovely. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey. AfD isn't a cure for badly written articles. Without wasting time with an AfD, we could have blanked out the content on this page and replaced it with a stub, and nobody would have argued. Don't make straw man arguments. --- tqbf 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      And another thing --- just because something is tendentiously edited by COI editors doesn't mean "delete" solves the problem --- it's a bestseller, the article is going to come back, and we'll be in the same situation. AfD isn't a cure for disruptive editing, either. --- tqbf 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. If I understand correctly, this is not the appropriate venue for clean up. I too feel the need for a stretch and yawn. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Addhoc has made the article cleaner, and he and ClanCC are watching over it and reverting edits. (Thank you, Addhoc and ClanCC!). The concensus here seems to be to keep this article, despite the fact that none of the article editors or AfD commenters here seem to have read the book. I haven't read the book myself, nor do I have any interest in reading it. The article started as a lousy biography and didn't improve when changed to a book article. I moved it from a lousy bio article to a lousy book article, then tried to fix the worst stuff. The topic is notable, but the article has little info on what was written in the book itself. If this article is not deleted, I hope all of you will help improve it so that it's a credit to Wikipedia -- not just an article with a long history of vandalism reverts. --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Next time, if an article is "hopeless", please blank it and replace it with a stub. This was a misuse of AfD. Can you strike the nom now? --- tqbf 03:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      My own opinion is that the article doesn't have enough information about the content of the book to justify keeping the article. I don't think I'll change my vote now, but thanks for asking :). --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You should read WP:DP before nominating things for AfD; what you just stated as a reason for deletion, isn't. --- tqbf 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      tgbf is correct. This nomination should be withdrawn, but if it's not, the AfD should be a speedy keep, since no valid deletion reason has been given by anyone. Rray (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. (with creation of redirect to LoE) CitiCat ♫ 04:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Easy Come, Easy Go (SATC episode)

    Easy Come, Easy Go (SATC episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Single, unnotable episode of Sex and the City that fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICTION. Nothing but a short plot summary and cast list. Merge unneeded as plot summary is already covered in List of Sex and the City episodes. Failed Prod. Collectonian (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 18:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Caroline Killeen

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

    Fringe candidate with a peak performance of 393 votes in a Presidential Election. There are a few references, but they are all mainly trivial. Lankiveil (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep. While she may not get many votes, her presidential candidacy appears notable. Mh29255 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep(article creator vote). Killeen is a perrenial presidential candidate, and has had multiple articles published about her. If anyone has Lexis-Nexus, do a 1996 search for her name. These articles are not easily linkable. I disagree that all the references are trivial, while some are, they are included for what they reference. Other sources have her as the feature of the article.--CastAStone//(talk) 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, explore Category:United States presidential candidates, 2008--CastAStone//(talk) 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The only argument against this that I can determine is trivial coverage, but since this candidate has received unique coverage (ie not just one article copied around) from such a variety of reliable sources over a period of time, I think that that collective coverage cannot be described as trivial. Joshdboz (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, respectfully, where is this coverage? All of the references supplied in the article are either "list of minor candidates" style directories, or they make a single mention of Killeen amongst some other fringe candidates. There are, as far as I can tell, no articles about Killeen or her candidature that are indepedent of the subject. But please point out if I am incorrect on this point =). Lankiveil (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete A7 (biographical article with no notability asserted) by User:Jerry , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Gustafson

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

    no assertion of notability per WP:N and no references per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. No evidence that the subject meets WP:N guidelines, i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WinterStar Symposium

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

    Appears to be an event of 100 people or under. Article largely written and maintained by the producer/promoter of the event (User:Rosencomet) who has also added links to his autobio, Jeff Rosenbaum and the pages of people whose tapes/CDs he sells. Checked sources and almost all available ones were grossly padded. The two remaining third-party sources were unavailable to check as I could find no evidence of their existence. There are zero G-news hits. There are nn and COI issues all over the place with this one. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are a lot of G hits, but from the looks of things, the hits are all either to Wikipedia, or to media that are within a small community; almost exclusively advertising the event. This article also seems to suffer from WP:COI, as noted in the nom. My inclination is Delete. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Notable, long-running annual event which has featured many notable individuals from many disciplines. From my examination of the proposing editor's activity, she has a personal bias against the organizer of this event--not good WP practice, as we must be reasonable in everything we do. Improve, don't delete in this case. Badagnani (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Instead of just saying it's notable and accusing the nominator of bias, why don't you present a source that verifies notability? I couldn't find one. I agree with LonelyBeacon about the G search results. "Being attended by notable people" does not confer notability --- subjects are notable by dint of people writing about them. Who did in this case? --- tqbf 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This debate is on the merits of the article and its subject. Please refrain from making accusations about the nominating editor, as it is irrelevant to the analysis that needs to be done. If the subject is in fact notable, the article is likely to be able to stand on its own. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There is a reason why we have the guideline WP:POINT, and it is not incorrect to point this out when it is seen--as in this case. This is a personality conflict, which should not be allowed to color one's edits (or nominations). I'm not certain you've looked through the archives, as I have, before commenting here; you should. Badagnani (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      What reliable source has ever covered this topic, Badagnani? --- tqbf 08:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Badagnani, it's not a personality issue, it's a policy issue. I don't know Jeff/Rosencomet off-Wiki. His work came to my attention when there were RfCs and concerned posts on the Spam and COI boards about his activities. During his time on WP, he has tended to lash out at anyone who enforces policy, and accuse them of having "issues" with him. But it's not about him. There's nothing I can do about his problems in this area except to stick to policy. If you look at the archives of his talk page, you will see that many people, myself included, have tried to explain policy to him from day one. He either doesn't get it or refuses to. And anyway, as others have noted, his opinions about motivations have nothing to do with whether the article is encyclopedic. Best wishes, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Association for Consciousness Exploration - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete or redirect to either ACE or Starwood- if either of them are notable. It doesn't matter what the nom's personal views, she can still create a valid AfD about this non-notable event. Anyway Badagnani, you might like to have a read of WP:AGF. Merkinsmum 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I would support a merge/redirect/consolidation of these articles. We might wind up with one good article that way. Starwood Festival comes closest to notability. In the small pond of US Neopaganism Starwood is notable, though I really am not sure whether it's notable in more mainstream (WP, encyclopedic) terms. While Starwood is better-known and has more coverage than ACE (whose notability, like Jeff Rosenbaums is only in terms of organizing Starwood), a merge to ACE seems to make the most sense structurally/editorially, as the article could open with a brief description of ACE, then have sub-sections on the events they organize. I'm not attached either way, but as a writer that seems to make the most sense. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per LonelyBeacon. Mattisse 14:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Association for Consciousness Exploration per Addhoc. This makes the most sense to me since ACE is the organizer of the event and WinterStar is mentioned in that article. Pigman☿ 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect to Association for Consciousness Exploration. I don't see much evidence for independent notability here. Terraxos (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. This is an event of around 200 people, twice as many as Kathryn claims. It is both the longest-running winter event in the American Neo-Pagan movement (unbroken record since 1984), and one of the most successful. It and Starwood are unique in the wide range of presenters and subjects it features; it does not draw just from the Neo-Pagan movement, but has featured widely-known figures such as Paul Krassner, Robert Anton Wilson, Stephen Gaskin, Ralph Metzner, Wavy Gravy, Jeff McBride, and musicians like Muruga Booker and Jim Scott of Paul Winter Consort - people of international note outside of the "small pond of Neo-Paganism" - and some of the best-known names within the Neo-Pagan community as well. I feel that Kathryn and Pigman, by deleting links from the articles of such presenters as these, and the section in this article mentioning many of them, helped prevent the article from showing it's notability. This merge idea was proposed before, and the decision was to keep then. Please also note that most of the talk above comes from three people: Kathryn, Pigman and Mattisse, who have been systematically deleting material concerning Starwood and WinterStar from articles for the last two weeks, and have deleted material from the two articles themselves. Their argument for non-notability is a self-fulfilling prophecy; they delete any mention in others' articles as "undue weight", even when the subject wrote two articles about his participation, commented in a major national magazine, left a story on the event's organization's website, and appeared at the event 6 out of ten times. They delete newspaper articles because of missing page numbers, then don't return them when the data is supplied. Then they nominate the articles for deletion. Rosencomet (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please view the article from before this deletion began[41]. I feel that if kept it can be improved and expanded both as more material becomes available and as the event progresses. (The 25th WinterStar will take place in two months.) I would like an editor to help me add such data in a way that will not be accused of COI (that is, if any of my work survives what's going on at all). I also ask that a link be placed here to the previous merge discussion so people can have the benefit of the editors' input there. Rosencomet (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • COI note - As the executive director of ACE, the main producer and promoter of Winterstar, as well as the user who started and wrote most of this article, Rosencomet has COI on both this article and this AfD. Per Wikipedia:COI#How to avoid COI edits: "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors." - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as noted in the nom, Rosencomet engaged in massive source-padding on this article (and others), adding trivial mentions and event listings that did not source any content to the "references" section. See the talk page of the article for a discussion of why these "sources" were removed, per WP:V and WP:RS. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kathryn may call it padding, and maybe some of them belong under a different heading, like "Further reading". However, she deleted an entire interview in Roc Magazine of Robert Anton Wilson done at the WinterStar Symposium, a description by noted occult author and liturgist Nema of a ritual performed at WinterStar, mentions of WinterStar in books like Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today by Margot Adler, Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community by Sarah Pike, Dancing The Fire: The Ins and Outs of Neo-Pagan Festivals and Gatherings by Marian Singer, and an article from Muruga Booker's website about his participation in this and other ACE events. These are perfectly good references to support the notability of the event, showing that it is described and listed in well-respected reference books about such events, and verifying that it is both participated in and discussed on official websites and in interviews by notable individuals in different fields; philosophy, ceremonial magic, and world music. There was a list of about thirty notable presenters and entertainers in the article which was also deleted. This is what is going on: first they delete the material on any excuse (rather than, say, just putting it under a more appropriate heading), then try to delete the article as "not notable". This article was linked to over thirty others, it's about an event that has run for twenty-five years, the only event of it's kind in the winter months (and 125-250 people is a pretty good size for a winter conference, especially in a field like Neo-Paganism or comparative spirituality), and it should be kept. Rosencomet (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I substantial discussion of WinterStar in a book like Drawing Down The Moon would qualify as evidence of notability. Can you give page citations and, since I don't have the book handy, an excerpt if possible? The occurance of the word "WinterStar" once in a book does not equate to "significant coverage". --- tqbf 19:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can find most of them through google book search. The interview said, "this interview took place at Winterstar" (paraphrasing here). The Nema stuff said "this ritual was performed by seventy people at Winterstar". Drawing Down the Moon and the other books were event listings, in a section listing a bunch of Neopagan festivals. "Winterstar, [details on where and when] and, "this is the 'cushiest' of the gatherings". That's it. See the article talk page for more details. See the RS and COI noticeboards for discussion on the Muruga booker page. It again only mentioned appearing at ACE events, is linked to no other webpage, and appeared after Rosencomet was told there weren't enough third-party sources. They are not usable per WP:V and WP:RS. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    WARNING - Rosencomet is now engaging in WP:CANVASSing, specifically of the Wikipedia:CANVASS#Campaigning and Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking sort, as he is only posting to people that have supported his position in past AfDs or content disputes: User:Viriditas, User:Septagram, User:Modemac, User:Dave Null. Rosencomet, I will repeat this on your talk page, but if you continue after this warning, what you are doing is a blockable offense, especially as you have done it multiple times before. This is your only warning. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Keep Any event that lasted 25 years serving the spiritual community is notable and this one has featured some very famous people including a rare talk by Robert Anton Wilson just a frew years before his parting and been mentioned in several reference books. In fact those citations should be put back in the article and the list of past participants too. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittala (talk • contribs) — Vittala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • comment judging an event on which speakers speak at it is not relevant as "notability is not inherited," plus speakers will go where they are paid to go, or will get some opportunities to sell themselves/their wares from going. Merkinsmum 00:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I disagree. Speakers turn down events all the time based on the type of event and whether they wish to be associated with the organization hosting it or its purpose. Repeated participation shows support for them. Also, many of the speakers and entertainers appear at WinterStar without pay. Though they are not the only factors, I think the caliber of those appearing at an event does lend notability to the event, as does both attendance and longevity. Why not?Rosencomet (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never known speakers turn down any money to give a talk, or even an oppoortunity to sell their books etc. If they did, that event must have a really bad rep! And I don't think you should really be participating to this extent/arguing in an AfD about your own event, to be honest. But that's just my opinion and interpretation of what is and isn't bad form and WP:COI.:) Merkinsmum 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep For 18 years now, recordings made of guest lectures and classes at WinterStar have been an annual staple of my syndicated radio show, The Hour of Slack (weekly Church of the SubGenius production). I sell 2 DVDs and 3 CDs of recordings made at WinterStar of my own performances. I know from the catalogs of many of the other guest speakers that for them also, WinterStar is an invaluable platform perfect for delivering and recording lectures or performances in a non-chaotic and very supportive environment. I can think offhand of many excellent recordings by notable performers and authors that would never have made it into public circulation had WinterStar not been the venue where they could be well recorded and well recieved. Some of these are in the ACE catalog and even more are in the catalogs of the specific artists. From the point of view of an author who has benefitted from the event for almost two decades, Winterstar is very definitely noteworthy and deserving of its own modest page. It is very different from Starwood -- smaller, indeed, but BECAUSE of its smaller size it is in some ways a better venue for more serious discussions, classes, lectures, etc. It is a different animal altogether and should not be lumped in with Starwood. Note: When I google "Winterstar" I find a dozen mentions of this specific festival, NOT from ACE-related sites, in the first three pages of listings. It is not just a "pagan" festival but more of an all-purpose "Utne Reader" of a fringe-fest, with programs for SubGeniuses, conspiracy buffs, and those interested in alternate energy, alternate health, environmentalism, history, etc. I have been involved in a dozen short-lived such festivals but WinterStar has remained a stable annual event for 25 years! RevStang (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — Revstang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • COI Note: Per this edit summary: [43], Revstang (talk · contribs) is "involved in Starwood and Winterstar organization, a member of ACE". Also, Stang produces the publicity mailings for Winterstar (I have one here). Therefore, Revstang has a Conflict of Interest on this article and this AfD. Per Wikipedia:COI#How to avoid COI edits: "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors." Pigman☿ 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete or redirect, or merge into something that is notable, per Guy. Mattisse 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, but you've !voted twice. If you want to alter your previous statement, I'd suggest amending that one. Thanks.Sorry, I did not see my previous vote. Mattisse 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If WP:RS that cover it in depth don't exist, no sourcing can be done, we can't magick sources into existence. Merkinsmum 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article in the Cleveland Scene, an alternative weekly paper, is the strongest source. Based on the amount of sourcing, and the quantity of material in the current article that does not appear notable, I agree with those above who believe that we are best off keeping a single article, about the Association for Consciousness Exploration, and we can do without this one. Some participants in the AfD discussion have a COI, which I hope the closer will think about. The history of the article itself shows heavy participation by Jeff Rosenbaum, one of the promoters of this symposium, which appears to violate the rules about COI editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I agree with Badagnani's reasoning above (near the top). Lama Ding Dong (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • note to closing admin - Agree with the above, but I am pretty sure all SPAs and known COIs are flagged with SPA template or COI note. I just made sure the ones I flagged for COI have "COI" at the very beginning of the note. However, Rosencomet, for instance, commented multiple times, and not all of his comments are flagged. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweetheart Market

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

    Non-notable local supermarket. Covered by local papers after it sold its property to a larger chain. Mikeblas (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick J. Lynch

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

    article fails to assert notability per WP:N, fails to provide outside sources per WP:V and reads like WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewish Aggies

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

    There is absolutely nothing notable about "Jewish Aggies," which is simply a label for a religious group of TAMU labels (same as Christian Aggies, Muslim Aggies, etc etc etc). The article claims they are associated with the Chabad of Brazos Valley, however all Aggies who are Jewish are "Jewish Aggies," it is not a trademarked term. Article is tagged as being under construction, but I see no good place this article could go. It is, at best, a dictionary term and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Collectonian (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Question - what do you mean by saying notability is not a deletion criterion? You have made that comment several times recently. Perhaps lack of notability is not a speedy deletion criterion but my understanding is that through the longer and more thorough WP:AFD process we do assess articles for notability and agree to delete those that are not. (note: my comment has no bearing on whether this article should be deleted)
    Question - I thought notability was pretty important as per Wikipedia:CSD#A7. Does that not apply here since there is no clear statement of notability? I understand that the article may be under construction but that is a seperate issue. Ubardak (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidemo (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I though notablity was the prmiay criterion. I don't know what this means. Is this a joke? Lobojo (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable and sourced. Also in the process of being written and attempted deleting while in the process of construction. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article is notable and referenced from at least one mainstream media source and two major Texas Jewish newspapers . Article was created on 27th and tagged with under construction. Nominated for deletion on 28th. No chance has been given to develop article.Nsaum75 (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So then, should we have articles for Christian Aggies, Muslim Aggies, Mormon Aggies, etc etc and then again for every last university in the country? The students actions might have been noted in some newspapers, but that doesn't make the term for a group notable in and of itself. At best, it should be covered in the Texas A&M article, or maybe the article about the Chabad itself, since this article seems to claiming that only those associated with the Chabad are truly Jewish Aggies (guess the other Aggies who happen to be Jews but go elsewhere are somehow not allowed to use the phrase?). Collectonian (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is only a day old, and was tagged Under Construction from the begining. Lets at least give the author a chance to see if it can be developed into something that would stand alone on its own. Who knows, in the end information added might be enough for it to stand on its own.Nsaum75 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to develop. It isn't a student group or organization, its just a generic term. Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aggie, in this case, is a student at Texas A&M University in College Station. Jewish Aggies are A&M students who are Jewish. Collectonian (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, is the "Jewish Aggies" an organized student group like the "German Club", "Campus Crusade for Christ", "Chess Club", etc or is it just a generic term to refer to anyone who attends the school and is Jewish kinda like we might say "Lutheran Wikipedians"? I thought/assumed this was at least a real student group ... if this isn't even an organized group ... why is this discussion even here? --B (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its just a generic term. The one site "jewishaggies.com is just the website for the Chabad Jewish Center because its catchy, not because it is an actual student group.Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the organization that this article is about, then it should be renamed to that title ... there's no way in heck that an article about people of any religion in general at TAMU is encyclopedic. --B (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He already made one for the center at Chabad of Brazos Valley (other name for it). Collectonian (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article has been rewritten and uses references from reliable sources such as ABC News and Texas Jewish Post. Bhaktivinode (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Despite requests, I have seen nothing more here to note the notability of this group, at least in terms of WP:N. True, there exists a few references, but they are all local, and at least one of them is not so much about the group, as it is about the celebration of a holiday that this group celebrates (WP:V is pretty clear: the resource has to be about the subject of the article, without connecting dots to get to the subject); and this is likely the highest profile of the three sources. Unless this group has actually done something notable, I think its inclusion here sets an obvious precedent for an article on any college/university group that has not done anything notable, but simply wishes an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website for organizations. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - early closure as it's clear where this will end - Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cooerwull railway station, New South Wales

    Cooerwull railway station, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Only contains templates. Endarrt (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Janvier Kanyamashure

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

    Ambassadors are not considered notable by default, and this ambassador receives only two Google hits. I would consider the subject non-notable. SaveThePoint (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep ambassadors are notable by default. The fact that some user decided to change the policy against consensus doesnt change consensus. This has already been dealt with on other pages. Jose João (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion, and even if it were, this guy is notable by any meaningful definition of the word --Ryan Delaney talk 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand. Article is a stub, too early to assess other issues, and is notable per all. Thinboy00 @164, i.e. 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I cannot find a policy that exempts ambassadors from WP:N. Indeed, the google hits are only two, and I could only access one of them concerning a meeting with the Vice-President of Burundi. That is not enough to meet notability. In the absence of sources, this article also fails WP:V.LonelyBeacon talk) 03:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - The new spelling turns up a lot more sources, which given the propensity for French, may need more time to glean sources. I am still not sure this subject meets WP:N, but I think it needs to be given a chance. I would recommend that, as soon as this AfD is closed, rename the article properly, or at least rename it, and make sure there is a redirect from the current title. This is per suggestions from User:Alice et. al. below. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the printed sources are likely to be African and in the French language, I think that this discussion should be adjourned sine die to allow sources to be found. It does not surprise me that internet sources are not to be found, but they are likely to exist in official paperwork and diplomatic circulars. It does Wikipedia no harm to be slow to judgement and there should be a presumption of innocent of the Wikipedian article crime of non-notability. However, I would caution editors against presuming that the gentleman's name has been correctly spelled. Can someone get hold of a relevant copy of Igazeti ya Leta ya Republika y'u Rwanda (the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda)? Alice✉ 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per LonelyBeacon; I, too, can't find anything that says that ambassadors are automatically notable. The lone Google hits are trivial in nature, and the overall lack of sources has me believing that this person is indeed not notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remark On Wikipedia:Notability (people) there is actually a guideline noting that ambassadors are not necessarily notable by virtue of their being ambassadors. I probably should have mentioned this in my listing above. SaveThePoint (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That particular guideline should be read as meaning that very few ambassadors (as opposed to diplomats in general) indeed will fail the notability test. Please note that the test is whether they appear in an authoritative, independent source (ie that their existence has been noted) - not that they are important or significant. I have two questions: Is the gentleman a plenipotentiary with power to represent and bind his head of state in negotiations and can two authoritative, independent sources be found for some minimalist biographical details? I also think we need to be aware of "western systemic bias". Alice✉ 08:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    That was not the intention of the guideline the way it was written prior to your modifications today. The former version was based on consensus in discussion, and changes that make the guideline more complicated and proscriptive should be proposed in a new discussion. Avruchtalk 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas.macmillan. I agree with your point about the systemic bias, and it did cross my mind. However, there still must be some way to verify notability. If this person is truly important in international relations, then there must be a record of it somewhere? I agree that google is hardly the end all and be all .... it is a quick check. But then there must be some print record of this somewhere? Otherwise, I am seeing endless stubs of <<insert name here>> is the ambassador from <<insert nation>> to <<insert other nation>>. Can we even be sure that this person is still the ambassador? I would understand that establishing notability may be at issue, but then I would still say delete based on WP:V in the absence of anything but a single source (possibly out of date). LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC),[reply]
    As of December 26, he is still the ambassador: [47]. Zagalejo^^^ 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have been modified today, but it was not written today. Avruchtalk 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete More information should be found on this individual to determine notability, as it stands it does not meet the notability guideline for inclusion. I understand the issue of systemic bias, but I think in international relations-related articles there is something else at play - i.e. diplomats of diplomatically powerful nations (e.g. Western nations, China, Japan, etc.) are more notable and important than diplomats between small relatively less internationally influential nations. Avruchtalk 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentAvruch, I could not disagree with you more. Wikipedia is not just for representatives of "diplomatically powerful" states, but for people of all states (or of no state, for that matter). Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Great Lakes region of Africa can understand that Rwanda-Burundi relations (and thus their ambassadors) are incredibly notable and important. Please keep your bias against "influential nations" out of this discussion. The article is sourced and represents a person in a notable position. --Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there, like, a grand list of ambassadors where we could include this information? I don't see how it helps Wikipedia to delete this information entirely. Zagalejo^^^ 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avruch, this is not an encyclopedia of "diplomatically powerful nations". This is a general encyclopedia. If we instituted your rather outlandish view on notability, then systematic bias would grow worse than ever - and it's already pretty bad. Jose João makes a good point - the name is likely misspelled. I'm going to go look for Rwandan or Burundian Wikipedians who might be able to help. Picaroon (t) 23:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm sorry if what I wrote is being misunderstood. I'm relating notability in the case of an international representative to the scale of that individuals actual influence/power, i.e. the French ambassador to the UN sits on the Security Council (which adds to notability) while the ambassador from Djibouti typically does not. The Djibouti ambassador may well be notable, but if we're talking about the fact of being an ambassador making someone notable de facto then I think the issue of the varying notability of ambassadors from different nations is relevant. Avruchtalk 00:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [50] This seems to show that Janvier K Litse is from Cameroon. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, of course. The man's name is actually Janvier Kanyamashuli [51] (search that name and see how many hits you get). Everyking (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes. I'm glad you followed the hint I left earlier here. (P gets very excited and accusatory if I dare to correct him directly, but he is getting a history for this kind of thing.) Alice✉ 02:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't follow any hints; I've just done enough research for Wikipedia to know that if you get so few hits for a person like that, you're probably doing something wrong in your search (in this case, since Rwanda would be expected to take its relations with Burundi especially seriously, I would expect the person not to be a nobody—and as it turns out, he previously held another notable position). Since I knew the first name was spelled correctly, I just based a search around the first name and other key words relating to his position. Everyking (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    She's just trying to pick a fight with me. I find it's best to ignore her petty insults. Jose João (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though work was done on the article, the sources added were not sufficiently independent (e.g., a gallery that has displayed his work), and the copyright violation issue was never addressed, with a number of sentences remaining in the article still taken from Pearce's website. No prejudice against a brand new version, but it would have to be based on genuinely independent and reliable sources not to be considered a recreation. Chick Bowen 06:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Pearce (potter)

    Stephen Pearce (potter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability per WP:N, no third-party references per WP:V, apparent WP:SPAM and WP:COI with no attempts made to correct problems. Mh29255 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Looks like spam, someone should recreate this if the claims can be verified with external sources --Ryan Delaney talk 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete Vanispamcruftisement and only apparently 3rd party link is broken Thinboy00 @166, i.e. 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: unfortunately even though I know who this guy is and he is a notable Irish potter, there are no substantive sources, so I have to agree with you if deletion is the decision. ww2censor (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - with additional documentation. Ww2censor (see above) -- if you think/know he is "notable" in his region, most prominent clay artists have produced a gallery/artist show or two, with gallery listings, newspaper reviews, etc. Some are teachers, with info available about university settings, workshops and presentations. Do you have an Irish newspaper reference on this artist? Some museum or entity that has displayed his work? Awards or public recognition? Google comes up with many commercial hits -- many beyond self promotion. For example [52] Also found a March 2007 gallery show for paintings and sculpture at [53] which I quickly included in the article. With so few clay artists on Wikipedia, it would be a shame to delete this article if a little work could document the claims. WBardwin (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked for references beyond his own website at the time it was first added but could find nothing. ww2censor (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. If it comes back, salt it, as well. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Al Qaeda and Radical Islamist's attack experts

    AfDs for this article:
    Al Qaeda and Radical Islamist's attack experts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod.

    Well, just read it for yourself. Orginal essay, nonsense. Carados (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. The current consensus is that the oldest resident ever of each US state is notable. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leila Backman Shull

    Leila Backman Shull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable supercentenarian who has little information on her aside from her age, lifespan, and the fact she was a homemaker that was fond of gardening. RandomOrca2 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt. 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. Note: an anon IP removed the AfD notice on 30 December 2007, but the consensus here is clear enough that no relist appears necessary. — Scientizzle 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Overseas expansion

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

    Appears to be an essay of some sort. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (though Jamie Ballayntyne may marginally meet it). пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Station X (UK music producer)

    WP:COI issues and questionable notability, not to mention bound to fail WP:BAND. Anna Loggue (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The contributor is brand-new and is apparently a fan of the band. Let's give him time to put some references in. Keilana 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability comes from producer Jamie Ballantyne's song "My Heart" which he released under his own name and not the alias "Station X." I cannot find any sources for this article and its only contributor has now been blocked so I have great doubts for it ever leaving stub class. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Piaser

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

    Helped to found a local martial arts school (no evidence that it's notable), won a handful of competitions (none of which are presented as notable), plays in a non-notable band... No evidence that this individual is in any way notable. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Oxymoron83 09:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Faith Hope and Charity (UK band)

    Despite some notable members, fails WP:BAND simple as that. Anna Loggue (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Charted means above top 40, thats in the UK. Anna Loggue (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "charted" has to be necessarily Top 40; I would count #53 as a valid enough chart entry. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I take you do not live in the United Kingdom, on radio, the British chart always starts at 40, anything else is ignored, therefore the band has not charted at all. Willirennen (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Jessie

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

    Subject is non-notable. Step-son of Mack Brown, interfered with a play in the 2007 Holiday Bowl. That's it. Was prod'ed but template was removed.↔NMajdan•talk 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. As you said in the talk page, if he becomes an assistant coach later in life, or does this again, he'll be notable. Right now, it's just a bit too much recentism. JKBrooks85 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete should only be a note in the article, and perhaps not use his name, as it has WP:BLP concerns over retaliation. Steve Bartman we do not need to support. MECU≈talk 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, non-notable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to 2007 Holiday Bowl. All of the informaion can be incorporated into the Holiday Bowl article. He is not notable outside of the incident. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I apologize - I meant the Holiday Bowl. My mind is somewhere else..BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Having lived in Texas for 10 years, I contend that this falls under the category of The-world-(and-therefore-Wikipedia)-revolves-around-Texas mentality that can infect local sports fans in the state. I would suggest to anyone considering voting Keep to simply incorporate the person/incident into the legitimate article 2007 Holiday Bowl. J.A.McCoy (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, I didn't make this article and haven't contributed to it, but I don't think that it should be excluded just yet... it's like he's Leon Lett only without the actual illustrious career. Consider also Vinko Bogataj, an otherwise non-notable short-career ski jumper and later coach whose only real claim to fame is that he was viewed every Saturday morning on Wide World of Sports. You know him as "the agony of defeat" -- a true indicator that a single event, even though a blunder, can certainly create notability and warrant an article. Remember: "notable" does not necessarily mean "super-hero" ... I vote keep it, but improve it with a photo or two and clean up the article, provide references, etc. Also, some background on the person would be very helpful.
    Why specifically? I see this as a major story about a major college football bowl game this year. Or perhaps the uniqueness of the event itself. Or the application of the rule in football, one of the few times that an inadvertant toching of a live football has ever resulted in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on an assistant coach. Or the buzz created not only on the net but in broadcast media in general. Or that it is such a unique play. Because of these points, I believe that this will be an event talked about for many years to come--it is not a a temporary topic.
    Or, to put it according to Wikipedia:Notability guidelines: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
    1. There has been a wide amount of coverage in the media and on the web
    2. The sources are reliable (ESPN, CNN, etc)
    3. The sources are independent of the subject
    I think that people will be talking about this event for many years to come.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul, if you or someone else is willing to expand the article and turn it into a real biographical article rather than a brief summary of a single event in his life, I'll change my vote. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I'm not going to do it, though (as the lone "keep voter" I think we'd need more than just me, and I'm busy on other pages). So if it does NOT get improved, I'd change my vote to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been significantly improved. Force10 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep; this guy deserves to mocked and ridiculed in wikiworld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.137.44 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to 2007 Holiday Bowl per BlueAg09's reasoning. Right now, there's too much weight put on this guy's single screw up at a college bowl game. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, non sports people shouldnt be reviewing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.139.248 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep - Wikipedia:Notability guidelines state "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article currently has 15 independent, reputable sources and it is still being improved. In addition, ever TV-crew announcing each bowl game has been mentioning this person and this play. People will be looking for reliable information on him. We should be providing that information. The article exceeds our notability guidelines and there is no reason to delete the article. Force10 (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The coverage of this person has been almost entirely about his single blunder at the Holiday Bowl, and not much more than that. There's not enough information about this person aside from that and him being Mack Brown's stepson to really write a biography about him that would be neutral, much less stay in line with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. All the coverage of this person has been in the scope of the 2007 Holiday Bowl and thus should be merged or redirected to that article, as we have no evidence he is notable outside of that incident. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are mistaken. WP:NPOV does not mandate that we have to cover 10 different things about a person. It only mandates that we be neutral in what we do choose to cover. Likewise, WP:BLP does not forbid articles on people famous for only one thing. Sara Jane Moore is famous for only one thing. Ditto for John Wilkes Booth, Barry Glassman, Alfred B. Hilton, who all happen to hail from the same county. Fanny Mendelssohn is known only for her music. Wikipedia thrives on having good articles on people that are known for something in particular. Force10 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The actions those people made actually made a lasting impact in history. By contrast, all Jessee did was commit a mistake that didn't even affect the result of the game he did it in - just because he happened to get a little extra press for it does not, in fact, make his existence encyclopedic. Again, from Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event:

            Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.

            The entirety of all the coverage of Mr. Jessee has been the subject of is limited to his actions in the 2007 Holiday Bowl and thus his actions should be covered there. A separate article about him would, considering all the sources that have covered him so far, put far too much undue weight on his mistake in the Holiday Bowl and would be unfair the remainder of whatever else he's done in his life. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • People contribute to history in different ways in to varying degrees. Not all articles on Wikipedia will be on subjects that have equally impacted history. Chris Jessie had a notable impact on a major college football game. His actions have been mentioned not only in all the sources cited in the article (15, last I checked) but by many more besides. His actions have been cited as the most bizzare occurance of an already-bizzare season. People will be talking about him for years at a minimum. When they come to Wikipedia to look up reliable information on him, they should not have to sort through an article on the Holiday Bowl in order to find him. We are here to create an informative encyclopedia and to serve our readers. Our readers are best served by keeping the article. Force10 (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, NeoXhaosX, you misread "undue weight". To quote, NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Therefore, by your own argument, if he is famous mainly for his action in the Holiday Bowl then his article should be mainly about the Holiday Bowl. Tangental facts such as what his birthday was and how many kids he has are completely irrelevant. We don't need to cover those sorts of things to cover the subject. Our article on him is sufficiently complete and useful as it stands now. Force10 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not a football fan by any means, so I won't debate the noability of this entry, but I did find the entry interesting and would probably have not happened across it is it had been merged into a larger entry.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A bit unusual, but I think he's had enough media coverage that he meets some of our notability requirements. I wouldn't be opposed to a Redirect either, though; I just think an outright deletion is a poor call. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per JKBrooks85's comments --IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - No notability outside the bowl game blunder, and coverage on the bowl game page should be sufficient. VegaDark (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - Should be included in the article about the game but nothing more. Dincher (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David+Carleton+Boyle

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_28&oldid=180635198"