Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 7: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:03, 7 April 2008

< April 6	April 8 >

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 Speedy keep - Yet another bad faith sockpuppet nomination. FCYTravis (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance

595 ghits does not make this organization notable Moosato Cowabata (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' per WP:ORG and WP:GHITS. A Google News search indicates that JMA has enough high quality Google hits from WP:RS to satisfy WP:ORG. A simple number of ghits is not a valid test of WP:Notability. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to the article to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not realize it, but this is actually an improvement argument, not deletion argument. Per WP:DEL, if it can be fixed by methods other than deletion (such as editing), it's not a good deletion candidate. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Several sources are available for the subject. Also, nominator's rationale is inherently flawed. See WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP For same reason as above. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For the same reasons as Celarnor mentions. lnemtsov (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Celarnor. There's no "If sources aren't yet placed in the article, then those sources don't exist and the article must be deleted" clause of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if citations are added - There are sources, but now someone needs to take the time to put them in. Assuming someone will do that, it's a keep. But if nobody bothers to source the article between now and close, this should be deleted. FCYTravis (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources simply not placed in the article yet doesn't mean the topic is non-notable, it just means the article on this notable topic should be improved.--Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - consensus to keep, and it's a bad faith sockpuppet nomination. If someone wants this deleted, they can open another one. FCYTravis (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorcycle clubs

There is a category for such, terefore a list would not be needed as for most of these are redlinked. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LIST. It appears to be an ordered developmental list that complements the category. A category cannot show red-links for missing encyclopedic entries, an important function. Notability of red-linked clubs should be better sourced, but the main problems with the list were fixed in the first AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge how many motorcycle clubs would be notable? If this is destined to be a list of red links, and not a complete list since I'd imagine there are far more motorcycle clubs in the world than those listed, then I say delete. However if it will eventually serve as a home for clubs that are not notable on their own but could be discussed as a part of a whole 'motorcycle clubs' then perhaps it should be merged here: Motorcycle club. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even things in list have to adhere to notability guidelines. The inclusion of a few redlinks isn't a a rationale for deletion. It's a rationale for improving the article and removing them, or if they are notable enough to have their own article, to write their articles. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply a few red links is wonderful for red link development but if they're never going to be articles because they're not notable, they're dedtined to be perma redlinks. That's why I asked the likelihood of these ever being notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Nominator should re-read guidelines for lists and categories. Categories don't replace lists. Include only notable motorcycle clubs (which is already how lists generally work, per LISTS), and there's no reason to delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Primarily because I concur with Celarnor. Garth of the Forest (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One year later, it's still an indiscriminate list whose stated purpose is to be "a list of articles of motorcycle-related clubs". The red-links, obviously, are not articles. The blue links are covered by a category, which has no less information than is on this list. The other problem with the list is that there's no definition of what a "motorcycle-related club" is, and this one appears to take all comers. Got a motorcycle club? Add it to the list. If there were a "list of roadhouses favored by bikers" that had this little in the way of organization, I don't think there would be much question of whether to delete it. In this case, the category works just fine, and if you want your club in the category, write an article about it. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene. Also, a reader asking "what motorcycle clubs are there?" is not being unreasonable, and nor is the question trivial miscellany. It is not unreasonable for Wikipedia to provide that list. So aside from the developmental benefit of this list due to the redlinks, the list has a reasonable informational function as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, do any of you keep voters needed to be reminded that this is not a club directory which is what I really want to point out. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, and a list of notable articles is just fine per WP:LIST. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have boldly removed the redlinks and the prose cut and paste stuff at the bottom, it realy should be a list of WP articles only. MickMacNee (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic. FCYTravis (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Nominator has been confirmed as a sockpuppet account. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leann Collins

A biographical article which has all the tell-tale signs of an autobiographical puff piece; before it was substantially cleaned up by Spark.blue (talk · contribs), it read like something you'd read on the back cover of a book. The sources do not speak to the subject's notability and all, and she gets little more than 600 Ghits. I don't think this photographer is as notable as the article makes her seem. I strongly suspect the primary author, (Dsefton88 (talk · contribs), is Collins herself. JuJube (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:COI. 39 unique Ghits, the leading one being her own website and the second being wikipedia. Then follow a bunch of directory networking site listings. No articles to speak of, and the majority of references appear to be WP:SPS. If supplying a list of court filings for copyright infringement is synonymous with notability, then something must be wrong. The article was authored by David Sefton, the subject's husband. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:N, as above. Seems to be a photographer who sues a lot... not sure of notability beyond that. Also has shades of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & others. Her best chance to show notability would be the only para which is unreferenced. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee G

Take your pick: non-notable musician who falls below our threshold at WP:MUSIC, also a nose-tackle in training who fails WP:ATHLETE; generally not notable per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume that the content of this article is enough to avoid a speedy for recreated material? Xymmax (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Under both "Aimee G" and "50 foot Daria" I can not find non-WP reliable sources that mention her in any signifcant way. Fails notability (again). Xymmax (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC or WP:ATHLETE. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is an organized article with external links. Consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on musicians. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. This is the kind of nonsense claim that has marginalised your voice in AfD discussions. Eusebeus (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Great Pumpkin King - I'm confused. Is your position that the subject is notable specifically as a musician? None of the links (outside of the group's own website) even address the subject's music. She even indicates on her own website that she is taking a break from "all the artsy stuff" and that she "may or may not" make more music. None of her songs have charted. Surely she's not notable for her music? Xymmax (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of business failures

Nominated because a company collapsing is a common occurrence, also there is no definition of this list as it is undefinable for the fact administration does not mean the end of the road for a company Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A viable topic. Per WP:LISTS, it should only include notable businesses that have failed. If it doesn't, it can be improved to do so. However, "Failure" needs to be defined. Perhaps "List of businesses that have filed for bankruptcy" would be better, as that would be easier to source. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP A useful article. Just don't list small crappy business which no one has heard of in the list. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well maintained, high quality list with only a few red links. This is not intended to be the list of companies which have filed for bankruptcy/ administration, which as Dr. T F point out, does not necessarily mean the failure of the business. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly well maintained list with finite criteria for inclusion, with decent refs and a reasonably small number of red links. Meets WP:LISTS easily. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, however there needs to be a definition of what failure is. My suggestion is to keep those with its own articles. For those who don't, my recommendation is... all entries needs to be sourced, redlinked article (notable ones) will be kept at the talk section. Thats my rough suggestion. Willirennen (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nata Menabde

Delete a deputy director of a regional office is not notable - so nn we don't know where or when she was born, red flags of non-notability in a modern biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 08:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Notability (people) --Minimaki (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:N as above. Rather sparse article as it stands. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Noize

Likely non-notable band. Tried to give benefit of doubt with a simple {{notability}} but an anon twice removed this without comment or alteration. tomasz. 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can not find anything to help the article satisfy WP:MUSIC notability. [1] and [2], [3]. Most of it is just forums, official site, listings etc..etc..lyrics. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 08:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a perfectly good attempt at an establishment of notability in the lead section. However I find the claims to be highly questionable without verifiable and reliable sources. Otherwise, seems to be a failure of WP:MUSIC. -Verdatum (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spunout software

Does not pass our notabiltiy guidelines for organizations (WP:CORP) Produced some homebrew games that were only published through public domain and magazine coverdisks. Does not appear to be any substantial, reliable, independent coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Issues 90 and 104 of the Amiga Format magazine apparently mentioned one of their games/had included it on a cover CD. As per the nomination that's not enough for Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Minimaki (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Minimaki. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Vanity press publication, plus a lot of self-promotion, does not equal notability. Pastordavid (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Fardone

Not verifiable by third party sources and hence not notable. Google (21 ghits) doesn't bring up anything interesting. MER-C 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information in the article is verifiable as far as I can ascertain. He took legal action against Dan Brown and Transworld over The Da Vinci Code, which was reported in Australia by several News Limited newspapers: Author launches 'Code' lawsuit and I wrote Da Vinci Code original (I don't know why these references do not seem to appear in your search). --Canley (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently insufficiently notable (there are still only 108 Ghits). Reading those references, it doesn't look as if he actually took legal action. The fuller one, I wrote Da Vinci Code original, says he sent a solicitor's letter in 2006 and planned to take it further. It's 2008 now, and nothing else has appeared in the news, so we can conclude no lawsuit has happened yet. Starburst Publishing is, incidentally, an author-subsidised publisher [4] which considerably reduces the notability of the book, and we wouldn't want this non-news being used to sucker Wikipedia effectively into promoting it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It also appears that he might have created or edited his own page. --Shark face 217 03:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing that up. It's not a reason to delete, but it is worth noting. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Made major news, per Canley. Yes, there aren't 10000000 ghits (WP:GHITS), but he is notable, possibly for making a bit of a fool of himself. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made major news

Can we justify the notability of that? Regional news, professing forthcoming litigation that never happened. And of course we might diss the Google test, but only 100 or so hits is, as you say, worth noting. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anybody can file suit against anybody else at any time for any reason. Notability isn't based on that. Also, he can't be notable for not doing something--i.e., for not writing The DaVinci Code. You can only be notable for doing something, not for not doing something. Qworty (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've looked into this matter further and three things appear to be true: 1) There was never a lawsuit, just a letter sent by a lawyer, 2) The article was indeed written by the subject, and 3) his "publisher" is indeed a vanity press. We're getting very close to WP:HOAX here. Clearly, we cannot allow an individual to arrange for a lawyer to send a letter, to arrange for a book to be vanity published, and then to show up here to write an article about himself. This thing is a million miles away from notability of any kind. Qworty (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sent by a lawyer ...

... called Enzo Anthony Fardone [5] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago Alcántara do Nascimento

PROD contested by a brand-new user at his first "contribution" ever. This article is about a 17-year old guy contracted with the Barcelona youth system; the subject fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN (no professional appearances). Angelo (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Number57. GiantSnowman (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - the only point of interest at the moment is his father but that's not enough. He may be a notable player one day, but not now. Bettia ^(talk) 09:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FxMarketSpace

An advertisement for a company of minor importance

Delete claim of being "first" probably precludes a speedy, but there's no indication of notability to satisfy WP:CORP. DarkAudit (talk) 14:22, 31 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, Black Kite 08:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. The site may well be notable, given the involvement of Reuters and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. But as a web-based business, it's not our job to seek them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Millenia Malls

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete, including images; SPA "keep" opinion discounted. Sandstein (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAMVA USA chart

This is a non-notable 'chart' created as original research by an internet user interested in astrology. The text is taken verbatim from the internet user's blog , which has also been inappropriately linked to as the only reference for this 'chart' The pictures are also original research creations - Other, historical references are again simply synthesized original research.

Delete, per nomination. The main problem is the chart absolutely appears to be original research. This information would need to be published in a third-party source, (not simply on a blog) and then referenced here to meet notability, and verifiability policies. How can an article about a topic be notable enough to have its own entry in Wikipedia if there isn't a single published source to reference? Brando130 (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, no secondary sources, effectively a copyright violation (though curing that wouldn't make it an appropriate article topic). Huon (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to judge notability sometimes involves more subjectivity than we would like to admit. There are shades of gray in life. Some Wikipedia editors seem to apply a higher standard of proof of notability to articles dealing with non-canonical subjects like astrology. There is a form of bias that originates in a type of "informed prejudice". It is the basis of all "I know better" pronouncements. This type of bias needs to be kept in check in a world where the information being judged is harder to judge than the person making the judgement thinks it is. The astrological literature, being non-canonical, is not organised in terms of reference articles as is the case of most canonical research subjects, which then serves as a springboard for the notability of the original research. If you read the historical evidence presented, it will become clear the argument made about the birth of the Union is legitimate, with plenty of references to historical literature. In fact the SAMVA USA chart is based on the research of both a historian and an astrologer. This chart is identical in nature to arguments made for any other time proposed as being the birth of the country. For instance, the chart advocated by the late David Solte for the USA is very similar, as may be seen in the section on USA horoscopes in the Mundane astrology article. Disagree as you will about the merits of such claims or the astrological interpretation offered for each horoscope, but please also consider that for those people doing such research, the work is dead serious. The originality has been established in fliers, articles, classes, discussion boards, seminars, etc. As such, please consider that a survey article of the main findings is considered informative for those who follow astrology. Indeed, Wikipedia has a policy to approve any subject matter even if the scientific content is held controversial by those who do not believe in it. If it is a part of the intellectual life it becomes a valid subject matter for Wikipedia. Finally, the copyright issue could be addressed by rewriting and shortening and then giving the reference to the more detailed exposition externally. Odin 85th gen (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Disagree as you will about the merits of such claims or the astrological interpretation offered for each horoscope, but please also consider that for those people doing such research, the work is dead serious." The problem is Wikipedia is NOT the place to publish this research - this should be referenced in a third-party published source. That is an all-encompassing Wikipedia standard, it is not thrown out for astrology articles. Brando130 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep though it needs some editing. The history part is somewhat peripheral. The astrology does not seem excessive detail for the subject, and it's hard to say it is less significant or valid than anything else in the subject. The copyvio seems only in the exact reproduction of the actual charts--discussing them is not copyvio. DGG (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was asked to take another look, and , yes, it does appear that there are no sources for this except the blog mentioned below. and what does that blog give as it's source?--Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text itself is taken verbatim from chart's blog, not the reproduced images. Brando130 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author has identified an event's date and time that matches with properly referenced history, and used a brand of astrology to see it's significance. Astrology is considered a non-scientific subject, but this shouldn't be the issue undertoned or tabled. This article is importantly notable within two spheres: 1)amongst historians and researchers seeking the event date for the actual birth of the nation USA and 2)astrologers who seek the information for their work that matches with history. Certainly the author uses and promotes a brand of astrology, but that appears inconsequential, since it's being used as a tool to measure the importance of the event, a common thing amongst all brands of astrology. Replyatom (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The author has identified an event's date and time that matches with properly referenced history, and used a brand of astrology to see it's significance." - Yes, exactly. original research. Also a little strange that a vote on this chart would be your first ever edit to Wikipedia. Brando130 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without wp:reliable sources, this article should not exist here. I see no reliable sources, have found none on my own, and frankly can't anticipate that any will be coming in the future. Xymmax (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Shortland Street#Settings and Storylines. Editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shortland Street Hospital

N-n fictional hospital. Absolutely no out of universe notability Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:FICTION just fine. In universe is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you propose we "improve not delete" an article on a topic about which there's no independent coverage and very little to say besides in-universe details? cab (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Shortland Street#Settings and Storylines. Search results do not provide any evidence of real-world coverage in reliable sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. This is appropriate for Shortland Street Wikia [6], not a general-purpose encyclopedia. cab (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shortland Street#Settings and Storylines as suggested. AnteaterZot (talk) 17:30, 27 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, Black Kite 07:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete per above discussion. Use whatever is needed to get a consensus to not keep the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Stain Records

Per WP:N. Sources are all local and/or not independent of the subject. Sources which are independent do not offer significant coverage. swa q 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the acts listed appear to be notable (most of the blue links point to unrelated articles; the rest are red links). The only sources in the article aren't enough to pass WP:RS. I also added Chase Stain, the only musician whose blue link actually points in the right direction -- said musician doesn't appear notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added AZ Ska Punk Awards and Numbers on napkins as two more related articles which seem to fail the notability guidelines. My !vote includes the deletion of these too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:38, 31 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, Black Kite 07:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs to be sorted out a lot better. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fraser

First, this biography of a (supposedly) living person is entirely unsourced, and has been so for more than one year. Second, while it seems he contributed some lyrics to the songs of Emerson, Lake & Palmer, I do not think that he passes WP:MUSIC, contrary to the findings of the first nomination. He would be notable if he "[h]as credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", but applying this to every song of the said band seems like over-stressing the principle. B. Wolterding (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep minimally notable footnote to history, but per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Fraser seems tp pass WP:MUSIC. JJL (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. If and when notability can be established by reliable sources for the show itself, article may be recreated. Pastordavid (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Alchemy

Delete. Unreferenced, unable to establish notability, short program on a minor radio station. WWGB (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to KRFC --Rtphokie (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent KRFC article, only Google hit for '"Rational Alchemy" KRFC' is this article. - Dravecky (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nicholas Stix

The result was Delete. Consensus is that he fails WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is a barely-noted blogger and freelance journalist. He has not been the subject of any profiles, and has not won any awards, though he has been mentioned in passing in a few articles on other topics. Previously, an editor, possibly Stix himself, made a nuisance of himself by doing nothing but adding links and mentions of Stix to numerous articles.User:70.23.199.239/User:70.23.167.160 This article was created by a brand-new account, and I suspect it's more self-promotion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the American Daily claims he did win some award, but I couldn't find out what award. Other sources aren't really about him, but passing mentions at best. Unless more information comes up, he fails WP:BIO. Huon (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. The article lists six different third-party publications discussing the subject – three books and three articles in three different fields (one author apparently considers the subject an important poet). Nominator asserts, “Subject is a barely-noted blogger …,” but it says here (National Policy Institute) that he was the “project director” of a major report on race in America, and here (Alex Linder) that he is a Jew who interviewed a major neo-Nazi. I just did a Google Books search, and he is mentioned in many other books besides those cited in the WP article. This list cites over 20 publications both influential and obscure, none of which is a blog, in which his articles have appeared. To any impartial observer, he is clearly an influential American journalist, though just as clearly one whose work is controversial and elicits strong emotions. However, being controversial is not a criterion for deletion, and the nominator’s obvious intense hostility towards the subject makes his AfD a violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 24.90.201.232 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This !vote is the editor's 9th edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, what? 24.90.201.232 (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP There is no evidence that Stix created or edited the article. He is clearly notable and has been mentioned on and off the blogosphere. Unfortunately, he is a true conservative and isn't too scared to speak his mind and the truth about whtie people, which scares the supposedly neutral but liberally biased editors of wikipedia, at least some of them. Of course, if he were a neo-Nazi, he would instantly get a page, as he would discredit true conservatism and any serious discussions about race that don't just bash whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comradesandalio (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - regarding the sources: We have:
1. The American Daily has a short and uninformative biography, the website given for him is wrong.
2. Kill the Messenger: The War on Standardized Testing has a one-line mention among lots of other journalists.
3. I couldn't access Writing Alone and With Others and Rhetoric and Composition as Intellectual Work, but judging from what I could see, the former has a one-line mention, while the latter reviews an article by Stix.
4. Access to the PDF "Color of crime" was denied.
5. Into the Mainstream again has a one-line passing mention.
6. The next two concern a report Stix edited; one is the report itself, the other is a book review.
7. Finally, another one-sentence mention.

At most three - the biography and the reviews - can be said to be "discussing the subject", and there's hardly any information. When was he born? Where was he educated? Has somebody analyzed his political views? Is he, as some sources suggest, a "white nationalist", or, as another source claims, a "self-anointed protector of black students"? From the sources we have, I can't tell. Google Books gave me just a dozen results, including three of our "sources". In effect, Stix has written quite a lot, but nobody writes about Stix. Huon (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can access the PDF by hitting enter in the address bar of the "access denied" page. It requires a referrer from amren.com. But there's no point since he isn't mentioned in the document at all; the SPLJ source just says he quoted it once, which isn't significant enough for mention in an article, let alone anything supporting notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Being a prolific online writer means nothing by itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently does a lot of writing, but he hasn't recieved any significant coverage in independant reliable sources required by WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author's request. faithless (^speak) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megy

Not sure it's a hoax ~~so did not send to CSD~~. Re WP:V cannot find anything referring to this concept. "Megy" seems to be a word/name in the Hungarian language; nothing else evident. Taroaldo (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The hungarian word has no conenction to the gesture. Reads like an obvious hoax, I'd say, but hoaxes aren't covered by the CSD. Anyway, "no sources" and "unverifiable" means deletion. Huon (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks! Don't know why I added the pointless csd comment - subconscious notion, maybe. ;) --- Taroaldo (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This gesture has roots in Trinidadian culture and its name was not derived based on a word. Due to its nature, it has not found itself to be documented or labeled in any text as it is a fairely recent developement. It is also only practiced by a certain age group (mainly adolecents) in the country. Any cultural expert in Trinidad and Tobago with knowledge on adolecent sub-culture will be able to validate this article. --- Matcityus

Valid articles should not be removed due to cultural ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matcityus (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unfortunately, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. Unless one of the cultural experts on Trinidadian adolescent sub-culture has written something about this hand gesture we can cite as a source, I don't see how we're supposed to have an article about it. Huon (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Huon said, information in Wikipedia must meet criteria for verifiability. No editor on Wikipedia knows everything and we cannot simply make assumptions about things which we cannot verify. Conversely, if we know something with certainty it does us no good if we cannot demonstrate verifiability to others. The same criteria are used for each AfD, regardless of the subject matter. --- Taroaldo (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age of Knowledge

At present, article is only sourced to self-referential primary sources affiliated with the Church of Scientology, the publisher of these works. I could not find significant discussion of the article's subject matter in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. I could not find any mention of "Golden Age of Knowledge" in any books or in a news archive search, or a search of scholarly works. In addition, zero hits came up in searches of InfoTrac. If this subject matter has been significantly discussed/analyzed in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources to satisfy WP:NOTE - I have not been able to find any mention in searches of multiple different types of indices of secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Church of Scientology merchandising (or other link, see below). Without independent sources, there's no way we can write an article on this topic. With only primary sources the most we can do is add a mention on one of the Scientology pages covering the church's commercial operations. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete per Sheffi. It's not about a Golden Age of anything. It's about some merchandise for sale. Mandsford (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there is nothing of value here and zero independent sources, then why redirect, instead of just Delete? Cirt (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You got a point there. Why should "Golden Age of Knowledge" take a person to a scientology article? Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Delete for lack of secondary sources, and merge a mention (if necessary) into an appropriate Scientology article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising unless reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently none of the good stuff about this event and program are RS usable on Wikipedia. AndroidCat (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Alvestrand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio) at 06:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC). cab (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ucweb

Appears to be a direct copy and paste of another page on the web and likely fails WP copyright policies. InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio, so tagged. Jfire (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:COPYVIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Paul Santoro

Article is about a non-notable mob figure. InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds of no assertion of notability. Article cites no references and speaks in such vague generalities i.e. "...led to his eventual downfall" that it is hard to tell just what, if anything, he is notable for. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense and libel mixed in one. No WP:RS. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Jaffray

~~Appears to fail WP:N, definitely fails WP:V. Wizardman 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)~~ Appears to be much better now, I'll let the afd continue though I'm now satisfied. Wizardman 21:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. I realize that notability is not inherited, but the Ontario Cancer Institute (part of Princess Margaret Hospital, itself part of the University Health Network) and the University of Toronto are both leading research institutions. --Eastmain (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named chair and head of department at research hospital. Google Scholar search for "DA Jaffray" [7] finds articles with 363 and 260 citations, a further three with over a hundred citations, and a further 11 with over 50 citations. Medline lists a total of 92 publications. The subject seems to meet WP:PROF. Not my area so willing to change my mind if fresh evidence is brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict's comments. Nsk92 (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemala Street

Article is about a street that appears to be non-notable for any major landmarks, historical impact, or anything else that would justify it having its own Wikipedia article. InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apparently it's mentioned in a poem by Jorge Luis Borges, but that doesn't make it notable. Boregs' claim of Guatemala Street being the site of the "mythical founding of Buenos Aires" seems to be at odds with our article on the barrio. Our decision here should also be applied to Serrano Street, Paraguay Street and Gurruchaga Street. Huon (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a clumsy interpretation of Borges, a well-known fantasist. The final lines of the cited poem in fact declare Buenos Aires to be eternal and not ever "founded" at all. In other words, the entire poem is metaphorical. It is certainly not a claim sufficient for our purposes. --Dhartung | Talk 23:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of conscious hip hop artists

This list appears to be original research. What, exactly, does the "list of conscious hip hop artists" entail? What does the phrase "conscious hip hop artists" mean? I work in the music / radio industry and have never heard this prhase used. As such, I've nominated this article for deletion as original research. InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know if the list creator means artists who are alive, breathing, and able to think for themselves, or contribute to the community at large (as in socially conscious) in a positive way. Whatever it is, I'm ultimately confused. Nate • (chatter) 04:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what state 2Pac is in (first on this list) but I'm sure it isn't conscious. Unencyclopedic and unclear Nick Connolly (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semi-frequently used phrase in the hip hop world on the same level of vagueness as "next level". JuJube (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do have an article on this topic. It's actually a very commonly used term in hip-hop circles, and refers to artists whose lyrics are "socially conscious" in some sense (dealing with politics, racism or sexism, problems faced in urban communities, etc.). Conscious hip-hop is often thought of as the antithesis of gangsta rap. I think this list is inherently POV though and can never be otherwise. Whether an MC is "conscious" or not is a fairly subjective matter, and some MC's - 2Pac being perhaps the prime example - clearly fall into the "conscious" category at one point in their career but not so much later, so I don't know what you do about that. As someone who knows hip-hop fairly well I agree with most of the entries on the list, but it's still basically impossible for the list to be NPOV which means we should delete it. It might be possible to change the article title to something similar but less POV and thus keep a lot of the content, which is admittedly useful.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You just have to cite a reliable source saying a certain artist does conscious hip hop. --Pixelface (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what if there were two other reliable sources that pointedly argued said artist was not a conscious rapper? I can easily imagine some hip-hop publication arguing, for example, that Jadakiss "has done some conscious hip-hop," however in general most would not consider him a conscious artist. As I said the term "conscious" is far too subjective, but the article title gives the impression that everyone on the list is indisputably a conscious artist which is not the case. I would not mind having a list along these lines but I think it needs to be called something else, though I don't have any big ideas offhand.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is the matter of what to do with the fact that the early gangsta rappers were not slow to self-identify as "reality rap", hence linking themselves to Chuck D's dictum that hip hop was "black CNN" and linking themselves to the same lineage of socio-political commentary tracing all the way back to Melle Mel. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources exist for this topic[8][9][10][11][12]. This looks to be a case of WP:IDONTKNOWIT by the nominator. --Pixelface (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, you'd be wrong with your assertion of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. I have enough experience in the radio / music industry that IF this were a commonly used phrase and this article WASN'T original research, I would have heard the phrase. But, as it is, this article is the very first time I have ever seen it or heard it. I stand by my nomination. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this should be deleted, but honestly I'm guessing you are not all that familiar with hip-hop if you have never heard this term before. It is incredibly, incredibly common in hip-hop circles. Many folks will claim they only listen to "conscious" rap. Other terms have been used in the past (for example "message rap"), and other similar terms are used today ("backpack rap" is also a synonym). An article on conscious rap is very much warranted and is not OR, it's just that this list is problematic. If you don't believe me look again at the links Pixelface provided.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I program a hip-hop radio station...... --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, but perhaps this term slipped under your radar somehow. Again, look at the sources provided by Pixelface, or just google "conscious hip-hop" which comes up with 83,000 hits including a bunch of stuff that's relevant right off the bat. A Google books search is also revealing (see this chapter from a book by Michael Eric Dyson, the title of which was partially taken from a Nas lyric: "Cause it's trendy to be the conscious MC / But next year, who knows what we'll see?"). Anyhow this really is a notable if admittedly vaguely defined term which is referenced all the time by all kinds of folks in the hip-hop world. I teach a urban history course at a college in the Bronx where we listen to a ton of hip-hop and my students (generally 8-10 years younger than myself) are quite familiar with the term, as are my friends who are hip-hop heads. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, though possibly it's used more frequently in certain regions of the country. Anyhow, sort of a side point, but relevant if someone is questioning the legitimacy of the concept rather than the list (which seems to be the case for some of the delete voters).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but per Pixelface's comment above, the article needs to be sourced and vetted, otherwise including someone on there without a source would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (and yes, that means a lot of work for somebody). In addition, an introduction needs to be added otherwise not only might WP:IDONTKNOWIT come into play, but you might see someone trying to create a list of "unconscious" hip hop artists. 23skidoo (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where's the notability here? Arbitrary, unreferenced list. Brando130 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if we were told what a "conscious" hip-hop artist is, it's an indiscriminate list. A list of unconscious hip hop artists would be more interesting. Mandsford (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "conscious" meaning alive and awake, or what? KleenupKrew (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot ever be more than a conglomeration of POV determinations. Unless there's a "2Pac Conscious Hip-Hop Award" someday .... --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we've reached a consensus? 8 delete votes, 1 keep, and a weak keep? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will almost certainly be deleted, but we need to let the AfD run its course I think - which is five days as a rule - and let it be closed by a non-involved admin. I don't think this is a WP:SNOW candidate if that's what you were suggesting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not even a big hip-hop fan (more of a heavy metal guy) and yet I have come across the term. Someone above has provided several reliable sources on the apparent existence of this genre. There are many other lists of artists from a particular genre that are similarly unreferenced but that's not cause for deletion. Take a look at the list of folk metal bands for an example of how a list like this can be improved with the proper format and sources. That list was completely unreferenced too just a few weeks ago and then I came along to work on it. There's no reason to think that this list of conscious hip-hop cannot similarly be improved. I suspect most of you have not heard of folk metal either. --Bardin (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Would that it were so. Your superlative work has shown that folk metal is a robust niche genre with definable boundaries. Conscious hip hop is a much more nebulous concept, referring as it does to to lyrical content which at some point someone has deemed to be dealing with social issues. This is a case for an article on the subject, with notable examples (actually Message rap would be a much better article IMO, someone click through for me with a merge and I'll write the rest up), but any list will be a repository of loosely associated acts, and might as well be "List of hip hop artists". Are we a directory? 86.44.28.245 (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per the talk page comment: Fork of deleted list at Conscious hip hop, has all the same problems. Uncited, potentially infinite, based on people's personal perceptions, unencyclopediac. The list was in question for a month and a half at Conscious hip hop without one single cite being added, and was deleted. This article is approaching two months in existence, still no cites. Previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of golden age hip hop artists which closed Delete also applies here. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conscious hip hop is definitely a notable genre/term but this list is a mess! The Game? Obie Trice? Ja Rule? What is the criterion for inclusion on this list, recording one semi-thoughtful track? Additionally, the nominator needs to go back to school if he considers himself to be a musical scholar but has never heard the term before. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Wilson (Irish politician)

Non-notable local councillor in Northern Ireland. Only ref is to his party's website, so he fails WP:N; as a local councillor he fails WP:BIO BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BoL (Talk) 04:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP A bit more is needed on him really. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well below WP:BIO for politicians. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of substantial coverage by third party reliable sources, and no claim to inherent notability under WP:BIO or any other guideline. No prejudice against re-creation in the event that required coverage is demonstrated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current article gives no evidence of real notability. Currently a stub, so it is conceivable that there is something more out there. Warofdreams talk 01:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Alexf. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhatIfGaming

Non-notable gaming site with no legit refs. Created by someone who has a possible Conflict of Interest in the article. BoL (Talk) 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I think you're severely mistaken, and I'm just a reader--so there are no "conflicts of interest." The site gets nearly 1.5 million hits, and is sponsored by all the major gaming sites, and has many things coming up. Also, do your proper searches via N4G before nominating it and labeling it as a "non-notable" aka corporate fanboy gaming site. Seriously, grow up. Also see the AwStats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:March08awstats.jpg. And learn to use N4G.com--as they have had countless articles on there that got above 950 degrees. Also, they're doing an interview with Rockstar soon. Also, their Alexa score is high--showing a lot of IE users (15% of their readership) go there. Google analytics shows the rank as high as well. Learn to search. This isn't an attack. It's telling you to learn something before you go around reporting stuff you don't even have the facts straight for. Also stop harassing me and deal with the fact that you messed up. And they are referenced by COUNTLESS sites including maxconsole, jeuxfrance, and JOYSTIQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean they have to be notable. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N. BoL (Talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. BoL (Talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDude - calm down theres no need to tell anyone else to grow up. First of all there are no reliable sources that arent biased. Show me the source that states it gets 1.5 million hits. By the way - before you tell anyone to go "learn something" you clearly have no reliable sources. BTW where did that graph come from? Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stick some sources in there and I might change my mind. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay..so see I thought them being referenced by other blogs like Joystiq, maxconsole, GoNintendo, (and sites like PSU) gave it some credibility. Also the graph came from the owner through a press forum, which you guys don't have access to, but I do since I handle press stuff for the community site the owner revealed it on. Also look at Google Analysis ...and the Alexa (showing that 15% of the users are IE users and visit it)...the ranks are fairly high. Also, they have ads with Sony for infamous and littlebigplanet. Something I just noticed. That doesn't happen out of the sky. Also check all their posts on News 4 Gamers (a gaming community site). They are very well established. I can't show you sources for their numbers...what gaming site wiki SHOWS that? This is seriously ridiculous to be honest. It's like asking 1UP to show their "reliability" sources. They've been around the web, and so had this site..especially on N4G. I can't really "add sources" anymore than I have. WP:Blogs.

What I can do is removed the # sources. But the site itself is notable and reliable.

"which you guys don't have access to" Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the # references completely. The rest are just facts about the site itself if that's fine J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they have ads with Sony for infamous and littlebigplanet

I could get a ad with sony, if I paid $1000 million PS can you sign cause its creating heaps of edit conflicts Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I actually just see that GoogleBots are rejected ping to the site itself..and the site doesn't have an Alexa tracker..but an AwStats one. So, the only way to prove it is if the website owner disclosed the stats themselves via AwStats. If it helps---they did MENTION their numbers in one post (I think). But I removed all the # references.

—Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs)

Haha, thanks for telling me how to do that. DavidGamingeff (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you J. If you need to delete it, then delete it. But I just have to say that...the article is just facts about the site itself, and they have a ton of news posts, references from Maxconsole, joystiq, XBOX360 fanboy, and n4g + PSU---basically on a lot of places and have interviews going on with huge game publishers. As for the number sources, sorry I disclosed closed information not available to public. Should have known better. Aside from that, that's all I got. Thanks for hearing me out. DavidGamingeff (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inconsistent sources are being raised here, I searched N4G and the site appears ot be scraping articles FROM this site, not writing ABOUT this site. I then searched the archives at Joystiq and found nothing but scrapes of the scrapes from N4G under a search heading of "Google Results" when looking for the phrase "WhatIfGaming". On 360 Fanboy I could only find this single trivial mention [13] which provides no real context for notability. The other mentions didn't offer anything better. The Alexa rank you are talking about is currently sitting at a one week average of 924,950. To compare, Joystiq.com sits at 3,480 (lower is higher traffic). I would venture to say that the kind of traffic numbers you're talking about wouldn't make something notable on that alone anyway, even if the traffic stats weren't WP:OR original research. To continue, I can't locate any reliable, non-trivial sources to assert any kind of notability at this time using either yahoo or google, in fact there is very little on the site at all in search results; many of the results in the first few pages reference this article and the related discussion. In fact google has weighted N4G's scrape of RSS items from this site at a higher position than the domain itself [14]. This all adds up to me as failing WP:N by a wide margin. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's written like an advertisement and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. I know it can be annoying to hear someone call a site "non-notable", but telling editors to "grow up" and saying "learn to search" and "deal with the fact you messed up" is not going to persuade people to keep this article. --Pixelface (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply an article about a gaming website with facts about it. I took out the # references etc. It should not be deleted IMO, but w/e. Also I already stated they are blocking alexa sprawlers--etc. So those stats are inaccurate that you're getting from Alexa. Refer to their FAQ. Also you aren't searching right if all you could find was 1 mention. And even so, those huge media owned sites don't just link to sites that they know are not notable. Also I stated already they blocked google sprawlers apparently, so using a link:http:// won't work...and bring up minimum results. The site has amazing content, it has references, and it has notability. Maybe not according to Wikipedia standards, but to gaming standards it definitely does. I'll keep arguing this same position for any other requests to delete it (so refer back to this post again and again), but I refuse to let it be deleted unless an admin feels otherwise. Consider this my statement for all delete requests now. DavidGamingeff (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wikipedia's notability standards WP:N and wikipedia's notability standards for websites WP:WEB.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if these articles are so easy to find and in such abundance you could clear this all up very quickly by linking to them directly in this debate. Please do not link to the main site, link only to the exact articles you are talking about.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Torchwood. I read the WP:N more, and I have some questions so we can resolve this. I understand that WP's guideline of notability, is not necessarily the same thing as fame, etc etc. A website can be famous..and not be detailed on Wikipedia unless, if I read correctly, outside 3rd party sources specifically speak about that subject in detail. Now..is this to say that...any subject matter, which has not extensively or at all covered by a WP:Reliable source is not notable enough to be added to the Wikipedia encyclopedia? If I got this all right, I will agree to deletion because I was under the impression that we can add info about a website.....in general...like a biography of literally any website we choose. Because I'm not really understanding your reason for asking for it to be deleted. It kind of sounds like to me that you're trying to delete information about a site's bground, etc---and claiming the site is a huge farce..and copied/pasted...and completely fake and unreal, which is just not true at all. DavidGamingeff (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article for A7 deletion because of your comment at AfD. Yes, you are reading the notability guideline correctly. All articles need to have extensive coverage in reliable third party sources. When the site gains some of these you are free to recreate the article citing the new sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Seems to be an advertisement. Redrocket (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's background information on a site. How is it an "advertisement." I don't understand your logic. Since when was describing a site, it's review policy, and all that--an advertisement? Btw, n4g is a community of gamers who only approve news they believe to be noteworthy from reliable sources (strict guidelines) and requires 10 approvals PER article. Here are just the MAIN ones this site is covered in (Excluding reference sources under other stories already--which are countless):

http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126912.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-131373.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-128215.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-127397.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-127389.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126909.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126913.aspx

That's literally in an excess of 70 people who approve anything the site has to say. DavidGamingeff (talk)

How is it an "advertisement"? Because it's written like an advertisement. Instead of trying to argue with every single person who disagrees with you, why don't you just cleanup the article and add your references to it? Redrocket (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just got word from Torchwood: "I tagged the article for A7 deletion because of your comment at AfD. Yes, you are reading the notability guideline correctly. All articles need to have extensive coverage in reliable third party sources. When the site gains some of these you are free to recreate the article citing the new sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)"

I agree to the terms of deleting this. I just understood the guidelines. Thank you torchwood who! I appreciate your awesomeness in the matter. DavidGamingeff (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Landau (musician)

As far as I can tell fails WP:MUSIC, only claim to notability is having played in Warren Zevon's band. No valid sources other than Youtube and his own website. If anything he should probabally have a mention on Warren Zevon instead of his own article. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Warren Zevon or Jackson Browne BoL (Talk) 03:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability. Having played with a notable musician does not in itself make one notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN, WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: viz, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS issues. Eusebeus (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid sourced stub. Catchpole (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now WP:BIO & WP:V. Wishtoremainanon (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power of the Dragonflame (single)

I created this article like 2 years ago. I thought there was a single called "Power of the Dragonflame". Well that was a promo-release, and every Rhapsody album by Limb Music Productions had a promo-release. We have an article for the album so there is no necessity to keep this one. --Neo139 (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable music release, no sources. Terraxos (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk"
Speedy Delete as G7, "Author requests deletion" No major edits from initial version of the article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nacirema Dream

Fails WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums require substantial coverage in reliable sources. 1st source gives very little info about album, 2nd source isn't about the album. Unable to locate additional reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a page about an upcoming album, that we're not sure of when it will actually come. That's not enough to warrant an article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nowhere near enough coverage to justify an article about an unreleased album.Kww (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and Moved to Center for Catholic Studies (University of St. Thomas). Rewrite/cleanup needed. Pastordavid (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Studies

This article reads more like an entry out of a course catalog or brochure than an encylopedia entry on the University of St. Thomas CathStudies program. Futhermore, rather than covering the discipline and impact of Catholic Studies, which is featured at numerous colleges around the country, it discusses only the UST program. Apparently, it was created by a user seeking only to promote the program (username: catholicstudies). I am a Catholic Stuides major at UST, but Wikipedia is not a guidebook, and I don't believe this article has any merit at all as presently written. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ An article on Catholic studies in general would be great, but there is little salvageable material in this article. Some editor(s) have obviously put a lot of work into this but, just as the nominator says, it amounts in its present form to nothing more than a brochure. This is totally unencyclopedic: such material belongs on a page for prospective students on a school's website, not here. Nick Graves (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change recommendation to Keep, rename and rewrite. There are at least two reliable sources that provide independent, significant coverage of the program, so it seems notable enough. Elkman's suggested renaming to University of St. Thomas Center for Catholic Studies is the most suitable option, due to its specificity. A future article on Catholic studies would be appropriate only if it focused on the discipline in general, rather than a specific program. Nick Graves (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At best this is a move to Center for Catholic Studies. It certainly is not a general article on Catholic studies as a discipline. --Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to wikiversity--Emesee (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE It is unlike any other wikipedia article i have seen before. Not up to Wikipedia's standards. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, as all above; an essay or a brochure about a particular programme. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to something like Center for Catholic Studies or Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas, so that that title makes it clear that it's about the Catholic Studies program at only one university. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (If kept, the move needs to be done.) This is a course catalog or advertisement; it is not an encyclopedia article. (At least it isn't a blatanat copyright violation of the web-pages, which is about all it has going for it.) No independent sourcing is present to indicate that an encyclopedia article is possible. Very few specific programs at a college merit an encyclopedia entry, and I see nothing to make me think this is one of them. GRBerry 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite. Delete (or move if delete fails). Obvious advertisement. TrickyApron (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite - Is the subject of secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject, like the St. Paul Pioneer Press [15] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune [16] [17]. --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite as Oakshade said. An article has to start somewhere, and whereas many articles start with a one-sentence "stub" (in Wikipedia terminology) this one started with comprehensive information on one program in the subject. The rewrite should remove specifics like course numbers, but keep topics like study in Rome that may be common to similar programs at many universities. Fg2 (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite and move. The article as it is currently written doesn't have any merit, however there is significant independent coverage with which to rewrite the article. A better title would be Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas. The article needs a bit of work but it should be kept. ~ Eóin (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to University of St. Thomas Center for Catholic Studies (a more official and less ambiguous name), then rewrite to prune a lot of the material about specific courses that need to be taken. The program itself sounds like it's notable, and the study-abroad program, Master of Arts degree, and the two institutes appear to be a relatively distinctive feature of this center. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Rename and prune of the excessive detail of particular modules. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename, and Stubbify. Agree present article is not an appropriate Wikipedia article or appropriately named, but a renamed article that refers specifically to the University of St. Thomas Center for Catholic Studies would be appropriate because there are sufficient reliable sources on the program to meet the relevant notability criteria. Accordingly, renamed article should be stubbified and OR and self-promotional catalog-type material removed. --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Wikify: Great topic, definitely good for Wikipedia, but bear in mind that it reads more like a guidebook, let's fix it up, maybe? THE KC (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete; one particular program at one particular school (which already has it's own, fine article) does not need to be covered in such detail; we are not a course catalog or an advertising brochure repository. A general article on the topic would be interesting; but this is not that and doesn't really have much information that could become the basis of a general article, in my opinion -- perhaps other schools have widely different criteria. I'd also look for more reliable sources beyond just the Minnesota newspapers, since this is a Minnesota school I'm not surprised those exist, but does anyone else take notice? At the very least rename, per others above, without redirecting this term. -- phoebe / (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a general topic. It is salvageable and notable. FYI: I'm an ex-RC. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism/hoax. ... discospinster _talk 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Caupaphara

seems A hoax, no source to support it Matthew_hk t c 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Appears to be a hoax, no hits outside Wikipedia whatsoever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep – multiple independent references in reliable sources. KrakatoaKatie 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lending Club

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Has a few links but they seem to be self references, press releases and trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable. Also, per Hu12.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the sources and external links are from the company itself (except for a single USA Today article, which wouldn't load for me, and which may or may not have had specific coverage of the company). That's not sufficient to establish notability. Nick Graves (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep > 100 instances of RS coverage including such non-notable and unreliable sources souch as MSN Money, USA Today, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, among others. It's not yet at the level of Prosper but its received significant secondary coverage. Not in the article doesn't mean it doesn't exist. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those seem to be aggregated from /PRNewswire/MyWire/AccessMyLibrary.com which is all NN self publish/PR sites. --Hu12 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AccessMyLibrary reproduces articles from print publications, much in the same way that ProQuest does. It's a perfectly valid search site, very useful for those who don't have subscriptions to larger, better ones. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Money, Denver Post, Boston Globe. None are from AML, all are reliable sources with independent coverage, not press releases. The existence of some press releases doesn't invalidate the other coverage. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - aren't tech crunch and usaday sort of a big deal? I saw michael arrington on Charlie Rose. --Emesee (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Polevaults over notability requirements. Sources are easy to find. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had numerous references in mainstream media, including ABC News (which I just added), and has many more. Gary King (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided in Lending_Club#References indicate sufficient coverage of this website in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G2 (test page). The author has copied Sporting Clube de Portugal and tried to change the player names, but has given up after a few. The team actually probably exist, but as a reserve side, are non-notable. Black Kite 07:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Udinese Calcio Reserves

In Italy, they called Primavera, but the page only contain a incomplete squad list, and some players were copied from Sporting's article Matthew_hk t c 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this team exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per the speedy deletion A7 criterion. Rudget (review) 11:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraform (Artist)

Written by the artist himself, then speedied [18], then recreated by the artist himself. Fails notability due to WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:single-purpose account, WP:MUSIC, and probably several more guidelines we could throw at him. Let's delete this and salt it forever. Qworty (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, absolutely no assertation of notability per WP:MUSIC. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 (or G4)- Per TenPoundHammer, and because of the recreation of the speedied article, G4 as well. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 (G4 only applies to recreation after community conseneus to delete), and as nom says, salt forever!!!!! And block the user per UAA. BoL (Talk) 03:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjwoods (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Marshak

Biography about a non-notable person. Marshak has no notability beyond the death of Nelson Rockefeller and various conspiracy theories related to that. Delete and redirect to death section of Rockefeller article. Dual Freq (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is not known if the person is currently living or dead. Proper spelling of last name may be Marshak or Marshack, but the subject is so non-notable that both spellings seem to be used in articles relating to Rockefeller's death. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails to meet WP:BIO guidelines. Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I remember when this happened, and believe me, it made worldwide news when the Vice President died on top of this woman. This is a definitely notable keeper in the history of the Vice Presidency, like Cheney shooting that Republican lawyer in the face or the Burr/Hamilton duel or Agnew or Calhoun resigning. Vice Presidents are inherently notable and whenever they do things like shoot people or die on top of them the other person involved becomes automatically notable. Qworty (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "die on top of them"? None of that is mentioned in the sources listed. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've read all 270 news articles in the eight minutes since I posted the link to them? You are a fast reader! The poor girl was pinned beneath his naked body when he died of the heart attack. It took her a long time to get out and when she finally did she was so scared out of her wits she didn't even call an ambulance. She called her friend and neighbor instead. All of this has been in the public record for decades. It should all be in the article. Qworty (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've been down this road before. I did a lexis search last year when this came up and I could find no articles in the last 25+ years about her beyond his death. All you've mentioned above is tabloid / conspiracy theory stuff. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uh, excuse me, but if you've already researched this, then you are aware that the ambulance workers found Rockefeller sprawled in the nude. How many men dictate to their secretaries in the nude? She just happened to be taking Gregg shorthand from a naked millionaire politician when his heart seized up . . . right? Nobody seriously believes that. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you want to cite a reliable source that information came from, then add it to Rockefeller's article. The discussion here is about her notability, and she is clearly not notable beyond Rockefeller, hence the suggestion to return to a redirect.I'm not saying to remove any information about her from Rockefeller's article. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We don't merge Lee Harvey Oswald into the John F. Kennedy article, nor John Wilkes Booth into the Abraham Lincoln article, nor Vicki Iseman into the John McCain article, nor Monica Lewinsky into the Bill Clinton article. Megan should have her own article as well. As for sources, would you consider CBC News reliable and non-tabloidish? They reported in 2002, "Nelson Rockefeller, the former U.S. vice-president, who keeled over in 1979 at the age of 70 while involved sexually with his 25-year-old personal assistant, a lovely woman named Megan Marshack." [19] Qworty (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for linking an opinion article. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person has an intriguing connection to the death of a vice president. The fact that there are conspiracy theories about her tends to bolster the argument of notability. I can see where people would want to know more about her.--76.205.25.141 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her name was in the news for weeks after this event. She is notable. --rogerd (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
further evidence of notability: 270 news articles about her dating from 1979 onward: [20] Qworty (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the correct spelling of her last name? Marshak or Marshack? Is she still alive? Where is she today? All of those refer to Rockefeller's death, she is not notable beyond his death. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Marshack is correct, but a lot of sources did use Marshak. This does speak to your point. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that participating in the death of a Vice President of the United States is pretty much the height of notability. She's only slightly less notable than Lee Harvey Oswald, and certainly more notable than Monica Lewinsky, who was involved in an executive-branch impeachment but not in an executive-branch death. Qworty (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh, "participating in the death"? You can't be serious. --Dhartung | Talk 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've never been more serious about anything in my life. Burr killed Hamilton with a pistol. This girl killed Rockefeller with . . . well, do I have to spell it out for you? Granted, she didn't do it intentionally. But it is no less notable than the Burr/Hamilton duel in Vice Presidential history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qworty (talk • contribs) 02:47, April 7, 2008
        You have some very strange ideas about cause, effect, and personal agency here. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nelson Rockefeller. Not notable independently. JJL (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nelson Rockefeller. No independent notability (she has stayed wholly out of the news media for 30 years since, impressive accomplishment). As there were no criminal charges, no tell-all bio, and nothing but tabloid speculation, we have no business having this article under WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Like Qworty, I'm old enough to remember Megan Marshak. Rockefeller was no longer the VP when he died, although he was still quite prominent because of his wealth. There's nothing I see in the article that violates WP:BLP. She was quite notable in 1979, and as I understand Wikipedia rules, it is not required that she be notable in 2008. Mandsford (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nelson Rockefeller. This is a textbook case of WP:ONEEVENT. Jfire (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Dolly Kyle Browning, and most people don't even know her name whereas most people of a certain age do know Marshak's. Sometimes one event is all that's needed for notability. Tvoz |talk 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you said don't invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but your argument is a textbook case of that too. Jfire (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Her notability is no less than that of a presidential candidate's step-grandmother or the fling of a Congressman or many others whose sole notability is their proximity to power and whose names are known to the public (over age 50). This article is a stub, but it is well-sourced as far as it goes - far better than many. As for the spelling of her name, I believe this was determined a while ago, but I'll have to check it again as I don't recall - that's not a reason to delete. And I believe she is alive and working as a journalist, but I do not have a reliable source on that at present. (And since when is there a requirement that the current whereabouts of a subject be known for them to be considered notable?) Finally, last time I looked the New York Times was not a tabloid, and several of the source articles talk about her delaying the emergency services call and calling Ponchita Pierce first. By the way, neither this article, nor the section in Nelson Rockefeller, talk about unsourced conspiracy theories, nor should they. She's notable without them. Tvoz |talk 03:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is never going to be anything more than a coat rack / fork of Rockefeller's death section, as it has been in the past. Since there is very little biographical information known about Marshack/Marshak, (like the correct spelling of her last name or pretty much anything else beyond Rockefeller's death), this article will be nothing more than a dedicated article about Rockefeller's death filled with uncited and unverifiable speculation about the circumstances of his death. Here is an example of this article's past form and its likely future. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I object to that, Dual - that version dates back to 2006 and all of that speculative material has been scrupulously kept out of the article since then, during the times it has been a standalone piece. When I had a little time I did some research, as you will recall, and came up with a bunch of references verifying her role and I have stated several times that speculation and theory do not belong there. You have no legitimate basis on which to say that this is how the article is going to be in the future. My point is that it is a stub, and should be allowed to stand so that others can expand it if more information becomes available as it well might, considering her proximity to a former Vice President of the United States. This is a low priority stub, so right, I haven't had a chance to dedicate time to researching more on it. But I am not the only one editing the encyclopedia who has an interest in this historic time, and I believe more material may surface that can expand this piece, such as a new biography of Rockefeller. That's why we have the concept of stubs. WHat harm is this one causing the project? Tvoz |talk 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article began as a coatrack in 2004 and the late 2006 version I linked above was hardly different. I think you made my point about notability by saying there might be a "new biography of Rockefeller". Its true that Rockefeller might have a new bio someday, but will there ever be a new biography of Marshack? Unless she writes one, no one else will and since she's managed to avoid the press for 29 year, I don't see anything new coming out on this anytime soon. Right now all an encyclopedia needs to say about Marshack is already at Nelson Rockefeller#Death. Wikipedia will certainly not be harmed by deleting and redirecting to Nelson Rockefeller#Death. If any actual biographical information about Marshack ever shows up, like parents, home town, education, correct spelling of last name, and employment history than at that point the issue could be revisited. Right now, its just one more page on a watchlist to continually revert so it doesn't turn back into this. It will never be more than a stub or a coatrack about Rockefeller's death. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And since 2006 there were periods of time when the article stood alone - and it has never devolved into the original inappropriate text. Furthermore, the death section in Rockefeller has not devolved into innuendo or conspiracy theory either and surely if you were right it would have. So your argument really doesn't hold water. Further, "continually revert"? Are you serious? There have not been so many reverts that put any strain on anyone's watchlist. Come watch Barack Obama if you want to see strain on a watchlist. Come on. Research for a biography about Rockefeller could easily provide new material about her, and all you're saying here is that there's no harm in redirecting it. I'm saying there's no harm in letting it stand - and you haven't shown that there is. I don't think this is the most important thing in the world, but unless there's some harm to the project by keeping it I don't see any reason to remove it. If your watchlist is too long - and believe me, I know how that feels - then remove it. There are other people who will keep an eye on it and not allow it to turn into what you oppose. Tvoz |talk 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see anything here that shows she is notable beyond Rockefeller's death as stated in the nomination. You've had over a year to research this and we still have nothing but a stub about Rockefeller's death with some "speculation" in the press that's supposed to be a biography of Marshack. She's not notable enough for anyone to write a biography about, even in 1979. Right now, even as a stub, it's an article about Rockefeller's death. Since that's all it will ever be, it should be redirected to Nelson Rockefeller#Death. And I don't think WP:NOHARM is a valid reason to keep an article. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I doubt the bio could be completed with anything noteworthy, and she is not noteworthy beyond the one incident. MrPrada (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. She wasn't Wiki-notable in 1979 and that hasn't changed. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That's not the way I remember 1979 - why did so many respectable newspaper articles and tv news reports include her name, and talk about her if she wasn't notable? Are you familiar with the stub about Fanne Foxe (and please don't invoke WP:othercrapexists)? Tvoz |talk 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, as in not failing WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS back then. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep That there isn't a lot more to say about her doesn't mean there shouldn't be an entry about her in the project. A person doesn't have to continually reassert their notability - once it is established, the person is notable. Marshak's notability was firmly established at the time of the incident. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that notability does not decay. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Monica Lewinsky and Mark David Chapman are relevant, this article is sufficiently relevant as well. The article contributes to the understanding of the scandal, and that should be enough to constitute relevance for a stand-alone article. --Abrech (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no comparison with Marshack and those two people, especially not with Chapman who actually shot and killed someone. There's nothing remotely reliably sourced that places her in the category of assassin. The body of work about Lewinsky and Chapman is much larger than for Marshack and the details in both wikipedia biographies show that. There were very few biographical, personal details about Marshack in the news in 1979 and over the past 29 years there has been essentially no follow up on her unlike Lewinsky and Chapman. Their stories have been revisited numerous times by the media after their initial fame. All notable details about her are directly related to Rockefeller's death and are address adequately there. We don't need a Death of Nelson Rockefeller article and that's all that Marshack's article is. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, I very strongly disagree. Marshack is more notable than Chapman or Lewinski. In all three cases, notability is dependent on an incident with a highly notable person. Obviously, Marshack absolutely didn't plan on killing Rockefeller--it was an accident--but he surely died. Marshack is more notable than Chapman because a dead Vice President of the United States (even a former one) will always be a more notable person than a dead musician. Marshack is more notable than Lewinski because Lewinski never did anything that led to anybody's death. Impeachment, yes, death, no. Finally, for those who claim there was no sex involved in the Rockefeller case, you have to argue that he was in the habit of giving dictation to his female assistant in the nude. That would not only be WP:OR, but a completely absurd case of WP:OR that no rational person would ever believe. Also, it doesn't matter if this happened back in 1979--or 1979 B.C., for that matter. If a woman had done this to a vice pharaoh in Ptolemaic times, you'd better bet it would still be encyclopedic in 2008 A.D. Editors who are arguing that the date is any way significant are guilty of WP:recentism. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lewinsky is still in the news, ten years later while Marshack has not been in the news since 1979. Though Marshack was in the news for a brief period in 1979, no one bothered to write a biography of her at the time, no one ever will. Lewinsky and Chapman have been the subject of several books as well, Marshack has been the subject of no books. The points you have listed about Marshack are a good example of original research and conspiracy theories about Rockefeller's death. I think you prove my point that the article is not about Marshack, but is really about coatracking Rockefeller's article. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have never alleged a conspiracy theory about Rockefeller's death. Where in the world are you getting that? In fact, nobody in this entire AfD discussion has claimed that anybody was out to get Rockefeller, and yet you keep saying conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. If someone had been trying to kill Rockefeller, then having his pretty assistant screw him to death would certainly be an absurd way to go about it, don't you think? And again, be aware of WP:recentism: Notability does not depend on WHEN an event occurred. The same can be said for the books you cite. If the publishing industry had been as scandal-driven in 1979 as it is today, you can bet your sweet bippy there would've been half-a-dozen books about Marshack in 1979. Are you not aware of the changes in publishing since that time? We can't judge Marshack by the publishing standards of today--that too is a form of WP:recentism. So I don't see any logical underpinnings to your argument here. Most of it is WP:recentism, with a little bit of straw man thrown in, claiming that the article's advocates have stated a conspiracy to kill Rockefeller, when not a single person in this discussion has done so. Qworty (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man? I'm not the one comparing her with assassins like Oswald Booth and Chapman or saying she is more notable than Lewinsky. The only thing we can judge notability by is body of work that a subject has had written about them. We can't use rumors and folklore about Rockefeller's death as a source, we have to use published sources. Since there are essentially no sources of biographical information about Marshack, how would you propose that we write a biography about her? The answer is that we can't. She was not notable enough in '79 to have biographical details published by books, magazines or newspapers and nothing has been published since. As others mentioned above, she wasn't notable in 1979 either. What is notable is Rockefeller's death, that is the one event and it is covered in his article. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know what straw man means? Please read up on it. As to your other points--Nobody is suggesting we use rumors or folklore in the article. The published reports STATE that Rockefeller was found in the nude. That's not a rumor. That's not folklore. And yes, if Chapman and Lewinsky are going to have their own articles, then Marshack merits one as well. By your own argument, Chapman and Lewinski are nothing but one event people. Why aren't you arguing that their articles be merged respectively into the Lennon and Clinton articles? Do you really believe for a minute that either Chapman or Lewinski would be notable at all if it weren't for one event? How in the world is Chapman notable outside of that one event? Because he was a fan of The Catcher in the Rye and lived for a time in Hawaii? How in the world is Lewinski notable outside of her sex relationship with Bill, most of the details of which are, as you say, heavily "rumored" and "folkloric"? Do you really think she's notable for the handbags she designed afterwards? When we talk policy, we have to apply it evenly, across the board. And you can't possibly argue that Marshack wasn't notable in 1979. Look at all of the published reports! She sure as heck was more notable than Chapman or Lewinski in that year! Why are you trying to erase the historical record? Qworty (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said before the published body of work for Chapman and Lewinsky is what makes them notable and provides us with source material. Many stories are in print about both of them. They have books published about them. Their stories were followed up by major media after the events they were associated with were long over. Marshack had none of that. No biographical pieces in 1979, no follow ups. No where are they now notes. No books. Nothing. There is nothing more that can be said about her in the article because nothing about her has been published. We don't need a Circumstances of Nelson Rockefeller's death speculation coatrack article pretending to be a "biography" about Marshack. Judging by your answers, you're not interested in Marshack herself, just the innuendo and rumors associated with his death. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why do you persist in repeating this false accusation/prediction that the page is or is going to be a speculation coatrack? It is not now and it won't be in the future as long as responsible editors monitor it. If it is too much for your watchlist, then you can be assured that it will remain on others'. Have I not removed anything that approached speculation on this page in the past? If properly sourced information appears, we'll include it. If it isn't properly sourced, we won't, Just like all other articles. Tvoz |talk 01:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right. Currently, there is no OR / speculation, but there's also no biography of Marshack either. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Correct. It is, as I have said from the outset, a stub. Like many articles on Wikipedia. And I am not aware of a time-limit for expanding stubs. Tvoz |talk 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        With no sources, its going to be impossible to come up with an actual biography. All this will ever be is a fork of Rockefeller's death section. Perhaps it should be renamed Nelson Rockefeller's death instead of pretending its a bio. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) That makes no sense. First of all, sources DO exist. Secondly, there is no WP policy that requires this article to be as lengthy as the one on Winston Churchill. Articles are as long as they need to be. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There`s more information than would fit in his article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a specific example with a source so it can be improved? --Dual Freq (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive reliable, verifiable sourcing meets WP:N critera. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am yet another Wikipedian who vividly remembers the news and her name -- after 29 years. She may be famous for just one event, but that event was a major one, and her name continues to show up in news media. Additionally, there may still be more to her story. One of my Google hits on her name is to a review of a biography of cartoonist Charles Addams that names Megan Marshack as one of the women in Addams' life.[21] --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any useful content could be merged into record collecting, but care should be taken to avoid the no how-to guide and no original research problems. KrakatoaKatie 03:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music collecting strategies

Original research. The "references" are mostly examples rather than actual sources of information (including the author's own website). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will merge article skeleton into a new Record collecting#scope of collections section, after deletion. Jidanni (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with record collecting sounds like an excellent idea. --76.205.25.141 (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. B.Wind (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, how-to guide. Nick Graves (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into record collecting. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe transwiki to wikiversity. --Emesee (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly transwiki to wikihow or wikiversity (i'm not too familiar with the latter project). Original Research that reads like a howto article. I'm rather strongly against merging this content. -Verdatum (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you write in a Record collecting#scope of collections section, or do music collections have no scope, no bounds, no limits? Jidanni (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will the persons above who stated they find merging an acceptable solution please merge the one or two lines of the article that you find acceptable, and throw away the rest. Thank you. I cannot because I have a conflict of interest. Jidanni (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect Yateley#Education, as basically there is nothing much new info then there and most have opted for that option. --JForget 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yateley Manor

So many tabs, stub, no hope. unreferenced, possible hoax – i123Pie _bio^contribs 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax - I have found its site via Google and added an external link. A few results on news sites, could be used as sources for expanding the article - one thing I'm not sure of is whether preparatory schools are notable enough. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In looking at the school's website, it appears that this school has a fair amount of history to it. There is also apparantly one published book on its history. --76.205.25.141 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Being 60 years old isn't that much history, and the "published book" seems to be by two of the school's teachers (and, if I'm not mistaken, its content is given in full on the school's website). Huon (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Schools notability is in WP:SCHOOL. As well as the 'John Devonshire and Stephen Bland' source referred to by the above editors. There seems to be another book covering it [22] 'G.H. STILWELL (Edit S. Louder) The History of Yateley 1974'. ChessCreator (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is "The History of Yateley 1974" about the school or about the village? And if the latter, would it make the school notable? Huon (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete as a non-notable permastub. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Yateley#Education seems the sensible way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Yateley#Education, aswell. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 08:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. It's a primary school, and does not pass my standards for schools. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected (non-admin close). PeterSymonds | talk 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suomen Huippumalli Haussa

The correct way to write it is Suomen huippumalli haussa (lower case h's). I created the page and didn't correct it. Now, there are two pages. The correct one is Suomen huippumalli haussa. Please delete Suomen Huippumalli Haussa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopea (talk • contribs) 08:49, April 7, 2008

Redirect to Suomen huippumalli haussa (as I just did). Huon (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per overwhelming snowfall. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lopadotemachoselachogaleok...

Word not found in dictionary ,not used and is one in another language of a fictional dish.No citations have been given.Hopefully copied it right.Clearly not notable and not used.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would of been sensible to mark the article {{notability}} rather then raising an Afd. ChessCreator (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of verifiability in reliable sources, even though it's interesting. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~By the way, if this gets deleted, you bet it's going to WP:DAFT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Already in Unusual articles. ChessCreator (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guinness source and presence of other sources; seems to be notable enough now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge to Aristophanes' Assemblywomen. Not notable in and of itself, but certainly worthy of inclusion in the article from the play it is contained in. Having read Assemblywomen two quarters ago, I know there's at least one paper that follows the transliterations and the various 'versions' of the word in the most prominent translations. Finding it on the internet would probably be ... hard, for obvious reasons, so I'll probably have to put finding it off until tomorrow when I can stop at the library. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also, redirect. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Provisional Keep notable I think, but hard to check.Nick Connolly (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it should definitely be moved. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinion on this one way or another (as I am almost solely a Wiktionary contributor), but Wiktionary is just wrapping up a couple of conversations about this word at our requests for verification and requests for deletion pages, if anyone is interested in reading. In short, the policy for dead languages is that a single attestation merits inclusion, so the Ancient Greek spelling stays. Also, we've moved the romanization to a spelling used in a famous translation of the play (which is different than the Wikipedia article title), as nonce words in important works are often kept as well. Just thought someone might want to know. Atelaes (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its claim as the longest Greek word should be referenced, but if it is true, should meet the notability criteria. --76.205.25.141 (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. Finding sources on it is very tough too. Undeath (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. While nobody is going to type "Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon" into a search engine, making a section about it in an article about Aristophanes is inappropriate, and I think it would detract from an article about Assemblywomen in the same way that putting a section in the Odyssey about "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?" would be inappropriate. However, a link could be placed in those articles (hopeuflly, one of those shortened links like

a 171-letter word. As the article points out, the significance of this addition by Aristophanes has been looked at by other scholars (an explanation is in order for Henry Liddell and Robert Scott (philologist). Mandsford (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cant see no sources - looks hoaxy to me and I couldnt find anything on google Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax, but it's impossible to use the entire word as a search term in Google. Here are some hints at potentially helpful sources: [23], [24], [25]. Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero chance it is a hoax. Pick up a copy of Assemblywomen. I deeply, deeply urge the closing admin to disregard this probably-in-good-faith, yet obviously-deep-misunderstanding-of-the-subject matter comment. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject is in the Guinnes Book of World Records, 1990 ed, pg. 129. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Guinness Book reference, plus the connection to a classic writer, establishes notability. I agree this isn't a word anyone is going to bother to search for, but it is something that might be read by someone reading the article on the author. 23skidoo (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable to Guinness Book of records. Longest words ever to appear in literature. ChessCreator (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the numerous references that have been put forward. Bikasuishin (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing from merge because sources have been found. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Seems weird at first. But is notable and useful Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable a part of a historical work. Educational, highbrow which should be prized as a contrast to a lot of other articles on wiki. special, random,Merkinsmum 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no matter how ridiculously long it is, it does exist and has historical value--Pewwer42 Talk 22:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This fictional dish was invented by the famous ancient Greek dramatist Aristophanes, who lived from 456 BC – ca. 386 BC. I'd say any work created by a famous guy in ancient times that is still remembered today is notable enough to be on Wikipedia.--134.139.135.84 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deserves mention in wikipedia more than 90% of what's already in here.Helixweb (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- a curiosity which has survived approx. 2,400 years and counting. I'm sympathetic to the nominator, because it fails the Google test, but it has become clear that it's an exception in that regard, for the obvious reasons. Mr. IP (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As strong a keep as I can convey. Historical, survived thousands of years, in Guinness, scholarly, clearly notable, etc. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of motorcycle clubs (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leann Collins}}