Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 25: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:14, 25 February 2008

< February 24	February 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to keep. Davewild (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Pond

Unremarkable pond of hyperlocal interest only. Failed Prod. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:HOLE, which is a more humorous way of saying it's got no WP:N. (Translation of this hostile alphabet soup for newcomers: It's not notable enough.) Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of notability, and it totally fails WP:HOLE. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a strictly a local landmark with no WP:RS coverage out of area. As for WP:LOCAL, a "Places of interest" section is conspicuously absent from the Sturbridge, Massachusetts. The verifiable content rates a mention there. I'll add that as time permits. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update: The pond is part of Wells State Park, Massachusetts, which pretty much covers the subject. I added the park with a mention of the pond to the Sturbridge, Mass. article. Anything else about the pond that's WP:Verifiable belongs in the Wells State Park article. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a perfectly fine subject for its own Wikipedia article--notable Indian spot. I sketched in some history with cites. Grateful for the enthusiasm of those who made a start on this.--Wageless (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite is a good start. The history is encyclopedic, but local interest is still an issue. Delete vote stricken. Not decided yet whether to keep or merge. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, falls just short of WP:Places. If someone can place some notability on the initial landowners or something else of historic value, I will change my vote to KEEP!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wells State Park, Massachusetts preferred, but okay with keep. If it is kept, it should be moved to a less ambiguous name. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Sturbridge has historic value. MrPrada (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Give go. --Eetvartti (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - verifiable, historical and has reliable sources. Why would we ever even think about deleting it? That said, a merge would be acceptable - but a proper merge, not a dodgy copy and paste, delete and redirect. EJF (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: because it wasn't verifiable or cited when nominated. The article has come a long way since then. Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am just one of the hundreds or maybe thousands of descendants of Perez Walker who have found or might eventually find this information useful. There is much written about this particular Walker line of genealogy and I believe Walker Pond deserves it's own article.Powalker (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability established Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Buttons

Delete NN band. Article cites 4 references;

Time Out Magazine - Appears to be no more than a listing for a gig - trivial mention, therefore not relevant
Pitchfork Media - no evidence that this is a reliable source
New-noise.net - appears to be a blog - not a reliable source
Observer Music Monthly - group gets a one line mention in a full length article - passing mention doesn't confer notability Mayalld (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With only one released album, the band fails WP:MUSIC. WP:N requires multiple mentions in sources, so even if Pitchfork is reliable (which seems debatable to me, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it), they'd need a few more to meet that. I'm not finding anything on Google other than what we've already got. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other sources are available. here. Also, WP:MUSIC criterion #4 is satisfied here. I also added a link to their AMG page. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither source appears to be a reliable source which might establish notability Mayalld (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What are you basing that statement on? Pitchfork Media has long been deemed reliable - they're one of the standard references for album reviews. And Metro Spirit is a published local paper. What makes you dismiss it as unreliable? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now And your point is? You know, there's plenty of stubs on Wikipedia that don't have established notability. So maybe someone should look for it first. Even if these sources can't stay, it doesn't mean the band itself is not notable. Give it some time and see if sources come up. If not, then we'll see another AFD nomination come up. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources quoted are from reliable publications (Pitchfork unreliable - really?), band are a signed international touring act playing major independent festivals, etc etc. User:Guntrip —Preceding comment was added at 09:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from the Pitchfork stuff here and their All Music Guide entry here, they also have a page at Drowned in Sound. For me, these are reliable sources, meaning these guys meet WP:MUSIC quite easily. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the first time I've become familiar with the deletion policies of non-notable musical artists, but if it's worth anything, they also have a page on Last.fm ([1]) and are touring with notable artist Caribou Timothyarnold85 (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band's press increasing daily. Pitchfork is a VERY reliable subject, in fact it's probably the most influential music publication in the world right now, far more so than Rolling Stone or the NME who have become followers rather than trend setters. Jamie runout (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 This article "slipped through the cracks" because it was not correctly listed until February 25 - hence delay in closing. That said there is no consensus to delete the main article nor any as far as I can determine to delete the two offshoot tag-alongs. --VS ^talk 09:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applegeeks

Almost everything is primary source. No reliable secondary sources cover it at all. There is NO serialization or publication outside of the web nor is there any serialization or publication on a busy/major website. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, Mohammad Haque and Ananth Panagariya should go too. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main Applegeeks article. Serialization or publication outside the web or on another website is not the only criteria for notability. I'll do some searching for reliable third party sources, I'm sure they exist on some level. At any rate, what is your criteria for deletion; that they are not notable, or that no references exist in the current article? Because a lack of references should be a reason to clean it up, not delete it. Just things I found in ten minutes:

The Stanford Daily mentions Applegeeks here [2], as one of four webcomics that are popular and good starting places for the world of webcomics, noting that the artist is "known for his wonderful use of color and ink style in every single issue".

Applegeeks has been nominated for a number of WCCA awards, including Outstanding Character art 2006, Outstanding Use of Color 2006, Outstanding Web Design 2006 [3], and possibly more, I'm still researching.

~~The awards section appears to be unreferenced.~~ And I'm not sure if "WCCA" counts under this guideline: "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]" WhisperToMe (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) - ~~In addition, I cannot find Applegeeks on the WCCA website.~~ EDIT: Found it [4] - But I doubt that this is enough to make it notable - People may argue that the WCCA is not a famous/notable award. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then these "people" would be arguing with the New York Times and the Wikipedia consensus, which decided to keep the article on the awards after a lengthy AfD last year.[5] --Ig8887 (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So references and assertions of notability can be added. This is a major webcomic with a long history, and it shouldn't be deleted because the article is poorly referenced at the moment. As for the artist and writer, those should not be lumped in with this; a comic can be notable without its creators being independently notable. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article from the Stanford Daily gives a short description of Applegeeks, but it is not really about the comic. - In the meantime read: Wikipedia:Notability (web) - These are the notability guidelines of webcomics. In order to ensure this, you have to get "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." - Which means you need to find at least one more source like the Stanford one. ~~As for the award not only is it unreferenced,~~ but the organization may not be notable. ~~EDIT: I searched the organization website and I cannot find any mention of AppleGeeks.~~ EDIT 2: Found ref for AppleGeeks comic nomination [6] - But I do not believe that this is enough to make it notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will not withdraw the nomination unless I see more reliable secondary sources and feel certain that AppleGeeks is notable. If you want to save Applegeeks, you need to find the references. Since AFD is not a vote, this page will likely be deleted due to the dearth of reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know exactly what is required here. I believe I said I was still looking for references, so if you could possibly hold off assuming that I don't know what I'm doing for the time being. Speculating on what is "likely" or not is not meaningful. Also, repeating over and over that you will not withdraw the nomination within the twenty minutes or so since I first responded isn't really helpful either. I get it, you won't withdraw it. I'm not asking you to. I intend to simply prove you incorrect by providing references, but that will TAKE TIME and there's no rush to close this within the next hour, is there? As far as whether the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are notable, their article is well-referenced to, among other places, the New York Times. --Ig8887 (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have plenty of time to look for refs - These discussions typically last for five days. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three website references: each one is a multiple-contributor, editorially-monitored website that has written a review or in-depth critique of Applegeeks; there are no blogs here. 1.) PopSyndicate [7], 2.) Modern Humor Authority [8], and 3.) Digital Strips [9]. When added to the Stanford Daily and the Plagiarism Today reference that was already in the article [10], that comes to five nontrivial reliable published works. And as an extra bonus, I give you another comics website (not a blog) that performed a survey of major webcomic traffic in May 2007[11]; Applegeeks comes in at #18 in Alexa ranking of the 300 biggest webcomics surveyed. This is one of the top 20 most widely-read webcomics in existence and has been covered by no less than five reliable websites, in addition to being nominated for a notable award. Therefore, I submit that it is without a doubt notable. (At this point, I actually consider my point made, but if I come up with any more references in the next five days, I will certainly add them here. I encourage others to do the same.) --Ig8887 (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not really sure if Pop Syndicate is a Wikipedia:Reliable source - In particular see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

2. Modern Humor Authority and Plagiarism Today are blogs AND they are self-published. Also Broken Frontier seems to be self-published. Anyhow, I don't think 28,640 is good enough, AND Alexa ratings *may* be manipulated. Remember the information about self-published websites. This is not a policy or a guideline, but you may want to see this: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples - Also see this how to guide regarding search engine tests: Wikipedia:Search engine test#Alexa_ratings WhisperToMe (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're inventing a definition of "self-published" that has no basis in reality. Those sites are not published by the people who make AppleGeeks, nor are the articles linked written by the person who publishes/manages/edits the website; therefore, in this context, they are NOT self-published and they are NOT blogs. As far as whether 28,640 is good enough, you may want to see WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, I'm not sure if you're familiar with it. At any rate, there's no point in me wasting my time trying to convince you; I've laid my argument out for other editors to see, and until some of them weigh in, I won't bother responding further. --Ig8887 (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant self-published by the people operating the websites. The people need to be shown as reliable sources. Generally newspapers, scholarly journals, government websites, etc. are considered notable third party subjects. Anyone can start a blog or a personal website and talk about Applegeeks. This isn't notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every website in the world is published by the people operating that website!! That's the definition of "published by" on the web! TIME.com is published by TIME, The New York Times website is operated by the New York Times, and Digital Strips is operated by the people who operate Digital Strips. How on earth can any website be operated by someone other than the people who operate it???? The proper interpretation of the term "self-published" is whether the WRITER is the same as the person who operates the website, which in these cases, it is not. If Bob starts a website about Topic X, then Jill submits an article for it that Bob chooses to publish, then Jill's article is not self-published, because Bob is exercising editorial control over his website. But you're right, I'm sure the dozens of writers and editors at Broken Frontiers started their website in 2002 and used it to cover the world of traditional print comics day in and day out JUST so they could forge an article about webcomic traffic in 2007. Right. Although bonus points for uttering something so absurd that I couldn't let it stand unchallenged. --Ig8887 (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TIME has professional journalism and exists in a magazine format. The others... don't. Ig8887, please re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, particularly the section "Aspects of reliability." WhisperToMe (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we discussing whether or not they are self-published, or whether or not they are unreliable? The two words have different meanings, though self-published sources are often unreliable. You asserted that these are self-published sources, in error, then changed the subject to whether or not they were unreliable when I pointed out how they are not self-published. If you want to discuss how those websites are not reliable, feel free to do so, but do so without the erroneous charge that they are self-published. As in, prove that they are unreliable in some other way, because they are not, as the self-published guideline stipulates, "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings". They are sites with an editorial staff and multiple contributors, and such websites are permitted as reliable sources. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both, and we also have rules about self-published here: WP:SELFPUB - Some of the websites above were either self-published or unreliable. To be fair, self-published can be used as a source, but we use third-party, reliable sources when gauging notability. By self-published I meant some guy decided to create a website without journalist/academic fact checking. There is a difference between CNN.com and a guy's personal opinion website about Donkey Kong Xiang Jiao Chuan. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hate to make an WP:IKNOWIT argument, but I've always gotten the impression that this is one of the more popular webcomics in existence. I have no doubt that notability can be established per WP:WEB, it looks like a completely surmountable problem. -Verdatum (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the argument is revealed in the details of the IKNOWIT section: "Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it would end up being original research." - Without enough verifiable sources saying "Applegeeks is popular" becomes Wikipedia:Original research - The way to save the article is to find more verifiable, reliable sources. For that matter, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry's Legend. - I found one reliable source that documented this, and it still wasn't enough to save the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - to quote the essay, "This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions." hence the expansion of the thought. I completely agree, the article should be properly saved by providing quality references, but unless there is a signifigant doubt that any such sources exist, I don't believe the present lack of reliable sources is a sufficient reason to delete, just a reason to request sources. That's all. If concensus appears to move towards deletion I will happily take the time to bolster this argument with evidence or article improvement. -Verdatum (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried a Google News search and I found some articles talking about Applegeeks: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=Applegeeks&ie=UTF-8 - Newsweek, University of Alabama, and Anchorage Daily News - They mention Applegeeks but I do not know if this may be construed as trivial. Of them, Newsweek is the only one which may have it for free. I'll check and see. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Newsweek one is here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/46853 - But the article is not really about Applegeeks. It just mentions it once. For that matter the U of Alabama also only mentioned AppleGeeks briefly. I tried to use an article in a similar scenario for the AFD for Harry's World and that didn't work. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got additional information: Google Book Search tells me that T Campbell covers Applegeeks in his book, A History of Webcomics: The Golden Age: 1993-2005 from Antarctic Press. [12] Now, I have no idea as to how much coverage he gives, because I don't own the book, but it's a published reliable source. Even if one objects to every website I found, there are now two reliable published sources: Stanford Daily, and A History of Webcomics. That should satisfy WP:WEB right there. I leave it to someone else to incorporate these references into the article, both because I don't own the Campell book, and because I've never actually read Applegeeks and am not certain how best to write about it. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a good idea to find out how much coverage it has - if the mention is trivial, it may not help. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite from secondary sources. More coverage in the above AFD than many webcomix every get. --Dhartung | Talk 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly userfy to whoever may want to try to rewrite on this topic based on multiple, non-trivial reputable sources so that it meets our content policies. --Dragonfiend (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not cleanup. The current state of the article is salvagable, deleting the article deletes the history which gives valuable clues towards if the article was ever in a better state, and at what points unverifiable content was added. -Verdatum (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be clear, I doubt multiple non-trivial reputable sources exist for this topic (I certainly can't find them through my library), so I don't think it can be cleaned up or salvaged into a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article. --Dragonfiend (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs sources to improve, but the above shows they can be found, so it's salvageable and should not be removed. Buspar (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB and WP:RS. By the way, this has apparently existed for more than 3 years, so any suggestion that it "just needs a little more time" or whatever is rubbish. If it hasn't improved in the past 1,095 days, chances are tomorrow won't be its day either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well traveled convention special guests appearing at Nekocon [13], Anime Boston[[14]], Otakon,[15] Katsucon [16], Anime USA [17], Genericon [18], PortConMaine, ConnectiCon, Anime Central, Kumoricon and others. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flurry (screensaver)

Non-notable Visor (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this definitely doesn't deserve an article unfortunately. Non-notable —αlεx♥mullεr 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is the screensaver associated with OS X, and it was created with novel programming techniques (for a screensaver). TMC1221 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But hey, association with specific operating system and programming technique couldn't be an argue for notability, isn't it? Visor (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
week delete article has no claim to notability. Checking [19] it seems that a Flurry is the default screansaver on Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar, which is some claim to fame. Lack of any non blog coverage tips me to delete. --Salix alba (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge to screensaver. Some evidence of notability but from non-reliable sources, a nearly 4 year-old stub so unlikely to ever grow past stub, still zero links to it from proper articles (the only one from article namespace is a disambig). However I'm not fond of the idea of completely deleting and losing the revision history of an article that's been around this long and has had this many edits and editors. All this suggests merging with its natural parent to me. Reduce to just a sentence or two on TMC1221's point in the screensaver article (with a ref), maybe even just in the caption of the existing image of this screensaver. If Flurry is important in the history of screensavers its has a place (in suitably reduced form) in the screensaver article. If it's not important the content will probably reduce or disappear over time with normal wikiprocess. Qwfp (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Rewards

The subject is a planned, but not yet operational loyalty program. Refs and article generated by subject's marketing consultant. May be notable in future, but can't be considered notable until program launches and gains significant membership. Murtoa (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Murtoa (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete (unless / until sourced). Not-yet-launched businesses are not inherently non-notable or a WP:CRYSTAL issue; if they're important enough then the idea, preparation, and launch plans themselves may be notable whether or not the company ever gets off the ground. However, in this case I just don't see notability. There are indeed a number of mentions in reliable sources but they are minor references in minor sources, e.g. an interview in a green publication so informal that they refer to the CEO by his first name. There's just not enough substance there to say it's a notable program...people love to hear about this kind of company, so if it ever does become notable I'm sure we'll see lots of press and notability will be clear. If that happens, or if the sources are out there and I just missed them, it's a keeper. Wikidemo (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Reads more like an advert than anything else, and the sources provided do not suggest that the proposed program is notable. It could be notable -- just not yet. However, having said that, I disagree with the nominator's assertion that a product or service can't be notable until it has launched. That is just plain incorrect. On that point, I concur with Wikidemo. iPhone is a classic example of a product that was certainly notable (and subject to much hype and speculation, as well as its own Wikipedia article) long before Apple admitted that it planned to offer such a device or anyone knew what it would look like. However, Green Rewards are not the iPhone, and this product does not appear to be notable. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about launch not being a prerequisite for notability. The inherent difficulty in launching and sustaining these types of coalition loyalty programs was driving my comments rather than applying more generally. Murtoa (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This program does not exist outside a website, logo and article placements by employees...all former marketing people. They do want your credit card in order to save the world from more plastic reward cards. Flowanda | Talk 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. I have chosen not to relist this to prompt further discussion because the conditions that prompted the nomination on February 1st no longer apply. This does not preclude the album article being nominated for deletion for other concerns, but the article is now sourced. Please review WP:MUSIC before renominating. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Destroyer

No artist, no nothing. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - album has been sourced and tagged as {{future-album}}. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. I have chosen not to relist this to prompt further discussion because the conditions that prompted the nomination on February 1st no longer apply. This does not preclude the album article being nominated for deletion for other concerns, but the article is now sourced. Please review WP:MUSIC before renominating. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Destroyer

No artist, no nothing. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - album has been sourced and tagged as {{future-album}}. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was rename to William Durbin and clean up to remove advertisement and to address unverified assertions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyojute Ryu Kempo

Non notable style. The article itself claims lack of notability. Ceated 20 years ago, it only has 9 dojos throughout the world. RogueNinja_talk 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 10:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm you forgot to tag the article, to be honest I've never added an AfD tag and I don't want to risk botching it up. --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, in the past 24 hours, Twinkle has screwed up 3 or 4 times for me. RogueNinja_talk 10:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to William Durbin and keep. The practitioner is more notable than the style in this case [20]. JJL (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to William Durbin and keep. The practitioner is more notable than the style. The article should be marked with {fact} where citations would help. jmcw (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a rename and trimming some of the adverty bits out --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename indeed, deleting may be way too far, while the style is not notable. Pundit|utter 20:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep); just not enough participation although the AfD was started 25 days ago. Relisting is clearly not the right thing to do. Perhaps editors should use the PROD process first in cases where the subject is not likely to garner wide attention. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosho Shorei Ryu Kempo

non notable style. The article's only "claim" to notability is brining martial arts to Hawaii, where they undoubtably were already. The article is basically a coatrack for Mitose RogueNinja_talk 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 10:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the system of James Mitose and Bruce Juchnik that heavily influenced American Kenpo is notable. JJL (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Just becase American Kempo is notable does not mean that this is. RogueNinja_talk 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no claim of inheritance of WP:N here. I found 6,750 ghits for "Kosho Shorei". An Amazon search on "Kosho Shorei" shows that the phrase appears in many books, several of which cite Mitose's influential "What is Self Defense? (Kenpo Jiu-Jitsu)" [21] from Kosho-Shorei Publishing (which published other books as well). See also "James Mitose’s Kempo Karate" in Classical Fighting Arts #3 (19-24, 59). This is a notable system. JJL (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the current state I'm inclining towards weak delete. I'm not saying that the topic is definitely not notable. Probably after some digging notability could be established, after all the topic is googlable. Still, I'm not sure if this is going to happen (if anybody will actually refine the article) and in the current state it is very poor, un-sourced, and not wikized. Also, even if the topic is potentially notable, it definitely is not a must-have. Pundit|utter 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 necessary material to List of Xbox Live Arcade games. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox Live Arcade releases by date

Redundant with List of Xbox Live Arcade games, which is sortable by date. Redirection not necessary as this article is not likely to be found directly. An argument advanced elsewhere I will counter here is that this article includes other things than the main list. This is a surmountable problem: add them to the main sortable list. That is better for both clarity (confusion over two similar lists), usability (sortable), and in the interests informative value, as the sortable list includes more information. User:Krator (t c) 09:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) User:Krator (t c) 09:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Chronology of Xbox Live Marketplace Releases. The article contains useful information that does not belong in the List of Xbox Live Arcade games (i.e. Xbox Originals, downloadable content, various milestones and special events such as free offers - it would bloat the proposed merge target needlessly). xenocidic (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to notify observers that the above argument is the exact same argument as the argument I attempted to refute in my nomination ("An argument advanced ..."). User:Krator (t c) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, but these items simply do not belong in the merge target. xenocidic (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information like additional downloadable content should be kept in the main article for the game it applies to, and there is already a List of Xbox Originals. Other content like milestones and special promotions can be added to the lead as prose. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rename. It's a great resource. JAF1970 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, JAF created the article, so it's pretty obvious he wont agree to deletion, merge or a redirect. It being a great resource doesn't instantly make the article notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ye old logical fallacy ad hominem. This article contains more salient info than the other page, which is confusing, uninformative, etc. Oh, and I created the original pages that some people want to merge it with, so that argument falls flat. JAF1970 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the amount of overlapping content makes the existence of both lists redundant. The extra information could easily be presented in prose in the lead of List of Xbox Live Arcade games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Merge: Given the amount of overlap with List of Xbox Live Arcade games, I believe that merging the additional content this list provides into the Live Arcade list would be the best compromise. Though this may be a great resource for readers interested in the information, we must keep the general reader in mind when creating/managing content. A few other points. Per WP:NOT#DIR, Wikipedia is not the place for such specialized lists of information. And per WP:SIZE, limits on article size and length apply somewhat less to lists, so bloating the list is not that big of an issue. Even still, I'm sure the information can be merged in way that won't excessively bloat the size the list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Merge. It's very redundant to List of Xbox Live Arcade games. The small portion that isn't redundant can easily be merged into the article without being a size issue. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge All this infomation can/should be covered at List of Xbox Live Arcade games. TJ Spyke 04:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The extra information here (downloadable content) wouldn't integrate well in the other table, and the extra columns in the other page would just pollute this list. Also this list has releases visually grouped by day, which is nice. I find this list very useful and visually appealing. I don't like or care for the other table, but I have no desire to delete or change it. Live and let live. 70.83.101.179 (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not really talking about adding extra columns, just integrating the information into the prose of the lead paragraph. And technically details like additional downloadable content should be kept in the main article for the game it applies to. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Merge Consists of mostly redundant material; the little that isn't redundant would easily fit in List of Xbox Live Arcade games. Comandante Talk 00:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The list has the exact same information found at List of Xbox Live Arcade games, and as such, List of Xbox Live Arcade releases by date should be merged into List of Xbox Live Arcade games. No re-direct should be necessary, per nominator. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this argument for merging doesn't seem to include the fact that this page notes all the downloadable content for the games, the weeks without a release (and sometimes just content). ie. the re-release of Undertow for free. JAF1970 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and perhaps it should be pointed out that Microsoft is rolling out their XNA creator's club. So the renamed chronology could include this as well. all this (game content, Xbox Originals, XNA games, game-less wednesdays) being lumped into the "List of Xbox Live Arcade games" would not only be suboptimal, but it would make no sense. xenocidic (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be careful about using "Xbox Live Marketplace releases". This might be too broad a scope for what is in this list, since the marketplace includes retail games content, videos, movies, themes, gamerpics, etc. Perhaps Xbox Originals could be out of the scope of this list if we keep it as "Xbox Live Arcade releases". I'm not sure about XNA Creators Club, will these turn out to be XBLA games in-the-making?

Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with having some redundant information presented in a different format. Look at Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents! I'm sure some people find this list useful, not the least of which are the people who put in the time and effort to maintain it. If one doesn't care for this list, why care about getting it removed? If you don't like what you see, just change the channel... 70.83.101.179 (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your first paragraph: I agree that we should not included themes, gamerpics, movies, etc. But I couldn't think of a name that would encompass XBLA, XBO, XNA, and content, but exclude the trivial stuff. I do think that we could/should work retail game content in as there's no list for that. XNA games are "sortof" XBLA games in the making, from the looks if it they may or may not be monetized and they will probably include achievements. As for your 2nd paragraph, well-said.

On a wholly unrelated note, since this was listed incorrectly (per DumbBOT's comment below), the AFD should run for the minimum period of time starting 25 Feb 2008 13:07 UTC. xenocidic (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding all retail game content, just because there is not a list for downlable content does not mean that such a list should be created or exist. Such minute details as downloadable game content really belongs in a game's main article. And even then it should not go into excessive details. Regardless, the amount of overlapping content makes the existence of both lists redundant.
On a side note, I would honestly suggest creating a copy of the wiki code in a text file before the outcome is decided, regardless of what that may be. It looks like a lot of time and effort was put into it and I'd hate to see all that go to waste. Wikipedia may not be the best place for such content, but perhaps a gaming wiki would be. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. xenocidic (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Eugene Scott, no independent significant coverage in reliable sources has been found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Pastore Scott

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. See also the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. Widow of Eugene Scott.; while he was notable, nothing in the article indicates that she is, nor are there any sources to indicate possible notability. Pairadox (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative keep~~. Xymmax removed the first sentence of this comment out of an over-abundance of caution re: a possible WP:BLP concern. Xymmax (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) However, in light of the previous deletion I think we'll need reliable sources that assert notability. PC78 (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an explanation for my actions above, there was a prior AfD for this subject last March here. At that time many of the comments addressed the appearance in the article of information that, while widely repeated on the net, and mentioned above prior to my edit, lacked reliable sourcing. I removed the reference to the statement. If I'm overreacting, I apologize. Xymmax (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've got no intention of getting involved in any controversy, especially over a subject I couldn't give a toss about. For what it's worth though, I did manage to find one news article which at least gives mention to her "shady past" [22]. PC78 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm glad you didn't take it the wrong way. I saw that source too, but I don't think we can use it as proof since it states itself that the author is repeating info he found on the net (including Wikipedia :) ) Xymmax (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per previous discussion, unless suitable sources can be found. I'm assuming that the Kevo link used in the article doesn't count as a reliable source. Perhaps someone knows if it's just a mirror of the original Wikipedia article? PC78 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eugene Scott. The version of this article that survived the prior AfD and DRV became a redirect to the subject's husband. Based on my somewhat cursory search, it doesn't appear that any reliable sources have appeared since that speak to her independant notability. If it appears otherwise after I look further tonight I'll happily reconsider. Xymmax (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eugene Scott. Nothing has changed to invalidate prior AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her increased media presence merits not only an entry, but expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamlsk (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And are there any reliable sources that speak to this increased media presence? I ask this sincerely, as I see you edit extensively in this area. I couldn't find anything other than her website, links to the church, or attack sites. Xymmax (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her elaborate website points to this presence itself. A google search on "Pastor Melissa Scott" without quotes gives over 150,000 citations and with quotes close to 10,000. Lamlsk (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.11.71 (talk) [reply]

Comment And you'd think that it would be easy to find a reliable source among them, but I searched, and I couldn't. They all are blogs, attack sites, self-published sites for Scott or her husband, or the like. I could not find independant treatment by any newspaper, magazine, etc. Xymmax (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 improvements. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odle Middle School

Notability not established, authors have had 5 months to do so. Kraftlos (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my vote. Looks like you've got some secondary sources on the page and there isn't anything NPOV or unsourced. Looks good! --Kraftlos (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have put this back up for deletion. No one has provided a source about this middle school outside of the school district's web site. It has not been explained in terms of the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines for institutions why this school is notable. --Kraftlos (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Redirect to Bellevue School District. The information here which may be argued as notable is so little that it should be included on the distric page. In addition, there are zero outside sources. This problem has gone on long enough and it is time to delete if no one will be accountable. --DerRichter (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep because of recent improvements. In my personal opinion, middle schools are not notable, and a blue ribbon doesn't establish notability, but obviously consensus has priority over what I think. In addition, it is a much better page now with an info box. One suggestion, if I may, would be to take the demographics section out of the lead and put it in its own section. --DerRichter (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sound idea that I have implemented. TerriersFan (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and the afd is flawed... WP:NOTCLEANUP --Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 13:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Blue Ribbon school status is asserted. National Chess championship also asserted. I have researched and added cites for both of those claims which establish notability. --Daddy.twins (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Blue Ribbon school, which places within the top 4.5% of US schools and has plenty of additional notability. 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerriersFan (talk • contribs)
Keep This article makes explicit claims of notability in terms of its recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program and other chess-related achievements, all supported by reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — as per Alansohn's comments above. Kudos to Daddy.Twins and TerriersFan (and others) on good sources to prove this school's notability. Galaxy250 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the criterion under existing guidelines.

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

Right now we have a blue-ribbon award, which doesn't seem to be all that significant considering there are fifty each year and the school got the award once (there are other schools in the state that have received several of these awards). Also "the afd is flawed..." is not really an argument for keeping the article but a complaint about the existing guidelines. I still haven't seen any significant secondary sources. (You might check the king county/eastside journal archives). The department of education isn't really an independent source. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article does have correct material and, after the recent improvments, should be allowed on an encyclopedia. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 22:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue for this article is that the article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. In addition to the school website, there is a Bellvue School District website containing the school, and School staff websites.This article is undoubtably reliable. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, you cannot have content on a page if it is not verifiable as per Wikipedia:Verifiability which is policy, not just a guideline. The school's web site is an acceptable primary source, but if there is no source, then it has no business being on wikipedia. Additionally, people familiar with the school cannot write from their own knowledge without citations because of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. That is what makes an encyclopedia different from just another web site. --Kraftlos (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Well, of course you can't cite everything but it is expected that anything beyond basic information (like where the school is) should be cited. --Kraftlos (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft redirect. krimpet ✽ 05:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omglolwtfbbq

~~The article was speedy deleted during the AFD per CSD#A3. --Pixelface (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Unnecessary blank (excluding a template) article. Should redirect to Internet slang or be deleted. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete. The article contains no information.147.175.98.213 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is or turn into redirect. The page is currently, in a sense, a manual pointer to Wiktionary:Appendix:Internet slang, which I think is a more useful page than Internet slang. In any case, all that's needed is a redirect, not a deletion. --Dom (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A bit of history first. This is the current end-state of several dozen internet slang articles. At one point they were all individual dictionary definition articles. Then they all got redirected to the now deleted List of Internet slang phrases, which was Deleted at AFD here. It was deleted because it was all dictionary definitions, and was finally transwikied over to Wiktionary. So the List of Internet slang phrases article itself became a soft redirect, and to avoid double redirects, all the many articles redirected to it were also converted to soft redirects. Most of those are still soft redirects to the Wiktionary appendix article, but some now have their own separate articles on Wiktionary, and the WP soft redirects point to the proper WT articles. To see just what articles are in this situation, please check out this page where I track them, for easy reversion to soft redirects as they regularly get definitions put in place of the soft redirects.
That all said, I have a number of problems with deleting them, and especially with deleting just the one. I know that it is shades of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but IMHO all of the soft redirects listed here are in the exact same situation that the subject of this AFD is in. Either all should go, or all should stay, at least when the AFD reasons are based on their current status alone. So I'm not saying that valid reasons to AFD specific ones could not be come up with, but IMHO the reasons here do not do so.
Next, I wonder if this is the proper venue for this discussion. This article, and all the others, are soft redirects. Redirects fall under WP:RFD, not WP:AFD. Do soft redirects go to RFD as well? I would think so, but will need to check the policy a bit.
As I often see stated on WP:RFD, redirects are cheep. These redirects point people to the proper place to find info on the subject, Wictionary. Even with them, we are constantly getting dictionary definitions edited into or over the soft redirects. (That's part of why I have the tracking page I've already linked to a couple of times, to watch for the dic defs to revert them out.) If these soft redirects were deleted, I suspect that the volume of attempts to create dic defs would rise sharply. As it is, we have a nice template that shows people where to go to get information, and requests no dic defs. This I suspect deters a lot of good intentioned dic defs. But once deleted, unless all the red names are protected, we will lose that deterrant, and the number of well intentioned editors recreating the dic defs over and over and over will skyrocket.
So overall, I'm of the opinion that this soft redirect in particular, and the rest of the internet slang soft redirects in general, do very little harm as they are, and actually do much good. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do these "soft redirects" show up as Special:Random pages and such? I'm not sure I support having an article that basically says "We don't have an article". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really could not tell you of the consequences of soft redirects. I know that they are used a lot, though. Check out Category:Redirects to Wiktionary and Category:Wikipedia soft redirects, two of the tracking categories for these things. Between those two categories I see over 1200 of these soft redirects. If there are inherent problems with soft redirects, then all of these are effected, and the use should be examined. And I'm not saying that such a debate should not happen. But at that point I think we are way beyond the scope of this one single AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A3. There's nothing there, so there's nothing to keep. DarkAudit (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's advisable to tag an article for speedy deletion while there is an Articles for deletion discussion going on. --Pixelface (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure that AFD trumps Speedy in all cases. If a case properly fits a speedy criteria, then it fits, whether it is under AFD or not. That said, I don't think that Soft Redirects fit A3, and have protested the speedy deletion with the normal {{hangon}} tag.
    That aside, I'm more and more thinking that a general discussion on the use of Soft Redirects may be needed somewhere, but I really do not know where would be an appropriate place for such a discussion. An AFD on a single soft redirect is just not the right place to properly debate whether such a tool should in general be used, which appears to be the needed discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article was listed for deletion 38 days ago, it just never got closed after the usual 5 days. It appears like it was an viable candidate for speedy deletion. Perhaps a discussion on soft redirects could take place at the village pump or Wikipedia talk:Redirect. --Pixelface (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~Where was it listed? I see no sign in the article history of previous PROD, AFD, or Speedy listings, especially not something 38 days back. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
        Had it been properly listed then, we would likely be having this same debate then. No debate happened then because nothing was listed, so I had no way of knowing what was happening. It is now listed, so it is now happening. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I meant this page was created 38 days ago. It was never listed in the log. I've explained below. And above I was reacting to the speedy deletion. So yes, the discussion is now ongoing. --Pixelface (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close article has been deleted. JuJube (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion has been reversed by the deleting admin, so this AFD is active again. And I have started a discussion of the broader issues of how to handle soft redirects at the village pump. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's what happened: Yesterday I was browsing through Category:AfD debates and came here and noticed it had been nominated on January 7 and was still open. I looked at the article and saw no AFD notice. I looked at the history of the article and saw no AFD tag added. So I added one on February 13, 2008. I looked at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_7 and could not find an entry in the log. I looked through Floaterfluss's contributions and noticed that on January 7, 2008, Floaterfluss created this page using Twinkle and notified the creator of the article, but that editor did not put an AFD notice on this article and did not add it to the deletion log for January 7, 2008. I asked an admin if it should be listed on the January 7, 2008 log. I saw that DumbBOT put it in the February 14, 2008 log. DarkAudit added a speedy deletion tag to the article (above the AFD tag) at 16:14 14 February 2008 and then made their comment here one minute later (although I no longer see that edit to the article in the edit history). TexasAndroid then put an {{hangon}} template in the article (although I no longer see that in the edit history). The Placebo Effect then deleted the article per WP:CSD#A3 but this AFD was still open, with a redlinked article. I've never closed an AFD before, so at the top I put "The article was speedy deleted during the AFD per CSD#A3." Then I added "Non-admin closure." Then EJF properly closed it. Then The Placebo Effect re-opened it. Then I struck out my comment at the top. Then I noticed that it was not in Category:AfD debates, so I re-added {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|}}) back to the top. I hope that clears things up. --Pixelface (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (whether this is listed at RFD or AFD). TexasAndroid's explanation makes sense. I think this article should be a soft redirect to Wiktionary. If it's deleted, it's likely it will be recreated as a dictionary definition. --Pixelface (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's still empty. There's still nothing to keep. If an article meets the standards for a speedy, then an open AfD is not relevant. There's nothing there per A3, so it should be speedied. DarkAudit (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That all depends, in good part, on whether Article or Redirect deletion rules apply to soft redirects. IMHO soft redirects are close enough to redirects in function that redirect rules should apply. And there is no A3/Empty speedy criteria for redirect, specifically because redirects are by nature almost empty. Soft redirects are similarly, by nature, almost enpty. Even if article rules applied, I do not think that A3 speedy should. Currently soft redirects are considered valid on the project. Subjecting them to A3 speedies would invalidate them without any sort of proper discussion of whether they should actually exist or not. either they are allowed or they are not. If they are allowed, A3 should not apply. If they are not allowed on the project, then they should all by systematically deleted, A3 or not. In neither case is it IMHO proper to be subjecting them one by one to A3 deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. This isn't really a redirect. This is a page that says this page doesn't exist. Why should we keep something that doesn't exist? DarkAudit (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to avoid turning this into a general debate over the existance of soft redirects, as I think this is really not the right venue for such a debate. (The Village Pump page *is* the right venue, IMHO.) But it looks like I will need to make that debate here after all.

There is the fact that, if the information is not going to be present on the given WP page, but will be present on the given WT page, it is useful to visitors to direct them to the appropriate place for the information that they are looking for. And a lot of these are fairly high-demand internet slang pages.

Soft redirects, in particular the Wiktionary ones, give an alternative to red links. Even with the soft redirects we get a large number of well-meaning editors adding dictionary definitions to the soft redirects. Without the soft redirects to rechannel many of these editors to the place where the definitions really belong I truely beleive we would be getting a much larger number of such dic def edits. Soft redirects is one way to divert a goodly number of these well meaning but misdriected editors towards the more proper outcome. The only other options would be to red link the articles, and either constantly deal with well-meaning dic def recreations, or near-permenant protection of the red links. IMHO the latter is by far the worst solution. In the current, if someone can actually come up with a good non-dic def article, the soft redirect allows them to do so. Protected red links would not.

And I will in general have to disagree with you about it's article/redirect nature. They may not be redirects in a technical sense, but they serve functionally the same purpose, to redirect a user to the true location of the information that they seek.

So, in general, I think that soft redirects have a number of helpful aspects to them, few negatives, and are much better than the alternatives. So I think that soft redirects should continue to be used, and that they should not be subject to A3 speedy deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A side note on why I am arguing so strongly about this. I see soft redirects as a very useful tool. But by their very nature, like redirects, they are almost empty. To allow the precedent to be set that soft redirects can be deleted for being short basically threatens to make them useless. If Soft Redirects are subject to deletion at any time, under requirements that they cannot by nature meet, then what's the point in using them? So we lose IMHO a very useful tool. And we lose that tool without ever having a proper debate on whether we should have that tool. If we have that debate, and it is decided that soft redirects have more negatives than positives, and should not be used, then so be it. But such a descision should be made in discussion about soft redirects overall, they should not be arbitrarily deleted because they do not meet, and never will meet, some minimum article length requirement.

Let me also state that I have very little personal weight for or against this particular soft redirect. If someone had reasons for it's deletion that had nothing to do with it's nature as a soft redirect, then I would not be fighting this fight. But the reasons given pro-deletion arguments are all about it's short nature, and those arguments apply to all soft redirects, so it is those arguments against which I debate, in order to preseve an (IMHO) very useful tool. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soft-redirects using the {{wi}} template are a fairly effective deterrent which prevent new users from endlessly recreating these mere dictionary definitions. Our history has taught us that if you delete it, we will be having deletion discussions on the page about monthly. And everytime that you have to delete the page, you inevitably bite the newbie who created the page in good faith but who didn't know about WP:WINAD. Rossami (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, exactly. --Pixelface (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are looking to set a precedent, fine. But there are far better soft redirects to take a stand with than this one. DarkAudit (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay in replying. In response to Pixelface's comment to my talk page: at this time there is no consensus either way, so I'm considering this "relisted" on the February 14 page, and it will be closed in due course. I hope that's OK with everyone else. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk)

Keep That was one of the more confusing Afd histories I've ever read through, but I think I understand now. I agree that this isn't the place to argue over the existence of soft redirects, and that if they do exist, that this is an appropriate situation in which to use one. Xymmax (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The value of soft redirects may need to be discussed in general, but if they're appropriate anywhere then this one belongs. This particular acronym isn't treated at Internet slang and probably shouldn't be, making a redirect there inappropriate. EALacey (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bulkley

Non-notable ancestor of the Bush family. Notability is not inherited. He does not seem to have been a sufficiently notable preacher to have notability on his own. --Michael White^T·C 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:BIO seems to be a significant subject of multiple manuscripts. --Veritas (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the references are all genealogy-related if that's what you're referring to. --Michael White^T·C 13:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His 1646 treatise The Gospel Covenant appears to have been a significant Puritan book. Discussed at length in old histories such as. He isn't here just because of his descendant. --Dhartung | Talk 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: two of the books about him on worldcat are not genealogy related. Dsp13 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: per Dsp13 Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Exclusive (album). Davewild (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Perfect (Chris Brown song)

AFD of contested PROD. Non-notable song. Article is also a stub, suggest merge with the album page if appropriate. Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other articles by the same artist should probably also be considered, however I'm not sure if a single discussion should be held or one for each article. "Run It!", "Yo (Excuse Me Miss)", "Gimme That", "Say Goodbye", "Shortie Like Mine" · "Poppin'", "Wall to Wall", "Kiss Kiss", "With You" · "No Air", "Shawty Get Loose", "Get like Me", "Picture Perfect"--Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 01:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Exclusive (album). Was originally gonna be the 4th single but was changed. 71.233.232.196 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Articles stating "The song is rumored to be the 5th single...." should be immediately redirected to the album. - eo (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Us?

AfDs for this article:

The article even says that it is an unconfirmed title, there are no sources, and it does not need an article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The uncomfirmed title bit was unsourced too. Even though, delete until more info. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 21:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G7 author comment (above) RT | Talk 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Prichard

Autobiography of a golf course designer. Is he notable? (TehSpud says: "I have seen no evidence that this is an autobio to begin with." How about: "my studies" - twice in this state of the article; "self-made" image and his being an SPA.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article could use some work, I am convinced of notability due to Google News hits here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?tab=pn&q=%22Ron+Prichard%22+golf&ie=UTF-8 and this book here that mentions his restoration http://books.google.com/books?id=l4K6G9nSyZMC&pg=PA508&dq=%22Ron+Prichard%22+golf&sig=2-8sL0f6NytgJLZn1Ie736ZPd2A. (Mind meal (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mind meal. The google news hits in particular look sufficient to support notability.--Kubigula (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mind meal and Kubigula; the sources show Mr. Prichard meets the primary notability criterion. However, the current content is unsourced and promotional in tone, and should go altogether. I suggest reducing the article to a stub and expanding from the news sources. EALacey (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with no prejudice against possible merger. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of My Lies Are True (Sooner or Later)

Some_of_My_Lies_Are_True_(Sooner_or_Later) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Request DELETION of this page and Don't Ever Tell Me That You Love Me as non-notable singles by Huey Lewis & The News. Having just the article for the album from which they came, Huey Lewis and the News (album), is notable enough in that it is the debut album by the popular '80s rock group. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Generally speaking singles of notable bands are considered notable themselves, even if the single came out "before they were famous". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to the album. This single didn't chart, and it's not the subject of any sources; therefore ,it isn't notable on its own. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notwithstanding the outcome of this AFD it would be reasonable (though not necessary) to merge and redirect to the article about the album, but this explicitly does not require an AFD discussion, particularly when no meaningful reason to delete this has been provided. — CharlotteWebb 17:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I guess a Redirect to Huey Lewis and the News (album) is in order, according to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs.
- These songs have not been ranked on national or significant music charts, have not won significant awards or honors and have not been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups.
- There is not enough verifable material, or non-verifiable material for that matter, to warrant a detailed article. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With permission, and upon the archiving of this AfD discussion, I will perform the redirect. --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to the album. (Be sure to include the cover.) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish medical terminology

Wikipedia is not a Spanish-English dictionary, nor a collection of medical jargon. This is also an undefined list classifiable as listcruft. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Michael White^T·C 14:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic. There's a place on the web for this somewhere, but that place isn't Wikipedia I'm afraid. Qwfp (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G3 (Note: I am just closing the AfD after the article was deleted by another admin) --Angelo (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outer FC

Blatant hoax club created by User:Hello01. I am Italian, I've never ever heard of this club, and I've found no track of its existence in the Internet. Angelo (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no mention on the official Serie D website, no relevant Ghits for "outer" "milan" "calcio", blatantly false info (1973-74 Serie B title was actually won by A.S. Varese 1910),badge has clearly been knocked up in MS Paint or similar, name is a feeble English-language play on Inter Milan. Need I go on.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax ive never heard of or seen this Football Club on the web or anywhere else. A look through the web again shows no sign of any existance. Dewster^{_^*'_} 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like the pictures were made on Microsoft Paint.--Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax. Liked the socks though. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query Just out of interest, can anyone work out where the photo was actually taken.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. I wonder why they took the time writing the article when the logo is so obviously a 2-minute MSPaint quickie. Apparently even the hoaxer got bored and couldn't be bothered. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As hoax. ~~Tagging with nonsence because someone has to put a stop to keeping crap like this around for one minute more than necessary. Five days? Why?~~ DarkAudit (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, G3 for vandalism now covers blatant hoaxes such as this. DarkAudit (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. He is only a junior champion, not a senior, and the article lacks all sources. Fram (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wilberg

Seemingly non-notable kayaker. Notability is asserted in being a kayakking champion however a quick search shows no evidence of these victories, nor if these victories are notable in the first place. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wilberg

He is not the biggest kayaker, but he is stil a nordic champion in K2 500 and as a member of the youth national team, this shouldn't be deleted.

Here is a link for the Norwegian championship, wich proves one of the gold medals: [23]

[24] Here is another NM championship when he won in another class. Race number 29.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus Michaelsen (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, even if he is a Nordic champion in some sort of kayaking competition (hasn't been sourced), that's still not very notable. JdeJ (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.What if I temporarily delete waht is written about that he is a Nordic champion until I find the source. I've heard that he will soon eat lunch with the mayor of Asker becasue of this and maybe some local news papers will cover it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus Michaelsen (talk • contribs)

Keep. Actually, he is a very notable kayaker and i have seen him many times in the local news paper. MyTemple (talk) 08:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your local paper? I can't prove your comment if the paper name is not given. Undeath (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to verify he meets WP:ATHLETE. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Local newspaper" is the key: this is a local figure who is not on an international venue, not a captain, etc. A young athlete, and there are many thousands of such the world over. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Cauldwell#Education. The school is already mentioned there, so I will leave it to other editors to be bold if they want to merge any more content. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Middle School

This middle school is not notable. The three sentence article is just a basic listing. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district or delete otherwise. Non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Cauldwell#Education to where I have already merged the content. TerriersFan (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to a new section under Cauldwell#Education. The page has been expanded and is now informative but it still doesn't contain enough secondary sourced material that I can argue for it being kept. However, it is still being worked on and I'm happy to alter my view if the necessary sources are found. TerriersFan (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont see why Abbey middle school should be deleted, all other middle schools in Bedford are listed on wikipedia. For the purposes of classification Bedfordshire LEA classes its Middle Schools as secondary schools and some of the middle schools originally started life as secondary-Modern Schools. Why should Abbey Middle School not have its own wikipedia article when other middle schools in Bedford do? Bleaney (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now researched and greatly expanded the article on Abbey Middle School. I really now think the wikipedia article should stand. Bleaney (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike most of the United Kingdom, in Bedfordshire there is a three-tier education education system. Some middle schools are deemed as secondary schools, some as primary. All the middle schools in Bedfordshire are deemed secondary as stated by Bleaney above. Now, looking at the article guidelines at WP Schools, it does quote as proposed for notability "In practice most high schools/secondary schools in the English-speaking world can easily satisfy these criteria", however it also proposes "The majority of middle schools/junior high schools are also unlikely to satisfy the Wikipedia notability criteria". So it's a tough one to call as the school in question falls into both camps. Incidently, there are a few middle schools with their own article at Middle Schools in England, does this mean they may be listed at Afd too? --Starrycupz (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the current policy proposal is at WP:School. However, the page doesn't yet meet that standard nor WP:N from first principles (and as regulars on here know I am not slow to defend defensible school pages!). I have provided the creator guidance on my talk page. This school was in special measures and the story as to why, and how it came out, can be sourced. That, with some of the other material available, may well be enough when added but it needs to be done quickly. TerriersFan (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also I have a referenced source indicationg that the school WAS a Secondary Modern School until Bedfordshire LEA's reorganisation in the 1970's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleaney (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am relisting to enable other people to see the new version of the article which is significantly different to what was initially nominated. Davewild (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no matter how exquisite the article, it's still non-notable.--—TreasuryTag talkcontribs 11:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to its town per WP:SCL, in this case Bedford#Education. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it's a private school then delete, but if its a public school then its notable in my book.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is most definitely a public school, operated by the Bedfordshire LEA. TerriersFan (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a source on the page in any way shows notability of this school. All they say is that it exists. I don't get this public vs private argument, so I'm defaulting to sourcing, which is absent. Paddy Simcox (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to a new section under Cauldwell#Education or delete. Keeping is not a decision that is affected by what type of school it is (public v private}. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Some believe that any school paid for by taxpayers is notable, while others would have to satisfy the WP:ORG standards. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability Conference

Possible violation of WP:CORP. I also have Notability and WP:SPAM concerns, as this article contains 2 lines on the organization itself, and about 100 lines on its key personnel, conferences and the like. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure spam about nn organisation. Mayalld (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An almost identical aticle currently excists under Institute_of_Sustainable_Communication Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Connelly

Delete Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course. The individual books aren't even notable, why would the main character be? I really don't understand why WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply to aspects of fictional works. <eleland/talkedits> 11:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 faithless (^speak) 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual Products Group

Delete Fails WP:V. These sources [25], [26] are two news releases and do not describe the subject in detail. Google search shows 18 ghits [27], but significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable source is lacking. No hint in google news search [28]. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet the primary notability criterion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Apparently a group within a larger company, as well. No independent notability is obvious in the text, and this is a tech business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girlband (American band)

Quite a few records, but reliable coverage appears to be nil. Nothing in the article suggests that this band passes WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "a sold out crowd of 15"? No sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Hudgens

The subject has no notability on her own. Only for being the sister of Vanessa Anne Hudgens. BeeFan (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, a few guest spots, apparently profiled at TVGuide.com but I don't know what their inclusion criteria are. Probably you're right that she's only known for who her sister is, but that in itself is not a reason for deletion. I mean are either of the Olson Twins independently notable? <eleland/talkedits> 11:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luckystars (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected the page to Vanessa Anne Hudgens for the time being, as I effectively agree with the notability argument. But as there's a tentative pattern established and I believe that she will eventually meet WP:N and WP:BIO, redirecting it preserves the current content for future development. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Bean Cobain

AfDs for this article:

Biography of a 15 year-old minor, whe has done nothing notable in her life other than been born to Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love. That fact is recored in their biographies. The article is full of unencyclopedic personal facts - about, for instance, when an otherwise unnotable girl last saw her dad alive and what age she was. It's an amalgam from various sources - none of which are interested in the person as an individual. We have all relevant information recorded elsewhere. Doc^g 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Unless notability can be demonstrated independently of her heritage then I would say it is not an encyclopedic topic. 1 != 2 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; merge not necessary per nomination. Notability is not inheritable, and there isn't enough data to justify a split-out article. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Courtney Love (or possibly Kurt Cobain). The subject would need to have an independent significance in order to be notable for herself. The only claims of Frances Bean Cobain doing something on her own are the three press interviews; if the contents of those interviews were about something other than her parentage, then it might have been a different story, but they are not. If people are looking for information on Frances Bean Cobain, it's appropriate to include some in the biographies of her parents. Sam Blacketer 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason Steve Ballmer is notable is that he works for Microsoft. Interviews about him talk almost entirely about his work at Microsoft. But it would still be ridiculous to merge his entry into the Microsoft entry. By the same token, Frances Bean Cobain is famous primarily because she has famous parents. But she is, nevertheless, famous. Major media outlets have repeatedly done interviews of her and written profiles of her. Millions of people know who she is. Therefore she's notable. It's not our place to second-guess the reasons someone has become famous. Binarybits 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't matter whether her fame was inherited. She is a well-known figure who is a subject of interest to people, and that's enough. Owen 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this person well known? For what? 1 != 2 21:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter what for. True, she hasn't done anything obviously significant. But neither has, say, Princess Ariane of the Netherlands. Simply being known by a significant number of people is enough to make her culturally significant. Owen 00:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That other such articles exist is not a reason to keep this. Yes she is known, but so are the Queen's corgis. The point is that the undoubtable notable facts about her (who she is and her relationship to her parents) is included elsewhere. There is no specific and notable information about her that requires a seperate article.--Doc^g 00:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's corgis aren't individually notable because they're almost never discussed by name. Contrast with Buddy (dog) and Socks (cat), which do, in fact have their own Wikipedia pages despite not having done anything "notable" other than being owned by a very famous family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarybits (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that you don't have to do anything notable to be notable. Whether you like it or not, that's just how things are. Someone could easily argue that the Pepsi Girl has never accomplished anything, but that is simply our opinion. Like it or not, she is well known, and has a place here. Owen 03:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some of this is redundant information in her mother's or father's article is not a sufficient reason to delete it either, and is not something that should factor into this discussion. I don't think there's a policy or guideline that states that simply because two topics have overlapping information they should be merged. I'm sure Kurt Cobain has a lot of redundant information with Nirvana, or The Blues Brothers with The Blues Brothers (movie), or incisor with tooth. The question isn't "What has she done that's notable?" but "Are people aware of her and are they taking notice?" Clearly they are. It doesn't matter if the articles focus on her relationship with her parents or they define her by her father's legacy; it's still her relationship and her definition they're talking about. Torc2 19:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if not "what for", how about by who? I don't see any demonstration of notability. 1 != 2 06:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect. Non-notable child of a celebrity. Until she does something of notability (not just something "interesting" to a few), she doesn't need an article on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 22:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, no independent notability. Hal peridol 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Kurt Cobain; we've had precedence for this kind of thing where the kid of a celebrity has done nothing; witness Suri Cruise and whatever Brangelina's kid's name is... Tony Fox (arf!) 06:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To not go with the flow of this AfD, strong keep. Her magazine interviews guarantee sourcable material along with the other material in existence about her to allow at least a Start-class article, and as Owen points out she is notable enough to be of interest to a wide number of people. Frances Bean has much more notability than the children of most celebrities. Plus, it would be inappropriate to merge this to either Courtney Love or Kurt Cobain without undue weight on those articles. I am willing to defend that this article be kept and would like to engage in proper discussion about it with the delete voters. Take John Smeaton (baggage handler), Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) and Chantelle Houghton - these people are kind of just famous for being famous, but I would not support that any of these articles be deleted because there is enough reliable source material on each to write an article well beyond stub status, like there is here. -h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chantelle is not famous for being famous. She's famous because she won a reality television show, married a pop star, authored a book, presented a television show, wrote a few magazine columns and divorced a pop star. Smeaton is famous because he helped prevent an act of terrorism, won an award and write a newspaper column. Crocker is famous for expressing public opinion and being interviewed numerous times on television. The subject of this article is currently assumed to be notable because she was born. You've got apples. And you've got oranges. I get your point, but it's not about where you start, it's about where you finish. Whilst we have an article on Smeaton, where's the articles on all the other have a go heroes? Whilst we have Crocker, where are the articles on all the other You Tube stars? Whilst we have Chantelle, where are the articles on all the other television show one off wonders? Notability isn't what you do, it's what the world does with you. Britney was just another child tv star until... Madonna was just another wannabe pop star until... Ian Wright was just another plasterer until... A better comparison is with Peaches Geldof. Someone who is more than just the child of a celebrity union. Hiding T 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I definitely agree that Peaches Geldof is a better comparison than any of the others here, although she's that critically significant three years older than Frances Bean in which she's had time to do notable stuff.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - By that rationale, we shouldn't have an article on Frances Bean until she's done notable stuff. Which is my point. Hiding T 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't work out where to redirect. My own preference would be a protected dab stating Frances Bean Cobain is the child of Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love. Although a redirect to either parent with a hatnote, "Frances Bean Cobain, the child of Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love redirects here. Certainly no article though, per Sam Blacketer. Hiding T 16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The first AfD had it right, and there is no reason to overturn that. Enough people thought she was notable then, and per WP:N#TEMP notability is permanent. Also, don't overanalyze and overuse WP:NOTINHERITED - that's just one section in an essay and simply states that notability is not automatically inherited; it's a warning against an argument for keeping, not an argument to be used for deletion. The fact FBC's name is well-known and can be used, for example, by The Onion without fear of people wondering who they're talking about, or that she's had a photoshoot in Elle magazine that was discussed elsewhere is sufficient evidence of notability. Let's not let Kurt's and Courtney's extreme notability overshadow Frances's minor-but-still-sufficient notability.Torc2 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I totally agree, and think that the deletionists need to chill out a bit. There are enough reliable sources to write an article, so I really don't see what the point of deleting this would be. Everyone should also remember that since WP:ATA is an essay and not a guideline, we are under no obligation to follow what it says at all.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With her father's article. Jmlk 1 7 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Google shows 1200 stories about her, including multiple interviews and profiles in major publications. The fact that she hasn't "accomplished anything" is irrelevant: she's been the subject of sustained public interest and media coverage for over a decade now. She's indisputably notable as that term is defined in Wikipedia guidelines. Binarybits 16:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I would agree with a merge to the article of a parent if only one were notable, since both are notable, there is no logical merge target. In divorce court custody of the children must be decided, but in an encyclopedia, there is no need to try to split the baby. Also since there are several media interviews of the subject, we have multiple secondary sources, which meets WP:BIO. Dhaluza (talk) 02:09, 5 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 gee whiz, there's no gosh-darn consensus. Oh, drat! krimpet ✽ 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Cussing Club

This page seems to me like a self promotional page of a specific group.

The quote "It currently has chapters in 50 states and 24 countries worldwide" uses a reference from their website which is bias via self promotion. No other evidence supports this statement. Also not 50 states and 24 country yet all news comes from LA, California newspapers rather than international.
Second reference point does not provide much information about what the group is about and how it was formed
Site was hacked before and was not quoted or said in the article. Since its such a small group there is little data [29][30][31]

Not Notable: Website not notableWP:Notability & WP:Notability

Insufficient secondary
There are few notable members
Wikipedia Notability quotes: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." there are not enough
All content is NOT attributed by sources.
"Hatch has been featured on radio and television locally and nationwide, including KCAL, KNBC, Power 106, On Air with Ryan Seacrest on 102.7 KIIS FM, KABC Radio with Peter Tilden, and the Fox News Channel." has no attributions or references
No information about founder "Hatch"
No history of events meetings Cs california (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is either delete or merge into some anti profanity group page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs) 07:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. This has clearly been covered nontrivially by reliable sources. Yeah it's a poor article, so tag it with {{cleanup}} or {{advert}} or whatever, but it's notable by our standards. <eleland/talkedits> 11:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and blatently self promotional.--Ratman9999 (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This one shouldn't even have needed debate. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know nothing about the club myself. However, per WP:ORG, the major requirement for notability of organizations is in coverage of reliable secondary sources, and this article has it. The club has appeared on various news sites, radio stations, and on television. The size of the organization is adequate, the notability of key members is adequate, and the sourcing is more than adequate. I would also like to advance that the positive, "advertiser" tone of the article will be edited to death on Wikipedia, an inherently pro-free speech organization. Estemi (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues mentioned on WP:ORG was addressed. You state radio and television but provide no references. Wikipedia is NOT a promotional site as addressed in WP:ORG. Two sources is NOT considered adequate. --Cs california (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a search on the site apparently it IS SELF PROMOTIONAL all the links on references on the wikipedia are also on the site. No third party reliable sources are out there and not much NPOV article or articles bashing the group either.--Cs california (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.89.177 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to somewhere appropriate. Barely passes WP:N, might be better in another article, but can't think which one.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete* Fail on so many points, it's not even funny. Even poorly written articles can manage to scrape up at least two third party sources. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Specific in-article BLP issues may be addressed through the rigorous removal of questionable content, in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Tatma

Queried delete for notability. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loads of references, including a Channel 4 documentary about her? I don't understand how the notability is in question. --Canley (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. passes WP:V easily. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly notable, plenty of third-party refs. My main hesitation is BLP concerns, but I think that is covered by the parents' having given permission for the Channel 4 documentary. Several statements in the article still need to be sourced. NSH001 (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took some information from the corresponding Chinese Wikipedia page (click on 中文 at the bottom of the left column in page Lakshmi Tatma; it is in Traditional Chinese, not Simplified Chinese). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know that the last AfD featured a great deal of concern about BLP, but given the huge number of highly reliable sources (CNN, BBC, CBS, NBC and CBC) reporting this information, little Lakshmi clearly has moved into the realm of public figures. She's notable, and the information is verifiable, and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xymmax (talk • contribs) 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. If notable enough for her to be on the Bodyshock series, notable enough for an article.I am sooooo cool! 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by value

A cluttered mess of random statistics presented in a barely coherent manner. The material is redundant as it can all be found on other wiki pages and the concept of "countries by value" seems to be made up by the article creator. Sbw01f 05:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article is pretty coherent, it is a sortable table which merges together lists like List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by birth rate. Whether we need such a "master duplicate" however is another story. I am neutral to that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The table doesn't rank countries by "value", but by population; hence China is #2, India #3, the United States #5 (the nations of World and European Union are #1 and #4, respectively) Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you click on the arrows in the headings of the tables, you can sort them by other "values" (I guess this is where "by value" in the title comes from). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seem to be quite a useful list without problems, and as noted the ambiguous title is likely because it tracks so many different factors. Nyttend (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the purpose of the article? All of the data can be found on other articles. It's just a giant list of random statistics mashed together, how is this encyclopedic? If someone wants to see a list of countries by population, GDP, birth rate, death rate etc.. they can already find all that on wikipedia in a more coherently presented manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbw01f (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep and improve. A useful, encyclopedic one place to go collection of stats. Instead of being nominated for deletion, it should be considered for Featured List status. Hmains (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I use this table frequently. It makes sense to have a master list of political states which gathers data from other lists. I like the sort function on this one. It's useful to be able to sort by one measure and than compare the other measures. The rank is useful for finding a particular country after a resort. I'd like to see other measures related to economy/ecology included such as land area, sea-coast length, population density, urbanization, etc. Such a list would soon become unwieldy, which leads to a technical question. Is it possible to have a table in which one can choose which columns or measures are displayed? Prakuyo (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, if anything can be merged. I am redirecting this to List of Puerto Rico Highways so material can be found from the history. OR problems should be sorted out as part of any merge. Bduke (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Digit System of Highways in Puerto Rico

Pure original research. The only citation offered is a map of Puerto Rico, and even though these general trends may be identifiable from that map, it doesn't necessarily follow that the numbers were intentionally assigned in this manner. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rican-related deletion discussions. jwillbur 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Enough said. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Puerto Rico Highways - whether or not the pattern was intentional, it clearly exists. We can say "routes in this range are in this region" without it being original research because we have a map that shows all routes. It doesn't make sense to put the information in a separate article though. --NE2 07:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NE2. I was about to say what he said, pretty much word for word, but he beat me to it. Most of the articles on state highway systems in the US have a section on the numbering pattern, and the vast majority of these (as far as I've seen) are unreferenced. I haven't found the page on WSDOT's website yet that explains why the highways are numbered the way they are, probably because it doesn't exist. But any state map can be used as a reference to say that a pattern exists. That being said, calling it a "system" and having a separate article like this is neologism-ish, and largely unnecessary. When/if it is merged, it can probably be condensed a good deal. -- Kéiryn (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Asserting that such a pattern exists without a reference to back it up is still original research. If other state highway system articles include this sort of thing, then they need to have it removed also. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not original research to say "all three-digit routes beginning in 4 are in Foo County" if this is verifiable on a map. It's similarly not original research to say "North Bar is a town north of Bar" even if we don't have a source other than a map that shows that relation, or to say something as simple as what the highest route number in a state is. --NE2 16:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Every highway system that has such a pattern has this "problem". ~~Including Interstate Highway System#Auxiliary Interstates~~. -- Kéiryn (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it doesn't, since the FHWA route log includes a spiel about the numbering system in its introduction, even including a graphic similar to the one in our article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - (ec) Apologies. When I saw the way the reference was placed, and that it was pointing to "FHWA Route Log and Finder List", I made a false assumption that it was referencing just the list of routes. Turns out that isn't the route log, and does in fact explain the numbering system... FHWA really ought to rename that page... -- Kéiryn (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - United States Numbered Highways does have this "problem". As do the pages for Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey (mostly in the renumbering articles), New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota (references a personal page), Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. -- Kéiryn (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Texas doesn't have a numbering system. What page in particular are you referring to? --Holderca1^talk 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "State Highways are generally assigned numbers between 1 and 365." --NE2 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reworded sentence, it no longer implies that there will never be a SH 366. --Holderca1^talk 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK - that wasn't my objection though (but it is a good change). My point is that there's no difference between looking at a map or list and saying that the highest number is 365 and doing the same and saying that 9xx routes are all in the western part of the island. --NE2 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm a little sleepy at the moment, but I think there my thinking wasn't so much a "numbering system", but the description of the system(s) as a whole. Very little in #Types of state-numbered highways is referenced. -- Kéiryn (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That article as a whole is in bad shape and in need of an overhaul, just haven't gotten around to it. --Holderca1^talk 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The United States Numbered Highways numbering system is referenced elsewhere, including The Roads that Built America by Dan McNichol and some papers by FHWA. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge elsewhere: Per nom. I took one look at this last night and my eyes began to bleed. seicer | talk | contribs 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bleed because of it's WP:OR-ness, or because of it's ugliness? I agree that it's ugly, but there's a lot of mergeable content there, provided consensus says it's not OR. -- Kéiryn (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Format, prose, lack of sufficient information, etc. I think that this could be reused elsewhere at List of Puerto Rico Highways or perhaps split it off to something like List of State Highways in Kentucky. It's pretty bad when the article itself is depreciated with a section on 4-digit designations on an article regarding 3-digit designations. seicer | talk | contribs 20:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notability demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources and nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Stalin

AfDs for this article:

Simpy does not meet WP:NMG. He is not the subject of multiple non-trivial newspaper articles. He talk's about himself in some, others are largely not about him and he is only mentioned in passing as listed to be performing. No real google hits. No personal website. Is not signed by a significant record label. Does not have significant albums sales. Albums not sold in stores. Only one real link from an another article. Icamepica (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noting sockpuppet and canvassing issues - likely sockpuppet / meatpuppet and canvassing issues here involving the nominator, as there have been on the article for the past several days. At least one participant is a confirmed sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. Clearly satisfies WP:N, and just ended a prior AfD three days ago with speedy keep. Wikidemo (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per aboveIcamepica (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the nominator, who has been accused of sockpuppetry and has apparently admitted to sockpuppetry. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now confirmed that Icamepica is a sockpuppet of Boomgaylove, and this account has now been indefinitely blocked. Gwernol 14:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in no uncertain terms. Pure rubbish. patent idiocy. Discharging P (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discharging P has a notice on the userpage stating "his user is a sock puppet of Stinging P, and has been blocked indefinitely." --Coppertwig (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ,Comment, I suggest reading the first AFD before !voting. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone even read the San Francisco Bay Guarding references? Clearly notable. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, I suggest they do and they will see one is an article that is not about him at all and only mentions him a a tiny 4 or 5 sentance blip. Which is promo material. The other is not an article about him at all. Its about post-tupac shukur bay area hip-hop and mentions him a few times. This does not meet WP:NMG. He must be the subject of the article. Even if the bay area hip hop article did count. one does not equal multiple! i suggest everyone read this: at wp:npg except for the following:

Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Icamepica (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does not have to be the subject of an article. seresin | wasn't he just...? 14:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is not a notable musician. Very few independent sources even mention him.BWH76 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I write about hip-hop for a living and I've never heard of him. E-40's son Droop-E is far more notable and even he is a minor name in hip-hop let alone Bay Area rap. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable at all Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has many reliable sources. A couple are most specifically all about him. What did he do, get somebody's sister pregnant? Blast Ulna (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's totally inappropriate to have a second AFD on an article just three days after the first was closed. He seems to have some notable qualities (there are a bunch of sources listed), but aside from that, this should be kept for its procedural problems. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fairly obvious that the nominator of this AFD is a reincarnation of the user who nominated it last time, so I doubt this is the "good faith nomination" that I mentioned hypothetically in closing the first AFD. In light of this, and the fact that I don't see any reason to delete this, and that nothing has changed in the last three days, I would expect the same result. — CharlotteWebb 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You might expect it but thisd is clearly no speedy keep, and nor are allt he delete votes sock or meat puppets by any stretch of the imagination. We certainly should not keep the article because of sockpuppets. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's pretty much a snowball keep to begin with. The fact that there has been meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, and canvassing here means that this deletion discussion is fatally flawed and should not proceed. If the only issue is notability that can wait until the more serious question of sockpuppets is resolved. You were canvassed to come to this discussion. I have left a warning on your talk page regarding edit warring over the placement of sockpuppet notices. Please take a step back on this one. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously I don't pretend that my expectations carry any weight in this debate, as I have no intention of closing it again. In fact, I'm done commenting here. — CharlotteWebb 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not a speedy close: Although the nominator is accused of being a sockpuppet of a banned user, even if the nomination was in bad faith, since there have been some good-faith entries by established users I think this discussion should probably not be speedily closed, though I'm not entirely sure of that. While it's not precisely relevant to this situation, Wikipedia:Deletion process says "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well." and in my opinion the spirit of that suggests that once there are some good-faith delete votes, the discussion should not be speedily closed. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I respect that, and it is a shame to waste everyone's time here, there are a couple problems with allowing sockpuppet-plagued processes to continue. First, any result to delete based on this discussion would be invalid (unless it's a snowball / speedy delete) because the system was gamed. The sockpuppet(s) canvassed a bunch of people, convincing them unwittingly to support them by lying about the circumstances of the article, its citations, etc. So the time is wasted anyway - not by the close but by the sockpuppetry. Second, these sockpuppets have made six nominations in five days. If the nominations fail or they get blocked again, they just come back and nominate more articles. To allow these sockpuppets to force everyone to deal with that amount of work means, basically, that they win. The only reasonable approach to dealing with them is to simply deny them any benefit they might gain by gaming the system.Wikidemo (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any lying. Please provide diffs.
Any AfD discussion might have sockpuppets in it. Probably the best way to deal with that is by using all the usual procedures for carrying on and closing these discussions.
The purpose here is not to make sure that someone does or doesn't "win", but to build an encyclopedia. I don't think it would be appropriate to close a discussion in order to achieve a particular effect on the perceived benefit to the nominator; that seems to me to go against the spirit of the policy that we don't block punitively. (WP:Blocking policy). --Coppertwig (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing about procedure. To create an encyclopedia you have to uphold the integrity of procedure. If you let anyone get what they want by subverting the procedure you don't get quality, you get a mess. Regarding lying, in the boomgaylove persona watch how the sockpuppet first adds a "citation needed" tag to a cited piece of text[32], removes two sources[33] because he "never heard of" them or something, then he removes data as "unsourced" and adds fact tags[34]. And then argued in the AfD that the article was unsourced. That's the kind of behavior that got this user blocked indefinitely if you look at the AN/I history. The newer examples are milder but either clueless or disingenous: "He is not the subject of multiple non-trivial newspaper articles", "No real google hits", "No personal website." I can't review it all for you but this kind of stuff has been going on incessantly for about a week. Probably for months under different accounts. Wikidemo (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you describe look like valid arguments to me, and don't seem to me to bear any resemblance to "lying" even if one might disagree with them. Elsewhere I've added fact tags when there are already sources, if the sources are inadequate or do not support the material; the citation-needed tag for the slash article seems to me to be a request for a proper bibliographic reference including date of publication etc. Rather than "lying", from what you describe above the situation seems to be simply someone who has a higher standard than you for quality of sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's ridiculous and uncalled for. I'm fighting a sockpuppet here and you say that the sock has valid arguments and a higher standard for sourcing than I do? If that weren't such a hoot I might consider it an insult. The sock's method of "argument" was enough to get him/her banned indefinitely. I already proved the case on AN/I, and if you really want to learn the details you can follow the links to that case. I don't have to prove it again and again on demand. And abusive sockpuppeting is inherently dishonest. Wikidemo (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I hereby declare that my attention was drawn to this article by a recent help desk thread started by the nominator. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which was part of the canvassing and forum shopping problem. The nominator went all over the place trying to drum up people to oppose the content until he/she found some. As did the previous sockpuppet incarnation, boomgaylove. That's part of what makes this AfD invalid, as well as the edit warring over claims of BLP violation. Wikidemo (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Bulbous (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on verifiability. Strongly suggest speedy close based on bad faith nomination, sockpuppetry, and canvassing. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote article Although I don't think it was necessary to prove the notability of the article or deal with the sockpuppets and other problems with this AfD nomination, I've substantially rewritten it and added yet more sources. As with the first batch of sources there is plenty of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources - articles about this artist in various print publications. I continue to believe this was a bad faith nomination that should be summarily closed. Wikidemo (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, among the many blatant misstatements in the nomination are that this artist's albums are not available in stores. I guess Tower Records is out of business but they sold an album, and CD Universe?[35], Rasputin, Barnes and Noble, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasons stated in the first nomination: Notable Bay Area rapper who gets ~~46,600~~ 50,600 Google hits. Also, sources have now been added to the article. And I can confirm what Wikidemo has already said: this man is notable within the Bay Area hip-hop community. And I also second CharlotteWebb's sentiments above. Someone needs to start a CheckUser on Boomgaylove's sockpuppets. Bash Kash (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The google test is not a valid argument, your confirmations are not valid, checkusers on one editor accused of sockpuppetry is irrelevant to this discussion since the rest of the voters which are majority in favor of deletion are not.Icamepica (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. And please note that the "Google-argument" is absurd in this case. Yes, you'll find tens of thousands of hits on J Stalin, true enough. Most of them are about the very notable USSR dictator, not about this guy. JdeJ (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sakes! We're up to eleven sources from six publications. Will someone close this farce already? Wikidemo (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources and publications are those? Many are not reliable. And even if all of them where, that only establishes verifiability which is not the point of an AfD, notability is. University professors are a good example of this. They are definatly verifiable in many sources but they are not usually notable.Icamepica (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic keep - Does not seem to be even remotely borderline: reliable sources, material available in stores - what else could be wanted to establish notability? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just as it did three days ago, this article has adequate sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject. Gwernol 10:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The sources give significant information about the subject, not just listing performance dates etc., and some of the sources focus specifically on the subject for at least several paragraphs. There is quite a large number of sources listed. I looked at the Google hits and many of them are about the musician, not the Soviet politician; the majority of the first few pages of hits are about the musician. Also per Bash Kash and Ed FitsGerald, who seem to be providing personal confirmation of local notability and presence of the musician's songs in stores. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that the sources are sufficiently reliable publications, and the subject doesn't seem to have any especially notable achievements. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep. Abuse of process and article is sourced. This should be closed immediately as a keep with prejudice towards any near term nomination (6 months at least). R. Baley (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if this discussion is allowed to run for the usual length of time and reaches consensus, then there should be the usual deprecation of re-opening such a discussion after a short time; but if the discussion is closed early due to abuse of process, then there should be no prejudice against any future good-faith AfD nominations of this article even if they're after a very short time. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This was a ludicrous nomination on the face of it, and with all the sources now included (even with SqueakBox and Coppertwig siding with a sockpuppet to remove some sources), this is a no-brainer keep. Why was this even nominated, given the result of only a few days ago? Bellwether ^B _C 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I have not advocated removing any sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note ongoing content dispute citing BLP. Some editors (including myself) consider a certain statement to be potentially libellous, poorly sourced and irrelevant to the reason for having an article on this subject, and have removed it. One editor considers the statement to be adequately sourced and has re-inserted it several times. There is discussion of this dispute on the talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a misstatement on several points. It's not a legitimate dispute, there is no potential libel, the "poor" source is a newspaper, calling it "some editors" versus one is inaccurate and a bit backward, and the only thing it has to do with this AfD is that it was promoted by the sockpuppets behind the AfD.Wikidemo (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After glancing through the reference section, it's clear to me that notability has been established. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears notible enough. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable enough. Sources all appear to be local coverage and he only signed to a record company in 2007. This article seems premature. David D. (Talk) 07:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So only reports in national news sources count now? seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how you define notable, is being a local talent notable enough? Not to me. All factors considered this ones does not seem to rise above the crowd. Yet. Why the rush? David D. (Talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*chuckles to himself* Usually we have people asking why the rush to delete, not to keep an article. But anyway, I agree with what Gwenol says below; the newpaper articles are newspaper articles, regardless of size of audience. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the rush to write the article in the first place? David D. (Talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately we don't have to wonder, since our guidelines on musical groups defines what notability means in this case. The specific criterion is "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries" (my emphasis). The cited articles clearly meet this criteria. Gwernol 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I read seemed pretty trivial to me, I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. David D. (Talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is the point of even having notability guidelines, if people are going to cite them in useless, talismanic fashion? There are sources in the article which discuss the subject extensively. The sources include major newspapers. (The SF Bay Guardian is a free alternative weekly, but it is as comparable to most other alternative weeklies as The New York Times is to the TriCounty Gazette-Herald.) <eleland/talkedits> 15:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the subject of secondary reliable sources, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Bad faith nomination riddled with sock-puppetry and WP:CANVASSING.--Oakshade (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morning_Augment

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Morning Augment

does not meet WP:MUSIC Ky Music Nerd (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 EP. Not signed. No albuums or awards. This could have been speedy deleted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. There is claim and counter-claim here, with people trying to be too pithy-one-sentence-clever and this reduces the signal information available to the closing admin. It strikes me clearly from reading the debate that this is viewed as original synthesis , and I do think that claim is largely justified, as there are various editorial excitements included in the text, such as "The town of Smallville survives its share of living hell as the U.S. Civil War erupts", as an arbitrary example. There is also a general view that this is excessively detailed for its subject material, is almost entirely in-universe and that it (demonstrably) is almost totally lacking in sources — effectively the three death-knells sounding from the complaints re WP:PLOT. Also, I observe that, whilst we are not bound by 'precedent', an example is given of a topically similar article that was deleted last year on similar grounds. The clear-cut sway of the debate here is to delete and the challenges to the policy-based complaints are insufficient to persuade the deleters to change. Two side notes: (i) the injunction is now lifted and (ii) the relisting was an unnecessary burden to AfD when there was plenty of debate included prior to the relisting. Relisting is not the pursuit of a trivial decision for the closing admin, it is for the extension of a debate so thin that not even a 'no consensus' can be meaningfully determined. Splash - tk 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville timeline

There isn't a single source on the page, which also means there isn't one asserting why this topic needs its own article. Not to mention that it's nothing more than plot information. A lot, if not most, of the information in this article is basic episode information covered on the season pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't believe anybody actually spends timed writing (or reading) this, but it's no less strange or obsessive than many of the things on Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lead already says it is based in original research, and the rest seems like a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, i.e. no (sourced) analysis etc. General precedent shows that fictional timelines have a hard time surviving AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, just plot and original synthesis based on the plot. Jay32183 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOT, and it's also written entirely in-universe (not a deletion reason, but another bad thing about the article). TJ Spyke 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Probably better suited to a Smallville fansite, but at least it's somewhat useful to anyone new to the series who may look it up on Wikipedia to learn more about the show. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All fictional articles must be based on the real world. Fictional timelines rarely, if ever, are written from a real world perspective. They are typically written from an in-universe perspective, which is not allowed for fictional topic articles. Regardless, if someone wants to know about Smallville, why aren't they looking at Smallville (TV series)#Season overview, or Smallville (season 1), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Smallville timeline is linked in one high traffic area, that's in the "Season overview" section of the main page. The only place that I can think of that it is linked in is the Smallville template at the bottom of every page. Without the knowledge that you'd gain by reading the season articles, this page doesn't make much sense, because it loosely ties particular episode elements together. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this barred by the Arb Com injunction,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Temporary_injunction], "For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction. Passed 4 to 0 at 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)."
This is an article dealing with video episodes, placing the plots on a timeline. I have discussed this with the nom on my talk page, and warned him about the injunction, though after he placed this nom. Having been warned, I ask him to withdraw this AfD. DGG (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except the injunction talks about articles regarding television episodes and characters: this mentions them, but isn't about them. So, no actual justification, then? --Calton | Talk 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my line of thinking after I read the injunction, and why I didn't withdraw it afterward. This isn't about television episode articles, or character articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that sophistry, though well-intentioned. The wording of "articles regarding episodes and characters", would I think cover anything involving them in a more than incidental way--a biography of an actor or writer would not be covered, one about the plot or characters of themes would be. Thats what this is, though its organized as a timeline. Look at any of the years: it gives that part of the bio of the fictional characters or the general story. Before the injunction, articles like this were typically argued against for just this reason: they duplicated the coverage of the plots of the episodes. I cannot enforce my view on this, and, being involved in these discussion on one side, would not take action as an administrator in any event. But I shall ask at arbcom. I'll give the link.

I've asked at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop#Apparent violation of injunction but I am not sure that was the right venue.DGG (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of sophistry: there's the attempt at finely argued legalisms and searching for loopholes to avoid addressing the actual issues on the table, and the bog-standard questions regarding complete lack of sources, original research, and just plain triviality. Or are end-runs around the core policies at the heart of Wikipedia acceptable? --Calton | Talk 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this before but I will repeat it for the sake repetition; I believe these types of AfD should continue on as normal, if the the result is delete/redirect/merge then this AfD should be tagged with Template:Fictwarn and the motion carried out once the injunction is over. I personally believe it is in the spirit of the injunction that this sort of stuff be included in the injunction but I'm not an arbcom member and I've heard it been said a few times that this sort of stuff is not strictly included in the injunction. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, original research, blah blah. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, viz sourcing and more importantly notability. Referencing arbcom's injunction in this instance of clearly unnotable content is casuistical. Eusebeus (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Sin Harvest, it is also appropriate to discuss the actual issue in the meantime. So, Keep -- as an appropriate summary article. Then notability needs to belong only to the subject as a whole, which is Smallville; treating an aspect of it in a separate subarticle article is really an editorial decision on whether or not to split an article. The material is sourcable, since it all comes from the various comics, etc--agreed that it should be sourced explicitly, but it is certainly sourceable if one knows the material. It is not OR, for OR requires synthesis--the assemblage of facts open to plain view, without interpreting them, is not OR, but the way all WP articles are constructed. The addition of the publication dates for the various events will deal with any question about RW content, also. Keep and improve. Most articles of this type need improvement. . DGG (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the OR claims refer to the time stamps, which is the basis of the article. I admit I don't know how Smallville works, but unless there are subtitles that say "Early 1840s" or "Late 1961", this article is originally researched (IMO). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We also shouldn't be gaming the system to use WP:SS to not follow WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. It is not simply an editorial decision to split an article into pieces that do not meet the inclusion criteria; that is not, nor has it have ever been, the intent of the summary style guideline. Jay32183 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well they are essentially contradicting policy/guidelines one says you should split the article when it gets too long while the other says you shouldn't have an article that is unable to assert notability on its own, so what happens when you have an article that has become too long yet the content can not assert its own notability after a split? --Sin Harvest (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That should generally never be an issue with plot information, because Wikipedia isn't one big plot summary. Information split from an article is typically real world information (if it's a fictional topic) and thus probably sourced by secondary sources to begin with. Articles must have more than just plot information. This page is nothing but plot information and some editors' original research tying information from select episodes (and some information that wasn't in the show at all) together as if that was the show's intention. I don't know what page one could say this needed to be split from, since any important plot information is covered on its respective season page. Anything else is just indiscriminate information from the show itself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just to clarify what this page is actually "summarizing", since DDG says it's "an appropriate summary article". Starting from the beginning, the "Na-Man" story only consisted of about two episodes of the show. Countess Theroux was a side-story arc that lasted for most of season four, but ended with season four. The Dailey Planet bit is rather random. The building itself was only recently significant in the show's history, and the statement in this article about it being founded in 1775 is based purely on the comics (no relation to this television show). Ezra Small is someone that was only developed on one of the WB's viral sites, and has rarely - if ever - been mentioned on the show. Then we start getting this birth dates for characters in the show, yet birthdays have never really been discussed. They'd have birthdays on the show, but the actual date has never really been stated. It's original research to assume that the day the show airs is the day the fictional universe takes place in. You might be able to deduce years, but any more specific and you're stretching. It's even incorporating random recurring characters in the mix. Why not all characters that appear on the show? How is "Mid November, 2006: Raya visits Clark, and together they fight Baern, Raya dies battling Baern." an appropriate summary of the show? The seasons themselves are already summarized on the main page, and then the season pages break down each individual episode. This page not only has no feasible structure about what it chooses recall for the reader, but it's about 90% redundant to what is already in place. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is basically a list sub-article. I say we let the Smallville Wikiproject fix it up. Ursasapien (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Smallville Wikiproject, and if there was one, Bignole would probably be their most active editor. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. There isn't one, and I'm basically the most active editor for these pages. This page right here is run by anons. Regardless, still blatantly fails WP:NOT#PLOT. There was no reason to split this stuff off originally, and I've already explained how most of the stuff on the page is hardly even notable in the series itself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant violation of WP:PLOT, not to mention WP:NOR, as the lead section openly admits. I don't think timelines for fictional universes are generally suitable for Wikipedia, and this one certainly fails policy. Maybe move it to the Smallville wikia if it isn't already there? Paul 730 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If one person is the only major editor for the related articles, then perhaps it shows that others need to edit also. It's OWNership to decide by oneself on how to organise things, and try to delete the pages that do it differently. One person may not feel a particular arrangement useful. I find it helps the understanding of the material, though those more familiar find the more detailed accounts sufficient. Another example of how parts of the encyclopedia without sufficient general attention can be unrepresentative of encyclopedic needs. DGG (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Page statistics. There isn't really anyone that stands out. One editor with 18 edits, and another with 6, then it starts trickly down to just single edits. The editor with 18 edits hasn't visited the page since March 2007. If you took out all the OR, there isn't much left that isn't already stated elsewhere. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, non-notable, useless, fancrufty - one of those. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMHO this isn't under the injunction, but since the case should close pretty soon, the point will soon be moot. That said, these sort of "timelines", like theBuffyverse chronology that was deleted last year, are original research, trying to tie together primary sources in a novel way, creating a new synthesis of primary source materials. --Phirazo 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% per reasoning of the nominator. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smallville on Wikipedia's most active contributor. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coherent, well-organized, discriminate, verifiable sub-article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single source constitutes "veriifiable"? I can point to several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all, so saying the show verifies it won't hold water. See my comment above where I list all the problems with the content and its "verifiability". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone can rent DVDs of the show to verify the information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, you must have missed the part where I said, "I can point out several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all." That means, since there are no sources in the article, and the events didn't occur on the show itself, you cannot verify by citing some episode (i.e. This article is not verifiable). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If there is anything that is inaccurate, then please do remove it, but considering that the show exists on TV and on DVD much of its is very much so verfiable. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's what this AfD will do. Regardless, I've already explained how this "timeline" loosely ties events that barely had anything to do with one another on the show itself. Just because it happens in the show doesn't make it relevant to the show's fictional timeline. If John Doe appears on the show, then John Doe's personal history is not relevant to this timeline. Heck, the first section ties the person that left the information in the caves, with the person that left the crystals, when at no point in the show did they ever say they were one in the same. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite undoubted sincerity and good faith of nomination, anyone who nominates something knowingly in the face of an ArbCom injunction is showing prima facie evidence of judgement so awful as to suggest deleting all nominations from this nominator, to avoid wasting precious AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I nominated it before I knew what the injunction was, and how "strict" it was regarding merging, deleting or anything to do with fiction related articles. So, "keeping" an article just because you disagree with my AfD'ing something fiction when there was an injunction in place (one, again I add, that I wasn't aware of in its entirety, having not read the ArbCom till after I AfD'd this article) is rather immature. You're basically making you opinion to keep the article, not on the article's merit of deletion, but rather on your opinion that I should not AfD any fiction related article to begin with. Just to point out, DGG did ask if this timeline was covered by the injunction, and the only two people to respond to him agreed that it was not covered by the injunction. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondly, there is no such thing as "wasting AfD time". If something doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of being deleted (i.e. the AfD was made in extreme bad faith) then that is evident from the start and the AfD can be quickly closed. If the AfD has merit (and the numerous deletion votes suggests that this does, regardless of the fact that any outcome won't be put into action until the injunction is removed), then you cannot "waste time" reviewing the article. It is YOUR decision to review an article based on the concerns of the nominating editor. If you feel your time was "wasted" reading it, that's an opinion and probably would weigh on your decision to support a deletion of the article. Given that AfD is a community based decision process, and not part of some systematic program that would require "time well spent", there is nothing to waste. You cannot even claim that it is a waste of time for the Admin closing the AfD to read all that is being discussed, because there is a big banner at the top of this page that says whatever the outcome, the page cannot be deleted/merged/etc etc until the injunction is over. So, the "closing" Admin can simply walk away from the article, or come give their own opinion. The only positive thing about this AfD existing in the face of the injunction is the extended time it gets to find more neutral opinions about the article's existence, and thus achieving a more clear consensus about the outcome. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually a lot of time is needlessly lost on AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - An "essay" against deletion in general and how deleting an article "wastes" the time of those that spent working on it, not about "wasting AfD time". There is a difference between what you just cited and what David was referring to (or at least, what I understood David to be referring to). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Every second myself or other editors who do and are able to find references for articles have to waste arguing to keep articles in AfDs that for whatever reason someone does not personally like is time not spent finding referencing and improving articles. If the article is not a hoax, copy vio, or personal attack, then there's almost never a reason for deletion that benefits our value as a reference. Thus, a tremendous amount of energy is misplaced that could be used more constructively. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you think that I sit here all day trying to delete articles? I've turn 3 television articles into Featured Articles. I've turned a fictional character into a featured article. I've been working my Wiki butt off to develop several other articles, so please don't flash that sanctimonious attitude at me. I put in my time in developing articles, and when I find articles that I truly believe do not, and will not, meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, then I do what I must to see that it is rectified, in some way shape for form. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Then I encourage you to focus more on helping to improve and expand other articles rather than attempting to diminish other editors' contributions and efforts. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I improve and expand more articles than you could possibly imagine. I do my part, trust me. How about you realize that this is an encyclopedia, and not a fan house where we should have an article on every single minute piece of information in the world (regardless of how notable or important it is anywhere). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the Five pillars, we are an encyclopeia AND a specialized encyclopedia and almanac. We are NOT paper. Our founder said we are trying to provide the sum total of human knowledge. If it is important or notable anywhere and is factually accurate there is no reasonable or non-elitist rationale not to have an article on it. We should not discriminate against our contirbutors and readers. Especially because people donate money to Wikipedia. Thus, we should tolerant with articles we don't particularly personally care for. Time is much better spent improving and building articles we do care about than attempting to diminish other editors and readers' experiences on our project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow the Smallville wiki project to decide how best this information should be presented. Catchpole (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from above: "There is no Smallville Wikiproject, and if there was one, Bignole would probably be their most active editor." – sgeureka ^t•c 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's wait until this Thursday's episode when (I'm NOT making this up, check the TV listings) Pete Ross (Sam Jones III) returns to the show and gets superpowers after using kryptonite chewing gum.... history in the making? Mandsford (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you being serious, or just trying to lighten the mood? That episode will have nothing to do with this timeline. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to lighten the mood. I'm gathering that I'm mistaken about this being a new episode, so people have already seen it and factored it in. Once the new, post-strike episodes begin, then of course every new chapter adds to the continuity that the viewers have been following since 2001. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the information is handled in the Smallville episode by seasons articles. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tommorrow per nom. The injunction will be vacated by then. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a compelling reason to delete this encyclopedic article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read the section carefully. Though it isn't encourage to say "per nom", it clearly states: "That said, nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient." If Jack Merridew believes that the argument was well formed and any major issues addressed, then his "per nom" vote is in support that my argument is sufficient. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this instance it appears to be just a vote, especially based on evidence from the ArbCom case. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - First off, it's probably better to assume good faith with Jack's intentions, then to insinuate that he doesn't already know that Wiki isn't a democracy. That being said, I inferred that Jack made the reference about the ArbCom closing because he looked at the page and assume that there was consensus to delete the timeline (and since this page has been relisted twice during the injunction - as per the rules of the injunction for any AfD involving fictional information, it's probably clear to say that not much more time is necessary to leave this page listed given its already 14 days on the AfD page). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have seen statements outright made in the ArbCom to the effect of not liking or knowing about these sorts of articles and that alone being the rationale for wanting them deleted, i.e. regardless of the article's merits. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but in order to have consensus we cannot exclude editors willing to write or interested in reading articles they deem encyclopedic just because any of disagree. If the article is not a hoax, copy vio, or personal attack, it is more likely than not consistent with either a general or specialized encyclopedia and the problems identified usually fall under Wikipedia:SOFIXIT rather than outright removal. Even in a worse case scenario, because editors obviously believed the topic worthwhile we would then at least redirect the article, since editors have and do use Smallville timeline as a search phrase, but again that would NOT mean deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has almost no traffic as far as editing is concerned, there has been approximately 100 edits to the page since its inception (with the leading editor at 18 edits not having edited the article for over a year). Ignoring how many people have edited the page, lets do a simple traffic test. The timeline has had about 5000 hits. By comparison, Smallville (TV series) has about 264,000 hits. Regardless of traffic, there isn't a policy that says "if people creat an article for it, and it isn't copyvio then it should stay". This page is a clear violation of WP:PLOT (which is a policy). Not to mention the violations of WP:NOR. Now, can you cite a policy that says this page should stay? I've not come across any real world information regarding the "timeline" itself, but, if you can find it before this AfD closes then I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. That is, real world information that has context for the timeline. Putting something from one of the season pages there that has nothing to do with the timeline won't cut it. This is why timelines are generally deleted (see the above link for all the timeline AfDs), because it is next to impossible to provide any real world coverage, context, information, what have you in order to satisfy WP:PLOT. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has notability to people in the real world and is associated with a recognizable show. The page does NOT violate anything as far as can be seen. And as it does not express any kind of argument, it is not original research. 5,000 hits sounds like a lot for a sub-article and suggests that if anything a redirect without deletion could be a compromise, but I see no valid reason for outright removing the article or any kind of gain for doing so. Having the article means that at some point it can be improved and can serve as a reference for anyone interested. Not having the article means that any possible benefit from having it is lost. By the way, discussion about this particular AFD has apparently started at the ArbCom. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you read WP:PLOT? This article is nothing but plot summaries. Secondly, please read all of what I've said above (at the top). I have explained the original research part of this article, I shouldn't have to repeat myself all over again. Not to mention the lack of sourcing for all the information that doesn't appear on the television show at all. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a subarticle of a larger article, it does not fail Plot. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sub-article of what parent article exactly? Because, last time I checked, the 7 season pages where the sub-article for all the plot information. Per WP:PLOT, "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." -- No where in that policy does it says that sub-articles don't have to have real world content. Even WP:FICT only talks about splittin off articles when there is a size issue, which...since I'm not sure what article this ever split from to begin with, there isn't a size issue anywhere. To summarize FICT for you, "Like all Wikipedia articles, spinout articles are edited in accordance with our policies and guidelines; specifically, content in spinout articles must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Such sources can include primary sources - such as the work of fiction itself or commentary from the author or other involved parties - in addition to real-world content from secondary sources." -- "In addition" is the key word that should be looked at. That means that you cannot spin-out pure plot information for size reasons for 2 reasons: (a) You must follow the policies and guidelines we already have (see WP:PLOT) and (b) you need real-world content (see the quote I just gave you for spinning out articles on their own). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a sub-article of the main article on the series and puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's an unnecessary sub-article that uses original research to put events of the show in an order that some editors see fit. It is not supported by a single source. You can cite an episode for a particular event, but you cannot cite an episode for the tying of information together, because they haven't done that in the series. Again, please read WP:PLOT and WP:FICT, which both work counter to what you are saying. No real world content in this article, regardless of the original research. The article ties very minor things together, so saying it "puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context" is not accurate. First, the summary section on the main page does a fine just of chronicling the events of each season just fine. Second, this page includes things that have no bearing on the show itself as far as understanding what is going on in the show. Last, Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. If you want to know what happened in a show, go watch it. This is the last that needs to be said, because you and I are just wasting our breath debating back and forth with each other, and we're doing nothing but taking up space on this AfD page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        While I am still far from persuaded that the article should not be kept, I agree that we are indeed using time up that could be better spent improving articles. Have a pleasant afternoon! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure, nom withdrawn), TerriersFan made a page for the district and this article has been re-directed there. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Burns Middle School

OK I know high schools are generally notable, but middle schools? This one's dubious claim from Google is school to watch and I don't know if that's notable enough. It's not the sole school. The school district is a red link so no where to merge and I'm bringing it here. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Hazillow (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability proven. --DerRichter (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see nom, the district doesn't *have* an article otherwise I'd have done that in the first place. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - it does now. TerriersFan (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Daviess County Public Schools#Burns Middle School to where I have merged the content. TerriersFan (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Boldly done, closing this AfD now as I was nom. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, due to the improvements in the article which occured after all delete opinions had been made. Davewild (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Robinson (actor)

Delete contested prod about an actor for an upcoming role. nn. fails WP:BIO and so nn we don't know when or where he was born or anything he has done to date or sourcing for what is claimed he'll do in the future. WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as tagged was poor, but keep as ~~playing~~ having played a long-running character in the BBC medical drama Casualty. Was very easily improved to notability standards, although that effort should have been put in by the article creator. --Canley (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the resources cited was an interview of him done by the BBC. That shows that he's, at least, moderately notable.--Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, great improvements to the article during AFD demonstrate that clearly meets the main notaiblity criterion at WP:BIO of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Brackman

"nn rookie league minor league player, drafted this year, very unlikely to reach the majors now that he had Tommy John surgery that early in his "career", no indepentent sources to meet WP:N" *ndsah; as written by Secret (talk · contribs) [36]. Anonymous user disagrees so I am listing it on AFD. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the 2nd AFD, see the first one at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew Brackman for more comments. MrPrada (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. First round draft pick, storied college career, the arm surgery is a story in and of itself as well. There are secondary sources up the wazoo for this, no need to delete, just to improve. MrPrada (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete– player doesn't seem to meet any of the project's notability guidelines at this time, although I believe that he eventually will. And for the record, he was selected late in the first round (30th overall in 32 first-round picks), so it's not like he was in the top two. Ksy92003 (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article must be worked on to add detail, but regardless, the majority of the first round draft picks have Wiki articles despite not yet having any MLB experience. Furthermore, the number of independent articles covering Brackman is quite large.BWH76 (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 01:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret (talk • contribs)
Delete as nn. No Major League stats because no Major League appearances. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Minor league baseball is a professional baseball league which would satisfy WP:ATHLETE.BWH76 (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another Comment - Brackman is also listed on the Yankees' 40 man roster, each member of which has a Wikipedia entry. I suspect (without checking each) that the players listed on every MLB team's 40 man roster has a Wiki entry.BWH76 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Minor league is not generally considered high enough. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Notability does not come from WP:ORG for individuals. He is notable because of the primary and secondary sources written about him, and meets all requirements for WP:BIO. Easy keep. MrPrada (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that he's in the 40 man roster, and about 90% of all players drafted doesn't make the major leagues. Right now he's an injured rookie league pitcher, and players who are in the low minors are never notable, and there is prior consensus, yes there are a couple of sources but not much in secondary sources, like mlb.com is a primary source, and the rest just proves that he's a minor leaguer. Secret ^account 01:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are plenty of sources from the International Herald Tribune in France to the New York Times for both his football and baseball accomplishments, the surgery, the NC State years, the Yankees, and even this year's spring training: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]. Also the official 40-man roster lists Brackman so there is evidence. AfD should close per WP:SNOW. MrPrada (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the debate close per WP:SNOW? Not that this is a numbers game (it isn't), but currently there are three votes for delete and two for keep. It's still very much "up for grabs". Ksy92003 (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:SNOW is that if there is enough evidence to support a conclusion, the debate should be closed (i.e., if the vote is 7-1 "Keep", but the lone dissenter establishes that the article clearly fails BLP, the article is deleted per SNOW). It's not a policy or even a guideline, but I think the primary objections that he fails WP:N/V have been addressed. MrPrada (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see enough evidence at this time to warrant a conclusion to the debate. For example, he hasn't met any of the notability guidelines (not requirements) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players, and Brackman hasn't done anything significant media-wise (just the fact that he's listed on MLB.com or the Yankees website I don't think is enough as far as "significant media coverage" goes). Ksy92003 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few independent sources to show his "signficant media coverage": ESPN article about Brackman; Baseball America article about Brackman; CBS article about Brackman; Sports Illustrated article about Brackman. These are just a few that are specifically about him - I didn't include any that have only a few sentences or a paragraph on him. Furthermore, I once again say that this guy is a first-round draft pick and most of the first round draft picks over the past 8 years do have Wikipedia articles regardless of whether they made it to MLB. In other words, there is precedent for keeping this article.BWH76 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. ~~No evidence that he's on the 40 man roster? Perhaps checking the official site of the Yankees would clear this up - he's the second person listed.~~ Ooops - didn't see that this link was given above. Additionally, it might be of note to check out the previous AFD on this and other minor league baseball players, the result of which was Keep.BWH76 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a bunch of references and tried to improve the article itself. May warrant another look-see!BWH76 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you did a fantastic job. Well done. MrPrada (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrPrada (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the odd case where he may well fail the notability sub-guidelines for athletes. However, you only look to those guidelines in cases in which the subject's notability can't be determined from the basic guidelines. In this case, as has been shown, the subject has received multiple, nontrivial mentions in reliable sources per the links provided by BWH76. He is notable, and the article should be kept. Xymmax (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Second-team preseason All-American according to Baseball America. Players named to All-America teams, whether high school or college, are inherently notable. Blueboy 96 00:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KG-1

Delete nothing indicating that this cell line is notable among the literally millions being researched all over the place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Qwfp (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I had tagged it CSD A3 when it was created. It still states ...derived from a 59 year old Caucasian patient. Welt^anschaunng 20:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, cannot see any content to merge so am just redirecting to SAS System where it is already mentioned in the Features section. Davewild (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAS (programming language)

Delete nn programming language, just because it's bits and bytes doesn't make it notable. no sources as usual... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with SAS_System. Racepacket (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not explain what the SAS programming language is, just a fact about it. That is not an article, and a sentence like that will do no good in any article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand. Given that the SAS language can be used by different products (i.e. the SAS System or the World Programming System), I dont think this page can be merged with the existing SAS_System page. Presently the SAS System page does have some content about the SAS language itself but it is mixed in with product and organisational information specifically only from the SAS institute. Perhaps a solution is to move some of the content on the SAS_System page to this page to describe the SAS language independently of products that support the language. --Squidsey (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Squidsey. --Itub (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Merge until someone writes a real article. This is barely a stub and there is a reasonable merge target. I reconsidered my "keep an expand" since articles don't expand themselves, and no one is expanding it yet. --Itub (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've used the SAS language sporadically over the past few decades and it is still notable. There is added content that should be pulled into this article to expand it. Alansohn (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SAS System until someone wants to take the effort to make and source a real article. SAS itself is highly notable, but I'm not convinced its programming language is separately notable from the rest of the system, and the current tiny stub doesn't do anything to help convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SAS System, which seeing as there's virtually no content amounts to reverting it to the redirect it was until recently. Many computer packages have their own "language" but we don't want separate articles on "SPSS (programming language)", "Matlab (programming language)" etc. The only difference with SAS is that someone has written a partly syntax-compatible competitor package, which could conceivably happen for these others too. Qwfp (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is already another program "mostly compatible" with Matlab: GNU Octave. But anyway, given how short this article is, I wouldn't object to turning it into a redirect. If someone ever wants to expand the section about the language in the SAS article, they can split out the article again. --Itub (talk) 09:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment - i think a vague recollection of Octave's existence was lurking somewhere at the back of my mind when I wrote that late last night... Qwfp (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 10:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Silver

Delete unsourced neologism or protologism, WP:DICDEF Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From here, it doesn't seem to be coal at all. Anyhow, it fails WP:DICT. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 06:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. One of the most highly useless entries ever seen on Wikipedia. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suitable for Wiktionary only. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Admiral Norton. NHRHS 2010 NHRHS2010 03:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article has been expanded and improved during AFD and nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress Village, Oakland, California

I have nominated this article because the article does not assert its notability. Furthermore articles for neighborhoods have a requirement for the neighborhood to have a neighborhood council or be widely known. Cypress Village is certainly an area in Oakland however the neighborhood itself is West Oakland, Oakland, California. This article is basicaly about an unotable public housing area in West Oakland. It is evident from the one minor reference and no external links that this is not a legitimate neighborhood. For these reasons I nominate this article for deletion and merge any worthwhile content into West Oakland. The article's only reference is mention of a rapper from these projects mentioned in passing in a minor newspaper. Icamepica (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note sockpuppetry concerns, below and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. Wikidemo (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn housing project. JJL (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above.Icamepica (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the title of the article? Redirect to the West Oakland neighborhood article. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Nothing, but arbitary blanking and redriecting may be seen as vandalism. Moreover iys highly inlikely someone would search for such a contrived search. Cypress Village should link or redirect if this article is deleted however.Icamepica (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm having trouble confirming the current status but this was an all-black housing project established in the public housing era (post-WWII) and has a history extending back before the J Stalin issue arose. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate it because of J Stalin, that would be silly. Its a serious nomination. Perhaps if it is historical as you claim you should add that to the West Oakland article. But also a housing project is NOT a neighborhood.Icamepica (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and keep in view of sock puppetry / meatpuppetry on this and other articles. The neighborhood is clearly notable, and the nominator's claim (that neighborhoods need their own local council to be notable) is apparently made up. There are dozens multiple independent reliable sources that describe this housing project. I don't really have time to deal with this nonsense right now given the sockpuppetry issue, but if you want sources you can look through this. Wikidemo (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dozens? please. that is a google search, which mentions some projects. not a neighborhood. the neighborhood is west oakland. some projects or an apartment building or complex is not a neighborhood, it is a parcel! It is not made up, i read it on here before i have asked for help in finding the policy on neighborhood notability. please assume good faith. Article remains unsourced.Icamepica (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dozens among the articles pulled up in a rather restrictive google search. There is already bad faith concerning this article and the issue, so WP:AGF does not apply. This is not the right time to be having a deletion discussion over the article given the meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry afoot, which is why it should be speedily closed. It can be re-opened another day once we deal with the trolling and can have a real debate among legitimate editors. Wikidemo (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of articles about the "Cypress Freeway" if you think thats what this article is about then merge it with that article. What bad faith? Good Faith should always apply. This nomination is candid and in perfectly good faith in the support of a good encyclopedia. What sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry? Those are very serious accusations which may be viewed as disruptive editing. WikiDemo it seems like you think you WP:OWN this article and any article you like that is put up for deletion. What trolling? There is nothing but legitamte debate here. You have no policy arguement here wikidemo. Please use one and don't be an egg.Icamepica (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind your manners and don't make accusations against me. The sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry issues are real and uncontroverted. The only question is who specifically is involved. Dealing with trolls is not the same as owning an article and if you understand the terms you're throwing around you know the difference. You are following in the footsteps of the abusive sockpuppet owner, using the same tactics on the same issues on the same articles. It is definitely best to close this AfD down until this is all sorted out, and approach this later if a fair argument can be made that the subject is not notable. Wikidemo (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What accusations did i make? All i said was that you seem to be taking this too far, trying to close any debate on the deletion because you think someone is trolling on here. There is no vandalism on this page. So i feel you are being a bit paranoid. I am? What user is that?24.180.37.2 (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My speedy speedy deletion / keep opinion is strictly that the content is encyclopedic and should not be removed by sockpuppets. Any closure should be without prejudice to the question of whether the content is best in its own article or whether the various West Oakland housing projects should be merged into their own article or article section - something we can make as an editorial decision outside of AfD with the sockpuppets gone. Wikidemo (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Merge w/West Oakland. Yes, it's a real place, but it's non-notable in the sense that it's a microscopic piece of a small neighborhood. It's basically a housing project; doesn't deserve its own article. Integrate into West Oakland article. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to West Oakland, Oakland, California. The Johnson 1996 ref and the fact that it was one of four all-black segregated projects at the time is worth keeping somewhere. However, while individual neighbourhoods and even individual housing developments may be notable, this one appears to be merely verifiable, not notable. See searches: [54][55][56]. cab (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar treatment should be applied to some of the other articles listed at West Oakland, Oakland, California#Neighborhoods too, in my opinion. cab (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree (though I am not convinced West Oakland the only/best article to merge into because it will get very long; perhaps a new article about all put together, or about the proper sub-neighborhood). As I mention above I think this is an awkward forum to make that merge discussion, so assuming the article is kept and the sockpuppets blocked or banned, we can talk about merging the content outside the pressure of an AfD. Wikidemo (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep due to legitimate sock concerns and that the article has six references. R. Baley (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

references are not reason alone for keeping, they must establish notability. The references only establish verifiability but does not meet WP:N.Icamepica (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's referenced and notable enough for now, and I think the overwhelming concerns of sockpuppetry are enough to give it a pass. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes claims of notability supported by reliable and verifiable sources, even ignoring the abusive sockpuppetry issues. Alansohn (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but also for consistency. We should either keep all of the notable West Oakland neighborhood articles, or delete all of them. No point of deleting one but keeping the others. Bash Kash (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does not appear particularly notable in its own right. It would make more sense to move anything useful to the West Oakland, Oakland, California article. David D. (Talk) 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable. It has sources and references now to prove it, keep. Izzy007 Talk 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it notable and which reference asserts that notability? I don't see it. David D. (Talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting past the test for notability (publication in reliable sources, which it passes), the underlying reason it is notable (in my subjective opinion) is because it is a place where a lot of people live that figures into the history of migration, race relations, politics, and economy of the bay area. The story of that project, from a middle class white neighborhood, to black migration during and after the war, to government-enforced segregation in the 40s and 50s (which surprises people on the West Coast), so-called "white flight", worsening conditions, drug crisis, the cypress freeway disaster right in front of the project and then a decade and a half of local politics leading to some respect and civic improvement, and art out of the project in the form of rap and hyphy culture, is a very emblematic one. Understand the history of Cypress Village (which I don't yet, I'm just getting started) and you understand a lot about urban America. That doesn't necessarily prove it deserves its own article, but it does say that the material is worth having somewhere on the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 04:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being published in a reliable source does not make something notable. It is one compontent only. And everything you mention happened in West Oakland, Oakland, California. In fact, in Oakland, California.

Also, while the history you mention is interesting which reference actually puts it that way? The ones cited mention cypress village as a location only. Your interesting account above appears to be original research, so unless there is a reliable source for this social commentary it may not be acceptable for wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why it's notable, not for proof. The proof is fully satisfied by pointing to multiple independent reliable sources. Nothing more is needed. But to understand you need a general knowledge of things. The housing project is notable because it is at the core of, emblematic of, and in the context of the broader social history. I don't need to source that. But if you must know, the statements about Cypress village are all from the sources cited in the article. Wikidemo (talk) 07:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask for proof. You have sources that verify the name exists. I asked why your version of its historical importance, the basis for your notability argument, is not original research? David D. (Talk) 04:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question one generally answers on a talk page. People bring their general knowledge of a subject to bear when discussing things. Sourcing is for article content. Anything specific to Cypress Village is from the sources. I can assure you that anything more general about white flight, segregation, city politics, etc., is also from reading published sources, only I can't tell you exactly what book or newspaper article I read a year ago or ten that forms the basis of my understanding of the world.Wikidemo (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. May possibly be notable in the future, but this is just advertising. Black Kite 10:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WowWee Rovio

Delete advertising for a nn product unveiled at last month's CES, just shy of blatant spam, but spam it is nonetheless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please assume good faith. Hazillow (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article is spam, all of their articles on Wikipedia are spam. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I don't see any reason to assume bad faith here, but all we have is press releases and forums that don't pass WP:RS.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. No news: [57], but has over 10,000 Ghits: [58] Bearian (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yatra

Delete minimal context, no asserted importance, unsourced, fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is merely a dictionary definition. A list article of different yatras would be okay. Hazillow (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Keep: This article has potential for many contexts. The importance or Notability is not a criteria for deletion. I just added a source. --CyclePat (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Change vote from strong to regular... p.s.: Then again, it's dificult to find authentic information. Maybe if we had a second or 3rd source.--CyclePat (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needed to satisfy 12 incoming links (ignoring special pages). Yatras are a significant feature of Hinduism. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are significant to a religion with a billion adherents, why aren't there reliable sources? Moreover, saying X is a type of Y isn't moving the ball forward. What type of Y is it? Why is that type significant? How does it differ from other types of Y? an imaginary left-handed red-haired little brother is a type of imaginary friend, a notable subject with its own article, does the "type" now get an article too? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely vital aspect of Hindu worship, comparable to Islam's hajj. Millions of people take part in this, surely you've seen footage of things like the Kumbh Mela? I've expanded it somewhat to describe some other meanings of the word too. I'll try to continue expansion over the coming days. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can't believe this is seriously up for AfD. It should have been speedily kept as it was, but I've added two more reliable sources and clarified the meaning. I also added a few more incoming links, so there are now about 30. There could easily be hundreds of incoming links, all in the right context, if someone had the time. ~ priyanath talk 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —~ priyanath talk 03:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Article is mroe than sufficiently notable and well referenced, also per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Worth keeping. Still it needs improvement - Tinucherian (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is clearly meets WP:N and is sufficiently reliably sourced. --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom.--Veritas (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keader Keaton

~~Delete~~ Not notable per WP:BIO. While the individual may be a small part of some of the sources cited he is not given significant coverage. Further, much, if not most, of this article seems to not be about the individual, but rather general history of incidents with which the person was somewhat involved. Not all soldiers in famous battles are notable. Also note that the creator and the primary contributer to the article (Skeaton (talk · contribs)) may have a conflict of interest. Veritas (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw due to claim of notability as a town founder. --Veritas (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consenus. I suggest some of the rewriting and renaming discussed below takes place - if not, this could be brought back to AFD in a few months. Neıl ☎ 09:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Welsh sentiment

Not really an enyclopedia article as such, more selected quotes and incidents that are disparaging to Welsh people. Similar articles could be written on any subject, but I don't think they should exist and neither should this one really. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alleged sources don't seem to use this term--WP:SYNTH. JJL (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until it can be merged into one of the other discrimination articles, e.g., discrimination in the United Kingdom. MrPrada (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm sure this is well documented in the Welsh language, even if it isn't well documented in English (perhaps there is a reason why). The only issue with these Anti-X articles is that they have a tendency to accumulate original research, since the only Anti-X term that has an entire field of study dedicated to it is antisemitism. The way the article is formatted isn't a good reason for deletion; that can always be corrected. Is there a body or interest group similar to the Anti-Defamation League that the Welsh have created? If so, that could be a good litmus test to check whether or not this is solely OR. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you say it isn't very well documented in English (for reasons it might be best not to go into). There was an article in The Independent some months ago, but I haven't been able to find it. There is plenty of documentation in Welsh, but if I use that, I'll only be reminded yet again that "this is the English Wikipedia". The title is for uniformity with similar articles - most of which are completely unsourced, whereas everything here is sourced. If anybody doesn't like the way it is written, please feel free to rewrite it, but I can't see that that is a reason for deletion. Neither is the fact that it may be unpalatable to some English people. Cantiorix (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No racist attacks please. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor species of xenophobia. A collection of feeble anti-welsh jokes and jibes is not encyclopaedic. I am Welsh but live in Birmingham. It would be the work of moments on google to find and list comments critical of Brummies and their whingy accent or, alternatively, scally Liverpudlians but why? --MJB (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve and (probably) rename - e.g. as "Cultural relationship between England and Wales"?. There is potentially a good article to be written on the relationship between the English and Welsh, which is the subject of both humour and (occasional) racism from both sides (and, for instance, the subject of a recent book - see [59]). This article could be a starting point for that. The article could link in with Welsh nationalism and Welsh culture, and also address the widespread English fear/distaste of those. It could also address the influence of the Welsh on modern English culture - eg in politics generally, and in specific areas such as Liverpool and Bristol. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This actually sounds like a good idea to me. I think that if there isn't enough English language documentation, then it could be better fit as a subsection in such an article. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is article is not about the "cultural relationship between England and Wales" any more than slavery was a cultural relationship between blacks and whites. There is a power imbalance which means that racism is a thing that the English do to the Welsh, not vice versa. Believe me, I wish that the roles were reversed and that the Welsh were able to oppress and discriminate against the English, but unfortunately that is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. At the moment there's definitely some WP:SYNTH here but I believe this should be expanded and improved with more examples from a historical context.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, classic inherent WP:SYN. Previous articles like this one have been mercilessly deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistanphobia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Croatian sentiment (also deleted here were Anti-Hungarian sentiment, Anti-Bosniak attitude, Albanophobia), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hellenism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Slav-Macedonian sentiment, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia. If one looks at the arguments made trhere, they all boil down ultimately to WP:SYN, and it's not a question of sources, as many of the deleted articles offered more sources than here.--Aldux (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You haven't commented on my suggestion above, to expand it as "Cultural relationship between England and Wales" - this would identify and present information on the relationship in a wider and an even-handed way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've certainly nothing against such an article being written, however I don't think the current article should remain in mainspace in the interim, I'm sure an admin can userfy it on request. The present examples certainly don't show "In the United Kingdom, anti-Welsh sentiment is widespread in England and, to a much lesser extent, can be encountered in Scotland", which was removed by me. There's little doubt there's plenty of banter between the various home nations, which the current article seems to mostly consist of. A. A. Gill isn't exactly known for his serious columns, Anne Robinson's much criticised remarks were on a comedy show after all. As for Huw Edwards, this country practically thrives on complaining - the Brass Eye episode that people watched despite the warnings and complained anyway, or didn't watch it at all, and ditto with Jerry Springer: The Opera. I'm not suggesting there isn't a degree of anti-Welsh sentiment in England (although it's pushing it a bit to describe it as "a hatred or fear of Wales, the Welsh people or Welsh culture", but the current attempt to synthesise individual incidents to make it out to be widespread is very dubious. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until it is rewritten to be more consistent with other discrimination articles. Discrimination against the Welsh is so prevalent among the English that they find it hard to recognize. Quotations such as those by Gill cannot be usefully described as "banter". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) — Delboy666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Serbophobia anyone? What about Anti-Russian sentiment, a pivotal topic in Russian thought and politics, from Dostoevsky to Shafarevich (and Putin)? What about Francophobia (see also Anti-French sentiment in the United States)? Ever heard of Anti-Irish racism? Hardly irrelevant topics, imo. L'omo del batocio (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a definite cultural strand and one that makes a lot of difference to many Welsh people. Eithin (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Model agnosticism

Google search shows nothing. There is no reliable source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Robert Anton Wilson. Wilson seems to be its only noteworthy advocate. Hazillow (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see why we would merge it. I doubt the existence of models, too, and especially "super" models. However, this is not for merging, as it's a fork off the original that didn't need expansion in the first place. (We shouldn't have every yogi's term, either.) Utgard Loki (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Epbr123 (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants to redirect this to an existing article, that's fine, but there's nothing on the page now that makes it suitably notable and verifiable content for Wikipedia. Dgf32 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article should be deleted. I do not support redirect. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-admin closure by --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frampin' my style

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Frampin' my style

Non-notable neogolism Mr Senseless (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book, film and TV versions of MAS*H

AfDs for this article:

Trivial list that constitutes original research; unless secondary sources can be found that comment on such these differences (unlikely), article also fails WP:N. See here and here for AfDs of similar articles that ended in deletion. Previous AfD ended as "no consensus." Crazy Legs KC 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, delete. A bunch of trivia. Can be reworked into the various MASH articles. Hazillow (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though it's perfect for Monster M*A*S*H. --Dhartung | Talk 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia and OR. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on the novel. Don't delete the content - I think this is perfectly viable and it is not original research because it involves 3 major sources: the TV series, the movie and the novel. OR is when someone comes up with a brand new idea. That's not the case here. I suggest handling it the way similar lists are handled in the various Harry Potter film articles. 23skidoo (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is original research because it is synthesis. See WP:SYNTH. Hazillow (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepGlobe.com

Non notable Google derivative search engine, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP Mr Senseless (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It also makes some grandiose POV statements: "greenest search enginge on the web" Jobjörn (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Repackaged Google and odd claims. (Giving money to Green causes doesn't make one "Green." It makes one philanthropic.) Utgard Loki (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 back to Agnostic atheism. Non-admin closure as housekeeping measure, per HSR. <eleland/talkedits> 09:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atheistic agnosticism

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Atheistic agnosticism

This article seems to be WP:OR. The article has no source. Google search shows nothings. We also have an article called Agnostic atheism, which is well sourced. This article seems to be unnecessary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This was originally created as a redirect to agnostic atheism in 2004, and was only expanded to its current tautological state in January 2008. -Sean Curtin (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with agnosticism. To be honest, a lot of these niche and nitpicky philosophy and religion stubs should be merged (this is coming from an atheist). Only two articles link to this one - agnosticism and agnostic atheism. Hazillow (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to agnostic atheism. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Originally it was a redirect to agnostic atheism which seems okay too, but this particular phrase doesn't seem to be very notable. The changes were made by Kkulinski1 who seemed to think that this is something distinct from agnostic atheism, but has failed to provide any sources. I'll remove the reference at agnosticism too. Mdwh (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A forking sort of discussion without meaning. It is distinction without difference and a nebulous concept. Either the term means whatever you want, or it means something already covered by existing positions of atheism, agnosticism, and religious belief. The desire to split the terms and split them again to make an article for each level of disquiet is forking. Naturally, the content is a mess. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This discussion is already much longer than the unsourced tiny article, so it should be uncontroversial.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to agnostic atheism. Epbr123 (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I merged the content with Agnostic atheism and made Atheistic agnosticism a redirect to Agnostic atheism. As it's not a redirect page, it should be a Keep. Dgf32 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit. You need to wait until the closing admin gives the result of this AfD before making those changes. It is not up to you to decide if the result "should" be a keep. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, issues resolved by Hazillow --B (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Hick

This is a completely unsourced article about a living person. I think this individual is probably borderline on notability - in other words, if someone wants to write a well-sourced article about him, I wouldn't object. But this current article is an unsourced essay and that's not acceptable for an article about a living person. B (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to easily be notable so only cleanup is required. He won a $150K prize in 1991 for one of his books, has at least 8 news articles in the opening page of google-news-archives alone and over 150 in total, is mentioned in books he didn't write including "Against John Hick: An Examination of His Philosophy of Religion", "Modern Christian Thought", "Problems in the Philosophy of Religion: Critical Studies of the Work of John Hick" and others. He work also appears well cited in scholarly articles - Peripitus (Talk) 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to be sourced, but the deletion process isn't to bring attention to this fact. The man is notable per Google as Peripitus mentioned. An appropriate forum to bring up this article's weaknesses is its talk page. Hazillow (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but right now, there are no sources whatsoever. It needs to be sourced, stubified, or deleted. I don't care which. --B (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lack of current sources within the article is not a valid deletion reason - if this was the case then 90% of the articles here would go. There are unreferenced,wikify etc.. maintenance tags for this rather than AfD. The only valid deletion reason for a bio is that it is unsourceable....not that it currently lacks citations - Peripitus (Talk) 03:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - When the article is a biography of a living person, a lack of sources is very much a reason to delete. One of three things is going to happen in a week - the article will be sourced, deleted, or stubified. Again, I don't care which, but once we become aware of unsourced biographies of living people, we fix them in some fashion. This article has had the "somebody else ought to fix this problem" tag since July 2007. If it were an article on quantum physics, ok, whatever. But this is an article on a biography of a living person. After the Controversy over Wikipedia's biography of John Seigenthaler Sr., lack of sourcing in BLPs became a critical issue. --B (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF Racepacket (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which part of WP:PROF are you referencing? The man is widely considered an expert in theology. As far as I can tell, he meets not only one, but all six criteria for notability by an academic: 1.He is regarded as an expert by independent sources, 2. He is regarded as an important figure by other notables in his field, 3. Has published not one but several notable works in his field, 4. His collection of work is well known, 5. Is known for originating and popularizing an important concept, and 6. has received an award. So, I really don't know why you referenced PROF.Hazillow (talk)`
Improved. I have added five sources for various biographical information as well as his positions and will be working on this throughout the week. Hazillow (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Appears to be a noted author in his field and respected amongst his peers. Mainstream fame should not be the sole arbiter of notability, or else we'd propose deleting Isaac Newton for not being as notable as Paris Hilton. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The recent added references throughout the article (some from easily accessible, scholarly online sources no less) should go a long way toward meeting the concern of the AfD project originator as to lack of references. The large volume of Google Scholar hits speaks to notability of the subject. This is of course distinct from accepting his premises, arguments, or conclusions. --Thomasmeeks (talk) P.S. Related digression: The Talk Page template (top) for the subject states that "[c]ontroversial material about living persons (emph. added) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." I don't know that any of the biographical material presently in the article is controversial. What should be removed are controversial statements about the subject, not necessarily statements about controversial positions that the subject has expressed. —Preceding comment was added at 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Inappropriate use of the deletion process to force maintenance of an article. Even the original nomination suggests that he may pass notability, and now that others above have dug up multiple books with his name in the title it's completely clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you prefer that I just delete it with the summary "G10" rather than give someone a chance to fix it? BLPs with zero sources are unacceptable. They either get fixed or they get deleted. --B (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. Controversial statements in BLPs with no sources are unacceptable and should be deleted, and the whole BLP should be deleted if it consists only of such or has no assertion of notability after the controversial statements are removed. But that's not the case here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The whole article is telling about the guy's religious views. Religion is inherently a heated topic and so if we are falsely attributing religious viewpoints to him, that's inherently contentious. Speaking of G10 deletions, WP:BLP says, "Further, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain or undelete the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." If you want to retain the still-unsourced portions of the article, fine - just source them. --B (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject is quite notable and very influential in his field. Lordjeff06 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously from the start a notable academic. But it's only fair to say that this was nominated at the request of another user [60].DGG (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even after looking at the article at the point the AfD was created, the article made rather clear claims of notability. Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires individuals to research prospective claims of notability, edit and improve the article to address concerns, or consider merging, all before taking any steps to nominate an article for AfD. These obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy do not appear to have been fulfilled, and merely noting the lack of sources is an unacceptable excuse for deletion, especially as the nominator acknowledges "this individual is probably borderline on notability", which makes the failure to add the sources required all the more disturbing. As the article stands, the multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided establish an inarguable satisfaction of the Wikipedia:Notability policy. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not notability, nor is it my responsibility to maintain the article. The issue is that there is a heckuva lot of unsourced content here. The improved version is better than it was (when I opened this nomination, there were zero sources), but far from sufficient. Either the article gets deleted, the unsourced content gets removed, or it gets sourced - I don't care which. We don't maintain unsourced articles about living people. Period. I don't care how notable they are. We shouldn't have to wait until OTRS is contacted to take care of a problem. One of Wikipedia's biggest problems right now is the notion that any content is better than no content and that's gotten us into trouble on multiple occasions. --B (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So basically, you nominated this to prove a point. The article deletion system is not put in place to force edits. It worked this time, but perhaps next time people won't fix it and vote to keep it simply to prove a point, like you just did. Slippery slope. Hazillow (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I didn't nominate it to prove a point. I nominated it because as the article stood, it was unacceptable. That problem can be remedied in one of three ways - delete it, make it into a stub, or cite it. For at least one of those solutions, this is the appropriate venue. --B (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You desperately need to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy which clearly lays out your obligations to research, edit, improve or consider merging articles before starting an AfD, and your statement that you have no responsibility to maintain the article is false, if you were considering an AfD. If you refuse to fulfill this obligation to improve the article, there are dozens of tags that can be applied to request that others do the work for you. I don't now that this AfD violates WP:POINT, but it seems to be a rather clear WP:Deletion policy violation. Alansohn (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The article has been tagged with maintenance tags (aka, "someone else should solve this problem" tags) for six months and it hasn't been fixed. We don't keep unsourced BLPs around - period. The obligation is on the person wanting to keep the BLP to show that it is sourced and otherwise compliant with policy. At the time I nominated this article, it was not compliant with policy. It still isn't, although it is much better. BLP issues supersede anything in the deletion policy ... although a claim that a potential nominator is required to improve even a non-BLP rather than requesting its deletion is silly on its face - there is no affirmative obligation for anyone here to edit. --B (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now with more improvement. I have completely rewritten the article and removed all non-free images as well as anything that was not sourced. Furthermore, it is much more wikified, in accordance to consensus on style. Please have a look. Hazillow (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job! --B (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novi Drumline

A high school's percussion ensemble is not notable to have its own article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both WP:MUSIC and WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hazillow (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And the pep squad isn't going to make it, either. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), nom withdrawn, notability established. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biometrics (Journal)

The society may be notable but it doesn't appear to have an article to merge this with. The article asserts zero notability but there isn't an appropriate speedy. This is a name and URL -- a google search for the journal's notability is problematic due to the frequency of the word biometrics, but I find no evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

along similar lines, adding the following, no assertion of notability and unable to find any:

Meeresforschung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

Very weak keep. The journal appears to have some notability, and the society itself is pretty notable. I agree - International Biometric Society should have been written first. Hazillow (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: I am referring to the Biometrics Journal and not Meeresforschung.Hazillow (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt we're going to get enough material on the journal to make a good seperate article, whereas it could make an excellent section in an article about the society itself. Better to delete now than try to lump things together later. Err, Biometrics again.Sockatume (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a journal with a long history and of some note. The article may be lacking but that is a reason for improvment. Note also it isn't unusual for a journal to be of more note than the society which publishes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Improve I've now done some work including references and a relevant link to another entry. Have a look! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 03:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment it's much improved and asserts some notability now, thank you. However I still think it needs independent sources to meet WP:N, JJL says below its historically significant and influential, I think we need a source (not the journal itself) verifying that. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply thanks, tricky to find an independent reference to a journal in itself (rather than a reference to an article IN the journal). The JSTOR link is the best evidence of notability I think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important, historically significant, and influential journal. JJL (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a notable journal (it's even archived in JSTOR!) --Itub (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to International Biometric Society and make this a sub-section.—RJH (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that sounds sensible but isn't. Journal's have a life quite independent of the society that acts as the journal's patron. A journal might be notable (if only for a given article) while the society might not be.Nick Connolly (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the journal itself is notable, as is every major peer-reviewed journal with a substantial presence in the academic world. The JSTOR listing is sufficient independent proof--they are very selective. Normally we take listing in Journal Citation Reports as sufficient, because they are also selective. This particular one is especially notable as the founding journal of a discipline. the society, as the main one in the subject is also notable, and should by itself have an article,as is customary. The situation is different for society newsletters dealing with their internal affairs, which almost never get articles of their own. DGG (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some published information about how well it is ranked by professionals in its area; it seems to be the best biometrics journal and very good more generally among statistics journals. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom withdrawn per addition above that established notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I'm going to list the German one separately TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Adventures in Babysitting

A film not yet in production doesn't meet WP:NFF or WP:NOT#CRYSTAL; disputed prod Accounting4Taste:talk 01:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a hoax, see other articles from same creator. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't see anything about the author that would lead a person to conclude that s/he is making edits in bad faith and purposefully creating hoaxes. Hazillow (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment this was the editor who deprodded That's So Raven: The Vision That Changes Everything. I'd consider contributions from this user highly suspect, and (as with any user) the burden is on them to provide reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs a complete revision. The film is set to be released in 2008, leading me to believe it is in production. A future movie template and a major revision is in order. Hazillow (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I decided to improve this article enough to close this AfD but couldn't find anything to confirm that this is even still going forward. As I typing this, NrDg confirms it.Hazillow (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This movie was in planning stage almost a year ago but never moved past that point. Both principals are committed to other movies currently so this movie will not happen. Need a lot more than it was a consideration that didn't work out to have an article.--NrDg 03:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see deleted article Further Adventures In Babysitting deleted per notability guidelines for films as not in production at that time either. Specifically WP:NFF "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles."--NrDg 03:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I tried to find reliable sources after marking the problematic areas with various tags, but I couldn't find anything. I arrived at the same conclusion as User:Hazillow and User:NrDg. J Readings (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really a hoax as the others are, but still should be deleted per NrDg. JuJube (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if for not better reason than it's incredibly poorly written. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we need to we can undelete the original Further Adventures In Babysitting - it had evolved fairly well before it was deleted.--NrDg 14:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Imdb page is basically non-existant: no cast, crew, nothing. It fails WP:NFF. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a hoax due to the other contributions of the article's creator Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article has been improved during AFD and is now more than just a definition. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pediophobia

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary already has a definition. ukexpat (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wiktionary has a definition. And wikipedia doesn't have an encyclopedia entry. Did you read the discussion page of the article you just nominated for deletion? I created it about an hour ago, and plan to expand it beyond the current definition, stub template, reference, and 'See also' section (which alone make it a more complete article already than in its previous incarnation, and than other stub articles that have just been created). Give it some time please. Eleven even (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not even a day old. We should give it time to develop. Hazillow (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-if you want to expand this article, please place a {{underconstruction}} tag.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah. Underconstruction completely slipped my mind. Thanks. Eleven even (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merge with the article on dolls seems like a natural starting point to me. I don't think it's going to be the sort of subject that gets long enough to deserve an article on its own, and if that happens, the section can always be split off into its own article. Sockatume (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just because something is a new stub is not a deletion reason. Appears ample scholarly material online to make an encyclopediac article of what is a commonish term for a wierd afflication - Peripitus (Talk) 02:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fear of children, which is where pedophobia redirects to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedophobia is the fear of children. Pediophobia is the fear of dolls (or other inanimate simulacra of sentient beings) and/or of children. They aren't the same. Eleven even (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, but that isn't currently what the article says: "Pediophobia is a fear of dolls, or a fear of children" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I see what you mean to say. What isn't currently what the article says? To me it looks like you're quoting the article as saying what I said, but saying it doesn't say that. ????. Is it the part about sentient beings that makes the difference? The only thing I've included so far is what was explicitly in the cited definition; I'm not going to add to that until after I've digested the source material. Or is there something else I'm missing about what you're saying? Eleven even (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm going to be eventualist for a change and say that an article is possible if it brings in material from, for example, the paintings of Balthus, the uses in literature (e.g. E.T.A. Hoffmann), etc. It's a pretty common feature of the uncanny. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balthus is borderline: the only reason I'm contending that pediophobia deserves to be its own article is that it specifically relates to children, as opposed to youth. Many of Balthus' subjects are what I would call children, but on the whole I would call his theme youth. Just barely. And that's totally subjective. And kind of beside the point, because whatever I or you think about Balthus' intent, if some reputable person or group hasn't published some reputable paper in a reputable journal or whatnot, it's not getting in the article. Can you think of sources for any of that? Aside from the last part; it is a pretty common and fairly well-documented feature of the uncanny, I think sources will be sufficiently abundant on that point. Eleven even (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Andrew Lenahan.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a classic case of why I strongly dislike the underconstruction template. Articles should meet basic Wikipedia standards before being saved into the mainspace, otherwise they should be eligible for deletion.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pediophobia (fear of dolls or children) is not the same as pedophobia (fear of children), so the utility of redirecting this page to Fear of children is questionable. On the one hand, "pediophobia" may be considered a likely misspelling of "pedophobia"; technically, however, the two concepts are distinct and we should avoid giving the impression that they are equivalent. In my opinion, a better target for a redirect and/or merge would be Doll. That said, the article is currently mostly a dicdef and a LexisNexis search didn't turn up adequate material for a quick expansion. Perhaps, if the creator is willing, we could userfy the article to a subpage of his/her user page, with the option of moving it back to the mainspace if/when it is expanded? Incidentally, the subject of pediophobia may have some relationship to the Uncanny valley hypothesis (see this). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just finished including Mori's theory in the article. Eleven even (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mean his Uncanny valley hypothesis. Eleven even (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I have taken this as a lesson: if I want to create any other stubs that are that stubby (and sparse of source material) I will definitely userfy them first. Eleven even (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the addition of the paper by Pujals and Buffington as a source has changed my mind. The source itself does not, in my view, prove the notability of the subject (it seems to be an unpublished paper); however, it makes me think that keeping or merging are preferable to deletion. Since merging does not require AfD, I think it's better to keep, allow an opportunity for the article to be expanded, and (if it is not expanded) to revisit the issue of merging at some point in the future. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added two additional sources. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soman Islands and Redhorse

Micronation - no claims of notability. asnd "Soman Islands"+redhorse-wikipedia returns a grand total of one ghit (that being a "list site". Unless some evidence of notability is foiund, this one looks like a no-hoper. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence that this subject even exists. The article in its current status provides no useful information that could help identify the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no evidence of existence, fails WP:V, appears to be created by a WP:SPA account. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per Kinu.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hazillow (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-existant nation. WP:NFT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of existence. Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:V, no sources, nn, and WP:NFT. Tiptoety ^talk 00:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Drusilla

Only daughter of Caligula and Caesonia who was killed at the age of two, not long enough to be notable on her own account. Something could be merged to her parents' articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per Roman mob persecution. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems large enough to be its own article, and it would be lost in the larger article on her father. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The bit about her violent tendencies is noteworthy, but would be cumbersome and irrelevant in her father's article. Hazillow (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient for an article, I feel. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep theer are so few known named individuals from the time that the fact that the name was recorded is some evidence of significance. Clearly, attested in WP:RS. JJL (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Anyone attested to in multiple sources that survived almost 2000 that deal with more than just pure lineage is notable. That's long notice. Would be nice if more than Seutonius were cited, though at least he's not being used as if he's completely reliable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - a historical vignette of Caligula's family that isn't really directly related to his career. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see the nominator's point, and I sort of agree with it, except that allusions to each member of the Julio-Claudians, even the dead babies, are common enough in the wide expanse of history and literature that we could well have searches for this particular name. No real need to redirect, either, because the reference would be pretty far down in the article. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support keeping content on what some people think unimportant subjects, but that does not mean we should remove the content on the traditional materials of encyclopedic interest--we should rather be increasing it. Every person such as this from classical antiquity has been the subject of significant scholarly discussion. anyway, wouldn't the murder of a member of a ruling house in modern times get some encyclopedic attention? Not quite your ordinary child abuse, really. DGG (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accomplishments nil, but sufficient treatment of her death by historians to make the cut. We could always change it to Murder of Julia Drusilla .... nah. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Raiden

Likely hoax. Youtube videos uploaded by Bodoque57 are given as references. According to the user page of this person, his real name is Diego Grez, same name as that of a known hoaxer. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego Grez. Jespinos (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very probable hoax. One of the references in the "notability" section is not active. The other one links to a music social networking page. The claim that would most firmly establish notability ("voted as one of the best in the All Music Guide") is not sourced. All of this, and the fact that the name is the same of a known hoaxer leads me to conclude this is a hoax. Even if it isn't, DJ Raiden isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion. Hazillow (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nomination.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's argument. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not this shit again. Delete and block author. JuJube (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also delete DJ Raiden - RickRoll v2.0 which is a redirect to Never Gonna Give You Up. JuJube (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's also a Category:DJ Raiden songs. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block the vandal: Hoaxes are vandalism. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a vandal, and i'm not Diego Grez, the user Jespinos wants to block me. Is a conspiration versus me. I only want to help Wikipedia. MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some users says I'm a vandal and I am Diego Grez, and I uploaded videos related to Diego Grez to YouTube. That's not really. verify. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Diego Grez has already been shown to only have notability to Diego Grez. Is there a reason we should believe that anyone else would care about promoting his interests (other than his parents, perhaps)? JuJube (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For additional info, see here, where you say Diego Grez indeed is a vandal. If that's the case, why are you promoting his interests now? JuJube (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notice the user MisterWiki has been indefinitely blocked on the Spanish language Wikipedia for sockpuppetry (sockpuppet of Diegogrez) [61]. Jespinos (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage, and could be a hoax. Addhoc (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted at 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC) as "CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance" by Dsmdgold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). cab (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Ishmael

Not a notable artist yet - has not released album, so not yet notable per WP:MUSIC, and shouldn't be included yet per WP:CRYSTAL Fritzpoll (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, non-notable person. Actually, I had already requested its speedy deletion before you nominated it. Victao lopes (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried speedy deleting, but author kept removing it! Then removed prod, so brought here, but looks like it's gone since I started the AfD, so this can be closed. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hate when authors remove speedy tags! But when things like that occurs, I just revert their edits and place a {{uw-speedy1|name of the page}} ~~~~ on their talk pages. Victao lopes (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly should have done, but on this occasion felt it was going to be very contentious! Fritzpoll (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, I understand. Anyway, the article is now gone, so there's little need to talk about it, unless it's recreated again. Victao lopes (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Hazillow (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oi looks like it is gone now.Hazillow (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 speedy delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Home

Fails WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no assertion of notability whatsoever. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Nguyen

nn city councillor. Prod removed. Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep-Has a good amount of sources, to me it might be notable. Just a few fixes to the article and it can be kept but its a weak keep from me.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local councilperson with no notability per WP:BIO outside of holding that office. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to being slightly more than an average politician, specifically "the first Vietnamese American elected to the City Council of the nation's 10th-largest city" [62]. Has other non-trivial sources on other occasions like [63], and an associate professor at Doshisha University has a paper on her career listed under the "Current Research" section of his CV [64]. cab (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans has been informed of this discussion. cab (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom subject is totally NN minor politician -- Y not? 11:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I suspect there are enough firsts in her political career to consider her notable. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We're talking about one of a dozen, at least, city counselors in a single city who is serving in that position currently only. Such elections are frequent. Therefore, in a decade a city may have 250 counselors. Give the city a century, and the number goes up. I.e. she is a face in the crowd and needs to be in front of the crowd before becoming encyclopedic. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep san Jose is the 10th largest US city. Thus gives us 25000 over a century, all US cities. WP can deal with this, given that it will take some years to write the articles. DGG (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep City councilwoman from major American city. Blueboy 96 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would view most any councillor from a city as large as San Jose to be notable, and this one already shows ample coverage from reliable third party sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Madison Nguyen is some one to watch. She will go far. 71.135.173.36 (talk) 08:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per dgg, blueboy96. Noor Aalam (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walker Pond}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck Buttons}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applegeeks}}