Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 3

< April 2	April 4 >

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 delete. Dreadstar † 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Scikotics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search[reply]

Scikotics (a variation of 'Psychotics', pronounced 'sigh-kaw-tiks') is a Scion owners club. Scikotics is currently the largest non-profit Scion owners club in the world. Contents [hide]

   * 1 History
   * 2 Scikotics Community
   * 3 Chapters
   * 4 Starting a Chapter
   * 5 Chapter Leaders
   * 6 Scikotics Asylum
   * 7 External links

[edit] History

Scikotics was started in March of 2005 in Tulsa, Oklahoma by a small group of Scion enthusiasts. Jon Adams aka FrankenScion, was the mastermind, and founder of the club. Thanks to Scion Life web forums and the creation of the Scikotics web site. Word got out to surrounding areas in Texas and Arkansas.

In May 2005, Rob Winterkorn, aka DriverLost showed up to a local Scikotics Tulsa meeting at a TGI Fridays, and proposed the idea for Scikotics to become one large national club, with local chapters located all over the USA.

From August of 2005 to March of 2006 eleven more chapters were created across the U.S.A. These included Texas, Arkansas, Minneapolis, Seattle, California, Chicago, and New York.

The idea to be one national car club, is a new and radical idea, that puts all chapters under one set of common simple rules, and all under one master web site. Each individual chapter has its own section, or sub forum. This allows new chapters to learn as they grow, from existing chapters, and keep in contact on whats going on club related in other parts of the nation. This also simplifies and harmonizes, several chapters from all over the U.S.A. as they gather together for an event.

Scikotics, like Scion, was created to use the world wide web for its key marketing area. 70% of its members join up through the web site. The other 30% are picked up at Scion events, like car shows, and Scion sponsored events.

[edit] Scikotics Community

An important aspect of Scikotics that most other national car clubs lack is a shared message board, and simple common rules. All of the chapters have their own area to post local events and have conversations, but there are many common areas for members to chat about anything, whether it be Scion related or not. This leads to a large sense of community with members from around the nation.

Another important part of the club is supporting other Scikotics chapters. If a chapter is having a car show or event, an effort is made by most, if not all other Scikotics chapters in the area to go to the show or event to support their fellow Scikotics. Event details are easily accessible because of the single message board.

When going to a car show, it is customary for all of the members attending to meet up somewhere near where the show is being held, then roll into the show as a group. The scikotics roll-in, now widely copied by other Scion clubs, is a Scikotics trade mark that has been in use since the early days. Events with members ranging from 5 to over a 100 in some cases, all in tight formation, invade an event at one time.

[edit] Chapters

As of now, Scikotics has over 50 chapters stretching across the continental United States, with a chapter in Puerto Rico, Alaska and soon Hawaii. Even reached Russia with chapter started in Moscow.

   * Alabama: Birmingham
   * Alaska: Alaska
   * Arizona: Phoenix
   * Arkansas: Arkansas
   * California: Fresno, High Desert, NorCal - Almeda County, NorCal - Capitol, NorCal - Central Valley, NorCal - Contra Costa County, NorCal - Solano County, NorCal - West Bay, NorCal - Wine Country, SoCal - Antelope Valley, SoCal - Kern County, Los Angeles, SoCal - Ventura County
   * Colorado: Mile High
   * Connecticut: To Be Announced
   * Delaware: Delaware
   * Florida: Daytona, Emerald Coast, Ft. Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Jensen Beach, Miami, Navarre, Orlando, Pensacola, St Andrews Bay, Space Coast, Tampa
   * Georgia: Atlanta, Valdosta
   * Illinois: Chicago
   * Indiana: Ft Wayne, Indy, South Bend
   * Iowa: Cedar Rapids, Des Moines
   * Kansas: KC
   * Kentucky: Lexington
   * Louisiana: Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, Acadiana, North Shore
   * Maryland: Maryland
   * Massachusetts: To Be Announced
   * Michigan: To Be Announced
   * Minnesota: Minneapolis
   * Mississippi: Central Mississippi, Mississippi Gulf Coast
   * Missouri: St Louis
   * Nevada: Las Vegas
   * New Jersey: New Jersey
   * New Mexico: To Be Announced
   * New York: New York
   * North Carolina: To Be Announced
   * Ohio: To Be Announced
   * Oklahoma: OKC, Tulsa
   * Oregon: To Be Announced
   * Pennsylvania: Philadelphia
   * Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico
   * Russia: Moscow
   * South Carolina: To Be Announced
   * South Dakota: To Be Announced
   * Tennessee: Nashville
   * Texas: Beaumont, DFW, Houston, San Antonio, Texoma
   * Utah: To Be Announced
   * Virginia: NOVA
   * Washington: To Be Announced
   * West Virginia: To Be Announced
   * Wisconsin: To Be Announced

[edit] Starting a Chapter

All it takes to start a Scikotics chapter is four members that own Scions. Once the founding four members have signed up on the official Scikotics website, a section is added to the message boards for their chapter. Chapters are required to have at least one meeting per month, though many have them biweekly or even every week.

[edit] Chapter Leaders

Each chapter must have a club president who is known as the HMFIC. A vice president is customary, but not required right away and is known as a VMFIC. The HMFIC and VMFIC are typically in charge of planning events for the club, arranging monthly meetings, and getting dealer sponsorship for the chapter, though any member can suggest an event. Chapters also have a position called CPR. This position is typically held by a person that loves promoting their chapter and the club. The CPR's main job is discussing their chapter with others, helping out of town guests find their way when visiting and staying current with the day to day online happenings of their chapter as well as Scikotics as a whole.

[edit] Scikotics Asylum

Scikotics Asylum is a national car show for Scions. It is held yearly in Tulsa, Oklahoma during the summer months. Past years, Asylum has been a two-day event. Friday evening, a meet-and-greet is held at a local restaurant with other festivities held afterwards for those who choose. Saturday morning and early afternoon is the main car show which also has food, contests, raffles, and a number of different forms of entertainment. That evening, a night show is held where cars can show off all of their after market lights on their cars. After trophies are awarded, there is usually a cruise for everyone through downtown Tulsa. Sunday is reserved for everyone to make their drives back home, though some groups get together for farewell breakfasts or brunches.

[edit] External links

   * Scikotics Home page

This article is uncategorized. Please categorize this article to list it with similar articles. (February 2008) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scikotics" Categories: Uncategorized pages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dreadstar † 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daisho Con

Disputed prod of an anime convention that has not held its first event yet. Does not assert notability or provide reliable third-party sources from which notability can be presumed. Also, we can't predict notability at a future date. --Farix (Talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--PetraSchelm (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save According to the link provided by Farix, this article should only be deleted "If preparation for the event is not already in progress". Also, the event has already been listed as certain to take place by animecons.com, a reliable third-party source used in other pages such as No Brand Con. Furthermore, article clearly doesn't fall under extrapolation, or systematic system of names, as listed in WP:CBALL Also, the page does not rely on presumed information about just a future event, but about efforts taken in the past. capitocapito - Talk 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animecons.com is a directory listing and does not count towards the subject's notability. Also, since this convention hasn't happened yet, we cannot assume that it has already be covered by any other reliable third-party sources. Saying that it will be notable or will be covered by a third-party source in the near future is crystal balling. --Farix (Talk) 11:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And creating copies of an article that is at AFD in your userspace in order to "save it" is not appropriate. --Farix (Talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability established. A future event could be notable if there is major advance press about it, or the event itself will "obviously" be notable (trivial "upcoming events" listings do not qualify). As that is lacking, WP:CRYSTAL applies. Weregerbil (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it might become notable in the future, but at this point, there exists only directory entries to support existence -- Whpq (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, since having a wikipedia article for a planned event is a bit pointless. Once the event has been held and/or reliable sources have been made available, then this article can be remade then, with proper references. --nyoro~! Highwind888 (talk) 03:25, 9 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. Dreadstar † 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Dreamz Car Club

8 ghits does not spell notability Moosato Cowabata (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

115 ghits 115 ghits on GOOGLE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcargo (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But does a measily amount spell notability. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral See that it claims to have lots of recognition from print sources. Anyone have access to these sources? Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Willirennen (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has one online reliable source cited, and the article is only recently created. Asking for additional references and giving time for those references to be produced would make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has several online magazine as reliable sources cited. In the website of Enchanted Dreamz, (enchanteddreamz.com), You can go to the "MISC" Page and click on "Magazine Articles" and it would show u the covers and the page. -- Arrowcargo (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC) (E-Z LINK http://www.enchanteddreamz.com/Data2/magazines.html)[reply]

Well many car shows are there in the US, how many trophies are handed out each year, this club does not make this any special from all others and I mean all others that win prizes. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Many Car clubs & Motorcycle clubs (M.C.) on wikipedia. Thats what makes it intresting, is reading history from different organization 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.133.195 (talk) — 64.40.133.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You don't have to worry about those, they are heading the same direction as this one, the rest of those are notable in their own rights. I'm sure this one is like all other clubs, in another word nothing special other than their vehicles. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ORG and the article uses its own website as sources. LightSpeed3 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article uses several TRUE resources such as newspapers and magazines 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.133.195 (talk)

comment - keep stricken: although not a vote, please note your opinion only once. Other discussion is of course still welcome. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable spam. Biruitorul (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* If you delete, JUST go ahead and delete all the other Organizations and clubs. check out List of motorcycle clubs, we are tring to help expand wikipedia, not many lowrider car clubs on here, theres 20x's more motorcycle clubs on here then car clubs. Makes no sense to keep motorcycle clubs and not car clubs.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchanteddrmzceo (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well only notable lowrider clubs but I'm sorry to say this one isn't. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources other than their own website, youtube, and a few unrelated bits. Doesn't distinguish itself from other car clubs or assert notability at all. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LapisExCoelis (talk) 15:15, 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. Fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Dreadstar † 03:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glass hour

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not needed:

While Time travel as a concept may be the subject of an encyclopedic article, the terms 'Glass hour' and 'Time bridgers' are simply neologisms. Lkleinow (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence of particular notability for these terms --BrucePodger (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not noteable and most likely a hoax. archanamiya · talk 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vote that the GLASS HOUR wikipedia entry remain and is not deleted as it is an accurate account of a terminology and an activity that is explored by a group of individuals. I understand that there is mention of communication with the future, but it is also explained that work is being enacted to offer objective proof of the matter. There are actual, official scientists involved, and the references sited are valid and accurate. The inclusion of this article is no different than articles revolving around christianity or other deities who have groups participating in their cause, but yet have no definitive proof of these gods actual existence.

There are actual, known scientists who actively work on time travel. THeir experiments and research is not a hoax and they are listed as an article on wikipedia (example being Ronald Mallett). Ghost hunters is also another example of why GLass Hour should be included in wikipedia. Ghost hunters, people on a reality TV show go around researching the paranormal, which actually may not have "valid" mainstream evidence, but conduct their research nontheless and are included on wikipedia.

Glass Hours, is an actual activity who have participants that firmly believe in the TIme Bridgers cause, and are increasing in number. THis article was not intended as spam or advertisement or as endorsement in any way. I ask that the Glass Hour article be genuinely examined for what it is as it is not a hoax.

Thank you, Captain Bridger Capt bridger

(Capt bridger (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Strong delete. The primary source for this article appears to be "sessions held with a channeled entity, Elias". As a paranormal belief, this doesn't appear to be notable; as a scientific concept, it's utterly ridiculous. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that wikipedia was about viewing content from an objective reference point without our own personal bias's coming into play? The primary source is two different areas of reference: the Elias sessions along with the group of 150+ people who recognize the term "GLASS HOUR" to mean what was posted in the article (which I did revise and expand, siting more references); another source being several physicists that use the term as a type of jargon in the new equations they have formulated and are putting into practice. Paul Gill, a college graduate with undeniable credentials is in contact with Ronald Mallett, who is already well-established within the scientific field, are utilizing of this terminology.

The Elias material boasts well over 1,000 participants and has many roots in the Seth Material, which is also a rather significant group of individuals. Many Seth participants who followed Jane Roberts (the individual channeling Seth) recognize Elias as having the same validity and continuing where Seth left off. These are facts and they are accurate and can be validated. Calling the article I put time and attention to on behalf of myself and all of these many individuals who are also participating is unprofessional, especially considering that many articles about time travel's possibility---within the realm of distorting space to manipulate time (via light and gravity alteration)---has been released within the last week and within the previous month by more than well-known and well-backed physicists. I simply wish to convey that this is no hoax of any sort and I do have support from the many, many, many participants. though it is a small group and a newly developing phrase related to already established concepts, it is still a group of considerable size and we all are wishing the respect we deserve by simply being listed on wikipedia for more individuals to learn about this phrase and introduce ourselves. We may not be Oprah Winfrey, but we are people too. I am a representative.

Based on the comment of Zetawoof on the topic of paranormal beliefs, i will restate my example of GHOST HUNTERS who are largely based on what you would call speculation and they have no solid, mainstream proof that what they are doing is creditable, but yet they have an article here on wikipedia. Jane Roberts has her own article and she was a channel for the Seth entity that has a large following---all based on the paranormal beliefs. Is it because she's published?material on glass hour has been published, which is stated in my article. Is it because she made money on what was published? The time bridgers and those participants of the glass hour have their own online store with online merchandise where the money comes from they use to further their cause and continue sharing their beliefs. Even the Bermuda triangle is something that cannot be proven to act in accordance to the paranormal beliefs surrounding it, but there is an article on wikipedia about that...

If this article is deleted, so be it, that changes nothing for us or the movement; however, I don't find it to be too immense or extreme a task to allow this article stay on wikipedia. If this was a hoax and was something people didn't believe in, I would not have wasted so much time contributing to wikipedia and discussing this matter as I am. I would like more of a personally-slanted bias as a reason for deletion.

Thank you all again for your consideration(s), whatever they may be.

Captain Bridger 72.187.78.107 (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.78.107 (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that wikipedia was about viewing content from an objective reference point without our own personal bias's coming into play? You thought wrong. Wikipedia is about being an encyclopedia. I don't have an opinion on the article, but I felt this should be clarified. JuJube (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capt bridger I understand what you are saying, JuJube. Thank you for that clarification. I was refering to a specific statement made, calling the concepts stated in the article I wrote based on a term used by a large group of individuals, defining something we view as significant, as "ridiculous". Capt bridger (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, all of the other paranormal beliefs which you mentioned (ghost hunters, the Bermuda Triangle) are things which have been discussed widely in popular media, and which can thus be critically examined. Seth and the "glass hour" do not appear to have been described outside web sites associated with "the time bridgers". Please read Wikipedia's content guidelines on Reliable sources, and its policy on Verifiability. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ::: On the basis that the article itself, in opening, admits that the term is 1) jargon (an encyclopedia ought to contain language in general use -- jargon can be left to a sub-wiki; 2) has multiple meanings depending on context. Or merge with an NPOV article Time Bridgers. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was going to vote straight out delete as hoax but, we already have an article on time travel with links to other spurious type things in that vein my thinking has been changed. Now I'm saying Delete as non-notable. I'm truly sorry Captain Bridger but, with a simple google search I can't find anything reliable that reports on this (in the first 100 hits for Glass Hour the term shows up 3 times in this context. One is the wiki article and 2 others from some blog. I wouldn't mind maybe including some of the theory on the time travel page but, otherwise this seems more like an advertisement for a non-notable movement than anything else. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment on the esubject of Ghosthunters. I think you'll find it is on wiki as a notable television show which as far as I am ware Glass Hour is not. AfD is not the place for just because "A" has an article means "B" gets one too. Each AfD needs to be addressed under its own merits and flaws. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capt bridger I understand your reasons. Based on the suggestion to merge it with another article, TIME BRIDGERS, how can I be certain that this very same dialogue won't occur after I put a lot into an article and siting references, only to find that set for deletion as well? Because Time Bridgers is a group that may not have made it on the news or have their own TV show, I can see how the same points would more than likely be made against it and then we'd prolly be right back in this position...

What other wiki would any of you suggest I use, which would be more appropriate, since you mentioned using a sub-wiki? Capt bridger (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Time Bridgers' would indeed likely get a similar nomination. While all of this may be interesting and fascinating to you, you did make it up, and the fact remains that there is no notability for 'Glass Hour' or 'Time Bridgers' in published works. Lkleinow (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capt bridger Though I would clarify your statement of "made up", I do understand what you are saying. So, once I publish the book, the article would be allowed as an entry in wikipedia?

Also, what would be a sub-wiki for me to submit the article to that may be more suitable? Capt bridger (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as unencyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Capt bridger What would be "both" in the statement delete both? My previous two questions still go unanswered, by the way, in which I'm not sure where the "DELETE BOTH" is in reference to my asking about further options...</ b>

I have made some changes to the introduction which clarifies the use of the term as derived from the Elias Material. In the fiction guidelines, it says I have to make clear a distinction based upon how the subject appears in references. The Elias material is a published body of material that spans 10 years worth of audio files and transcriptions. I state that the term is derived from such works, which would hopefully resolve the "hoax" suspicion as it gives the article proper context for the views. As for being "unencyclopedic", here is the official entry for what an Encyclopedia is: "A work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". Capt bridger (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fringe theory without independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, because Capt bridger said "we all are wishing the respect we deserve by simply being listed on wikipedia for more individuals to learn about this phrase and introduce ourselves." Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion or for personal webpages. Capt bridger, you might be able to try Scratchpad Wiki Labs for this sort of thing. --Pixelface (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Not independently sourced, sounds like original research, and promotion of a fringe view from a very small group of people. Vague references to notable technologies, events and people seem to be scattered through the article to try and make it more acceptable. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per Wikipedia:MADEUP. This looks far more like fanfic than like a legitimate scientific hypothesis. --M @r ē ino 17:44, 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. Black Kite 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Ren

Unclear notability. At least one reference was false. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not noteable. archanamiya · talk 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete College athletes can be notable, but this one doesn't have the sources to demonstrate notability. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from non-notable, this is some kind of COI or autobio- the creator account is a full name that isn't "Dennis Ren", but it's an SPA that has only dealt with the article and adding Dennis Ren's birthday to a date page. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JeremyMcCracken. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete or transwiki voters bring forward that this is essentially a slang dict-def per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY per the second argument there. A small majority believes that the phrase is enough of a cultural phenomenon to warrant an article that can be verified, and built without original research. In either case, there is no consensus to delete the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shit happens

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article serves primarily as a coatrack for trivia. -Neitherday (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary, removing all the trivia and uses but keeping any useful information about the etymology —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. The article here is a vast indiscriminate collection of trivial references. WilliamH (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per last 2 comments archanamiya · talk 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A transwiking doesn't make sense in my opinion. Tavix (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly rename as " 'shit happens' in popular culture. A sufficiently important phrase and used widely enough to merit discussion here.DGG (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep happens I agree that shit happens in popular culture, particularly in Wikipedia. Vulgar, yes, but it's the modern day equivalent to "That's life" or "C'est la vie". It reflects a philosophy of not getting too angry about those things that are beyond our control. It certainly won't survive as an ipc article, nor would we lose anything culturally if the pop culture references part were, uh, eliminated. Mandsford (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I deliberately left my wording ambiguous. Thanks for appreciating it. DGG (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did! I think we're pretty well in agreement on i.p.c. articles. Mandsford (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both that's life and c'est la vie go to disambiguation pages. Neither has an article dedicated to the phrase itself and that is how it should be per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY.
- Incidentally, an article on the phrase "C'est la vie" was the subject of a June 2007 AfD, got nuked, and ended up being the pseudo-disambig we have now. The fact that it ended up becoming a disambig anyway is (to me) sufficient indication of its more-than-just-a-word nature. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY #2. It would be an awful stretch to make an article about a phrase that isn't OR. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Most, if not all, of trivia section has to go, but the Supreme Court of Georgia case may just be enough to push this beyond a mere dictionary definition to a legitimate article.--FreeKresge (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Georgia case had more to do with "shit" than "shit happens", as it was the word "shit" that gave offense. The phrase as a whole is only a minor aspect of the case, not having anything to do with the case other than being the context in which "shit" appeared. There isn't anything else about the case that is relevant to the shit happens article, leaving only a trivial mention of it being on the bumper sticker. -Neitherday (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to (subsection in) Randomness and incorporate the DukeU/UTenn studies (cf Psychology Today, May/Jun 95 in a more encyclopedic fashion. And either drop the trivia (being an OR and vandalism magnet), or deal with it as DGG suggests. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already in Wiktionary, so delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article expresses both a notable philosophy and a notable catch-phrase. It needs editing, but not deletion. It merits more than just a dictionary entry, because the phrase has history and cultural relevance. And the phrase has been the subject of litigation in the United States relating to the First Amendment. Examples of similar articles: shit, fuck, fuddle duddle, Spieprzaj dziadu! ¿Por qué no te callas?, Mission Accomplished, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, and I like Ike. COGDEN 18:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Article needs work, but a notable enough phrase with potential for expanding on origins, etc. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good article about a term summarizing an existential philosophy of long standing with several good references. More than a dictionary definition. Edison (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone noted, both C'est la vie and That's Life are (semi-)disambig pages. Perhaps 'Shit happens' could be turned into a semi-disambig along the same lines? Sort of with a brief explanation at the top (I like Mandsford's summary), followed by a "Examples of usage include..." pseudo-disambig? -- Fullstop (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Trivia to b culled mercilessly. `'Míkka >t 03:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trim the trivia; increase mention of its use in society and commerce (popularity of saying on printed shirts, bumper stickers, etc.), controversies, widely-used variants, and so forth. B.Wind (talk) 04:49, 9 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. Clearly passes bio. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Kay

notability? PetraSchelm (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability, WP:VAIN, WP:SOAP —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the claims in the article were sourced I'd be inclined to vote keep here. Awards won, if true, would indicate a degree of relevance. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I think its quite noteable. archanamiya · talk 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awards statements seem to be supported by [1]. Gwguffey (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that he's an award-winning writer makes him notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs sourcing but Gemini Awards makes him notable -- Whpq (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical politics

This article appears to be basically a rant (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX), and I don't see how it could be made encyclopedic. Does anyone think there is anything worth saving in here? Anaxial (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It touches on some debates about how mathematics should be taught, which are notable debates. I don't think the term as a whole has a clear usage - I found a few articles discussing Mathematical Politics as it is used in this article, but also many using the term to refer to government relying on mathematics and use of mathematics to understand politics. Coanda-1910 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A soap box complaint about academic politics within mathematics departments. Unsourced, POV and unecyclopedic. I'm smarter than my boss is not a sufficient basis for an article.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see how it can be fixed. --PetraSchelm (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. MrPrada (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Soapbox. archanamiya · talk 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And here I was hoping this would be an article on the mathematics of voting systems, or something interesting like that... Sigh. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced POV list of assertions and complaints. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete X < 0 in this case, and not just because it's negative. It's theory without any attempt at proof. Although there are probably articles and editorials in journals such as The Chronicle of Higher Education about this subject, this looks like a disgruntled teaching assistant or untenured staffmember who is venting their frustrations. Unsourced, original research, soapbox. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, Australian Dictionary of Biography entry provides notability for the article's subject. Dreadstar † 03:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Hordern

notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetraSchelm (talk • contribs)

Delete Article fails to establish notability. archanamiya · talk 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability easily established by top google result, his entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography: [2]. Nominator should consider doing a basic google search before questioning notabililty. Jfire (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article asserts notability and provides reference to Australian Dictionary of Biography. -- Whpq (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so you don't think that the Australian Dictionary of Biography is a reliable source? -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More sources would be nice. Now neutral. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than just a RS, which it certainly is, having an article in Aust DNB, like ODNB, has always been accepted at WP as sufficient evidence of notability. DGG (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Dreadstar † 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon royal connections

Non-notable topic. The information itself is well researched, but combining it in this way is probably original research. The British monarchy reigns over millions of people in thousands of cities. Saskatoon's connections are not of particular signifigance. Any information that can be salvaged should be moved to History of Saskatoon. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research, not notable. There is a lot of bits of information there, but they could be attached to the various articles on whichever places the Queen visited. Article seems to be promoting some sort of royalist political party, too. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Lord Uniscorn has been confirmed per checkuser as a sock account. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I would co-nominate Royal visits to Saskatchewan. Another article, Monarchy in Saskatchewan, seems to have parallels of dubious value. There has been a big debate over the need for Canadian Royal Family and without checking I suspect these are all connected. --Dhartung | Talk 02:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. It fits well within a the series of articles in the Category Monarchy in Canada. Canada has no royalist political party, as stated by Lord Uniscorn, nor does it have any political connection to the British monarchy, as stated by Kevlar. Among several areas of significance, Saskatoon is the site of the first awarding of a provincial honour in Canada by a member of its royal family, its number of royal namesakes are higher in proportion than in other cities, and its most important landmark, the Hotel Bessborough, is named for a former representative of the monarch. The Crown has had a presence in Saskatoon since its beginnings, and it has affected the lives of many among its citizens. Improvements can be made to the written text in order to make it more encyclopaedic in nature. Revise the article, change the title, exclude the monarchism section, but a more convincing argument should be presented for the deletion of a substantial and well-research contribution such as this. Sparks1 (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Dhartung's comment about a "big debate over the Canadian Royal Family". This very article states that there has been little national debate on the matter. It would be wise not to exaggerate for the purposes of furthering an argument. Please note that several revisions have been made since the deletion notice was posted, most notably to the final section on monarchism in Saskatoon. Sparks1 (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sparks1, sorry. WHen I said "big debate" I meant our debate. --Dhartung | Talk 11:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Violates WP:NOR policy. Atrian (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the article's footnotes have now been overhauled and lengthened. Thanks. Sparks1 (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a voting booth or a discussion? Please defend your contributions. Sparks1 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source ... Original research is material for which no reliable source can be found. Information has been cited more than forty times in this article from reliable sources (see the footnotes).
- Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. The purpose of the article is shared explicitly among several of the works cited, including government, archival and periodical publications.
Keep, no good reason to delete. Well-cited. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason to delete the article. It's both well researched and well cited (as Stifle pointed out above). Regarding the article Monarchy in Saskatchewan, I would point out that there are articles about the Monarchy in every province, not just Saskatchewan. The article Royal visits to Saskatchewan could use some cleanup (and a lead), and would probably be better named List of Royal visits to Saskatchewan. Also, being visited by the Queen does not make a place notable, and most of the places visited fall into the "non-notable" category, so there is no articles to mention this in. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peace in action

Blatant promotion/advert; can't find any non-powder puff links to make a balanced article Minkythecat (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Reads like an ad. archanamiya · talk 21:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, written like an ad. By looking at the history, it was most certainly written by someone in the agency. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Most of it is copied from their website verbatim so it could be arguably a copyvio as well. And in any case, there also seems to be no reliable sources writing about the group. So in summary, it's part copyvio, part spam, and not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pederastic filmography

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

Since we now have a consensus on List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, I believe this article should be removed. I do not think that 'rederastic filmography' is a genre and there have been no citations given in response to the various 'citations needed' comments.Tony (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Comment: Without jumping to conclusions either way I would say that this motion is premature. What is the harm of subdividing the sexual attraction to children list into a separate list such as this, that focuses on relationships between men and male adolescents?
The foundational category, pederasty, is clearly an important category historically, culturally and psychologically. Why should readers interested in this particular topic have to wade through mounds of irrelevant information, to cull out what they are looking for? And where do we stop? Having merged the movies, do we now move on to the books and the poetry? And how about all the other articles on pederasty? I have not counted them but there must be quite a few by now. Do we delete those also, since we will have (if we do not already) parallel articles on “Sexual attraction between adults and kids in XYZ”?
As for the outstanding citations, they can be resolved by deleting text that is unsupported, and deleting citations which are spurious (there are quite a few of those as well, the whole snowstorm of those citations struck me as a bit of a polemic in itself, as such things can be at times). Haiduc (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originated the article 'pedophilia in films', but am now happy eith the new title List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. All the other editors who contributed to the debate wanted the words 'or adolescents' included. That implies, doesn't it, that pederasty (attraction to adolescents) is included. The other issue is that the article pederastic filmography is a much less comprehensive article. As I mention above, I do not think that 'pederastic filmography' is a genre and there have been no citations given in response to the various 'citations needed' comments. The intro appears very POV. Let's see what others think. Tony (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

The intro is no longer POV (if ever it was) and you have not adressed the fundamental issues I raised above. Haiduc (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment pederastic pornography- redirect to child pornography- just a euphemism for child porn. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you mean films such as Lolita they are more complex than just being'pederastic', and have their own articles. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

oh I see now, it's a list of films. Well strong redirect/merge to the already existing list. IMHO, some people just like to see Category:pederasty very large. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is absurd. There is no such genre of film called "pederastic filmography." It's completely made up --and an extremely biased fabrication to boot. It's a sadly pretentious way of saying films that might interest people who are interested in child pornography. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Request This comment be removed as inappropriate and as a homophobic slur. There is nothing inherently abusive or illegal about pederastic relationships as long as they involve individuals above the age of consent, in which case they are protected as legitimate homosexual behavior. Haiduc (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Haiduc has made a set of very peculiar statements here, none of which are germane to this discussion. It shoudl be pointed out that pederasty cannot be between couples over the age of consent, almost by definition(!), even in nations like Japan where the age of consent is extremely low. And his phrase legitimate homosexual behavior can be read as more than a little offensive to those who are homosexual, since it appears to align homosexuality and pederasty. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Pederastic films are simply another aspect of homosexual culture and people interested in LGBT culture and the expression of same-sex attraction between individuals of different ages should not be forced to wade through lists of movies having nothing to do with the topic they are researching. Furthermore, pederasty is a clearly defined subtopic of LGBT culture and history and needs to be documented as such. Almost all the works treating the subject treat it as a separate topic, not as just another aspect of "adult attraction to children and adolescents." Haiduc (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be splitting hairs to subdivide a list of pedophelic-themed movies into sub-groups; the existing article isn't overly long, so why split it? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the "request" above--are you nuts? Where does it say in the "pederastic filmography" article that people who are interested in child porn are gay? And: this is an encyclopedia, not an on-demand child porn directory. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you are unfamiliar with pederasty as a scholarly topic involving history, anthropology and sexology, then that explains your homophobic remarks. It does not excuse them, since ignorance is never an excuse. Haiduc (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I would say *you* are the one slurring gay people--I bet the majority do not appreciate your idiosyncratic definition of child porn as a gay issue. NAMBLA etc is the extreme fringe minority. Most gay people are *not* child molestors, and don't want to have anything to do with them. Also, it's completely ridiculous to makeup a pretentious new phrase that no one else uses or has ever used, slap it on a list of films that looks alot like a wank list for pedophiles, and then claim that anyone who points out that you made up the term and the list is bogus anyway object not because you made up the term and there's no justification for the list, but because they are homophobes! Perhaps someone should claim that Pokemon is a gay issue, so that when they start cranking out bogus trivia pages they can accuse people of being homophobic when the pages are nominated for deletion?-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is simply not a recognised genre of film classification. The list is interesting in its way, but "interest" is not a reason for continuation of an article. In so many ways this becomes Original Research because the inclusion in the list becomes a matter of opinion, not a mater of encyclopaedic fact. While it may be obvious that a movie deals in some manner with pederasty, that is insufficient reason (because it is uncited) to include a film in such a list, and citations as such are, generally, unavailable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It does not have to be a recognized genre to be a film, and there is no research involved in the commonsensical identification of movies about a relationship between a man and a youth. It is not the "genre" that is of the essence here, it is the topic and that topic is well recognized and documented. There is no recognized genre for the list into which some people are trying to squeeze these movies either, but that article exists very nicely - it just is not as specialized as it should be. Haiduc (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The very act of compiling a list of things which fall into no citable category is, of itself, original research. Please be careful not to confuse "what is obvious" with "what is citable". Many things are obvious, but, without citations that meet WP:RS, such things are original research. At the point where you can deliver citations which show that it is valid to have such an article at all, the discussion changes from "keep/delete" into one about whether an item referred to inside the article meets the criteria for inclusion. At present we are discussing the deletion of the article. I do not find your arguments for keeing it persuasive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This list is just as objective, and is just as legitimate, as the list into which some people are trying to include it. If you can have an article listing movies featuring adult desire for children and adolescents, you can just as well have an article listing movies featuring men's desire for adolescents - a topic with much more history and culture behind it than the former. Haiduc (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We do not argue "this article should be kept because that article is being kept." Nor do we argue the case for deletion in that manner. Each article is considered on its merits alone. Please do not use this type of comparative as an argument either to keep or to delete an article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument fails since you base it on the absence of a recognized genre of pederastic film. That argument would be, at most, a reason for deleting the category link at the bottom of the article, which I will do. That leaves "pederasty" as a citable category. If you wish to debate the citability of "pederasty" I will be happy to do so. Haiduc (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, his argument does not fail simply because you claim it has. You haven't made any case for this list except comparison to List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. Note that that list is also proposed for deletion. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not need you to speak for me or to misrepresent my arguments. If you want to debate any of my points you are welcome to do so on their substance. Haiduc (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You haven't made any point to debate except that this list should be kept because the other list (which has been nominated for deletion) exists--you made a comparison argument, which Fiddle Faddle pointed out is not a sufficient argument. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Citations for content should be in the relevant articles, not the list. The list is just a list, coalescing information just like any other list. Beyond that, nominator hasn't given any reason for deletion, so keep due to lack of valid reasons for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fear you misunderstand the use of citations. In this article the citation, should the article survive, is to prove from a source meeting WP:RS that the item belongs in or adds value to this article. Thus a citation within an article hyperlinked from this article, while interesting, is irrelevant. But the problem is that this article requires citations in order to prove that it is, itself, a valid article. That is an entirely different discussion from a discussion about the nitty gritty of the content. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand citation policy perfectly; I'm afraid that you're the one who doesn't. People are giving about the lack of citations in a list as a reason for deletion. The only time citations belong in lists is when the citation can not be placed in the main article. The main reason that this is done is to keep as much information as possible in the article and prevent content forking; it's much more convenient and maintainable to use lists as lists of articles which adhere to some categorization, and use articles as articles, rather than confuse the two by mixing and matching elements. This way, as much sources and information get kept in the article as possible. Imagine an article with that was a member of a hundred lists; would you rather have references in each list, or have everything that the subject of the article is inside the article? In order to keep content where it belongs in the article and lists as simply lists, this is how it works. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other point (i.e, "You need a source to for the list itself"), I'm not really following why that's necessary. It's pretty common sense if you ask me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those citations are in the articles for the movies, not in the list. Citations do not go in lists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations go in any article which requires them. And citations are most assuredly required for this article, list or erudite text. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to this new guideline? It seems to be in conflict with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) and WP:LISTS. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will second that request. Fiddle Faddle is also presuming to make us believe that, even were that absurd contention to be true, the remedy for articles lacking sufficient citations is deletion. His arguments are incredible on their face. Haiduc (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So as not to waste any more time debating the merit of the insistence on citations in a list, or of deletion as a remedy for dearth of citations, I have gathered a handful of citations for some of the entries in that list. It is an elementary task, proving that what was a commonsensical task for the Wikipedia editors was just as commonsensical for a number of outside commentators. Haiduc (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is all the content in it is already in another, more comprehensive list- and we don't need more promotion of paedo-ism on wiki (not saying you are- but it's some other editor's agenda). special, random, Merkinsmum 02:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of an encyclopedia is not to generate ever more generalized lists but ever more specific ones. This is not the Columbia Desk edition. Furthermore, I do not know who the "we" is, but while I condemn abusive behavior I also condemn the hounding of scapegoats - it is the activity of people looking to boost their own self-image at the cost of someone weaker and more vulnerable than them, in other words typical bully behavior. Haiduc (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"People looking to boost their own self image at the cost of someone weaker and more vulnerable than them" is exactly what pedophiles are. AfD voting doesn't really compare. Further, portraying yourself as some kind of victim because your pedo article has been AfD'd is as ridiculous as claiming that anyone who criticizes your article is homophobic. What's your next lame ad hominem argument going to be? -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your unchecked anti-pedophile campaign is making a laughing stock out of you, and out of Wikipedia. Let's see what we can do about that. And don't take my generic description of bullying activity and try to twist it to your agenda. I am not the one interested in pedophilia, you are. Haiduc (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at Haiduc's user page, which declares that he has "an agenda." It specifically says, "Agenda: To promote accurate and comprehensive treatment of LGBT history, in particular of pederastic homosexuality, in its sexualized as well as chaste manifestations." First of all, one isn't supposed to come here with an agenda. Second, Haiduc's sole interest *is* in fact, pedophilia. Third, his views of pedophilia are not the mainstream views of pedophilia. Last but not least, he is the author of the article being discussed here. So, he has an agenda; he writes an article from a fringe POV to further his agenda; which is not unsurprisingly AfD'd. Then he comes to the AfD and posts constantly without identifying himself as the author of the article, and makes a bunch of lame ad hominem arguments/personal attacks. Seriously, wtf ?!. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all have an agenda, and so does Wikipedia. The agenda of Wkipedia is to create a compendium of knowledge freely accessible to all. If we come in with a similar agenda, such as mine, which is to be accurate and comprehensive, then we are in synch with the purpose of this project. If we come in with some other agenda, like pedophile hunting, then we are helped to understand the error of our ways, and if we do not get the message we are politely shown the door. I am sorry that I have not been able to help you with your problem, but I fear it is too deeply rooted and either you simply do not get it, or you are being deliberately provocative, as is suggested by your probable identity as a sock. If so, please feel free to agitate at will, you are not MY problem. As for my not being mainstream, if you cover issues in sexology accurately and are able to avoid conformist POV (which is difficult but possible) then you are likely to irritate everybody, gays, straights and pedos alike. So as long as I get flak from all three quarters I know I am doing my job. I will not speculate on which group YOU belong to, on one hand it is sadly obvious, on the other it is irrelevant. Haiduc (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can keep all of your ad hominem arguments straight: anyone who criticizes your article or thinks it should be deleted does so not for the reasons they state, but because they are 1) homophobic 2) bullies 3) pedophile hunters 4) sockpuppets 5) have deeply rooted problems. You, on the other hand, are a completely objective neutral party, who merely happens to advertise a pro-pedophile agenda on his userpage, only merely happens to have written this article, and only makes ad hominem arguments at this AfD in order to "help" the other participants.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be documented it is notable. And for many items in this list the references are extensive. Thus the discussion reduces not to whether or not to delete but to an entry by entry analysis of individual validity. Haiduc (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the specificity here is helpful. The other arguments for deletion are frivolous. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research - fails WP:NOR. Fails WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srong Keep: Bad faith nom. Valid encyclopedic subject. The arguments for deletion are frivolous. Article needs referencing and rewrting, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the arguments, Haiduc has presented here, very convincing. Especially, since pederasty is indeed an important part of homosexual history (and present). If ignorant users as Petra would really know these films, than she couldn't say it's "child pornography". Fulcher (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Haiduc nailed it for me. Pederasty is historically and culturally distinct from paedophilia involving children or adolescents due to the nature of the relationship. A pederastic relationship would typically involve one or more of the following: mentoring, sponsorship, introduction into society, or friendship and not always sex. It is not synonymous with paedophilia, and as such should be eligible for a filmography subsection of it's own. The reference requirements are, of course, valid but also rudimentary and as such are not of themselves sufficient to justify deletion at this stage. Morganautt (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started the debate and there has been very valuable input from many editors. Since then the article List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, a more comprehensive article, has been nominated for deletion. Editors contributing to this debate may wish to post their views there too. My original opinion was that the pederasty article was superfluous, but I am am now happy that both should stay.Tony (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Tony[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dreadstar † 03:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Ahmad Babar

Contested speedy. Not notable. Subject is head of a company whose article was deleted (most recently a speedy after it was recreated following an AfD to delete). Only claim to fame appears to be membership in a so-called "hall of fame" that apparently exists only on a still-under-construction web site. No sources outside of that site and the company's site. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Lkleinow (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is in the pakistani encclopedibc books but add proper sitations to this page. It will be a great loss of knowledgef this is not kept —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.127.165 (talk) 17:14, 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. WP:V/WP:RS not improved by end of AfD. Pigman☿ 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mebuy.pl

Non-notable new website with Alexa traffic rank only 6,502,031. Also lack of reliable and verifiable sources. Visor (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator removed AfD note ([3]), restored.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete i really dont understand why it should be deleted. its only informational about mebuy.pl and what it is. if this is not good enough then how should i do it.. exacly what part is not accepeble please tell me so i remove that part. thanks for your support. Tintin72 (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:ORG 'An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources'. This part is currently missing from the article. ChessCreator (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article only 3 days old. Give it time to establish {{notability}} ChessCreator (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Account does not exist? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - if there was kind of auction like Ebay, why there is no link to Polish Wiki site? greg park avenue (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish ebay is allegro.pl.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 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 --JForget 00:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Plentyhorse

Textbook case of WP:ONEEVENT/WP:BLP1E, coverage is limited to his tryst, which while humorous isn't notable. Ghits only add blogs to the mix. We'd never have heard of him if not for his arrest. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing salvageable here; it's a 'man bites dog' story and nothing more, just filler. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete he's just a young man. Let him live this down as much as poss (if he wants to.) special, random,Merkinsmum 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is essentially a news article and wikipedia is not news. -- Whpq (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected, duplicate article. Non-admin close. —BradV 18:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baycrest Geriatric Centre

Delete unsourced one-line article about a geriatric center, no indication that it is notable, like the gazillions of other nursing homes, senior centers, clinics, surgeries, hospitals, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a valid stub. A quick Google search verifies that it exists and that it is notable. —BradV 17:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, an article which already exists. Seriously notable. --Eastmain (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gera (caste)

Delete unsourced one-liner about a purported subcaste. No indication that this group is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suspect that all subcastes are notable, but I also see that there are no references on this article. --Eastmain (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not establish notability. No references. No other information. - KNM ^Talk 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-noteability. archanamiya · talk 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This sort of article has the potential to be interesting, good and useful. However one sentence is pointless. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single-line substub with not even the slightest claim on notability. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. ~ priyanath talk 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. Mr.Z-man 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2008

DELETE Violated WP:NOT#DIR & WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 17:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep You'll have an uphill battle on this one. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Useful - on the Finnish Wikipedia, we surely wouldn't be aware of his death without this. --Jetman (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This listing does not yet appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 3. Why not? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the nominator has not listed this correctly. J Milburn (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I've put it there, but I'm not sure I've dotted all the "i"s, etc. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've formatted this discussion in the usual way, it is now listed properly. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have this for other years. However, this one is formatted differently... Tan | 39 17:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (and maybe speedy) keep. This is very, very established- linked from the main page, etc. If we want to change something like this, AfD is not the root- instead, the village pump, with notices at various places (Talk:Main Page and the like) would be the best way to decide the matter. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I can't believe this is even being considered. extremely foolish. Thismightbezach (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close unless the nomination includes either a rationale for this specific page's deletion, or a reason to discuss all of the similar pages. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW (and/or WP:STEAM). —BradV 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly going to be snowball kept, but I'd like to ask here - do traditional encyclopedias list deaths by year like this as an appendix (obviously there are far less biographies in paper encyclopedias)? I'd like to know more about what Britannica includes, so that I can compare it to WP, having never really spent a great amount of time browsing a high quality paper encyclopedia before. Would Britannica even have an article on Pokemon? I know it's offtopic to this, but it's something I've been curious about for a long time.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on talk page. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll be glad to provide the text to anyone who wants to transwiki the content. --jonny-m t 05:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Sector Authority

Two months after no-consensus AfD, this article is still just in-universe plot summary. References are primary sources offering only plot or in-universe encyclopedias/guides that offer only plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has no notability to speak of, and no justification to have a whole article dedicated to it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't establish notability. archanamiya · talk 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Archanamiya, or transwiki to Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion below indicates that the subject does not pass the requirements of WP:BIO. --jonny-m t 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yakub Abahanov

Delete Article does not meet WP:BLP as there are no independent secondary sources. There are a few inclusions of this individual in lists of detainees in independent sources, but no sources focus exclusively on him. This entry in Wikipedia is similar to this AfD which was deleted in that the military documents used to justify this article are not independent secondary sources. BWH76 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, talk page has 34 edits by 12 distinct users discussing the subject. In addition, numerous news articles refer to Abahanov and the two other Kazakhs, without using their specific names, but referring to them as a "A Kazakh who served as a cook for the Taliban" and such. Nominator has a history of requesting deletion of Guantanamo-bay related articles which borders on bad-faith at times. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Keep~~. Article needs cleanup, but it is not beyond hope. Flagged for rescue. —BradV 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:. Is there an existing consensus on the significance of individual gitmo detainees? If so, what about the 646 articles at Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp? Are we going to AfD them all one at a time? —BradV 18:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to delete per arguments made below, and existing consensus not to have an article on each detainee. I don't see any evidence that the subject is any more notable than any of the others, and the references only cover this detainee as part of a list. This may be an instance of WP:ONEEVENT. (P.S. I would still like an answer on the above question - it wasn't sarcasm.) —BradV 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This article is quite noteable. archanamiya · talk 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. Articles on arbitrary Gitmo detainees don't belong. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we have articles on Hitler's chauffeur, Hitler's valet, Hitler's nurse, Hitler's electrician, Hitler's doctor, Hitler's pilot, Hitler's bodyguard, Hitler's medical aide, Hitler's secretary and Hitler's chef. We have over 1000 articles on Quarterbackers in the NFL, we have every single Pokemon character...and you're arguing that an alleged terrorist "isn't notable enough" to merit a neutral article collecting the details about them? The article may have WP:COATRACK issues, but it certainly deserves to exist.

In addition, how many unique Google hits will you find for somebody like Raymond Lee Harvey or Thomas Bernard Brigham? Does that mean they "fail notability"? No, it means that "internet culture" is not a sufficient litmus test for notability.

Comment: We do not, in fact, have articles on every individual Pokémon character. They were merged last year with only the most notable Pokémon still having their own articles. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plain and simple - doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:BIO. For a person to be notable s/he must recieve significant coverage in independant and/or secondary sources. This person hasn't recieved coverage in independant and/or secondary coverage. A fortiori, he hasn't recieved significant coverage.

Agreed that the Guantanomo Bay prison and how it functions are notable, but that doesn't mean that each of the 800 prisoners that have spent time there automatically become notable.

Besides for the failure to meet the notability standard of WP:BIO, the article has a number of other problems. The article is primarly about his stay at Guantanomo Bay, it therefore violates WP:UNDUE. The article's single-minded focus on his stay at Guantanomo Bay also point to a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL problem. In addition, as the article seems to be focused on Guantanomo Bay, it is also violating WP:COATRACK.

The reasons proffered for his notability aren't legitamite reasons. WP:NOT#ORIGINALRESEARCH (he might have been bin Laden's bodyguard) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (there's a lot of articles about quaterbacks) are not valid bases for inclusion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not about his activity at GB, its about his prior activity which is being used as justification for his detention at GB. There's several good sources besides the GB transcripts. This article does not have the claimed defects of some of the GB articles, and I really think that at least some of the opposition here is based on a feeling that it is better not to cover these individuals. As for the other articles, yes, we are going to have to look at them one at a time, because some of the people have received more adequate coverage than others. As I think that sources will exists in the individuals native country for all of them, I foresee adding all of them back as people learn how to find them. DGG (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the number of edits on a talk page does not address the reason I nominated this article for deletion and is not a basis for "significant coverage" or anything else. Opinions stating "I think this man is notable" do not mean that there are independent secondary sources which focus on this individual; these opinions (less justification for these opinions) are simply examples of WP:ILIKEIT. It boils down to the fact that there are no independent secondary sources out there (and I've spent time trying to find one, let alone significant coverage) in which this individual is the subject of the article. The sources referenced in the article DO NOT focus on this individual (except for the military documents, which are not independent, secondary sources); if he is mentioned at all in the sources given, his name simply appears on a list. This clearly doesn't meet the basic requirements for WP:BLP nor the basic criteria for WP:BIO.BWH76 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple references in reliable sources independent of the subject, Afd is not cleanup; this topic is notable, which is all that counts here. Skomorokh 12:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've gone over this article repeatedly to find any independent sources on this; there are none in this article. There are military documents related to his trial and detainment - primary sources. Again, check out this AfD to see what the consensus has been on these sources - they are not independent secondary sources. There are a few references in the article that mention Abrahamov; he is the subject of none of them - in fact, he is not even mentioned by name in any of the references in the article. This article, despite the rescue tag that was placed on it, still does not satisfy the basic criteria of WP:BIO. BWH76 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should be merged to list of gitmo detainees, or an article on the trials themselves. MrPrada (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can almost be interpreted as a POV fork, but subject is not notable by himself. He falls well short on WP:BIO. The number of people commenting on an article's talk page is irrelevant to whether Wikipedia policy is satisfied by the article and the subject. The court case would be a much better subject for inclusion here instead. Delete B.Wind (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable by himself. Another article about an arbitrary GB detainee. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 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 --JForget 00:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GIEGE

Non-notable neolgism, COI issues (see user name of creator), spammy. ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was that user's only contribution, and he has since been blocked. Obvious conflict of interest. —BradV 18:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 06:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephane Thibaut

Non-notable individual who I am unable to verify by research, at least in a way that would justify an article. I do a lot of work on articles pertaining to Zen Buddhism, and I couldn't improve it. I couldn't find the tiniest bit of information to use. Mind meal (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:18, 29 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, — Scientizzle 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep By what I read on him he seems notable... and [4], Barbara Kosen, [5] are some articles on him (or mentions him)... I'm accually on the fence on this one but I tend towards keep when that happens. --Pmedema (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Article doesn't establish notability. archanamiya · talk 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing in WP:RS . special, random, Merkinsmum 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Dreadstar † 21:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Age communities

Does this list provide any notability? No reliable sources provided to prove that this is a big deal. Wizardman 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[ Note: The page appears to be a topic article, not a "List of..." The article seems to be in its beginning stages, and it does include a list, but it doesn't look like a list-only article; that difference may be of interest to editors commenting here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) ][reply]

Delete without prejudice. While I generally tend towards the opinion that references are unnecessary in lists if the linked articles confirm that they belong, this does not seem to be the case here. Some actual discussion of why the various places qualify would be helpful. The "new age" label is rather vague in any case. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has usage of the term new age as far back as 1640. The recent usage seems about 50 years old and is well-understood. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... and, the recent usage goes back further - to 1894 beginning with the publication of The New Age - a journal of Christian liberalism and socialism, that later moved into modernism in art and philosophy. It featured writers including H. G. Wells, G. B. Shaw and others and addressed topics such as the role of private property and Women's suffrage. As far as how the term would apply with regard to any particular new age community, that would require referencing as with any topic of course. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too subjective for a list article. MrPrada (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity is not a reason to delete. All we require is NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has obvious merit which is confirmed by extensive sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists are not encyclopedic anyway. --PetraSchelm (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of lists. This article, on the other hand, is not called a list - it has just started out that way. There's no reason that prose cannot be added as I have started to do. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-noteability. archanamiya · talk 20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and lack of objective inclusion criteria. Sedona? KleenupKrew (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sedona, Arizona#Vortices describes the New Age aspects. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sedona is not an intentional community. Plenty of people live there who are not New Agers. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the List of intentional communities. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article now cites a book and a scholarly paper on the subject, I'm not seeing how this topic can possible fail this guideline. Please clarify. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few of these may qualify as intentionally and explicitly New Age, but some others appear on the list largely because they are merely interesting to New Agers. Without a real scope this is just a random list subject to POV-pushing. Colonel Warden is right that specifically New Age communities have received some scholarly attention, and an article on those might be more worthwhile than a list. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think that this should not be that article? It is our clear policy that we should improve imperfect articles rather than deleting them. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New age communities exist . There has been a lot of serious research into them. This RFD makes no claim that they are not notable only that the article does not contain "...reliable sources provided to prove that this is a big deal. " This can be easily rectified. Not being a big deal is not itself a reason for deletion, as long as they have been noted . Such a weak case for RFD is itself POV pushing. The following scholarly book, found in a 5 min search , alone provides support for much of what is listed in the article.

The New Age Movement: The Celebration of the Self and the Sacralization of Modernity By Dr Paul Heelas Published 1996, Blackwell Publishing ISBN 0631193324 [6]Lumos3 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This has the potential of being a good spinoff of List of intentional communities, and the addition of sourcing seems to be a good start. For those of us who don't understand what makes these attractive to "New Age" planners or residents, some more context would be appreciated. Mandsford (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and figure out how this overlaps (and possibly merge) with List_of_intentional_communities, Egalitarian_communities and more. There are references listed; the trouble is that "new age" is a fairly subjective label, and figuring out both what qualifies as a community and what qualifies as new age will be difficult. Making this definition could verge into original research, but for now the references seem ok. Does need clarification. -- Phoebe (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has (some) sources and is on its way to improvement. The idea of "New Age" communities has been around for a long time, and most of the places listed have been famous as such since the 1970s. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY this article has potential to be a very valuable list. It needs a bit more sourcing an a lot of work done to the list but as mentioned above it would work well with the other "community" lists. This article and the one provaided above already shows enough sourcing to legitimize it's existence.Earthdirt (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:N and WP:V with plenty of Google Books hits. Also - the article is not set up as a list - "List of..." is not part of the article title. It appears to be a stub article that happens to include a list of examples. The article can be expanded and sourced, there is no reason to delete. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable phenomenon, there will be scholarly sources on it, and all the communities will be notable geographical entities. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:SynergeticMaggot, a non-administrator, closed this AFD as keep. As it is a close decision I am reopening it per WP:DPR#NAC for an admin closure. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For those unfamiliar the topic it may seem unnotable, but the topic is actually very notable and can be expanded much more than it is here. While most New Age communities are present-day benign twists on hippy communes of the 60s and 70s, extreme New Age communities are where you find many of your cults -- example: Heaven's Gate UFO Cult. Keep and expand. It's a very interesting topic if you get the right editors involved. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 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 under G12. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puppykat

Non-notable cat breed. Advert for the breeder. The external link provides no evidence of the breed's existence. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've added a link to a local newspaper article, but I'm not finding anything else to show notability. --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Copyvio of http://rareandexoticfelinereg.homestead.com/breed_PPK.html and tagged as such.--Pmedema (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Oliver Denny

Delete and Redirect to L.A. Four Incident. All of this information is already in the article concerning the LA four incident. It's pointless to keep both of these articles especially since Denny is not independently notable per WP:BIO. Ave Caesar (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Withdraw --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename Denny was the posterboy for victims of the LA Rodney King riots. But according to Wikipedia:BIO#People_notable_only_for_one_event this does not warrant having his own page. I objected to the "merge" with the LA four incident because it was not handled properly, and the article was simply deleted without any attempt at moving some of the more useful information into the new article. LA four is 6kb while the Denny article is 10kb. Secondly, I think this article should be named the Reginald Denny incident becuase almost nobody remembers the "LA four" while Denny's name is largely associated with this event. Google searches for "LA Four" and riot returns 800 hits, while a search for "Reginald Denny" and riot returns 6,720 hits. Clearly, his name is more associated with this incident than "LA four." --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ErgoSum88 is correct, Denny is far more notable than the perpetrators. We only need one article, though, and L.A. Four Incident is a POV-charged title that somehow highlights the brutal attackers. I suspect that Reginald Denny incident is a better title for that reason, although I feel no love for the tendency to add random words to biographies as a means of satisfying WP:ONEEVENT. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to changing the title of this article to Reginald Denny Incident and then merging it with L.A. Four Incident. --Ave Caesar (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this article is mostly unsourced, but most of the information seems correct, and I am in the process of finding suitable citations for this article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable figure in events which have shown long term interest, one event is intended to apply to more trivial things than this--if it is thought to apply to the LA riots, its time to get rid of that rule entirely--Sources are adequate for the purpose. DGG (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, per WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could clarify which page this article should redirect to, I'm not sure I understand your position. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks he's in agreement with the nominator's rationale (delete and redirect to L.A. Four Incident). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 18:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable incident, DGG puts it well. Recommend that the LA Four article be merged to this one or deleted. Edward321 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, article fails WP:N. Dreadstar † 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guernsey Live

Advert for a forthcoming nusic festival. (Image is of a different festival.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Reads like an ad. archanamiya · talk 20:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the fact that it is upcoming itself means it is not notable. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is the very first time such an event is happening, maybe the page requires refining but does NOT need deleting. It is not an advert as that would include the pricing of the event. -Dead6re (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (GMT)
Comment I've updated the content a bit more to include some of the past. As this is a fresh event the details are scarce but this is a big event for Guernsey. I live in Guernsey so this is part of our island and perhaps you come from bigger places but size should not be the ultimate reason. Unfortunately I'm away for the next 7 days so I can't debate any further, but if the oage is deleted, please can you say why on my talk page and what I could do to improve it for the site. -Dead6re (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (GMT)
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without independent citations and evidence of coverage by an independent source, it is really nothing but crystal balling. If there is thorough independent coverage of the festival as it goes on, then there is a possibility of having a new article about the festival kept, but not before. Wikipedia is not a promotion service. B.Wind (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2008/04/09/guernsey-live-headliner-jailed/ , http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2008/04/03/four-local-groups-in-line-up-for-live/ , http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2008/02/16/were-ready-to-rock/ and more from this site, and http://www.virtual-festivals.com/guernsey_live_music_festival_2008 where the "description" section seems independent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Delete WP:SPAM, ~~WP:CRYSTAL~~, ~~WP:V~~, WP:N, WP:NOT, etc.... Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAM in the first sense could be debatable, but I believe the independent reliable sources above show that an encyclopdic article could be written. I don't believe WP:CRYSTAL applies, as the information is verifiable by those same sources. This would also take care of WP:N and V. I don't know about WP:NOT, as it's a really wide collection of things it's not. Could you be more specific? The etc. could be expanded as well. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the sources you pointed out above, which does indeed remove Crystal Balling and Verifibility issues. I still think the article is written in a promotional tone aand I'm not sure about notability, I'd like to see sources from other outlets if possible. In any event, if kept, the article needs to be scrapped and rewritten so it doesn't sound like a promo flyer. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:59, 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 09:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Persson

As I think Swedish historiography should be better covered here, it is with some regret I make this nomination. I saw this article a while ago and hesitated about what to do with it. When I took another look now, and checked the corresponding article in the Swedish Wikipedia, I noticed that somebody on that talk page of that page has expressed doubts about Persson's relevance and suggested deletion, both of that page and this one.

I am not familiar with Persson's work specifically, having only glanced at his dissertation and read the abstract, but I know a little about the field of history studies in Sweden. I figure that if I make this nomination, he will at least get a fair hearing, not the arrogant abbreviation-loaded crap I see in far too many other nominations for deletion here.

I cleaned up this page a little and added a bibliography.

Persson finished his Ph.D. in 1999. He has published one monograph, his dissertation, which has received a number of reviews, including in leading foreign history journals (The American Historical Review, the German Historische Zeitschrift, and the Danish Historisk Tidsskrift). But it is only one book. He has also published a number of articles and chapters, including two in Scandia, and one in Historisk tidskrift - these are the two leading Swedish history journals. It is a respectable record, but probably not enough.

Persson is not a professor yet. He is an universitetslektor, a lecturer (possibly an associate professor in the American tongue, although I expect that depends on the specific institution), and he works at Kalmar University College, which is not a research university.

In sum, a respectable track record and a promising young historian. He will probably get a position at some larger History department in a few years, and perhaps a professorship in another few years after that. But at this point, I doubt his qualifications or "notability" is enough to merit an article in an encyclopaedia. What do you say? Olaus (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the nominator's very clearly written description (and my reading of the article in light of that description) it doesn't seem to me that he passes WP:PROF. My general feeling is that most academics at this stage of their career are not yet notable; it takes some major accomplishment, more than just being on-track for a successful academic career, and I'm not seeing that here. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It strikes me that his sole book probably has a better claim on an article than the man himself. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per last 2 votes. archanamiya · talk 21:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by our usual practices, a lecturer with one book isnot enough,unless it is truly of sensational importance. Thisismerely the beginning point in an academiccareer. DGG (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF, rather than WP:BIO, is the operative guideline for academic notability, but the subject fails WP:PROF too. Nsk92 (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The article fails WP:PROF. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with Erste Allgemeine Verunsicherung. Dreadstar † 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ba-Ba-Bankrobbery

Non-notable single - only reached 68 in UK charts. ukexpat (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single is non-notable, even if the band is. SWik78 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The single may be non-notable however it is important information and gives a very good explanation as to why a band that has been going over 30 years has not made a very big impact on the music industry and are not internationally well known. The single may have got to just number 68 in the UK charts, but that doesn't mean it was an international flop does it? This also adds to the explanation of why the band is not well known. This article also provides the general information to anyone who wants to read it. --Cexycy (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we are not talking about the band, the Afd nomination relates to the single, which, as admitted in the article itself, is non-notable. One possibility would be to include some information on the single in the article on the band, then redirect the single article to the band article. – ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you deem neccessary an explanation as to why a band that has been going over 30 years has not made a very big impact on the music industry and are not internationally well known, that should be done on the article page for the band (Erste Allgemeine Verunsicherung). A separate article is not needed, especially one that does not provide a good explanation of the issue you brought up. SWik78 (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Erste Allgemeine Verunsicherung. Single doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Merging to the band article still allows this as a search term.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Erste Allgemeine Verunsicherung. The German version is, what, 20 years old, and I still know the refrain. It's one of those embarrassing New Year's classics in Germany, and once made #7 in Germany and #4 in Austria. The original song is obviously notable, but since this article is "only" about the poor-ranking English version, it should IMO rather be merged than kept. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to the band article -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of meeting WP:NMG. Merging is OK too. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest, this information was already in the article about the band anyway, which I added myself. I thought as it went on about one song in particular, it would be better off as an article in itself (with a link between the two articles). Anyone who wishes to read more about the song can do and those who do not don't need to as they are seperate articles. I don't wish to sound rude, but to say this song is non-notable is utter nonsense as Sgeureka pointed out that people do know the song. Just because it did poorly in the charts does not mean people do not know it. It just means many people chose not to buy it, there is a huge difference. I was only about 4 years old when the song came out and I'm British. I personally didn't hear the song until a few years back myself, but I still know it. People who wish to read about the song, have the opportunity to here and people who are only interested in the band can also just read about the band, a whole lot easier, the way things are at the moment. Can't anyone else see what I'm getting at? If anyone else knows anything else about the song which is not in the song article, they can add to it, just like they can with other articles. Other songs have articles, so why can't this one? --Cexycy (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because WP:WAX is not a reason to keep an article. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:05, 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, all guidelines around (from WP:N to WP:BIO) clearly confirm the subject's notability. There are plenty of reliable sources in the Web, and they can be easily used to improve the article. --Angelo (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Hugo Andrada

Fails wp:BIO#Basic criteria for lack of source material, primary or secondary. Triwbe (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Meets WP:ATHLETE criteria - competed in a fully professional league. Google search returns 840 hits, many of them reliable sources that indicate his notability, such as this one. SWik78 (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non admin close). Dusti^{talk to me} 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rae

AfDs for this article:

This was deleted a year back and has since been recreated. There appears to be a bit of coverage, but I don't know if the coverage he has received is non-trivial and shows notability. Is being a superdelegate notable and is being a particularly young one notable? I have no real opinion on this, but think it should be considered. Metros (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, am really tempted to say delete (what with the whole WP:AUTO deal), but the fact that he is the youngest superdelegate is notable, and there are sufficient sources. FusionMix 13:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's hard to deny that he passes WP:V going away. RGTraynor 13:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual has received a good deal of press coverage as the youngest person elected to the DNC and a young superdelegate. The article is well-sourced and will likely expand as his career develops. I looked for the article after seeing him on MSNBC and was glad to find it - did some organizing and improved the citations. I think this piece passes notability and verifiability tests and should not be removed. Also have not seen convincing evidence that there are WP:AUTO violations - and even if there are, that's not a reason to delete the piece as long as other editors have come in to edit it and keep it neutral. (Further on the content of the nom: surely PBS, MSNBC, CNN, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, and ABC News are not trivial.)Tvoz |talk 14:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I say keep for sure. This guy is really something - and serves as a great role model for young people - not just young gays either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.35 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw him on The Daily Show, looked up a news article, and then checked Wikipedia for more more information. I was glad there was something there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.57.235 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. Incidentally is it possible to remove the Jason Rae (musician) nomination from the box above? It's a bit confusing as it relates to an unrelated AFD that was resolved only a couple days ago. 23skidoo (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about removing the musician AfD above - but I have no idea how to do it. Tvoz |talk 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- First, I feel his notability can't be questioned given the amount of media coverage he's received related to his political situation with the DNC. Second, the COI issues need to be addressed with the article by someone who wants to do some research. I went through and cleaned out stuff that was unencyclopedic trivia he likely added himself as the only source (like the fact that he's an RA in his school's dorm or that few Wisconsinites become Senate Pages), but some of the stuff that is more encyclopedic needs to be vetted for factuality with sources, like his status as HS valedictorian and role in HS student council, etc. or his role on numerous politician staffs. But in total, he meets our criteria for notability. ju66l3r (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable enough. archanamiya · talk 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for being a person with plenty of media coverage. If I understand right, most superdelegates are notable. However, it's because many notable people (lots of elected officials) are chosen to be superdelegates; being a superdelegate doesn't automatically make you notable. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this debate should be closed. It's obvious that this article shouldn't be deleted. archanamiya · talk 23:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Needs somebody to go through it and remove pointless stuff, but like it or not he's notable. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 00:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep silly nomination. 67.171.32.217 (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iteva

Software that is not notable and has no reliable sources other then it’s main Home page Pmedema (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per this brief but eloquent nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Give it some time... wait for some press... -- Swerdnaneb 15:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:N ArcAngel (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Article doesn't establish notability. archanamiya · talk 21:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article offers nothing to indicate the barest level of notability, and basic searches confirm this. Nuttah (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel of Fortune (MADtv Sketch)

Sketch from a TV show. The article appears to be transcript and description of the sketch, with no indication of notability. No sources or independent media coverage. Anything of note is already covered at MADtv#DVD_releases. Think outside the box 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual sketches from TV shows are generally not notable enough for their own articles. There are a few exceptions, but this one isn't one of them. An example of a sketch that would justify an article is "Rinse the Blood off My Toga", a Wayne and Shuster sketch that introduced the catchphrase "Julie, don't go!" to the lexicon in the 1950s and 60s. And even IT hasn't rated an article on Wikipedia. 23skidoo (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not deserve its own article, but I wouldn't be against creating an article that's a compilation of recurring MADtv characters and sketches such as Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. SWik78 (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MADtv#Popular_recurring_characters_and_sketches. Very, very few individual sketches are notable enough for their own article; this isn't one of them.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That article is for recurring sketches. By all indications provided by this article, the sketch was a one-time thing. 23skidoo (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-time sketch, nothing special about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D_L_T_. Non-notable one-off sketches should just be offed, per 23skidoo. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per 23skidoo. archanamiya · talk 21:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funny, no doubt, but not classic; mention it in the MadTV article and give us a youtube.com link. More cowbell, the Celebrity Jeopardy sketches, and The Lumberjack Song meet the criteria because of popularity and need for explanation to the unacquainted, but I'm not crazy about those as separate articles either. Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shadowrun. Dreadstar † 03:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkelzahn

Non-notable character. Main online hits seem to be for blogs, forums, and the like. I'm not averse to some small merger to Shadowrun. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 12:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shadowrun, good idea. FusionMix 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with Shadowrun. archanamiya · talk 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, taking into account the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainforest Media Server. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janmedia

Not notable as far as I can tell. Strangely, it seems to have lots of google hits, but scanning the first few pages provides no evidence of notability. -- Mark Chovain 12:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that their web page has lots of flashy graphics and drops some pretty big names, but there seems to be a lack of reliable sources to back it all up. -- Mark Chovain 12:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Chovain said, there are a lot of g-hits, but most of them look to be internet yellow pages and business reviews. I don't see anything that makes them notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Angelo (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Bull

Has not played in a fully-pro league, thus not meeting criteria of WP:Bio#Athlete Jimbo^[online] 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under current notability criteria. - fchd (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N ImperviusXR (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. SWik78 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per failing. archanamiya · talk 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, bucking the trend. Though he has not yet played in a fully-pro league, he does play for a fully-pro team, a glance at Aldershot's current league position makes it seem very likely that he will have been a key player in a team that makes its way into just such a league. This is an interesting case, actually - exactly half of Aldershot's current squad have articles and do meet the requirements of having played in a fully-pro league. This is definitely a borderline one. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong keep, as above. Edited on Saturday evening as it is now very likely that Aldershot will be promoted, and that Bull will play in a 'pro-league' next season. ac1806 21:38 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Or he might leave the club over the summer. Saying he will play in the Football League next season is crystal balling ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is User:Ac1806 even a mod? 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo online (talk • contribs) [reply]
    - "mod"? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah - rides a Vespa scooter, listens to R&B and the Who - y'know. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 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. Waggers (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cracc

Mixtapes generally fail notability per WP:BAND, and this one doesn't appear to be any exception. faithless (^speak) 09:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - utterly fails WP:BAND --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 25 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, jj137 (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly non-notable band. ImperviusXR (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Lawlor

Procedural listing of an article about a gaelic football player and team captain per a deletion review. Sources might be available off line, no further opinion. Tikiwont (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I already took a look at this article when it was up for DRV. This is a four sentence article about a team captain, when the team itself has only ten lines of text. Hard to justify an article, especially with very weak sources. Per WP:BIO#Athletes, amateur players are notable only at the highest level of competition, e.g. the Olympics, though if it happens that they have their own press coverage this can justify an article. There are, in fact, no sources at all in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that players who play beneath the senior inter-county level are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Bláthnaid 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Article doesn't establish notability. archanamiya · talk 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EdJohnston. Notability not established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS Deletion review usually makes sensible decisions; if I don't always agree with them, but they usually make some sense. However, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, and it seems like a pointless bit of bureaucracy for the DRV of this article to send this article back here when its deletion was nearly inevitable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the comment of BrownHairedGirl. (I was the person who originally speedied this.) Stifle (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The purpose of DRV is to ensure following deletion policy, because speedy nomination when not meeting the standards there tends to throw out the good as well as the bad. The point of the limitation is that when someone claims something as notability, its better for us all to have a chance to look at it. Otherwise it degenerates into deleting everything any admin thinks is non notable. There wouldnt be much left, if that's the way we did things. DGG (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, seems no less notable than the captain of a minor English football team. Lack of online sources can be explained by the fact that his career pre-dates the Internet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 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 per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter (fictional character)

Spun out from List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory without gaining consensus on the action. Space wasn't an issue and is mostly padded out with information contained within the main list article. treelo _talk 09:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Not an AfD Far as I can see this is a reasonable candidate for a straw poll to merge back into List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory to find consensus, but regardless this shouldn't be listed for deletion. This is the main character of a show that clearly passes notability, etc, and appears to contain new information that doesn't exist on the parent article, so therefore shouldn't be deleted. If this continues to be debated as a AfD I'd say "give sources" obviously, but it would still be a clear Keep vote by notability. Short form: Suggest prodecural close of this AfD listing and recommend to the nominator to begin a straw poll on the talk page of the List of Characters article. -Markeer 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable character, basicly in the ballfield of characters such as Spongebob Squarepants --Armanalp (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm not a huge fan of articles on every fictional character in existence, this one is notable.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as the lead character in a notable and popular TV series. My only concern was the article needed a dab link to the lead character from Dexter (TV series), and I have added this. 23skidoo (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article may be unsourced, but I would imagine that the title character of a cartoon is probably notable enough for his own article -- surely some sources exist somewhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very noteable. archanamiya · talk 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though it is difficult to search Dexter independently from Dexter's Laboratory, the 124 hits "Dexter's Laboratory" gets in a Google Book search means he's got to have some notability. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guess this article could have been spun out earlier based on notability. Still got my concerns about sourcing references to corroborate some parts but otherwise I'll admit to the article's notability and can call this AfD request pretty much done with given its' response. treelo _talk 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation for why I created this individual article: The description in the parent article lacked detail and space for valuable information concerning Dexter's status amongst the characters within his own realm, and, in my opinion, wasn't sufficient to describe the character in question (if anyone else has watched this show as much as I have, you know what I'm talking about). Unfortunately, I was unable to find any reliable resources, and I am hoping that through Dexter's liberation from the "List of Characters" entice other users to find the references neccesary for the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.User:Uberbandgeek 21:22, 3 April 2008 (EST)
Keep Main character of quite notable series. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept Dexter (Dexter's Laboratory) because there are other fictional Dexters. 70.51.11.131 (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a rename is in order. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ditto Hobit (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It is clear from the discussion below that a) there are arguments for keeping one or multiple articles in the bundled nom and b) the preference is for smaller, more manageable AfDs. As such, this close is being done without prejudice re-nomination and possibly deletion of one or multiple articles included in the nomination. --jonny-m t 08:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Professionals

Federation is wholly not notable. I am also going to add all the titles and wrestlers associated with this federation to this AfD Darrenhusted (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the titles from WWP

The associated federations

Thier titles

The venue

And wrestlers

And also if these pages are deleted then Category:South African professional wrestlers and Category:South African professional wrestling promotions will be empty and Template:Professional wrestling in South Africa will be all redlinks and so I will also propose TfD and CfDs at the relevant time.

All the above pages are the work of one user [7] who does not edit any other pages and seems to have spent the last few months building a walled garden.

These nominations follow Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akilah (wrestler), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananzi (wrestler) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.W. Bulldog (wrestler).

All the articles above fail WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY How is it a 'walled garden'? It's not like the South African wrestling industry, which you obviously know nothing about, employs people to do these articles. I did those in my own time and used notable references. Not many people in South Africa even know that those Wikipedia articles exist. I've informed a few people, but they didn't take the time and effort to contribute (and they have more knowledge of the subject than I do). I guess I'll just have to go somewhere else to preserve the history and knowledge of the SA wrestling industry. Thank you, Wikipedia, for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajstyles tna roh (talk • contribs)
Reply, I cannot find any notable third party references. It is a walled garden because the article only link to each other. And removing [8] AfD notices will not stop deletion, you need to improve the articles. For "Africa Wrestling Alliance" Google only finds 15 unique hits, and for "World Wrestling Professionals" only 18 unique hits, with the Wikipedia pages being first or second. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Darrenhusted I see, but this is truly upsetting as I've spent quite a bit of time finding little bits of information and creating those articles. One more thing: When you do those searches for the WWP and AWA promotions, you need to look for "WWP Thunderstrike" and also "Africa Wrestling Federation (respectively), since WWP's flagship TV show is WWP Thunderstrike and AWA used to be known as Africa Wrestling Federation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajstyles tna roh (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"WWP Thunderstrike" brings up 64 unique Ghits and "Africa Wrestling Federation" brings up 21 unique Ghits. Plus the amount of time spent on an article or articles is no reason to keep. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All I have made a search of my own to corroborate the ones made above and am satisfied that this federation exists and has been noticed. It doesn't have to be a huge US franchise to be in Wikipedia since this encyclopedia is global and comprehensive in scope. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't say it didn't exist, it is not notable, and if you want to tell me what you searched for because all my searches come up with are the fed's own website (not WP:RS) and the wikipedia entries listed above. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment When I searched using "WWP Thunderstrike" in the Google engine (ignoring that Yahoo alone comes up with 557 results) the Wikipedia articles were not at the top of the list. These are the websites that appear (in order) on the first two search pages:

TVSA (2 entries at the top)
WWP.co.za (2 entries)
RolandG.co.za
SABCEducation.co.za (2 entries)
SABC2.co.za
WWPThunderstrike.com (2 entries)
702.co.za
WeekendPost.co.za
YourCity.co.za
DewetMeyer.com
Aha.co.za (2 entries)
(And then) Wikipedia.com
Sabcgroupsales.co.za
Truveo.com
Video.Aol.com ajstyles_tna_roh (talk)

WWP.co.za asks me to sign in, so can't be a RS. DewetMeyer.com says "domain reserved", www.rolandg.co.za is a blog, wwpthunderstrike.com is not a third party source. www.sabcgroupsales.co.za/new/default.asp is a radio site. These are not WP:RS.

I searched using exact match and barely got more than a handful of sites all of which were simply reprinting the same press release. I think anyone advocating keep needs to check WP:RS. My concern arose because all these pages have had one user doing the bulk of the editing, and while I do not doubt the existence of the federations I do not think that they are notable enough for Wikipedia. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWP.co.za is no longer the official website. I cited the new official website as a reference in that article, which is wwpthunderstrike.com. ajstyles_tna_roh (talk)

As Bardin mentioned near the bottom, WWP has been noted in some news articles, like the Nigerian tribune, Weekend Post and Herald. AWA has been featured in news articles as well: IOL and People's Post. ajstyles_tna_roh (talk)

Delete all except Johnny Palazzio, Steve Cohen (wrestler), and Steve Debbes, I've been looking for third party refs for these articles for while now and had planned to AfD most of them at some point because they can't be verified or sourced. Most of these wrestlers haven't even held a championship in the South African promotions. Hardly notable. The three exceptions I have listed (Johnny Palazzio, Steve Cohen (wrestler), and Steve Debbes) have some notability being on the PWI lists and winning championships in the NWA and WCCW. The rest should be deleted. I also agree that this is a walled garden. Nikki311 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A casual search on google indicate that the organisation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial mention on independent and reliable publications. Examples include news article in the Nigerian tribune, the South African Weekend Post and the South African Herald. A wrestling organisation from South Africa is not going to have a large online presence compared to something from the United States and yet, there's multiple non-trivial coverage of the entity. Seems notable enough to merit a place on Wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, then keep the organizations, too, but delete the wrestlers, titles, etc that don't have non-trivial mentions. Nikki311 13:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to Nikki Nikki, what about Shaun Koen? He was was on the PWI list as well and has more notability than the other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajstyles tna roh (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, yes. He appears to have some notability of his own, as well. I apologize for missing that article. Shaun Koen can be kept, as well. Nikki311 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, deletion is not appropriate. If particular articles are too slight on their own then they would be merged into one or more consolidations of the material. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if they can't prove notability? Nikki311 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if any of the article listed can be improved then I am happy to withdraw them from this list and make it clear to the closing admin that they are not to be deleted. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply What do you suggest I do to improve them? (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I suggest you read WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:COI. Then find some third party, reliable, verifiable sources. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Its disappointing that the Wikipedia Administrators would want to delete such a well-written and complete article. South African wrestling fully deserves its place on Wikipedia. --Nocoolname (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC) — Nocoolname (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Errr ... it's already plain that this AfD is a mess. I recommend withdrawing it and resubmitting in smaller chunks, as opposed to a portmanteau of this fed and everything and everyone that can be said to be associated with it. RGTraynor 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree it's a mess, if articles are improved then I will strikethrought the nominations so it is clear what needs to be deleted. The discussion may be a mess, but the AfD is still clear, all these articles lack good references and do not assert notablility. It is better to get them sorted in one go rather than in pieces, a process which could take weeks. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: A casual glance at the conversation shows "Keep all but these" or "Delete all but these," with broad disagreement as to what and whether. That's what makes this AfD a mess, and that's exactly why giant portmanteau AfDs are almost always a terrible idea. RGTraynor 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Google should not be used as a notablity guide, I'd suggest that the nom reconsider the entire nomination - it looks like a tactical nuke is being used were all is needed is a bit of effort to clean up the articles that need sources. Also, the comment "if articles are improved then I will strikethrought the nominations" would seem to indicate that the nominator is using the AFD process as a cleanup process - never a good thing. Lets not have another Mzoli's situation please... Fosnez (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, but Google proves that there are no sources available to cleanup the articles. Nikki311 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close AFD and divide into more reasonable chunks. I know AFD allows for the nomination of multiple articles, but this is simply too much. It's quite possible there may be individual articles that warrant deletion or merging, but it's impossible to tell with this flood, which seems likely to simply end up with a "keep all" decision, even if there might well be articles worthy of being killed. No opinion, however, is being expressed regarding the viability or lack thereof of any of the articles listed; this is my opinion of this particular blanket AFD. The necessity of closing this and starting over is made clear by the nominator's statement above that he might withdraw individual articles from this AFD, which would require a "revote" because the parameters of the AFD will have changed. 23skidoo (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, close and divide into separate AfDs. It seems people see a long list of articles and vote to keep all with only providing notability or sources for a few articles (if any at all). Nikki311 18:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Specifically, nominate in collections that group like with like -- the wrestlers together, the titles together, and so on. A person has, in the details, different ways of becoming notable than an organization, which is why WP:BIO is separate from WP:ORG. Incidentally, I strongly suspect the federations can demonstrate notability and would likely be kept in a renom. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think it is important, however, that the articles should be read before they are nominated. I agree with Nikki311 that only about 4 or 5 of these articles are worth keeping. I am very concerned that Steve Cohen (wrestler) was lumped in with the nomination simply because of his country of origin. He has nothing else in common with the rest of the nominations, and I believe that his article definitely demonstrates notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for now but relist without prejudice. Just too much and the answers appear to not be uniform. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I enquire, without prejudice, of the nominator, would your opinion change if this were, as it were, "de-walled" -- that is, suitable links built in to other wrestling and sport articles ? If not, then why raise the argument in the first place ? -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to all, I look through all these article one by one, did google searches for exact matches one by one, then went back to each article one by one. The primary source on every page is the AWA website, this AfD is generating more links for most of these pages than the actual articles. Within all these article I have not seen anything that meets the standards for notability. The feds have no widepsread coverage on google or elsewhere, the titles do not meet the standards for title notablility and most of the wrestlers have only wrestled for the above lsted feds. As for the few who seem to have wrestled elsewhere, when was appearing in the bottom 50 of the PWI 500 the bar for notability? Notability is not inherited, holding titles and being in the bottom 50 are not acheivements which merit a place on wikipedia.

As for the AfD bundling the titles and feds seemed easy to bundle, as they are all as non-notable as each other, and looking at the contributions of the main editor (Ajsytles_tna_roh), I could see that he had a habit of removing AfD notices from articles (at least five times by my count) and I felt that it would be easier to nominated one group of articles and monitor than watch 28 seperate AfDs. Given that the editor in question has kept filibustering this one AfD I cannot imagine how much filibustering would take place in 28 AfDs.

However we work by consensus I am more than happy for this AfD to be closed without prejudice, and the seperate topics broken up and relisted under four or five AfDs (or 28 if someone wants that headache). My only request would be that someone actually looks at the articles, and that the Keep or Delete votes are doen on the merits of the articles and not the course of this AfD.Darrenhusted (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if you looked through them one by one, you would have seen that, contrary to your claim that the AWA website is the primary source for every article, Steve Cohen (wrestler) has nothing to do with AWA, WWP, PWA or IWF. He wrestled in WCCW, GWF and NWA Pacific Northwest (all of which are notable promotions) and held major titles in all three. The only reason I can see for including him here is that he happens to have been born in a country in which a non-notable promotion now exists. I would like to see some of the wrestlers from this AfD bundled together for a new AfD, but I can't support this AfD. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation is to make a smaller bundle of the ones that are obviously non-notable (1-3 sentences long): Kalahari Boerboel (wrestler), The Playa (wrestler), PJ Black (wrestler), The Lizard (wrestler) and Nizaam Hartley. Once they have been deleted, we can work from there. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment absolutely not my subject, but sources requiring sign-in, or even payment, or even in print and not on the internet at all, can all of them be reliable sources. They can't be used for external links, but we don;'t limit RSs on that basis. DGG (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and renominate individual articles rather than attempt to delete in bulk, per 23skidoo. McJeff (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before !vote. This mass bundling is most troubling as this device can be used (even inadvertently) to sweep up an otherwise viable article that would possibly be mixed in with all the others. This makes as much sense as proposing that Wikipedia delete every article with the word "wrestling" in it. The fact that a wrestling association is less than a decade old is irrelevant to its notoriety as historically, some associations made their mark in a brief period of time. Also, I hesitate to add to the systemic bias by deleting something that is not from North America, Australia, or Europe because independent sources are not as forthcoming (one valid link led to a Zambian source). Frankly, the wiser choice here is to close discussion and improve sources. But if we are unwise enough to approve this bundling, extremely strong keep until/unless someone is willing to break this up into bite-sized pieces, and I claim that this borders on abuse of process. B.Wind (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I agree that it would be great to improve the referencing, reliable sources simply do not exist and are not available for most of these articles. The consensus seems to be to close this discussion and renominate individual articles or smaller groups, and I agree with that completely. Several editors at WP:PW have tried to locate sources, but there just aren't enough to establish notability. We have tried to work with the editor and encourage him to expand the articles and provide reliable sources, but he has repeatedly ignored our requests and continued to create more unsourced stubs. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). WP:PROBLEMS are not grounds for deletion; the sole delete preference based on notability concerns is mitigated by the evidence of scholarship uncovered. The possibility of merging is left open to editors of the article. 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Paper Nautilus

This is a self confessed interpretation. It must violate WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK Triwbe (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete - The poem itself may be notable, but the interpretation is textbook like and original research. Five of the references are from the poem itself, while the other sources appear to be from several obscure anthologys. Any useful information should be merged into the Marianne Moore article. Think outside the box 09:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, there's a big dollop of unreferenced interpretation in the article, but the poem itself is one of the best known of Moore's works, and there's plenty that's been written about it. Source, trim aggressively if needed. --Dhartung | Talk 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are loads of sources which write about this work at Google Scholar and Google Books. If Wikipedia is to have any claim of being a serious encyclopedia rather than a pokemonopedia then this needs to be kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If the poem itself is notable (expert view required), then the article should be kept but all POV and OR material removed. If this destroys the content so that it's not worthwhile having a separate article, then it should be merged into the author's article, or a separate article relating to all her works created. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability is established by the precence of ample sources in the scholar search. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original character

Unsourced original research, non-notable for a separate article. I say delete this and merge any salvageable material into Glossary of fan fiction terms. - Sikon (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Standard term in fan fiction, not original research. Google scholar turns up sufficient coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed, this is a notable term. However the article is completely lacking in sourcing, so things such as the Google Scholar link about should be added. 23skidoo (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a clear neologism to me. Notability is not determined by hits on a search engine, most of which in this instance are merely uses of the words and not sources for the notability of the term. --neonwhite user page talk 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite I find this article notable. It does need to be rewritten, though. archanamiya · talk 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and redirect to Glossary of fan fiction terms#OC. The Google Scholar search cited above suggests borderline notability at best, and does not support most of the claims made in the article. The Original character article is unsourced, so there is nothing to merge into the Glossary article. The best solution would be to source the OC (Original Character) section of the Glossary article and leave the information there.--FreeKresge (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, on the basis of DE's search resyults.DGG (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::If your "Keep" vote is based on WP:GOOGLEHITS, then I will suggest you to read AfD policies again before joining any AfD discussion further. A comment like "on the basis of X user's search results" is doing no help in a constructive AfD debate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hits on search engines are not a criteria of Notability. See WP:GOOGLEHITS--neonwhite user page talk 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in my comment, shorthand, for "on the basis of the existence of the good sources found in the search" DGG (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? 152.3.247.44 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The words are found in a limited number of articles with only one attempting a very abrupt defintion of the intitials 'OC' and the reliability of that is unclear. I think it is quite clear that this is a neologism which is only used within a very limited area of interest and not in wider use. Therefore is not appropriate for wikipedia and would likely struggle to be included in wiktionary as well. --neonwhite user page talk 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They were referring to Google Scholar, an index of academic journals. At any rate, the "Fanfiction Writing and the Construction of Space" article explains the "original character" term. Article should be restructured around published sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above reasons.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google Scholar hits can be used to provide ample sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far nothing has been provided and search hits hits are not a criteria for notability as has already been explained. --neonwhite user page talk 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per FreeKresge. Article is uncited (tagged for citations since 2006) and is original research. Essentally the suggested target says all that the actual article says - it's a fluffed out dicdef. B.Wind (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David Eppstein. Is a meaningful term in reliable sources. Just needs referencing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 9 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. No apparent notability, no 3rd party coverage, spammy. Black Kite 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prayaya

Product does not seem to be notable. Google just returns lots of download sites, but this software does not seem to have any non-trivial independent coverage.[9] -- Mark Chovain 08:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- Mark Chovain 08:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. the articles seems like a copy & past, from other websites, and also has too much unnecessary information. Dwilso 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PRODUCT due to lack of coverage. Gwguffey (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't establish notability. archanamiya · talk 21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Encyclopedia articles are never written in second person. Reads like an advertisement or a how-to guide, probably a bit of both. B.Wind (talk) 05:55, 9 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 kept per consensus (non-admin closure). Article isn't a book promotion. PeterSymonds | talk 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boustrophedon cell decomposition

An article with only 1 reference and that is a book promotion page. This page maybe mostly for promoting the book. So promotional and lacks notability. Triwbe (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on!

I assume the user who submitted the deletion request doesn't actually know anything about cell decompositions or the like. It is a legit topic, first of all, and secondly, I am a regular user with a pretty decent history on Wikipedia, so I am not trying to "advertise a book". The source I provided was a quick hit off Google to a PDF research paper; did you even look at it? The full text of the paper is available for free at the link provided as the first source. Two reasons why I did not make the article better: 1) I am far from an expert in this field and 2) I didn't have a lot of time. I created the article while doing my computer science homework and thought it was silly that Wikipedia didn't have ANYTHING on a legit scholarly topic. I felt that a "stub" was better than nothing, and that someone more qualified to talk about the topic would stumble across it and enrich it to it's full potential. Alex (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a bit of a stub right now, but the reference is a good one and more than some articles start out with. Article about a topic covered in academic literature, with one solid reference right from the start...looks like a good start. Coanda-1910 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. I'm no expert, but it did look like a legitimate topic (and not a book promotion) when I googled it. ~~Not sure whether it's notable enough, hence the weak keep.~~ Klausness (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all the Google scholar references, changing from "Weak keep" to "Keep". Klausness (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar turns up sufficient coverage, including third-party uses of this technique, to convince me that it's worth describing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Motion planning where the term will get better in-context treatment. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

snowball keep- it's not about a book, and it's not advertising one. special, random, Merkinsmum 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not an ad for the book. archanamiya · talk 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the afd seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of the article. DGG (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No reason to delete. I will not accept an overturn by a non admin on this one. Please take it to drv for your concenrns. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand military people

This incomplete list is made redundant by Category:New Zealand military personnel, which serves the purpose far better. Leithp 06:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Leithp Buckshot06 (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Leithp 07:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Leithp 07:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a list, it has the potential to give more information about each person than just the article title, such as conflicts in which they were involved, their service, and rank. It can also include people for whom no article currently exists. However, if it's going to have any chance of becoming such a list, it needs to be adopted by at least one regular editor, or even by a newbie who shows enthusiasm. If any such editor steps up here and volunteers, I'll vote to keep.-gadfium 07:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason for deletion. cab (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not arguing for deletion. I'm just not defending an article that currently stub class if no one cares about it.-gadfium 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CLS, "incomplete list", "redundant to category", are not reasons for deleting a list. The list is already superior to the category in that it is annotated. Editors may prefer to segment the list into smaller lists, copy the references from the given articles onto the list, etc. which is an editorial decision, not a matter for AfD. cab (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular list has no criteria for inclusion other than involvement in the NZ military, a very broad group given the hundreds of thousands who have been served in their armed forces. Leithp 08:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list itself was originally split from List of New Zealand people. As it gets larger, it can certainly be split into sublists itself. Also, implicit in EVERY list definition is the requirement that people on the list be notable; I strongly doubt that the hundreds of thousands of present and past service members in New Zealand are all notable. cab (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't spot the references to incomplete lists and redundancy in WP:CLS. Can you give me a pointer please? Leithp 08:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other" ... "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system." etc. cab (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this list was one of several recently created by the splitting up of the old (pre-category system) List of New Zealanders which had become large and unbalanced. dramatic (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this list is not a redundant copy of the mentioned category, as it doesn't have that category's failings: The category is the top level of a hierarchy of more than a dozen subcategories - the structure is not transparent, as you can only see two levels of a branch at any one time, and articles seem to be scattered randomly. With a little work, the list can overcome these issues, presenting all the information compactly in a single pageview. This is supported by the guidelines at WP:CLS. dramatic (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, bordering on speedy. Our policies for lists and categories are quite clear about redundancy as being just fine, since categories and lists are two vastly different things with vastly different purposes. Someone really should write something in the deletion process page about lists and when not to delete them. Being left with 'incomplete', which isn't a valid deletion argument as it can be solved by improvement, this nomination has nothing upon which to stand. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celarnor. Being incomplete isn't a valid reason to delete a list. Lists do not replace categories. --JamieS93 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. One question: does this list enhance Wikipedia's coverage of the topic? Lists shouldn't be maintained for the sake of having a list of X. It doesn't seem viable independent of the list it was split from: remerging this "modest" sub-page with List of New Zealand people wouldn't be a profound loss to Wikipedia. SoLando (Talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no legitimate grounds for deletion. It enhances the topic just as List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: N-O, List of lawyers, List of Columbia University people, or any other notable list. MrPrada (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - categories do a much better job than this kind of list. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cab. archanamiya · talk 23:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another instance of a list doing more than a category could. The two aren't always directly interchangeable. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator: Could you please explain precisely whay to think this specific list requires deletion: What differentiates it from all the other lists linked from List of New Zealanders (or, for that matter, from those linked from Lists of Australians). dramatic (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate my previous points: This list gives no specific criteria for inclusion, other than involvement in NZ's military (which, as I've said, covers hundreds of thousands of people), has very little information on the people involved, is poorly written and is covered well by categories. The fact that other similar lists exist doesn't concern me, this was the one I happened to come across. I understand that some people above strongly advocate lists like these. Fine. However, until clear, limited, criteria for inclusion are provided and adequate information is given then this list is valueless IMO. Leithp 06:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your statements, I think you have a misconception of what lists are meant to be. I recommend going over WP:CLN and WP:LISTS. Like other lists, this one includes (or should include; if it doesn't, it can be fixed, so it's not a valid argument in favor of deletion), per our policies on lists, only notable individuals who have been in the New Zealand military. It is not a mechanism to assert notability of those included, as that must be done on the articles that are within the lists. This helps keeps references out of lists and in the articles where they belong. It's a list. It isn't meant to include information about those involved, and is meant, like other lists, to be a collection of information about those included, it's just a list to say "these people did/have/do/are x"; much like a category, only able to be edited for readability by humans. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles related to children's rights

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of articles related to children's rights

Contested PROD. Redundant list. It is exactly duplicated by Category:Children's rights. Original author claims that he/she will add a summary of each topic to this list. But why? What helpful purpose would this serve? It's listcruft. The existing category better serves the purpose. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article would be better titled List of children's rights topics and connected to Portal:Contents/Lists of topics; we have hundreds of these. I'm not certain whether we have a specific WP:MOS related to them, though. It might help if we did. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST. A well-structured list and a category complement each other. Not an exact duplicate: red links show missing encyclopedic topics. A category cannot do that. Brief summaries are also a valid function. • Gene93k (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has an established convention of keeping lists and categories that serve a similar purpose Rotovia (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I am the primary author, and created this page in order to avoid the cluttering children's rights with an exhaustive list in the "see also" section. Additionally, I will be adding summaries of each topic, and that will add immense value to each entry. • Freechild'sup? 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Then why bother with a category at all? We're just duplicating things here and creating more clutter. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, duplication by the category, and lack of clear inclusion criteria. Intro states "which can or may never satisfy any objective standard for completeness" KleenupKrew (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How often does it have to be repeated that categories and lists are not redundant to each other? We get several articles per day listed at AfD with this claim, and several times a day it has to be pointed out that this is not a reason for deletion. From the point of view of a reader who wants to use Wikipedia to find out information on this topic this article clearly has encyclopedic value. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of articles in WP are a well-established part of the WP structure. They were not rejected in favor of categories, they coexist as long as people are willing to maintain them. DGG (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gaelic_Athletic_Association#Achievements. Dreadstar † 01:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achievements of the GAA

This well-referenced article is nonetheless an irredeemably POV essay which could be equally well titled "In praise of the Gaelic Athletic Association". It would be a great article for a GAA publication, and would probably be great for a magazine, but the title prevents it from taking a balanced view of the subject -- they very title prevents the inclusion of a section on "Failures of the GAA", which would be necessary for balance. We already have a History of the Gaelic Athletic Association article, and this is just a POV alternative to it. The quality of the prose here should not blind anyone to the inherent structural bias of this article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious POV fork. And it has been here since 2006?!DGG (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS A "failures of the GAA article" could be deeply scathing, denouncing the organisation for having politicised sport, having promoted division in Ireland by through its ban on "foreign sports", and for being sectarian in structure (though not in formal aim) through its mirroring of Catholic parishes for its organisational structure -- see Gaelic Athletic Association#Criticisms_and_questions. I am not advocating that view myself, but it is a view strongly held in some quarters, and Google search for "GAA sectarianism" throws up plenty of reference material. I hope we don't go down the oath of having separate "pro" and "anti" articles on different topics, but the logic of this article is that there should a counterbalancing attack article, which would be equally undesirable. A wikipedia article should present a balanced perspective on an issue, and that's precisely what this unsalvageable article does not try to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest rename to
Cultural effects of the GAA
Cultural impact of the GAA
Effects of the GAA on Irish society

Something about these lines .This is different to the History of the GAA article, The Gaelic Athletic Association#Criticisms_and_questions is getting to big and will need to be spun off soon just as this article was Gnevin (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Gaelic Athletic Association#Criticisms_and_questions should be merged into the article when it's movedGnevin (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename and balance Rotovia (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with GAA or History of the GAA, then POV problems can be fixed with no loss of information. Perhaps the three articles could all be merged? It seems unnecessary to have so many articles spawned off this topic. ImperviusXR (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis topic is huge and having a History of the GAA and a Cultural effects of the GAA(or the like) can very easily be justifiedGnevin (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NOR, WP:SYN and WP:NOT. That the article may be getting "too big" is an aesthetic consideration that doesn't require POV forks where trimming of speculative sections might be tried first. Ravenswing 15:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Primary article was criticise as too big to be a good article, (now i'll admit the fork was a poor choice and pro's and con's should of moved together) , now your suggesting that the size of the article is purely aesthetic , nonsense, also i fail to see how it fails WP:NOR , WP:SYN and don't know what part of WP:NOT you are referring too or is this a case of WP:BASHing ?Gnevin (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: If you need it spelled out, sure. WP:NOT = Wikipedia is not an essay. This adulatory piece is stuffed with peacock phrases that are either unverified, unverifiable and/or POV-riddled:

"The ancient game of hurling was saved from extinction."

"The association achieved its original objective of having at least one club in every parish. Thanks to the success of this policy, clubs are evenly distributed throughout the country in both urban and rural areas, and the organisation's reach is therefore considerable. This huge presence means that the GAA has become a major player in the sporting and cultural life of Ireland."

"This has helped to entrench a sense of local identity. For example, the county identities that have been fostered by over a century of local rivalries in the provincial championships are so prominent in society that many people feel emotionally attached to their county."

"In the GAA's structures (parish (club), county, province and national) it created a conduit for national and communal loyalty, an achievement given that the various elements owed their origins to a variety of sources: Catholicism (the parishes), British law (the counties), and Irish history (the provinces and the nation). Its achievement in popularising counties was particularly marked."

And so on. Those passages also constitute original research and a WP:SYN violation, in so far as even if they are true, they take unsourced suppositions and draw a conclusion from them. Beyond that, they press the premise too far; for instance, the supporting source for a claim that the "people" won't stand for meddling with county boundaries is an article quoting two angry players, just the two. As the nominator correctly cites, this is an essay, a magazine article or an op-ed piece; it is not an encyclopedia article. Ravenswing 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are just WP:Bashing here. WP:NPOV is at most this fails and could/will be edited by myself in to be not beGnevin (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for explanations. You received them. No one will compel you to agree with the reasoning, but it really is possible to advocate deletion of this article on policy grounds alone, without a shred of malevolence or axe-grinding involved. WP:AGF and WP:OWN apply, after all. Ravenswing 19:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have AGF , WP:Bash doesnt imply the nomination was done in bad faith.This is really a case or throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because the title is incorrect. 2 edits by someone who readily admits they arent the greatest with prose the a article is already a lot better, IMHO Gnevin (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no baby; this is all bathwater. I see nothing worth keeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to be spun out of an old version Gaelic Athletic Association and hasn't changed greatly in the interim, so I think it can be safely deleted. It would be better to start a new, better-sourced article with both the good and bad aspects of the GAA from scratch. Bláthnaid 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby-bath water again, so what it hasn't been edits greatly, their is good content here .And once Gaelic Athletic Association#Criticisms_and_questions is merged into it the POV issue would be solved Gnevin (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A POV violation doesn't necessarily equal "unbalanced," nor do peacock terms become any less so if you give equal time to equally-poorly sourced suggestions that the GAA are leeches on the body of Irish sport. Don't, for instance, write about how the GAA saved hurling from extinction, because we don't actually know whether that is true or not. Write a sourced citation along the lines of "There were only X hurling matches recorded in the ten years before the GAA's involvement; by contrast, there were 10x scheduled hurling matches in the five years thereafter." Ravenswing 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the GAA are or understand the history of hurling? Thats like asking me to source the number of baseball game in 1837 Gnevin (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[10] will this do you?

Keep But re-name and copy edit. I spun this article out from Gaelic Athletic Association in the interests of pushing that article towards GA status - it was getting too long on its own and needed each section tightened up with a specific article fleshing out each section. IIRC that was agreed either on the discussion page of the main article or in the Project Gaelic Games discussion. This article probably has been neglected. I think the title is the only major problem with it, anything perceived as POV can either be NPOVd or sourced. I agree with previous comments that deleting the whole article because of a small number of fixable problems is throwing the baby out with the bath water. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Sorry, but it's not just "a small number of fixable problems". On the contrary, the entire article is a hagiography of the GAA, with numerous unsourced, speculative or unprovable assertions. Anything further on the history of the GAA would be much better if it didn't start by using any of this text. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , merge with Gaelic Athletic Association#Criticisms_and_questions and rename as per my above comment Gnevin (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Gnevin above. (rename and merge with Gaelic Athletic Association#Criticisms_and_questions). Article title may be pov at the minute, but can't see what the problem will be if a balanced article including the criticisms is written. Derry Boi (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I too have no probs with a balanced article, but that's no reason to keep this piece in any form. The problem is that this article takes the wrong starting point, and all the other problems flow from that. An article on the Effects of the GAA on Irish society (as suggested above) should not just be this hagiography with some references added, hyperbole removed and criticisms tacked on; it should start by defining some questions, and by discussing all points of view evenly. A highly partisan document such as this should not be used as the basis of an NPOV assessment of the GAA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John elkington

I don't see any statement complying with WP:BIO. asenine ^t/_c 05:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per non-trivial coverage independent reliable sources (WP:N) in the article. Move to proper capitalisation though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already tagged appropriately. Article was created today, and deserves the time to be cleaned up. Review periodically to confirm NPOV and whether article is promotional (unable to determine until construction of article is complete) Rotovia (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Even though the article is in fairly poor shape right now, I think notability exists and can be verified by WP:RS. It just needs to be cleaned up. SWik78 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the article contains references that demonstrate notability. Anyone who objects to the fact that the references aren't formatted correctly can easily fix that by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Unsourced, no verifiability, no claim of notability. Black Kite 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mendo mulcher

No reliable independent sources provide any material on this cannabis grinder, implying that it will not be possible to write an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Non-notable, un-sourcable. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 05:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification My problem with sources isn't just that the article contains no reliable independent sources, but that my Google search found nothing other than cannabis user forums and online stores - in other words, only unreliable sources and trivial mentions. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per lack of independent sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Lack of sources is a cause for tagging and improvement, not deletion in most cases. The problem here is the article is clearly promotional. Rotovia (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fails notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 12:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite This article would be fine with a few changes. archanamiya · talk 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question How would we go about that, bearing in mind wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability? If there are sources you know about, please let us know. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a rewrite issue, there simply isn't any notability. Interesting product, though. Rotovia (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written by an editor with a single purpose account, unsourced, reads like an advertisement. B.Wind (talk) 06:06, 9 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, (withdrawn by nominator). Non-admin close Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist (Russian magazine)

~~Contested speedy, Russian language magazine. No assertion of notability, no context, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw magazine being published since 1914 would qualify as an assertion of notability. Article still needs expansion and some good English language (if possible) snources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 12:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I spent some time trying to establish the existence of this magazine but could not find a single mention. I found a list which seems to be authoritative and recent enough which does not list this magazine. While that may not be proof for non-existence I think the difficulty of finding a source is evidence for not being notable. --Ubardak (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm already leaning towards keep even despite the present lack of secondary sources. A magazine founded in 1914 [11] is definitely worth a closer look for sources about them. The founder/first editor-in-chief Vladimir Friche (Frische? Fritsche?) has a ruwiki entry (ru:Фриче, Владимир Максимович) and himself appears to be notable (few GHits, but very high quality ones even in English [12][13]). cab (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. GHITS for the man are higher if you use the traditional form "V.M. Friche" or the Russian "Фриче". I found this entry in the Fundamental Digital Library of Russian Literature and Folklore. This appears to account an academic seminar on the journal's history. This commemorated its 90th anniversary. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources represent quality over quantity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete non-notable student club. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Cercle Francais

Fails organization notability guidelines as it is essentially a student club at a university with no reliable sources or any indication in ghit searches that some are available. Noetic Sage 04:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 04:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely fails WP:ORG and we are not a web host for student clubs. Collectonian (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. non-notable student club. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per article improvements. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelh8

Makes no assertion to comply with WP:MUSIC. asenine ^t/_c 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Keep, now meets WP:MUSIC#C1 due to the recent addition of references from BBC and CNN. Article still needs a tidy up though, especially the first sentence. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no reliable references, and it's also very unclear what the author is getting at? Dwilso 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 23:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is how I contact you or not.

I have updated the Pixelh8 pages to include links to his CNN interview, BBC interview, and various UK and American Magazine articles.

Links hae been made to BBC RADIO 1 DJ HUW STEPHENS and alternative music festival Nerdapalooza

Hidden Youth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddenyouth (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:HEY improvements from myself and User:Hiddenyouth. This artist clearly demonstrates notability. GlassCobra 18:51, 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 --JForget 00:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hobby Bench

Unreferenced, not-notable, borders on self-promotion. --EEMIV (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be nothing more than an ad for a chain store. KellyAna (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:CORP.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 04:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no claim of notability is made and no potential merge target exists, unless there is a List of retail establishment probably wiped out by WalMart; however, if you check the user page of the creator, it is pretty clear that it was not self-promotion.--Hjal (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to give a reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an ad. archanamiya · talk 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Singu larity 09:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 United States network television schedule

Violates WP:CRYSTAL and is based not on fact but on rumor. Sources are not specific, do not reflect content and asks that we forsee the future.KellyAna (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article isn't Encyclopedic, nor is it relevant for any purpose. Dwilso 03:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, do you ever say anything else? All of your rationale are either "not encyclopedic", which is an invalid argument by tautology, or 'not relevant', which is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:NOTINTERESTING. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles like this (yearly tv schedules) have survived AFD in the past. I realize that this particular season hasn't started yet, but we at least have some solid sources regarding shows which have been renewed. Zagalejo^^^ 03:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - and maybe 5 months from now it might be relevant but based on policy of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V the sources aren't reliable and even the networks that these shows appear on aren't backing up what is being said in this article. KellyAna (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are reliable? Zagalejo^^^ 04:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not put words in my mouth. I didn't say "none." KellyAna (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well if some of the sources are reliable, then parts of this article can be salvaged, no? Zagalejo^^^ 04:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other articles of this type exist (yeah, I know), and the information presented here is easily verifiable by the 30-odd sources in the article -- many of which indeed seem reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FUTURE, can you point to any FUTURE articles that exist that purpose to see into their crystal ball and tell us what hasn't happened yet. KellyAna (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this article isn't reporting the future; it's just reporting things that the networks have already announced. Zagalejo^^^ 05:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are well into the second half of the 2007-08 season, which is exactly when these decisions are announced (advertisers and producers like to have lead time). This article is well-sourced, and the event in question is certain to occur. There is no violation of WP:CRYSTAL here. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep How many times will we have to put up with this article for deletion crap? It is not WP:CRYSTAL now that NBC has announced their schedule. Let's just get a policy in place that the article can be created and kept once the networks have made their announcements. Cite Variety, no speculation per WP:CRYSTAL. Changes can be made as necessary, and the entire revision history can document what happened and when. MMetro (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation in May, based on past precedent Even though NBC has announced its schedule for next year already (stupid move, IMO), I think we really need to wait for everybody else to announce their schedules in mid-May before we post this, but not only that, have regular media beyond the trades and insiders care about the 2008-09 season; almost all of the sources in here are trades or WGA strike-related articles used as sources here. Right now we haven't even had 1/5 of the current series return from strike breaks yet to sink or swim, and everything outside of NBC is still up in the air.

I'm surprised this article even exists; this season's schedule article wasn't created until May 12th, 2007 (with 2006-07 created on May 15, 2006). Early April is frankly way too early to be even worrying about the next season when most pilots haven't even been turned in yet, and I work on these schedule articles often. Nate • (chatter) 10:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If there are announcements upon which to base it, then CRYSTAL does not apply. Covering future events is absolutely fine if they are notable and verifiable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep poor sources to be removed, cleanup required, future tag needed Rotovia (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celanor- It's not a WP:CRYSTAL problem because it's not looking into the future, but based off of announcements already made per the sources, and it looks well sourced to me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as official announcements are now being made, so therefore WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Article does need to be policed for speculation, and for the inevitable updates and changes that will occur over the coming months. 23skidoo (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VERY VERY STRONG KEEP all the article needs in the future tag. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are based on announcements of the networks, and is by no means a crystal ball article. Zisimos (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Seems rather good and useful to me Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this. archanamiya · talk 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no crystal ball problem here. Everything in this article as a respectable source and is based on the actual network/company announcements. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I dont see what sense it would make to delete this article when networks are about to have their up-front presentations. as a matter of fact, NBC has already had their upfronts and announced their fall schedule a couple of days ago...why delete this article when it is just going to be restarted...wikipedia has 50 years of television history and broadcast history recorded, so why stop now? it is sourced...yes, the article needs some clean up, but it will be come much more revelant when all the big networks finish thier up fronts, which is usually mid-may.--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 00:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dreadstar † 23:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patangay

There are ghits but nothing, from a reliable source or not, to verify anything that is said here. This seems to be a rather disjointed essay on an unclear topic, possibly Hindu ancestry? It could be re-written, but there doesn't appear to be a clear topic on which to write an article and/or sources. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, creator is an SPA with the same surname TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally unsourced, fails WP:N ImperviusXR (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DeleteArticle speedied, non-admin close TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eco 3

sounds like someone's garage band "looking for sponsers (sic)" LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Encyclopedic enough. Dwilso 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT was speedied....finally got the author to stop removing the speedy tag for long enough for an admin to look. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, G3 non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 08:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Shemi

This wrestler does not exist and was clearly made up. DrWarpMind (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -DrWarpMind (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 Reads like a fairly blatant hoax to me. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with Toyota Land Cruiser. Dreadstar † 16:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CRAWL 4WD control system

It's a technology used by Toyota but there's no RS coverage in the full name or short form. Ghits confirm the technology exists in cars, but doesn't indicate any notability of it. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. With the toyota landcrusier page. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no information or notability in it. Dwilso 02:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There's a San Francisco Chronicle source [14] that mentions it. It's already in the Toyota Land Cruiser article though, it just needs "- a control system that operates like an off-road cruise control, automatically maintaining a low uniform vehicle speed" adding to what's already there. Ha! (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with Land Cruiser. archanamiya · talk 23:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As failing WP:N Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital Corporation Limited

Well there is an abundance of press releases and some releases of financial statements, but no evidence of coverage of the company.It appears to have reduced emissions, which is a GoodThing, but not necessarily notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below.[reply]

Delete. Slightly adevertising. I certainly cant see what's so notable about the company, no reliable sources unless Im mistaken. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found an interesting article from the Sydney Morning Herald and added it as a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and cleanup/expand. The company has a revolutionary product and signed agreements with GM and Ford, and has many thousands of reference points --Россавиа ^Диалог 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per information above. I thought I looked under the old name but clearly something was wrong with my search. I almost think the old name needs to be created as a re-direct since it appears to be far more known and notable then the new name. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Maria Remarque Institute

Fails organization notability guidelines by providing no secondary sources which have significant coverage. No reliable sources appear to exist elsewhere. This is just another unremarkable institute at another university. Noetic Sage 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 01:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom it fails WP:ORG with no evidence of notability in doing some quick web searching. Collectonian (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and my own web searching. Possibly redirect to Tony Judt? From my web search, seems like he's more notable than the institute, and he's basically the only thing ever talked about when the institute is mentioned. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial RS coverage and ghits don't assert notability. I'd have liked it to, since I'm aware of it and I'm sure it does good work, but it doesn't seem notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep copious and diverse ghits, active Institute (seminars etc.); news hits are indeed less than expected [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] . JJL (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Although most institutes at universities have hits like these, they do not substantially cover the organization, as is required by the organization notability guidelines. Instead they cover topics presented by the Institute, a member of the Institute, or briefly mention the Institute. This is not good enough.—Noetic Sage 03:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observer (Software)

Non-notable software with a large dollop of WP:COI ukexpat (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is intended to be informational for completeness rather than for promotion. It seemed sensible to create a page for the software when adding it to the lists of NMS software. Adamathefrog (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also say that the software does fill a quite a unique niche, hence mentioning the design goals in the article, which may make it notable, though again that's not the reason for the article's creation. Adamathefrog (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly notable - maybe its just some people do not understand geek-language. And I certainy cant see anything that promotes the software. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick web search finds various independent commentary; the article needs to have this. Also, shouldn't the title be changed to have a lower-case 's'? Ma^t_chups 02:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very good software article and deserves to be a featured list on wikepedia. Dwilso 02:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sometimes people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it. Deletion is a very extreme solution. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a very popular, very well deployed networking monitoring package. It's always good to do research before nominating something for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find this article quite noteable. archanamiya · talk 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Simpsons Ride. John254 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krustyland

This article is about a fictional theme park in a real theme park ride that hasn't opened yet. Does not meet WP:FICT and all relevant information is already mentioned at The Simpsons Ride. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moe's Tavern and Kwik-E-Mart have articles yet they are fake. Maybe the article should be redone so it serves the same purpose as these pages.--Snowman Guy (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moe's Tavern and Kwik-E-Mart have both been in dozens and dozens of episodes of The Simpsons. This place has been in one ride. All of the relevant info about Krustyland can easily be mentioned in the article for the ride. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, i think Krustyland should at least have it's own section in The Simpsons Ride. And also, after the ride opens, Krustyland may be featured in some episodes.--Snowman Guy (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Simpsons Ride. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree, right now there's nothing out-of-universe in the article. Merge userful content to The Simpsons Ride then redirect there. It'd really be a waste to delete good content. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect although i created the article, i think Krustyland should be given it's own section in The Simpsons Ride (as stated above).--Snowman Guy (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If real world info can be found, then certainly, but when the ride does open, odds are that all relevant plot info will be in some kind of synopsis. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allright if a Krustyland section be in the article before soft openings begin, and people find out the synoposis?--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With the simpsons ride Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does not need fictional theme parks. Dwilso 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to the relevant episode and redirect. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Simpsons Ride - per above. Gran² 08:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, certainly recoverable information, just not enough to warrant its own article. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I also think this should be merged with The Simpsons Ride. archanamiya · talk 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per everyone else. Josh Rampart (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. Mr.Z-man 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2008

DELETE Violated WP:NOT#DIR & WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 17:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep You'll have an uphill battle on this one. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Useful - on the Finnish Wikipedia, we surely wouldn't be aware of his death without this. --Jetman (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This listing does not yet appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 3. Why not? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the nominator has not listed this correctly. J Milburn (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I've put it there, but I'm not sure I've dotted all the "i"s, etc. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've formatted this discussion in the usual way, it is now listed properly. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have this for other years. However, this one is formatted differently... Tan | 39 17:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (and maybe speedy) keep. This is very, very established- linked from the main page, etc. If we want to change something like this, AfD is not the root- instead, the village pump, with notices at various places (Talk:Main Page and the like) would be the best way to decide the matter. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I can't believe this is even being considered. extremely foolish. Thismightbezach (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close unless the nomination includes either a rationale for this specific page's deletion, or a reason to discuss all of the similar pages. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW (and/or WP:STEAM). —BradV 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly going to be snowball kept, but I'd like to ask here - do traditional encyclopedias list deaths by year like this as an appendix (obviously there are far less biographies in paper encyclopedias)? I'd like to know more about what Britannica includes, so that I can compare it to WP, having never really spent a great amount of time browsing a high quality paper encyclopedia before. Would Britannica even have an article on Pokemon? I know it's offtopic to this, but it's something I've been curious about for a long time.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on talk page. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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