Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 9: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jerry (talk | contribs)
19,297 edits
commenting-out discussion that was incompletely relisted by somebody else
Line 55: Line 55:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Boyd}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Boyd}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westie (person)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westie (person)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elias Buchwald}}
<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elias Buchwald}} -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keratosis pharyngis}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keratosis pharyngis}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kevin and Lew Show (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kevin and Lew Show (2nd nomination)}}

Revision as of 03:06, 14 September 2008

< September 8 September 10 >

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 Keep (non-admin colsure), very near unanimous keep consensus Fr33kmantalk APW 06:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin

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

The information on this subarticle now has many sources and this duplication is unnecessary. The activity on Palin in general allows POV editors just another avenue to include their edit if it's rejected on the main Palin page or if they want to "sneak" it in by subarticle by passing the consensus process that seems to be working on the main Palin talk page. [First time I've done this, excuse me if I did it wrong] Theosis4u (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some evidence to avoid the main Palin consensus process is here
Talk:Sarah_Palin#Summarizing_Mayoralty_section
The main topics presented in Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin are the following
Energy & Environment , is already covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Energy_and_environment , Sarah_Palin
Budget , is already covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Government_Spending , Sarah_Palin
Matanuska Maid Dairy, ISN'T covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Government_Spending but could be.
Bridge to Nowhere, covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#.22Bridge_to_Nowhere.22 , Sarah_Palin, and Gravina_Island_Bridge
Earmarks, covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Earmarks, Sarah_Palin
Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, covered in Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal , Sarah_Palin
  • Keep - notable? yes. Supported by reliable sources? yes. Threshold for keeping article has been met. Merge and redirect would be the alternative, but I don't see any reason for that. Also, please see WP:POINT. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin has the same debate - though without the insults being offered. Please note, I did place the question on the Talk page of the article and I went back an added the comment about this deletion request I made. I thought that was being responsible and respectful to those involved. I don't see how notable & reliable sources are the only requirements otherwise subartilces could be infinitive. Theosis4u (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, before I goto bed. Looks like this might be a "keeper". Can someone make sure this is communicated very well on the main talk page as well as the politics one? This way, the material is consistent throughout and not contradictory when compared against each other. Sound reasonable? Theosis4u (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the summary style makes sense in the main article. As more information emerges, this article will be a better place for in-depth study of her term as governor than the main article would be. Coemgenus 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To agree with User:SimpleParadox's point below, I think it should be kept, but we should also monitor it to keep it NPOV and within the bounds of its purported subject matter. Coemgenus 17:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge If this article were actually about the Governorship of Sarah Palin, then I might be okay with it. Unfortunately, this article is clearly a POV fork attempting to highlight certain areas of her governorship in a less than neutral light (evidenced by the dozen or so crafted "gotcha" statements in the article). For example, when the lead draws attention to the fact that she has never traveled outside of "North America" (not "Alaska" or "the United States"), a fact that has little to do with one's governance of a state, one can plainly see the purpose of this supposed "Summary". Theosis4u, don't be intimidated, you had it right in the first place. AfD is not a vote count, you've clearly shown that the vast majority of topics covered in this article have been written about in depth elsewhere and your concern that this article is an attempt to evade consensus is valid. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable; sourced; if it were gone, we'd have to make the main article substantially longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepGreat Page , better than the main page, more specific , more detail, and better oveall presentation.. Reduce the blurb in the main article and direct to this page.

--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and reduce the related content in the Sarah Palin article to a summary. We should follow the guideline Wikipedia:Summary style. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Obviously notable. The Sarah Palin article is already huge and loads extremely slowly so merging is a bad option. POV should be dealt with as it comes up. Also, broadly accusing the editors of this page of trying to "sneak" in POV is a failure to assume good faith.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"or if.." and Talk:Sarah_Palin#Summarizing_Mayoralty_section allows others to make up their own minds. Theosis4u (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No policy or real reason for deletion. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make Ya Wanna Do Right

Make Ya Wanna Do Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google came up with no sources that this album exists or is even in the making. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 23:33, 9 September 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. BJTalk 08:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla Bible Church

Wasilla Bible Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable church which lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources for verifiability Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I do not know Jasynnash2 or what his motivations may be. This is the church that Sarah Palin attends. It is drawing significant national attention. The article is well-sourced even from newspaper articles and books that pre-date her candidacy.Elan26 (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Gtstricky, while your opinion is interesting, please note that Time magazine and Newsweeek Magazine disagree with you. Newsweek has an entire article dedicated to this church. Itis on the page. This is, by the way, a large, successful congregation with multiple pastors and written up in at least one book as a model of a sucessful evangelical congregation. it would be notable without Sarah palin. I post Wikipedia articles on churches and synagogues reguarly. Why do I suspect political motivations in this deletion discussion? Is it because the article on her pastor Larry Kroon was deleted without an AFD, despite copious sources? Elan26 (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
I am as unpolitical as you can get. If it was not for Sarah neither of the articles that you cited would have been written and they both focus more on her then the church. But that is just my opinion and that is why we have an AFD process... GtstrickyTalk or C 17:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that her church is getting more press by the minute. Going neutral for a few days but I suspect it will gain notability. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was her old church (Wasilla Assembly of God) getting the press today [1] GtstrickyTalk or C 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • grudging keep- I'm basing this on two things. One, the precedent that we have an article on Trinity United Church of Christ, a church that became notable in the press because of one member (Barack Obama) and its pastor (Jeremiah Wright). And second, this church has gotten some press lately thanks to the nomination for VP of Sarah Palin. There's already enough this press to make it notable, and more will likely be forthcoming. As long as NPOV rules are adhered to, I see no problem with keeping this article. I may not like it, but my personal feelings are not important. Its a valid article topic. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The Time article itself says the church is "...similar to "thousands of conservative evangelical churches across the country." Or: "'the largest and most influential' churches in Wasilla" ? Wasilla has 8500 people, so this is hardly a claim to notability. It's only notable because of Palin, and so should only be on her page. I will stand corrected if there is press coverage of the church as doing something distinctive itself. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Justinfr, all high schools are similar, all Presbyterian and Catholic churches are similar. All sunni mosques are similar. Nevertheless, we give the big ones and the ones that draw attention because they have notable members, notable pastors, or notable buildings on Wikipedia. This church is large, and it is bein gdiscussed in the media. Newsweek published an entire article about it because people want to know. One of the things the article said is that it is "similar" to thousands of other large, American, Evangelical churches. This paints a picture, it does not lessen the notability of the chuch. Notre Dame is similar to a score of other gothic cathedrals. that doesn't mean that we should take th epage down.Elan26 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Point taken. It would just be nice if the article included more than, "This is the church that Sarah Palin attends." That could just as easily be on her page. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDelete I think this fails WP:NOT#NEWS, actually, since the only reason the church is being covered is because a particular politician attends. I'm inclined to think this should be Transwiki'ed to Wikinews, since there will likely never be additional RS coverage of this particular congregation once the presidential race is over. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, Your argument would be more convincing if you would explain why you have not proposed the Trinity United Church of Christ for deletion. Trinity United got a wikipedia page on Feb. 12, 2008. when a individual is chosen to run for President at least in part because of teh support she will dreaw from fellow evangelical Christians, her church and her pastor beocme notable.Elan26 (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sound argument Mayalld (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There is a related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry KroonElan26 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS completely non-notable. Mayalld (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Umbralcortex gives an overall good argument for keeping and given prior news coverage before this the church likely meets notability criteria even without the Palin matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable on its own. Seems to be a coatrack for hanging various controversies on, the article really says very little about the church itself or its history. Kelly hi! 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a coatrack. Nothing in the article, or the sources, argues for the notability of the church. It is simply a cover for another Sarah Palin article. Resolute 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply not a notable church simply because of one of its members. The pastor is equally non-notable, by Wikipedia standards. Keeper ǀ 76 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is ludicrous. Maybe the church is influential in Wasilla. There are less than 9,000 people in Wasilla. You heard this from the Alaskan horse's mouth: no one cares about Wasilla. Notablility isn't transferable, coatrack, etc etc. I'm feeling like a broken record. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepComment A controversy related to certain entities related to Sarah Palin has arisen in the Wikipedia community. This includes articles involving Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church. Discussions are heated because of the political environment, and allegations of censorship.

I argue as follows for inclusion of articles on some of her former teachers, pastors, churches, and schools, but not inclusion of others.

The Wikipedia:Notability policy allows for articles on persons or entities known only because they are related to major historical figures in some circumstances.

The teachers of historical figures, thinkers, mathematicians, painters, scientists, etc., are all notable for their relation to the ideas or actions of the historical figure. This is especially true if the teacher made controversial statements, and the same kind of controversial statements are what made the historical figure notable.

For example, suppose writings of the philosophy teacher of Socrates were discovered. The teacher would be known only for their relation to Socrates. But no one would argue that verifiable information about “the philosophy teacher of Socrates” would be of intense intellectual interest, and if anything, would be valid for a Wikipedia article. In fact, if you noticed the link for philosophy teacher of Socrates, you likely would want to see who it is and what their ideas are.

If Sarah Palin had a meteorology teacher who teaches the controversial idea that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Since Palin is notable for her controversial position on global warming, that teacher and their ideas would become notable.

But Palin’s high school astronomy teacher, even if he or she had controversial views, would not be noteworthy, as Palin is not known for her astronomy policy.

Arguments for The Alaska Pipeline put forth by Governor Palin, and for the War in Iraq by Vice Presidential Candidate Palin, explicitly included both being God’s Will. The former is consistent with the ideas of Larry Kroon. The later are explicitly the stated controversial ideas of her teacher in this area, Ed Kalnins. Ed Kalnins thereby becomes notable by his relationship to the controversial ideas of Palin, not just by his relation to Palin. This makes Kalnins notable in itself, while a former pastor of Palin who did not teach this would not be notable.

All of the teachers, schools, churches, or theories that teach controversial ideas, if they are the same as controversial ideas by which Palin has become notable, are thus notable.

They are notable for their relationship, not just to Palin, but to the policies and ideas by which Palin has become noteworthy.

Churches and pastors of Palin that are not linked to controversial policies of Palin are not notable.

Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church have been the subject of controversy in The Atlantic Monthly, Newsweek, the Chicago Tribune, New Jersey Times of Trenton, ABC News, MSNBC, and other news sources. But suppose they were not. These kinds of problems are going to recur, so a general policy for handling these should be arrived at. EricDiesel (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. No where does WP:NOTE state that notability in inherited by association to another topic (ie. Sarah Palin). So your whole diatribe claiming that notability is inherited is not supported by the notability guideline and therefore irrelevant. --Farix (Talk) 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent notability. rootology (C)(T) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

Thaaaat would explain why its back open again. I just thought I was going crazy.Umbralcorax (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't be compared to Trinity United Church of Christ with Obama, as the church in that instance was significant in the story, whereas this Church really isn't. Just can't see a reason to keep forking the topic matter. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly. Yes, this church's notability comes chiefly from national attention being paid to Sarah Palin's religious and political beliefs. It may not have been notable six months ago. So what? Ford's Theatre was a minor local venue until it became a center of attention for reasons entirely unrelated to its actual stage productions. Very simply, Sarah Palin's being elevated to a major party Presidential ticket, based at least in part on her appeal to evangelical Christians, has cast the spotlight of history on her religious background. This means that the churches she attends easily meet the basic requirements of substantial third party coverage in reliable sources.

    This is not a "coatrack article". That amounts to a claim that bad faith motivates the attention these churches have received in the media, and therefore the existence of an article on this church. This is a two edged sword; it strikes me instead that a prodigious amount of Wiki-lawyering is going on to remove these articles, or failing that to gut them and remove most of their substance. I have every confidence that a good enough article can be written about these churches and the substance of their teachings. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one took an awful lot of consideration but I have to agree with Smerdis of Tlön with regards to the substantial coverage that this church has received. What have we learned from Mzoli's? JBsupreme (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I was looking for it on Wikipedia (that led me here) others will be looking for it - articles that people may look for should be kept! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Strong - FOX News just did a long segment on the church, with barely a mention of Palin, about its style of speaking in tongues, coming convention to pray to convert gays to straights, and longstanding relationship with Jews for Jesus and David Brickner. EricDiesel (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric, do you have a link for that? I may change my stance if so. Keeper ǀ 76 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator is clearly wrong about sources, and there will be plenty more. Palin has made this one notable, like it or not. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources in article all seem to be about a politician, and not about the church. The church itself appears to be get any discussion because of career of one of it's former parishoners, and as such isn't itself notable. If necessary redirect to Sarah Palin. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consider this a strong endorsement for keep. I just turned to Wikipedia for information about this church and honestly I'm shocked that we're trying to delete the article about it. If there is a content issue it can be resolved through the normal editorial channels but this is clearly a notable church as per our own notability guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Keep -- I am not convinced that this church is a great deal more notable than many others. Nevertheless, it is comparatively harmless, if it can be trimmed of the WP:COATRACK issues currently in it. That Sarah Palin is a member is worth mentioning. This also applies to the gay-diversion and Brickner issues, but at present they have an excessive prominence, probably attempts at innuendo from opponents of Sarah Palin. NOTE - I may have commented above - not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Smerdis. The church is now notable due to Sarah Palin's current attendence. She identifies as a conservative Christian, that is an important issue in her campaign for the vice presidency, and this is the church she has chosen to attend.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Notability is not inherited. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Temporarily a hot topic because of its famous congregant, and only included on Wikipedia because of the huge battle on Wikipedia to paint Sarah Palin as the best thing since sliced bread/the embodiment of evil. Other than that the church is entirely unnotable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 2

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The media has covered the clothes of Sarah Palin. That doesn't mean her skirt deserves a separate Wikipedia article. The intro of the article actually makes a case for the church being like thousands of other churches, rather than to establish any lasting notability. It deserves mentioning in the Sarah Palin article and in the Wasilla article, but not an article of it's own. -Duribald (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has become of widespread public interest, as shown by RS/. That's the basic definition of unquestionable notability. DGG (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to be of the view that this should be kept. The article has now been pruned of all elements of WP:COATRACK, leaving a short, but non-trivial, article. Voted above. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral There are a bunch of sources, but it kills its own notability in the article IMO with this sentence:...Wasilla as being similar to "thousands of conservative evangelical churches across the country. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and optionally redirect per WP:BEFORE. This is a rather obvious search term, and, the deletion policy is clear that in such cases the page should not be deleted, but redirected to a more appropriate article. Neier (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how WP:Before applies. The clarity you mention is not so clear to me. This article has established notability per WP:N, and should just be kept, not redirected. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N says: "...substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability." Listing sources is thus not a guarantee of notability. See my comment above. -Duribald (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEWS for me. This church is only being covered in the media cos a currently famous person sometimes went in to it. Has nothing of lasting notability to say about it. We don't have articles for all the other VP candidates in histroy, indicating that as soon as the election is over, this church will no longer be interesting to the news, and it's current "notability" is a temporary mirage.Yobmod (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean that it fails Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS?! -Duribald (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Minutiae from presidential campaigns can be remembered - and certainly is of historical interest - for a long time after the event. After all, people still remember Checkers the dog. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When will it end?! Grsztalk 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP With the New York Times interviewing the Pastor in a story that ran in half a dozen European newspapers (really, you can read about this cuhrch in Swedish, German, French...) the notability is patent. Of Course people are only interested inthis church because it is where Sarah palin prays. But with Sarah Palin now having a non negligible chance of becoming the President of the United States, everything about a church that shapes and/or reflects her beliefs is notable.Elan26 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Only one !vote per AFD please. Thank you GtstrickyTalk or C 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I thought it was a new AFD. Because the page had been taken down a week or so ago.Elan26 (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
  • Delete Not notable on its own. As an aside, if the Obama supporters were working as hard on his campaign as they are on trashing Sarah Palin here at Wikipedia, he might not be tanking in the polls. CENSEI (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, asides are just yucccchy, mmmkay... Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as notability is not inherited. Tavix (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stunners

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

Non-notable band with claims of notability. Parts of the article were copied from this cached version of their Myspace page. No sources, they haven't done anything yet. Only 15 Google hits for '"the stunners" kiyoko'. Corvus cornixtalk 22:55, 9 September 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), consensus is to keep (merge), I'll place a merge tag on page Fr33kmantalk APW 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Route C1

Massachusetts Route C1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article doesn't give any information to establish the notability of the road, and the road ceased to exist under that name in 1971. When I nominated it for PROD, Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) commented "(numbered routes are likely noteworthy)". I don't see that that's so. There are thousands and thousands of numbered roads. All numbering generally means is that the roads are under a particular authority that is using numbers to identify them. Many of them go from point A to point B, may have certain buildings or facilities on them that are themselves notable, or residents who are notable, but that doesn't make the street on which they live notable for its own sake, justifying an article in an encyclopedia. If there is anything notable about the road, I believe the article needs to give some indication of what it is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Into an article of loops of Route 1, or Delete as non notable per WP:USRD/NT Admrb♉ltz (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a state-numbered route and Massachusetts does not have a secondary highway system so, as is, it does qualify for inclusion under WP:USRD/NT. That said, this is more like a bannered route of US 1 and should be merged there as their histories are intertwined. --Polaron | Talk 23:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the article you cited: "However, the article should still make some claim of the highway's individual notability, such as historical significance, press coverage, etc. ... Highways that have very little to say about them (i.e. those that are extremely short and have no historical significance) may be better suited to a list, ...." —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You think the existence of a redirect to US 1 is harmful? --Polaron | Talk 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It's likely that people reading about C1 would be interested in US_1_(MA) and vice-versa. A redirect would allow C1 to exist as an entry in lists or templates. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Polaron. This information should not be deleted wholesale. --Son (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as appropriate. No need to delete the information. For those of you who don't know Boston, the Central Artery is the epitome of noteworthiness in the city. Identifying C1 with the Central Artery is definitely a strong claim of notability. Fg2 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While simply having a number isn't a gauge of notability, being assigned a number as part of the state highway system is, due to the large number of roads in any given state and the small fraction of which become a state highway. Precedent: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nevada State Route 401, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia SR Loop 120, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia State Route 10, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York State Route 365, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 91, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebraska Spur 10A. See also User:Scott5114/Highway notability FAQ. At the very least this could be merged to whatever highway it became. It does need expansion, though.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I suppose precedent is precedent, but just as a gauge of the quality of that precedent, it's like saying that only a small fraction of US university students receives the honor of induction in Phi Beta Kappa, so all members of Phi Beta Kappa are inherently notable on that account and worth of a Wikipedia article even if there isn't anything to be said about them other than the fact of their PBK membership. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When roads are put in the state highway system, however, the routes receive state maintenance, extra signage (shields), and other such benefits. For the DOT to justify spending state money on these things, the route has to be important enough to warrant it (e.g. high traffic volumes, or being the most direct route into a town or between two cities). By taking on its maintenance, a state DOT asserts that the road is important on a statewide scale, not merely a local one. Only a tiny percentage of roads get this honor. (By the way, just because a route has been decommissioned (the designation is no longer active) it can still have a decent article written about it—see M-554, which is a Good Article.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate what you're saying about the importance and value of these roads, but as a general matter importance is not equivalent to notability, at least in my opinion. My county's sewage system is tremendously important—we couldn't do without it—and the local government pours plenty of money into it, but I wouldn't call it noteworthy. What would an article about it say? "Arlington County's sewage system serves the sewage needs of the residents and businesses of Arlington County." —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I may interject here, that's a false analogy. There are plenty of roadgeeks (hobbyists) and map lovers who would want to know what these city routes were, where they went and why they were superseded. Not too many of those for sewers. It is somewhat more like a person interested in postage stamps who wants to know: "why were there 'Special Delivery' stamps?" Sswonk (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Plus, highways are more visible to the public than sewer systems. Most people don't know and don't have any reason to care about which sewer line they're on, and where all the various branches lead to, because it's all underground and they don't interact with it on a daily basis. However, most people probably have to know where the various highways spreading out from their city lead to. Also, suppose someone was doing research on a topic through newspaper archives, and late 1960s article makes some reference to an event occurring along Route C1, or a building along it. A modern reader would most likely be unaware of this highway...it's conceivable they might turn to Wikipedia for the needed information on this old highway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Polaron. State highways are notable as per Scott5114, however, it is a former state highway. It should be associated with Massachusetts Route 1A or U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts, perhaps, as a bypass of US-1. When I stubbed this article it was from information in the article on the Central Artery, but I see that it has since been added to. --Tckma (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoever merges this needs to find sources. A 1964 map shows Route C1 following present Route 1A and US 1 through East Boston. A 1950 map (pre-Central Artery) concurs, and shows the route west of downtown. I see that Polaron has already corrected it; thank you. Maybe a merge with Massachusetts Route 1A would make sense? --NE2 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Instead of merging with Massachusetts Route 1A or U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts, there is also the possibility of creating a new article such as Massachusetts City Routes and including it there with route descriptions of other C routes prior to 1971. Someone with good sources could start that article and it would certainly satisfy WP:N as a road history. Sswonk (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts#Route_C1--Rumping (talk) 11:17, 11 September 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), consensus is to keep or improve (keep) Fr33kmantalk APW 19:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Rock Recording Co.

Arena Rock Recording Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This company appears to be mainly a resale operation. I searched for news articles etc. to determine notability and found nothing that would indicate this is a notable subject or an article that could be expanded per Wikipedia guidelines even to stub status. The companies commercial link has been added to several articles as an external link, also in violation of guidelines for article content WP:EL Awotter (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's a circular argument, but criterion five of WP:BAND, the notability guideline for musicians, says: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." So it appears that since ARRC has been around for a few years and many of the artists on the label are notable, the label itself is notable. In other words, if the label is used to confer notability on artists, then perhaps it is notable. On the other hand, pending the discovery of some good sources, this probably wouldn't pass the notability guidelines for companies. It's a toss-up, but I'd lean towards keep, especially because many articles link to it. A Google News search looks like it mentions bands on the label but not much on the label itself, I don't have time to check further today. Katr67 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the reply Katr67, I've checked at least five (randomly) of the artists groups mentioned and in only one case (so far) did they appear to have any original producing/distribution connection to any released music material. That article didn't cite any references so I'm still skeptical that the person adding the material and links isn't doing so to drive traffic to his/her commercial site via external links, but if the article can be legitimately expanded w/out the kruft that's fine and it should stay.Awotter (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, barely. I've added a few sources, and there were a lot more (about 66 hits searching US newspapers) that show they are/were involved with many of the bands listed in the article. Its minimal coverage of the label. But, Willamette Week has a fair amount of coverage, but most is in the form of editorials. Now these do count towards notability (from a WP:RS, independent of the subject, substantial coverage), but as editorials the use of info will be limited per WP:RS, so I'm not sure how many can be worked into the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Nomination withdrawn. Great job sourcing this article, you completely fixed it up. Abusing (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Overtrick

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

Non-notable race horse. It is only mentioned in the pages for the races it won, which should be enough. Also, it mentions the term used in the game Bridge, which does not belong in this article and is not worthy of it's own article. Abusing (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Maybe notable if the world records bit could be substantiated, but even so, that was in '63. Dare I say... horsecruft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgerzilla (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "That was in '63" is a reason for deletion? Then let's delete John F. Kennedy. Notability does not expire, whether for a president or a horse. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete- should be saved and perhaps expanded. Overtrick was and is a very influential sire and a winner of triple crown races. Just because it happened a while ago doesn't mean it should be deleted.LPWRHR (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google Books search quickly finds a book source that has six pages about this horse, starting with "Overtrick is considered by many to be one of the greatest pacers of all time". Sounds pretty notable to me. And there's a pretty simple solution to the inclusion of irrelevant content about bridge - just edit it out. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 12 September 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, for now. Keeper ǀ 76 19:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truth (Keyshia Cole album)

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

Unreleased album with no release date fails WP:MUSIC. The article is nothing but rumour and speculation at present; delete without prejudice to allow recreation when confirmed. Ros0709 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 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), consensus seems to keep Fr33kmantalk APW 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrvand

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

This article is a thinly-veiled advertisement for a foreign-language newspaper based in Canada. There are no sources cited at all, not even the paper's own web site. Only Google hits are directory-style listing, the paper's own site and this very article (#2 ranked). Claims to be largest Persian-language newspaper in North America, but there is nothing to verify this. Looks like a copy-and-paste from some source. I posted warning tags on this article and waited for improvement, but none has been forthcoming. Time to go. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I could find no verification online, and since it is a free-circulation paper, there are no audited circulation numbers to be had. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:31, 10 September 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. MBisanz talk 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomingdale Court

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

Non-notable strip mall. No references. No real history. Nothing notable about it. Not even a website. WP is not a directory. TheListUpdater (talk) 21:46, 9 September 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 Wtihdraw. I have added 5 reviews and the movie's NYT movie page that MQS found. Schuym1 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18 Fingers of Death!

18 Fingers of Death! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources for this movie that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources are out there, as it was Pat Morita's last film appearance. However, I was myself in the film in a very, very, very, very tiny role. With declaration of possible WP:COI, would I be allowed to at least bring these sources to the AfD? I will not argure for keep nor edit the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the big deal is about you adding sources to this AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of what I found: filmcriticsunited, asianimpact, filmfiend, vh1, homemediamagazine (5th review on page), variety production chart, usadojo, nytimes, cduniverse, hkcinemagic, moviesonline, hkflix, dvdtalk, And to show some international interest, there's movieebox (Sewedish), zelluloid (German), dvd-palace (German). the first 7 or 8 are fair for WP:RS, and the rest are supportive per WP:V. Hope these help the article to be improved. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:26, 10 September 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 nom withdrawn. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Doyle

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

Does not, at first or second glance, meet WP:N. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I GNews'd the wrong name! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:35, 9 September 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. Breaks rather evenly down both sides. MBisanz talk 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. McCarthy

Patrick M. McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reasons
  1. Personal Attack: The article is about a living person, yet ascribes actions to the person that are not supported by the linked information. The article appears to be politically drive, not objective and reasoned as required.
  2. Not Notable: The subject's actions have not been notable, and include commenting on a few situations and being a "senior navy appraiser." The subjects are already covered in separate categories.
  3. Cites: The cites include an opinion piece from the Huffington Post, insinuating the subject of lying. This is libelous. Further, the cites include news from an interview summarizing the statements, but also from a political point of view. Another cite is an unascribed piece of paper showing a list of "senior navy appraisers." This is simply not noteworthy, and the cites suffer on reliability grounds.
  4. For a full reason, see Discussion page on this subject. Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or Speedy Close as Disrupted This article is notable, and I have been monitoring the situation with this page, this user seems to have made it their mission to continually vandalise, blank, and now attempt to delete this page.--UltraMagnus (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly take note that this request for deletion has been in full accordance with Wikipedia's policies, and I will be keeping the policy of civility in my responses in mind. The articles lacks notability, except by what you have yourself stated. I would respectfully request that the "notable" character of this article be detailed so that we may have a true debate on this subject. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, while the article does have problems, McCarthy is notable as the lead attorney at Guantanamo. It should be hashed out on the talk page, not by calling for the entire article to be deleted. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. Subject has clearly been a position of some legal authority, first as Naval Commander and later as Captain, at Gitmo. However, the coverage I find such as this (not all-inclusive) is really not coverage of him but rather statements by him with respect to Gitmo. I don't think this confers notability. He may well have other claims to notability, but they aren't in this article (and aren't forthcoming in searches I tried). Now, having said all that, I get the feeling that the nomination and response above are part of some larger dispute; I apologize in advance if that is incorrect. If it is correct, please understand that my position to delete this article is based only on the article and my examination of sources and has nothing to do with any dispute that may be brewing just underneath the surface. Let's focus on the content, which is the reason we are here.  Frank  |  talk  21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Frank. I have been trying to stay above the fray on this, and have tried to stay objective. The links provided would better be served under subject tabs, and the individual does not merit his own page on this issue. Thus, issues such as "Beard Shaving" belong under an article in interrogation techniques, detainee suicides under the subject, etc. They are merely commentary, and lack any specific notable effect on the actual issues. Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again - I'm not "taking sides" here. This is strictly about the content.  Frank  |  talk  00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if article stands as is. The article is a hackjob on the man, and a case in point of why we have template:coatrack. I'm not in favor of deleting an article altogether, but as it stands, this article is awful, and is better off not existing at all on Wikipedia, if only for personal dignity. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some clean-up, putting his notability in the introduction, shortening some coatrack issues and such, would appreciate if you could do the same so the article is salvageable Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sherurcij: I saw the changes you made to the article, but Magog's description pretty much sums this entire thing up. The fact he was an attorney at GITMO is irrelevant. What makes it "notable" is what he has done according to the sources, which is not much. Instead, we are sourced to items of dubious merit that reflect opinion pieces and uses selective terms within them. His comments are basically irrelevant to the larger issues. Instead, we are asked to consider wider issues and selective facts and then to ascribe motives to statements he has made. This is template:coatrack. It's simply not salvageable. It is what it is.Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he is the lead attorney at Guantanamo is actually quite notable and relevant. I agree that his opinion on detainee suicides seems irrelevant, but he deserves an article certainly. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not. The "notable" person is the person he advised - The Base Commander. He is no more notable than you or I going to work, or some guy going to Iraq, or some guy cleaning the street. Such individuals only become "notable" when they do something as part of their job or in defiance thereof that is "noteworthy." In this case, the job itself is non-descript, it is whether he actually did something that counts. And the sources do not reveal that he, in fact, did anything out of the ordinary other than do his job. Statements do not cut it.Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.
    • Patrick M. McCarthy submitted an important affidavit. This affidavit, which claimed the captives' habeas counsel were violating national security, was the basis of a motion to attempt to severely limit captive's access to their lawyers. It was important. His role is important, because he was the liason with the habeas attorneys. I think he would be "notable" for this alone. McCarthy was also interviewed for 24 minutes on a nationwide broadcast, his opinions have been frequently quoted, on a variety of topics, in prominent newspapers, for an extended period of time.
    • I am very disappointed by this nomination, because the concerns raised in it should have been more properly raised on the article's talk page. Our nominator is a newbie. This is the first article they edited. This nomination states that the article does not comply with policy, but I suspect the nominator hasn't understood our policies yet.
    • Many of the concerns, if they held merit, would simply not be criteria for deletion.
    • I am completely mystified by the concern that the article contains personal attacks. I believe a concern like this should have been brought up on the article's talk page, in a civil, specific manner.
    • This nomination states that the article should be deleted because it "appears to be politically drive [sic]". Actually, our nominator has already made clear the original reasons he or she thinks the article should be deleted. The nominator left an offensive note on my user page stating that my main emphasis was to endanger American GIs and their families. Nominator seemed to be saying that this article, and similar articles, endanger GIs and make them the target of terrorist retaliation. Personally, I think this fear is unrealistic. If nominator could make a credible case that this article put McCarthy at risk I would agree to suppress it.
    • Our nominator has also stated we are obliged to get permission from every individual we write about, and that this article should be deleted because we didn't get McCarthy's permission first. Our nominator has also stated we are obliged to get permission from every individual who image we display -- even if those images are in the public domain. (I sought other's opinions on this claim, here.)
    • I find our nominator's competing assertions confusing. They think McCarthy is prominent enough to be the target of terrorist retaliation, but they don't think he is prominent enough to merit coverage on the wikipedia? I suggest that anyone believed to be at risk of terrorist retaliation -- like Valerie Plame -- would merit coverage here for that fact alone.
    • Our nominator has objected to the inclusion of a reference to McCarthy being a "senior JAG assessor", and has repeatedly removed that reference -- and has cited that reference as a justification for deleting this article. The reference is not important, but does give an indication as to what McCarthy has been doing since he finished his stint in Guantanamo. This reference is certainly not grounds for deletion. As I stated above, the nominator's justifications for deletion include many concerns which should have been raised on the article's talk page.
    • Our nominator has objected to the use of a reference to an article Andy Worthington, the author of a book on Guantanamo, wrote for the Huffington Post, calling it an unreliable cite. To the best of my knowledge the Huffington Post is a reliable source, because the authors who write there include authoritative experts -- like Worthington. Even if, for the sake of argument, this particular reference was not an RS, that would not be grounds for deletion.
    • Our nominator interpreted Worthington's comments as asserting that McCarthy had lied. Nominator called this "libelous". This is not grounds for deletion. The wikipedia's policy on neutrality point of view does not allow contributors to insert personal opinions. But it does allow us to include the personal opinions of Reputable sources. Including the opinions of reputable sources, while maintaining a neutral point of view, is not a violation of policy. And, even if the nominator was concerned that the coverage of Worthington's comments lapsed from neutrality, that should have been the subject of a talk page discussion. It is not grounds for deletion.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to geoswan:

Please review the guidelines on personal attacks before posting again. Thank you.

It should be noted that the source link provided asks anyone who utilizes sources to differentiate between an opinion piece and an actual scholarly work. The Huffington Post has never been noted for its "non-opinionated" stance on anything, and is hardly the sort of bastion of scholarly work and integrity that this site strives to have linked to its work. Indeed, its political bent to the left is well known, and well documented. It suffers as a source from a lack of "objectivity," something Wikipedia strives for in all of its articles as a policy. The piece cited and written by Worthington is, indeed, an "opinion piece." It contains within it an admission that he does not know what happened to the subjects of the story, but he provides a conspiracy theory based on his admittedly uninformed opinion, lacking in facts. This is not worthy of being cited, expect to the degree that its inclusion is template:coatrack. Its opinion-driven conclusions do not make the subject "notable."

The item included as "Senior JAG Assessor" appears to be a piece of paper with no context. Far from the contributor's assessment of value, it does little to show what the subject has been doing of late, but merely reflects an assigned duty (probably one of many) and is not worthy of inclusion. Again, however, we are asked to assume this somehow makes this person "notable?" How precisely?

The commentator states that the subject provided an Affidavit. Is this notable? Most attorneys sign pleadings on most days. The simple fact that they did their job, and it got sourced in a newspaper story once is hardly "notable." Indeed, Wikipedia makes it clear that a short spurt of coverage in the news does not qualify for making a living person "notable" The same applies to any of the stories linked. There is no "notability" for inclusion on this site.

The commentor states an incredulous line of debate that "if a person could be the target of terrorists, how is he not notable?" Under this reasoning, any soldier, sailor or marine who wears a uniform is "notable" because he could be targeted by terrorists while walking around in Baghdad. Again, how does this make the actual subject of the story "notable?"

In conclusion, this story should be deleted primarily because the subject is not "notable." "Notability" is instead driven by the opinion of the author who sees the events at Guantanamo as notable, and who will then strive to use the story of a living person to drive home that point. The presence of one person at the base is simply not enough to provide a "notable" status. This is a coathanger, or a "hackjob" as has been previously stated. The story should, therefore, be deleted.

Sincerely, Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article does not make sense in my eyes one bit. Delete it. --RoryReloaded (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability backed by multiple non-trivial sources. Clearly a public figure, deserving of coverage. Megapixie (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide any sources that are about the subject of this article, rather than just containing quotes from him? I only see one in the article that appears to be an interview of him, and that's not really about him - it's about Gitmo and he happens to be of interest as the head lawyer at the time. Notability is not inherited.  Frank  |  talk  02:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank: Could we reach a consensus then that the page be deleted, and the links can then be used for separate articles on Guantanamo and/or the War on Terror? In other words, Guantanamo is notable, as is its prisons, but the links reflect comments on: (1) The Suicides of Detainees [There is a separate article on this]; (2) Grooming [There is are multiple articles on this subject]; (3) Interrogation techniques as they have evolved over time [There is a separate article on this]; and (4) an affidavit in a court case [There is are multiple articles on these as well]. I agree that there is a lack of notability because the subject's own actions are not listed, and notability, as you have observed, is not inherited. So why not just allow the links that reflect comments on the larger issues to be used in the articles they apply to? That would allow the cites to be used when the article involves "notable" events, providing context to existing articles on these subjects. Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- Our nominator's suggestions immediately above suggest to me that they may not have yet fully explored what makes the wikipedia different from a conventional, linear, paper encyclopedia. Captain McCarthy is a recurring figure. He played a central role as a liason between the prison and the captives' habeas counsel. He played a central role in the efforts to restrict access between the habeas counsel and their clients. He played a central role in reporting the deaths of the four men the DoD described as suicides, being the first person to offer a first hand account of key details. He was a vocal advocate of the DoD's account that the captives were being treated humanely. He could be mentioned in all these articles. But it is a disservice to readers to not have a central place which would allow readers who were reading about the suicides, or the affidavits, to look into McCarthy's other roles. That central place should be the article about him.
Ideally, I would like this article to contain more details about his life before Guantanamo, where he went to school, his civilian legal career, his previous posts, his posts following Guantanamo, year of birth. Our nominator keeps deleting the brief reference I found to what Captain McCarthy has been doing in the last couple of months. Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another concern -- Our nominator is a newcomer, and has been doing something that has bugged me in the occasional {{afd}} other nominators have made. It seems to me that when someone has nominated an article for deletion they are announcing they don't think there is any way it can be fixed. So why not quit editing it, and let people who think it merits efforts to improve it have a free hand? Our nominator has made something like a dozen edits to the article after making the nomination. None of them seem to be of an emergency nature. Please, if are on record as favoring delete, unless it is an emergency, why not keep your hands off, and let those who are looking at the article for the first time see it as those who think it has a future believe it should be seen? Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thank you. I note that you have also made numerous edits 'after' the nomination was made, which were considered a "hack job" by Magog the Ogre for the light in which they cast the subject. In any event, I have yet to see why the subject is "notable." The fact that you cannot find a single fact about him other than a piece of paper that lists "Senior JAG Appraisers," with numerous others, and a few quotes from news stories that talk about some general observations of larger events, devoid of accomplishments, tends to support the lack of notability of the subject. Indeed, pointing to the fact that the individual may become "notable" after further research is often referred to as a "crystal ball argument."

Again, why not use the cites to support the separate subjects to which they apply as proposed to Frank supra? I think this is a modest consensus.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close as disrupted The article properly discusses the subject. At least it would, if the nom. would not try to mangle the article. I am reluctant to talk about bad faith nominations, but I call attention to the incredible edits described at [2] and especially the almost unbelievable abuse on a user page at [3]. (the nom was briefly blocked for them by another admin) Personally, I would regard this as reason for closing the AfD. someone else can later restart it, but the actions of the nom have contaminated this beyond all hope. The only reason I do not do this myself is my long-standing interest in defense of similar articles. DGG (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I'm trying to keep this civil and dispassionate. I can only hope others keep that in mind.
What in this article is "notable?" To date, the defense of this article appears to be engaging in attacks on the nominator, yet not one of these tacts actually "debates" the issue of whether the subject is "notable."
Let me summarize what I see:
1. There is no significant sources independent of the subject's comments provided;
2. There is a total lack of any secondary biographical sources that detail why the subject is notable;
3. The article is largely comprised of quotes by the subject with reference to larger issues, but with no independent actions that make him notable.
Again, please adhere to the the civility policy. Please debate the issue of why this article should remain. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with DGG, it is hard for anyone to make an objective assessment of this article's value when you continuously disrupt it and the editors that try to contribute to it.--UltraMagnus (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I see you have failed to take note that the article has been altered by Sherurcij on September 10, 2008 in order to tone it down, and it has remained essentially untouched since that date? The article stands or falls on its own merit, or lack thereof, and the issues are notability/lack thereof, secondary biographical sources/lack thereof, and accomplishments/lack thereof. I think it would be better if you debated its value as it stands on those grounds. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per DGG and UltraMagnus. Wikipedia and AfD are not supposed to be battlegrounds. Creating or nurturing a contentious environment are not helpful to a collaborative environment. -- Banjeboi 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Benji: Thank you for your input. I agree, Afd is not supposed to be a battleground, and I have tried my very best to make this an actual debate on the issues on this page. So far, my attempts have failed in regards to people who want this article to remain.
So, I ask again that anyone who thinks this article should remain provide the reasons regarding why the article should remain. The issues are notability/lack thereof, secondary biographical sources/lack thereof, and accomplishments/lack thereof. If you feel the article's subject is notable, please articulate reasons why the subject is notable through his accomplishments from the sources. If you feel the sources are reliable and list these accomplishments in some sort of detail, please articulate why and how these sources are reliable and/or generally accepted. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I note that my suggestion to link the sources and facts stated in the article proposed for deletiom with articles already in existence has already been followed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_captives%27_mail_privileges#New_rules
In light of this fact (even though the link is obviously Coatrack as well), do we have a consenses? Delete the article, and simply merge the links into other sources on the larger issues when appropriate for reference.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[4] ? Megapixie (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Megapixie: Thank you for the link. Do you have anything to add as to why this article should be kept along the lines of the issues presented and previously discussed? Thank you again. Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: [5]. Note that Magog edited it back to the original. I believe his opinion on the article has been stated previously. Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm curious about your WP:COI on this matter. Here you introduced links here that require a login that would typically only be used by a lawyer or a government employee (or perhaps a combination of both). Would you care to explain which you are ? Megapixie (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please debate the merits of the article, Mega. You too can have a Pacer Account if you would like to sign up for one, and your request for my identity is specifically rejected as outrageously inappropriate.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't deny that you might have a conflict of interest ? Megapixie (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I deny I have a conflict of interest. So, now that's behind us, kindly articulate a reason, other than a personal attack, why you think this article should remain. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is nearly 100% coatrack, and has been from the start. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bart: I took my lumps for that, and you're right, it was wrong. There's nothing I can really do about it, and I have not repeated that course of action, nor will I do so in the future. If I had known about this feature when I joined the site, I would have put it up immediately upon seeing the article. In any event, I think I have placed forward a serious, good faith argument as to why this article should be deleted, which is set forth above and not worth rehashing.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article and Salt the nominator. Well, at least prohibit him from editing this article ever again. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Thank you. What about the content? Is the subject "notable?" That's the question I would like answered. What is reflected within the article to show what he has "done" as opposed to "said." Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are a vandal with unclean hands. The evidence of your behavior in this case demonstrates that under no condition, even the complete and utter failure of this article to meet inclusion standards (which I do not assert, for the record) should your desire be granted. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Well, there it is then. Thank you for your position. I still think without a single edit, with no action whatosever from me, as it stood well before the actions you describe, this article would still violate template:coatrack and not involve a notable person.[6]the original versionYachtsman1 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as disrupted per DGG and UltraMagnus. Somebody should pound a stake into this AfD.John Z (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are some formatting issues, but there are reliable and verifiable sources that support a claim of notability based on his role with Guantanamo prisoners. The Wikipedia:Notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 00:26, 14 September 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. Independent films with no reliable sources or much of anything else does not assert notability seicer | talk | contribs 13:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Creature, The(2005 movie)

Unknown Creature, The(2005 movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Independent" film without real release, reliable sources, or evidence of notability. Was PROD'ded, bringing to AfD due to complaint by creator on his talk page as a response to the PROD notification. gnfnrf (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even IMDB doesn't have anything, and that is user edited and usually includes plenty of nonnotable movies as well. The fact that it had a $200 budget (less than the average porn flick) doesn't support the notability, nor the fact that it wasn't ever screened (straight to dvd/vhs). It claims it was shot to look like it was filmed by an amatur, which likely, isn't far from the truth. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As original PROD-er. Future film, fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL What I mean to say is this is a student film with no assertion of notability. TN‑X-Man 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The film was released 3 years ago. I agree with the delete, but how can crystal ball or NFF apply here?? No one is questioning its existance, only its notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The answer to that, of course, is that I'm a dope. I was thinking of another film article I had PROD-ed. Thanks for the heads-up. TN‑X-Man 23:01, 9 September 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), sources have been added to article, even cursory search for subject indicates notability, consensus= keep. Nom's reasons problematic as article does assert WP:NN regardless of if article meets it or not Fr33kmantalk APW 19:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Rocco

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

Notability issues Avi (talk) 20:34, 9 September 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.

Valeria Gazzola

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

Notability issues Avi (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep granted, she is young and the notability may be thin, but she is published multiple times in a few different science publications, which should count for something. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not satisfy WP:PROF yet. Having published something or even a lot is not, in and of itself, sufficient for establishing academic notability. To quote item 6 from Notes and Examples in WP:PROF:"Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." This is certainly a very promising young scholar, and GoogleScholar[7] already shows one well-cited paper (with several co-authors):110 citations, with next citation hits at 44, 20, and 17. That's good but for a very active field like nuroscience not in the notable range yet. A very recent PhD (appears to be 2007), a postdoc at the moment, no significant academic honors or awards yet. Does not pass WP:PROF for now. Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Nsk92, an h-index of 5 doesn't satisfy me that criterion 1 of WP:PROF is met, and I don't see any evidence that any other criterion is met either. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Nsk92 and Pete Hurd. Let's see again in 5 or 10 years from now. --Crusio (talk) 07:51, 12 September 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. Notability not established; in fact, there isn't much of anything to go on with this individual. Speedying... seicer | talk | contribs 13:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Chinnadorai

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

Reject CSD based on 7 pages of google hits. I can't find anything that does show notabilty in a quick search though Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete ghits aside, there isn't a CLAIM of notability that would satisfy wp:n, imo. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Agreed. No assertion of notability whatsoever, which is the criterion. Karenjc 21:54, 9 September 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 Perineum. MBisanz talk 22:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taint (slang)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, and this article has, despite a fair amount of editing, never attained any references or reliable sources that allow it to verifiably expand beyond a dictionary definition. Previous attempts to redirect it to Perineum have been reverted with minimal discussion, but I cannot see any encyclopedic information that could be added to this article that would not simply be a duplication of information in that article, the best this article seems to have got in the past is an unreferenced list of popular culture references. [8]

It was previously nominated more than two years ago and ended up with no consensus. I would assert that the lack of meaningful improvement since then lends some support to the original arguments made to delete it. ~ mazca t | c 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to redirect to Perineum, as the term IS very common, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. If a redirect isn't possible, my 2nd choice would be to keep. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Perineum per above. This is a permanently short dicdef, although it's a sort of common slang term for that part of the anatomy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per above. It is a widely used slang term but an article on this will have no substance apart from a simple definition. All the reliable sources say (and it's used a lot in some books) it that it's a street slang term ... I can't see anything more - Peripitus (Talk) 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't object to a delete-and-redirect to Perineum, even if the article itself is unsalvageable, it does sound like it's a fairly widely used term. Not sure why that is - I've never personally had the need to specifically refer to the perineum at all, with a slang word or not! :) ~ mazca t | c 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you are the nom, you can always simply change the article to a redirect and withdraw the nom here. Or let it play out to get more input. (I'm fine either way) You can always point to this AFD in the talk section of the redirect as evidence of concensus. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true, but I'd personally consider it slightly bad form to start an AfD and then withdraw it early when consensus supports me, then point to that as a precedent. I'd rather leave it open for more input and allow someone else to close it - plus, there is a difference between an article getting deleted then replaced with a redirect, or just being blanked and redirected. Thanks ~ mazca t | c 06:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This may not be a dictionary of slang, but notable slang does exist and does have a place. This, however, is not notable enough to warrant such, and the original choice of a redirect (from its inception) should be restored, and possibly locked until someone can provide more than enough evidence to justify it being restored. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not common slang- can't put in every slang word ever used, only notable ones

Mynameisstanley (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]

  • Delete non-notable slang -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as common-enough slang. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are other terms for this, they are not notable slang. Even the slang term is useless as a redirect, the word has too many other meanings - no-one will search for "Taint (slang)", even if they had heard it and wondered what it meant. At most it should be a minor meaning to wiktionary's Taint page. article as it stand doesn't even explain the term (It aint one nor t'other?)Yobmod (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - is already covered in wiktionary to more depth than here.Yobmod (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Result is keep based on two things: 1) nominator has withdrawn the nom, and 2) WP:SNOW. Apologies to anyone who thinks this is a coi since I voiced a comment in the discussion...this seems rather a foregone conclusion, though. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving aircraft

AfDs for this article:
    Boeing B-17 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I am also nominating the following related pages:

    Boeing B-29 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Boeing B-47 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Boeing B-52 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Chance-Vought F4U survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Consolidated B-24 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Douglas A-20 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Douglas A-26 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Lockheed P-38 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    North American B-25 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Republic P-47 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    These articles seem entirely non-notable. Most of these aircraft had hundred or thousands (e.g. 18,482 Liberators, 15,686 P-47s) individual aircraft built. Indeed these lists thus have potential to be thousands of items long! The articles also fail to establish why the surviving ones are notable. Perhaps if only a few models had been manufactured, a list such as these would be viable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. The claim about the lists being potentially very long is wrong. The survivors are notable because comparatively few have survived, and those that survived have had considerable time and money invested in their restoration – which in turn often leads to the soft of coverage in reliable sources that would pass the general notability guideline. The survivors are historical artefacts and the subject of considerable fascination by many people. In the same way that some people enjoy collecting guns, others enjoy collecting military aircraft. --Eastmain (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Fascinating" and "notable" are not the same thing. Any relevant information pertaining to restoration and amateur hobbyists belongs in the main article; or, perhaps Legacy of the Boeing B-17, etc. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. These aircraft are notable because there are so few of them remaining of many that were manufactured. The survivors are all pretty much well documented in third party publications and thus meet Wikipedia:Notability criteria. Most are museum or similar preserved aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being well-documented doesn't mean the thing is notable, it just means it is verifiable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Being well-documented in reliable sources is the definition of notable. --NellieBly (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it really isn't. You are talking about "verifiability". Paris Hilston's fashion is well-documented by reliable sources, but I wouldn't call her wardrobe or her new haircut notable. Certain extinct species that have only one or two fossils remaining, with very little else known, are very under-documented, but certainly notable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the above. A list of surviving 737s would be useless since there are so many of them, but many not in 100 years. As long as we are talking about older aircraft like this, the articles make perfect sense and seem to be exactly what Wikipedia is for. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have failed to address the central issue: the articles do not assert notability, and the best we can likely do is come up with a borderline claim to notability for this. All we have now is "there are fewer of these than there used to be". The same is true for believers in Ra, but we wouldn't create a list of all Ra believers, we would only create a list of the notable Ra believers. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't fail anything. The importance of the aircraft is reflected in their standard articles, and the fact that they are notable by themselves isn't at issue, as each has an article. Reading the primary articles will also make it clear. The only issue at hand is if an article listing the existing ones is noteworthy, which they are because of the age and limited numbers left, per my previous statement. Most other editors already "got this" without me having to spell this out. Didn't realize some you wouldn't. My comment and !vote stands. PHARMBOY (TALK) 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The aircraft model is notable, yes. But the individuals listed here are not notable, and the ones that are should be in a category Category:Surviving Boeing B-17s, etc. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is your opinion, which many others disagree with. You can stop bludgeoning everyone else for having a different opinion now. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              I am responding to everyone whose arguments I disagree with. It is important that all concerns are addressed, both mine and theirs. Theirs I address, but, for the most part, my concern of notability has not been addressed. I haven't attacked anyone personally and, in fact, I think I'm keeping a pretty cool head considering I have been attacked personally at least two three times during this discussion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No one has attacked you, but not everyone appreciates having their opinions (which were not directed to you personally) picked apart. Not everyone needs to be told why their opinion is "wrong". And sometimes, you don't have to have the last word. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very regretfully delete. Yes, it's interesting (to those of us who love these machines) and a lot of love and care has been put into these articles, but at the end of the day, this material simply isn't encyclopedic in nature. Most articles on aircraft types contain a mention of notable preserved airframes, but I think that detailed lists of each and every surviving example of a type, the compilation of which borders on WP:OR, are beyond Wikipedia's scope. Wikipedia is not a memorial for aircraft any more than it is for people. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There may have been thousands of them at one time - but those numbers are now finite. There are but ~45 B-17s intact out of 12K plus. Of 18K B-24s, even fewer survived. I believe the number of B-25s is around 80. About the only "warbirds" that keep increasing in number are P-51s and Spitfires. And for all the 737s built, their day will come,too, although I don't recommend trying to list them while they are still in production and service. I would certainly say that surviving Constellations are notable. IMHO. Mark Sublette (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you suggesting that these aircraft are notable entirely due to their present-day scarcity? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In my opinion this needs to be split into seperate AfDs, possibly even one for article. Personally I group them into four groups and my opinion differs on each group. If other people's opinion varies depending on article then a single AfD isn't really suitable. My views are as follows:
      • B-17 and B-29: Strong Keep. Both of these articles list notable survivors which have their own wikipedia entry. A list of these survivors plus those other survivors which, while notable, may not be worthy of their own page is IMO definitely worth keeping. In this context I have no problem with a list of 'other (not notable) survivors' although I think the lists could be better formatted.
      • B-24, A-20, P-38, B-25 and P-47: Weak Keep. As notable WW2 aircraft I'm sure some of the surivors will be notable enough for their own write up, similar to B-17 and B-29, either due to the notability of their service career or due to being a still flying example as these will often get coverage from air shows etc. As articles that are likely to reach the standard of the first two with a little bit of time and effort I think they should probably be kept.
      • B-47, A-26: Neutral. As more modern aircraft I'm more concerned about finding individual notable examples. Fewer are likely to have a notable service career and even if still flying they're less likely to have recieved significant coverage as IMO there's less interest in aircraft of this age. If such coverage can be found for a signifcant number of survivors then they should be kept for the above rationalle but I'm not sure it will be.
      • B-52: Delete. As an aircraft that's still in service I don't see how 'survivors' are notable.
    Dpmuk (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, actually only the H-models are still in use. All other variants are retired, and because of treaties, the early birds that were NOT preserved have been scrapped. Therefore, the surviving A-G models are notable, IMHO. Mark Sublette (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I also think that breaking this up into individual AfDs is a good idea, since I think you're right about there being different degrees of notability implicit in these articles.
    However, I'm not really convinced about the notability of even many of the preserved B-17s and B-29s (even some of those with their own articles). Just being a museum exhibit doesn't indicate notability, and detailed treatment of these as individual airframes (rather than as examples of a type) seems to be lacking in secondary sources. Some of these articles are little more than pastiches of warbirdregistry.org, a specialist site devoted to documenting this type of artifact. I don't know that Wikipedia needs to duplicate this. This is exactly the sort of material that we have External Links for - "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy" (WP:EL). --Rlandmann (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Fair point. I probably should have said that the above was more my first feelings than an in depth analysis and that I was using it to show why I wasn't happy with this being dealt with as one AfD rather than it being my final opinion (hence the lack of bold). Dpmuk (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and/or create separate articles - Merge to a section (with summary) within each main aircraft type article page. Give any survivors that are independently notable their own page and link them from these sections. Categorise individual articles in a main category, and create subcategories for proper grouping (probably some of this already exists). Articles of this nature aren't particularly encyclopaedic, and it will be difficult to establish notability for articles of these titles - remember that the reliable sources have to refer to the article subject. The articles as they are are pretty much indiscriminate collections of information, by the way. Brilliantine (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - actually, that's where most of these came from; a section in the article on the aircraft type in question. Once they started to be expanded to include any and every surviving airframe, they were (mercifully!) broken out into separate articles. If these are to be merged back whence there came, there needs to be some discussion about how many and/or which "survivors" are notable enough to mention in the main article on (say) the B-17 (which is very long as it is!) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure people can sum things up in a couple of paragraphs, link independently notable examples, and maybe quickly point out that there are thirty or forty (or however-many) partial or complete airframes scattered around the country. All it needs is a couple of people to keep an eye on the articles. There's no way these articles can stand as they are - it looks clumsy and the articles are more the kind of data you would expect in a database than an encyclopedia. Brilliantine (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "more the kind of data you would expect in a database than an encyclopedia" - I think that hits the nail exactly on the head. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Most of these aircraft are rare and/or notable examples. Even the B-52, where all of the 744 A-H models were built and the only still serving aircraft are fewer than 100 H models. --rogerd (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Rare" is irrelevant here. What makes you say that most of the airframes on these lists are notable? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In your opinion, that is, it is irrelevant. Many of these aircraft have been been meticulously restored and are displayed in museums. This is important information to aviation and military enthusiasts, just as much as lists of tall buildings are to architecture buffs and lists of paintings are to art lovers. --rogerd (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - that was a poor choice of words on my part - allow me to clarify. "Rare" is irrelevant to deciding whether Wikipedia should keep this article or not; it's just not a criterion for inclusion. On the other hand, notability (as defined by policy) surely is, which is why I asked on what grounds you're asserting that most of the airframes on these lists are notable. "Importance" is a criterion for exclusion, but only insofar as it can be measured by "notability"; the presumption is that if a subject is notable (therefore important), there will be independent secondary sources that give a treatment of it beyond simply noting its existence. I don't think that's the case with most of the airframes listed in these articles, but would be very happy to be proven wrong.
    The comparison you make to buildings or paintings is a little bit off-target; buildings and paintings are (generally) one-of-a-kind objects; these are all surviving examples of aircraft were mass-produced and of a type that is already treated in-depth in an article of its own. However, even when a famous artist has produced multiple prints of a work, we don't include lists of each and every one of those prints.
    PS: I would consider myself an "aviation enthusiast", and while I agree with you that this information is important and fascinating, I'm just not convinced that it fits within the scope of an encyclopedia (as opposed to a specialist monograph or website or database). --Rlandmann (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural question. Can editors comment on whether this should be split up into 11 separate AfDs? An admin could do that if there is general support. (This was asked at the Administrators' Noticeboard). EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's perfectly acceptable to split it, or to keep them as is. One option would be to sort them by importance, then decide where the cut-off should be. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support such a split. And if split, maybe the nom would consider not relisting them all simultaneously, but maybe deal with them one at a time, beginning with what they feel to be the least notable example? --Rlandmann (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose The basic premise was false as this Afd result is likely to show. Rewarding that error with a consolation prize of potentially deleting some articles would be wrong. If the nominator wants to try to establish notability guidelines under which the creation of these types of lists should operate, he should do it himself first, perhaps at WP:AVIATION, then if he gets anywhere, he can bring any articles he thinks still fail that established consensus to Afd. If he doesnt get anywhere, then he can nominate articles individualy at will. But trying to determine the consensus on the issue by raising individual Afd's first is just a waste of effort, likely only to result in reactionary keeps, but this is sadly too often typical of the way wikipedia tries to treat such issues. MickMacNee (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest Possible Keep for all. These are all verifiable to multiple independent reliable sources. It doesn't matter if ANYTHING is rare or fascinating or not rare or not fascinating: multiple notices by reliable independent sources is the guideline's definition of "notable". This is how articles on items not popular with tech-savvy educated white American males get deleted far too often on Wikipedia: editors confuse "I don't like it" or "it's stupid because it isn't part of my eminently superior world" with "it's not notable". This may be one of the few times that something more popular with white American males than with other groups who are considered less notable [edit] is deleted, but deletion would still not be in accordance guidelines or policy. --NellieBly (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See, that's the problem right there - there simply aren't "multiple notices by reliable independent sources" for any but a few entries on these lists. By-and-large, these are lists pieced together from various self-published websites. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anything about not liking aircraft, mainly because I do like them. As Rlandmann says, only a few of these have multiple source. You should discuss the matter at hand; it is unfair and irrelevant to attack what you perceive as my hidden agenda. (Also, I am not a "tech-savvy educated white American male".) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prune/Merge on individual article basis - As stated by Rlandmann, most of the entries are not notable on their own, or are not cited from reliable sources. Each article should be pruned of those entries. If the list notable remaining items is too long to be merged back in to the main aircraft articles, then the survivors page should be kept, provided the article format is updated to current WP and WP:AIR policies and guidelines, including titles and captions. In order to do this right, it is neccessarry to consider each article separately. That should probably be done in separate AFDs for each article, in order to have the force of consenus behind the decisions taken, given that the creator of most of these articles has strong ownership issues. Finally, there are wiki-style websites that can host these articles in their entirety, with very little change to the articles required, so that the creator's hours of hard work will not be "destroyed". - BillCJ (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The nomination's point about the size of the original production runs seems irrelevant. These survivors are notable by virtue of this status and articles about them seem fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural keep Without commenting on the current state of particular lists with regard to size, content or sources, the assertion that the topic of list of surviving aircraft is "entirely non-notable" based purely on the fact that the original aircraft might have been common, is patent nonsense. That is true for standalone lists and lists in articles. "Rare" - (read historic) aircraft, after a certain age, are inherently notable, no matter what the original production run size. You can debate the inclusion criteria or sourceing requirements for each particular model, or even create a guideline at WP:AVIATION, but the deletion rationale as presented can only be dealt with by a heavy blow from the clue stick. MickMacNee (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The second part of my argument was "The articles also fail to establish why the surviving ones are notable." How about a "list of medieval swords"? These things are old and there are less now than there used to be. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you even have a clue as to whether this strawman you serve up is even a remotely similar comparison? I have no clue as to how many medieval swords there are that still exist, or what is known about them. Heck, a List of surviving medival swords might even educate me a tiny little bit. But can we please stick to discussing this article? MickMacNee (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't look like too much of a strawman to me. It seems more like a relatively valid analogy. Brilliantine (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      So you're saying he is an expert in medieval swords then. MickMacNee (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      What does anyone being an expert in anything have to deal with this? It was addressing the logic of your 'inherent notability' claim: ""Rare" - (read historic) aircraft, after a certain age, are inherently notable, no matter what the original production run size." Brilliantine (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      What analogy am I supposed to be drawing here? That there is no List of medieval swords? Quite clearly a strawman. Unless he has some expert knowledge to confer about medieval swords such as there are currently 1 million still in existence despite being made in medieval times, then I would have zero problem making the same claim for swords either. It seems at face value a perfectly fine example of something that would be automatically worthy of note after a certain point in time. And if there are so many left it would pointless to note them, then what point was he trying to make? Clearly in that case, they would not be considered 'rare'. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is that not all medieval swords (nor all things old&rare) are inherently notable. "This sword was made in 1033. It was never used in battle, and was found in an armory in 1949. It is now housed at the British Museum of History." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think from the overwhelming majority of the people voting to keep the Survivors seriers I think the nomination for deletion can be quickly removed from all of these articles - I wish to thank all those editors for their fine comments (even those editors which I often disagree with - but these is often two sides to an arguement) I just wonder why a person who has only created articles on Canadian films and Canadian Hockey is interested in deleting 15 stronge articles about aviation. I agree that some of the articles need work, but I am only one editor who has limited amout of time each to work on these articles - again thanks to all for you support Davegnz (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'm generally impressed with these articles; a lot of work has been put into many of them, including pictures and plenty of information for each aircraft. I don't really see how having these articles is detrimental to wikipedia in any way.Erudy (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all. Can't see a single reason for even considering deletion. The topics are encyclopedic, the material is verifiable and well presented, there's too much of it to consider a merge. Andrewa (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Delete all - I quit, tired of all this fighting and other nonsense - I have wasted too many long hours fighting about minor garbage issues (like what goes into captions, should the cpations be centered, is a list of survivors acceptable in wikipedia, what is notable, what deserves to be linked, length of article naming articles and now mass deletions by a music critic). I really wish I had never heard of wikipedia and I wish I had never started investing my time and efforts bringing a passion and deep interest to wikipedia. Over the past 18 months I have fought tooth and nail to get my ideas across only to have constant bickering thrown my way.
      • Rlandmann Please, Just delete all my work and let my ideas die peacefully - my words have bled enough - just put them out of there misery Davegnz (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Declined; Other editors have added material to the articles, so an author requested deletion is not possible. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep appropriate articles. Encyclopedic topics, well done lists. (Actually, I think there are so few surviving early 11th c. swords that a list of them might be appropriate also, though not at article of every individual one. Though--even so-- for those in good museums, there will be published sources for each individual one. )DGG (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a general term, I've found articles like this unexpectedly useful - I used the survivors list for the Me109 to track down the specific details of the subject of a photograph that was on FPC a couple of weeks back. The topic certainly seems of practical, if esoteric, interest and utility. Shimgray | talk | 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, this article is one of the most valuable on the entire site. There is really no reason to delete pages like this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to reconsider deleting these articles, with a strong recommendation to restructure them, particularly to de-emphasize the non-notable airframes. The following: "B-17G-95DL c/n 32359 44-83718, Converted: B-17H, redesignated: SB-17G, ex-Brazilian AF (5408), ex-6th Grupo de Aviaçao (SAR), " 8 ", Museu Aerospacial, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (R)" means very little, especially when repeated for 30+ airframes, without any prose. I would be glad to help in discussing alternative ways to present these articles. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the relevant WikiProject is WikiProject Aircraft, and you're very welcome to participate in such a discussion. Outside eyes are good! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - as the preservation of airframes is an exercise in preserving history, the historic assets are inherently notable, and thus inherently encyclopedic. (And yes, I would think that a list of historic, surviving notable swords in museums around the world would be encyclopedic, as well.) (Oh, and I, for one, appreciate all of User:Davegnz's really hard, dedicated work to make this a better encyclopedia.) AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since Twas Now likes to talk about useless articles and lack ot notibility I think he might have a point - I recommend someone nominate the following articles for deletions (since I do not want to considered a vandal):
    New York Islanders records
    Boston Bruins records
    Anaheim Ducks records
    Atlanta Thrashers records
    Kanada-malja
    Colorado Avalanche records
    Player salaries in the National Hockey League
      • I mean give me a break - no photographs, very little reference material, most of this information is lifted right off the official NFL web page (which is updated everyday during the season), definitly not notible, not historic, not encyclopedic, except for some hocky fans these pages are useless - if they are not a canidate for deletions then maybe someone can restructure them and get rid of all the useless infomation.
      • In fact I think these article might be a strong canidite to merge back into the main articles. Davegnz (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you miss what I wrote not 8 hours before you posted this? Did you not notice that I am also taking part in the ongoing discussions to rename these articles, and have been all through this AfD? Please take your bitterness somewhere else. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dave: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 12 September 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-admn closure), consensus to keep, if article needs improving then improve, delete inappropriate avenue Fr33kmantalk APW 20:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mayoralty of Sarah Palin

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

    There is not currently enough material to warrent a subarticle and the article is currently a word for word copy of the main article ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I support the Article , in my opinion there is enough material to support the article. and the article should be kept.--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Tha article is well-sourced and it's a notable topic. The main article is growing in all directions, and the replacement of this material with a summary would improve it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I should mention that I started the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment On the talk page of the Sarah Palin article, sentiment is against this particular fork because it seems to be hard to create a fair summary (only Ferrylodge disagrees). The sub-article and the section are very similar, and will remain so, negating the main purpose of a sub-article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page discussion about summarizing that section only began a few hours ago, so it's premature to say that no consensus can be reached. Keeping this article will help promote that consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be true of an average article, but the Sarah Palin crew are as numerous and well-informed as an article can ever hope to have. Consensus can form rapidly. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, I understand the points above, but if she wasn't the GOP VP, then this article wouldn't exist. The other two examples WOULD exist. Also, you can't compare an article about the governer of NY, the third largest state, or NYC, the largest city in the USA, with an article about a town of about 7,000 people. The main points can be made in the primary article about Sarah Palin. Anything else is either bound to be a POV fork, or a coatrack. I don't see any other articles about being the mayor of a town of less than 10k people on Wikipedia, so the premise is flawed. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always say, "well if so-and-so weren't famous then an article about them would not exist."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You miss the point. The question is NOT "is Sarah Palin notable", the question is "is her term as mayor notable" and the answer is clearly "no". To compare this to the time Rudy spent, during 9-11, as justification for the article is just silly. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I get your point. However, an otherwise non-notable early period of someone's life can become very notable due to events later in life. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as a reasonable fork of Sarah Palin. I think the issue here is that Palin's article has asploded in every direction, due to her rapid rise to national prominence; with Barack Obama, for example, we've had years to develop United States Senate career of Barack Obama. Would this content be notable in the parent article? Yes. It's reasonable, then, to have it as its own article here. I concur that this wouldn't be an issue if she were not the VP candidate - but she is, and we have to accept that that changes the notability question, somewhat. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait and see. If the page develops useful content we can keep it. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - This article only has 4.5kb of readable prose, which easily fits into Sarah Palin, which currently has 22kb of readable prose. It may be well-referenced, but that is because it is a 1 for 1 duplicate of the Mayor of Wasilla section in Palin's article and that section is well referenced. Additionally, a summary of this section will garner very little in terms of article size reduction. The current proposed summary (see here) only achieves a reduction of 350 characters words and that's done by removing most of the negative aspects and retaining the positive. If article size is a concern for Sarah Palin, then I'd start with the Governor of Alaska section which is almost as long as Governorship of Sarah Palin. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just plain incorrect. The reduction would not be 350 characters. It would be from 825 words to 473 words.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Argh. Heh. Sorry. You are correct. It is words. Tell ya.. I should just give up typing today (especially in this AFD). Thanks for the second catch. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You meant to say "Keep" instead of "Delete" too, right? :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG, you're right! I did!! *laugh* Nice try.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - . . . and incorporate notable info into the main SP article. This subject is for the most part of interest only in the short term. Many much more distinguished politicians do not have assortments of subordinate Wikipedia pages devoted to phases of their careers. This would not be a good trend to start. Wikipedia cannot provide in-depth biographies. That is not what it is set up to do. --Pleasantville (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Wikipedia isn't set up to provide single articles that are the equivalent of book-length bios of prominent persons. Nevertheless, by the magic of wikilinking, Wikipedia is set up to provide an overview of the person's life, with daughter articles that give in-depth information on specific subtopics. Under WP:SS, we can provide the equivalent of in-depth biographies, only structured so that readers who don't want to read the whole biography can readily find the specific parts they want. JamesMLane t c 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Content is constantly being deleted from Sarah Palin and Political positions of Sarah Palin with the (sometimes accurate) assertions that the articles are already too large or that the topics are not pertinent to the bio or political positions, respectively. This article will be enable some of the events that occurred while she was mayor to be more fully developed. As for pertinence, I personally believe that being the mayor of a small town provides incidental executive experience, but Karl Rove, John McCain, and Sarah Palin have all talked about this period in her life as contributing greatly to her qualifications. Therefore, it's a definite KEEP.--Appraiser (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This one. Notable, new sources all the time, no reason to compress it down into the parent article today. rootology (C)(T) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak merge to main article, but I am impressed with the sourcing on this. Still, I don't care for branching off multiple articles from a main any more than is necessary, and this may be a bit much for now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable. Article can be expanded. -- LighthouseSpider (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep Is notable and can't fit in parent article. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    JoshuaZ, I don't think you understand what's going on here.. Mayoralty of Sarah Palin is smaller than what is currently in Sarah Palin#Mayor of Wasilla. It's not a matter of can the content fit back into the main article, but that splitting the Mayor of Wasilla section off from the main article was unnecessary because, at this time, there simply isn't the content to justify a sub-article. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete Someone one has moved this material, verbatim, back to the main article, and a consensus discussion in talk has decided not to summarize it. Accordingly there is no reason for this article to exist. Perhaps editors would care to reevaluate their positions based on this new information?--Paul (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hopeful that if this article is kept, editors will reevaluate their positions not to summarize in the main article. The main article currently contains a great deal (several hundred words) of boring and excessively detailed info on this subject, and that info would be much more appropriate in this article only.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Ferrylodge. Also note that for GFDL reasons we can redirect this article but not delete it if we are going to put content from it into the main article. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't any GFDL concerns here. The article is a direct copy and paste recreation of Sarah Palin#Mayor of Wasilla and that if this article were to be deleted, there would be no content moved from the sub-article to the main article. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It cannot possibly be true that we need a separate article to describe someone's six years as mayor of a town of 6,000 people. This is not akin to the Governorship articles, nor to Rudy Giuliani's mayoralty, whose scope was 1,000 times greater. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WTR, do we need articles about what people did before they ever did anything noteworthy? See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Her article is still only medium-sized at most. I've worked on articles three times as big! If she ends up becoming the next Ronald Reagan, yes at some point there will need to be an "Early life and early political career of Sarah Palin" article. But not now. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've spent considerable time shortening some of the articles you've worked on, WTR.  :-) A big problem here is that the main Sarah Palin article is already mostly a summary article; the remaining non-summarized section on her mayoralty is therefore now receiving undue weight in the main article, merely due to the fact that the other sections are summaries. Additionally, there's plenty of material here to start a new article. Look at the article you started on Julia Keller!Ferrylodge (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look, and the proportions seem okay to me -- her Governorship section is still well-sized. And in the Talk:John McCain context, you went on and on with me about how we couldn't describe her as inexperienced, because the years spent as city council member and mayor were so important and meaningful. So you're being a little inconsistent here. And comparing a proposed split-out with a stub article about another person is completely illogical. That stub creation was totally appropriate, if you don't like it bring it to AfD and I'll be happy to defend it there. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your Keller stub just fine. This article is way more than a stub. Also, I don't see why it's inconsistent to want to create a separate article about a meaningful subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Subarticles come with real costs: ongoing maintenance of duplicate material, fights over what goes in the main article and what doesn't, and a readership dropoff that page view statistics show as on the order of 100:1. Subarticles should only be used when absolutely necessary, and I don't think it is here, not for being mayor of 6,000 people. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For comparison a total of two people have a separate article about their time as mayor - [9] - and both of them relate to New York City. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)And deservedly so. Being Mayor of New York is really like being president of a small country, and it's often been described as the second toughest job in America (after President). If someone is hankering to write another mayoralty article, start with Ed Koch, a true New York character and powerhouse force, and poorly served by his current article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LOTS and lots of Wikipedia articles address periods in people's lives before they did anything independently notable. I think focussing on mayors is kind of like focussing on people named Sarah (i.e. too narrow a focus). See [10].Ferrylodge (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Category:Early lives by individual shows only 19 entries. Most of these are extremely famous people (Plato, Newton, Washington, Lincoln, JPII), some are okay recentism (GWB, Benedict XVI), and some are embarrassing recentism (Spitzer and Paterson, give me a break!). Let's not add Palin into the embarrassing column, until she's been more than a two-week political sensation. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article is simply a subarticle of the main Sarah Palin it's there so stuff in Sarah Palin can be a real summary. It's not possible to merge back anything the goal is to get detailed info in the subarticle and a short summary in the main article. We simply need this for article developement and it's standard practice. Hobartimus (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- by all accounts, Sarah Palin was a popular mayor. Yet you wouldn't know it from the article as it presently is written. It's mostly a trash-Palin piece -- referenced but with little attempt at presenting a balanced picture. Criticism of Palin is given undue weight. So if this article is kept, it needs a lot of work. Likewise, if it's merged into the Sarah Palin, that material will need work. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, all I did to create this article was copy the corresponding section of the Sarah Palin article. Then I proposed a draft summary section for the Sarah Palin article. I think you will find the draft summary section much closer to NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The section is rather negative right now, but that is primarily because the only content is related to Palin's first year as mayor, which was... Shall we say... a learning experience for Palin, something that Palin herself has admitted. What the section needs is additional information on the last 5 years of her stint as mayor which should make it more positve.. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There doesn't seem to be a need for so specific a content-fork at this point, and POV concerns have been raised. RayAYang (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Barack Obama and John McCain are both Featured Articles. Every FA I have worked on has had links to several sub-articles that house details about the topic that would preclude the main article from becoming FA. Creating articles about aspects of Palin's life is absolutely necessary for a topic of such interest and absolutely necessary on the path toward making Sarah Palin a high-quality article. That article should have a brief summary of her stint as mayor with a {{main}} tag coming here. This article should have details covering everything she did as mayor that is of interest to a broad audience. The typical reader wants to be able to find whatever level of detail interests him, but not all at once. That is the essence of the value of hot links. This article has plenty of opportunity for improvement toward NPOV, but that is no reason to delete it.--Appraiser (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep per FerryLodge's comments. The article is now fairly substantial and the subject is notable. I see no need to delete over possible POV concerns. The solution to POV is to remove POV, not delete everything it touches.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - notable? yes. Supported by reliable sources? yes. Threshold for keeping article has been met. Merge and redirect would be the alternative, but I don't see any reason for that. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unnecessarily specific fork. If we include large articles on every aspect of the life of every aspiring candidate then we will give masively undue weight to these individuals by comparison with other much more important political figures. One article is sufficicent for Abe Linconln, I believe. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's unnecessary at this time and because of the activity on Palin in general allows POV editors just another avenue to include their edit if it's rejected on the main Palin page or if they want to "sneak" it in by subarticle by passing the consensus process that seems to be working on the main Palin talk page. Some evidence to avoid the main Palin consensus process is here : Talk:Sarah_Palin#Summarizing_Mayoralty_section Theosis4u (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I was seeking to avoid the main Palin consensus by seeking consensus at the main Palin article?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That one is ridiculous too. We have no other articles in all of WP that devote themselves to someone's stint as a small-town mayor or as a state legislator. That should tell us something. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Hobartimus's comment explains the reason to keep it -- as per WP:SS, linked by Scjessey. The media have paid considerable attention to the history of one person's mayoralty of a small town. As a result, we can reasonably assume considerable reader interest, and we have abundant WP:RS information on the topic, far more than for most comparable subjects. JamesMLane t c 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, summaries can be written, not easy given the controversy, but it can be done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Sarah Palin' - Mayoralty of a town so small doesn't need its own article. Any useful prose can be merged. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Most of what is significant in her role as mayor would not be significant in a general biography of a vice presidential candidate. Therefore this article is needed to capture that detail.--Appraiser (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - good grief, this Palencruft is silly. Do we even have any "Governorship of xxx" articles for anyone else? --B (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. But most governors haven't run as vice president for a major party so we don't have the need to split things off as much. I suspect that for many major political figures who have had multiple major political positions we could find more than enough material to have such articles. We shouldn't confuse people not spending the time to do something as a demonstration that something isn't a good idea or isn't notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Governorship of Mitt Romney and George W. Bush as Governor of Texas. We should also have Wikipedia articles about the student councilship of xxx if the media thinks it's notable and many people are interested.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody ever reads these subarticles. For example, per http://stats.grok.se/, during August 2008 the Mitt Romney article was viewed 104,874 times, while Governorship of Mitt Romney was viewed 852 times. So it would seem many people are not that interested. Also, up at the top, you described the current mayoralty material as "boring and excessively detailed info". Your arguments here lack consistency. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't agree that it's inconsistent. The current article is now structured with subheadings so that people can choose what they want to read about, instead of plodding through details that they're not interested in. Also, I don't find it surprising that the Mitt Romney governorship article was viewed 852 times in August. He's not a candidate for vice-president, after all. Let's extrapolate, though. Sarah Palin was viewed 4.2 million times in August, i.e. forty times as many hits as Mitt Romney for that month. So, multiply 852 by forty, and you get about 3500 hits, which is a lot more than most Wikipedia articles get.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whether people frequently read the subarticles as much as the main articles has little to do with the validity of the articles (although I have to admit that I'm honestly surprised at how few people have viewed Governorship of Mitt Romney). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is consistently true of all biographical subarticles and something I've posted about in several talk pages. As another example, in August 2008, Barack Obama 1,377,462 views, while the abovementioned Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama got 6,454 views. These stats reveal a huge problem with WP:Summary style: moving material down into subarticles loses 99% of the readership and is thus almost tantamount to deleting it altogether. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do not support moving the most pertinent and interesting material out of main articles into sub-articles. However, sub-articles serve a very useful purpose. If you're arguing that Wikipedia should not have any more sub-articles, then I disagree with that, for reasons that really should be addressed elsewhere. If any sub-article is appropriate, this should be it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Governorship of Sarah Palin and Electoral history of Sarah Palin to Early life and career of Sarah Palin. Enough is enough. Grsztalk 17:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, sub-articles for national candidates is very common. It's done for people who lost in the primary contests, and it's also done for those who won.
    This article is part of a series about
    John McCain
    • U.S. Senator from Arizona
    • Presidential campaigns

    This article is part of
    a series about
    Barack Obama
    Pre-presidency
    44th President of the United States
    Policies
    Appointments
    First term
    Second term
    Presidential campaigns
    Post-presidency
    Publications
    Personal
    Others

    Barack Obama's signature

    Seal of the President of the United States
    Yes, but Palin does not have near the career as either. All of the relevant information can easily fit in a merged article. Grsztalk 17:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a matter of great controversy, Grsz11. Obama is a first-term Senator who served in the state legislature. The McCain camp says that Palin has just as much experience overall as Obama, and more executive experience than all of the other three candidates combined. There is currently plenty of info in this article to justify a separate article, and the article is quickly growing in size.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I could live with a merged article. There just isn't a reason to have so many different article on her at this point. PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To the best of my knowledge Wikipedia is not here to bolster the McCain campaign's claims for their VP candidate. This is not the mayoralty of New York, after all. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree 100%. This article is neutral. It presents notable facts citing reliable sources. It is too big now to fit in the main Sarah Palin article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely Keep the page is already a better read than the main page as a result of edtiors being able to edit. Which leads you to ponder , why the need the keep the main page under lock and key? This page certainly defeats their reasoning. Suggest making the main page a smaller blurb and directing to the main feature article that exits here. --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep, and eliminate duplicate details in the parent article, Sarah Palin. First, those who think that the subject isn't important enough for a separate article miss the point that importance is based on reliable sources, not on one's personal opinion. Clearly, what Palin has done as governor did as mayor has been covered recently in so many separate newspaper articles that it has long ago clearly passed any notability threshold. Second, the real issue is that if this daughter article is kept, there needs to be a related consensus to eliminate the detailed, duplicate content in the parent article, in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. Otherwise, the Wikipedia community looks totally incompetent. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree we should definitely follow WP:SS. The corresponding section of the main article could do a much better job summarizing this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My sense is that so far there has really been no attempt to write that section as a summary; rather, what is excluded are matters that fall below the estimated "importance" level of other things in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I suspect people are reluctant to pare down the bio article as long as this (and the Governorship article) have an AFD open. We should close them with "no consensus to delete" so we can get on with paring down the bio article.--Appraiser (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've worked this evening on summarizing what's in the main article. Right now, the main article contains about 800 words on her mayoralty, compared to about 1880 words in this article. So, I think the summarization is improving.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Palin did no more as mayor than any other small town mayor. The content of the article is simply the result of the huge amounts of digging that resulted from her stunning pick. Do the ends justify the means? Grsztalk 00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. It means that there are many more reliable sources talking about her mayoralty than there would be for a normal small time mayor. Notability is determined by the presence of reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I cannot believe that it has been nominated for AfD. I ask the Wikipedian who put the nomination to withdraw it, the same way that the nomination for lipstick on a pig was withdrawn. Dems on the move (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - the topic (6 years of service as small-town mayor) receives ample coverage in the Sarah Palin article. Should she become, say, President, restore maybe, but as of now, definitely undue weight. Biruitorul Talk 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:Undue weight refers to the amount of weight given to different things within a single article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Whether or not a sub-article is warranted in this instance is not grounds for deletion, per WP:DEL#REASON. Discussions and suggestions regarding whether this material is better in the main article or as a sub-page are entirely content questions and therefore best discussed on the article's talk page. There is no question that the topic is eminently notable, having received widespread media coverage. Debate 木 09:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Currently, this article is getting over 500 hits per day, on average.[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Compared to about 180,000 hits per day for the main article over the same (brief) period. That's a 360:1 ratio. So, anything that's moved from the main article to the mayoralty article should be something that you're sure that less than 1% of the audience would be interested in seeing. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. But please keep in mind that putting too much stuff in the first couple sections of the main article will result in readers zoning out before they get to the later sections of the main article. In other words, just because something is in the main article does not mean readers will read it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. But that's what table of contents are for. Anyone who doesn't care about Palin's time as mayor can click directly to the Governor or Vice Presidential candidates section. Or can start the mayoral section, then skim or skip it and proceed to later sections. There's no requirement that our audience read our articles from top to bottom in sequence. History books are broken up into clearly defined chapters for exactly the same reason, and are processed by readers accordingly. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be right, but I view a main article as a place for readers to find out what they want to learn more about. In other words, it's a place where they can read everything, and then decide what further details to seek. And there are lot of other advantages to a sub-article like this, too. It provides a relatively calm place where editors can focus on small details, and get them right, before butting heads with a million other editors in the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. This is a big enough topic that it should have its own article. It has been discussed extensively in the media. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Computer year

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

    Neoligism. Found only one reference (http://www.clcsinc.com/computerage.htm), and that content's up to debate. Sigma 7 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as Neo. Not in common usage, never heard it, and I'm an old fart who been working with computers 25 years. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom. It's hard to be sure with two such common words but google seems to come back with few, if any hits, of this usage. I've been in computing (studying or working) for ten years and as a hobby for quite some time before that and I've also never used the term used so in the abscence of references I can only assume it's not well used and so not notable. Dpmuk (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Unreferenced neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of vaguely humorous expressions. Note that Dog years isn't an entry either, merely a disambig. Qwfp (talk) 16:21, 11 September 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 interwiki redirect. MBisanz talk 22:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pseudointellectual

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

    Article is a dictionary term that has been transwiki'd to wiktionary and exists there. Need to delete to cleanup wikipedia Fr33kmantalk APW 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Firstly, why did you close the last AfD if it was neccesary anyway? Secondly, Delete - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment because it needed action before it could be deleted. ie: it needed to actually be transwiki'd as that had become the consensus. Anything other than a straight delete consensus is a keep (merge, speedy keep, weak keep, redirect, transwiki etc.), ie: only a delete is a delete. Keeping this in mind, I transwiki'd the entry, closed the AfD and opened a second one which can now deal with the fact that it has been transwiki'd. As the first was not a delete but a keep, it needed closing so that a new discussion can take place. Hope this helps! :-) Fr33kmantalk APW 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, Delete as redundant.Yobmod (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, but it has to go for this ride down Deletion Alley, then an admin has to see a consensus, or just see it, read it and do it. But, I'm not one and I can only do a keep closure; so we wait. :-) Fr33kmantalk APW 04:52, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of fictional war heroes

    AfDs for this article:
    List of fictional war heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Pretty obvious why this is here. Original research, no qualifying criteria... Ryan4314 (talk) 20:00, 9 September 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. Clear hoax from blocked account Black Kite 20:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cicero (Automobiles)

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

    Hoax article. No such company exists. Created by now-blocked single purpose account. Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cicero Motors.

    Also included in this nomination are the hoax articles about the "Cicero" cars:

     Sandstein  19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong delete all in the strongest possible terms and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Clearly a hoax - images are of other manufacturer's vehicles. User blocked for creating hoaxes. ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all - Hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all: Obvious hoax. DCEdwards1966 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all as hoax. swaq 20:26, 9 September 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, consensus to keep, delete concerns noted but dismissed due to age of charity, coverage in national press and assertion of oldest charity Fr33kmantalk APW 20:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CanDo4Kids

    CanDo4Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Nonnotable Austrailian charity organization. CSD G11 was declined because of the assertion that CanDo4Kids is South Austrailia's oldest children's charity. When you take away the promotional language, history section (nothing special there), services (same as any hospital), and spammy external links there is nothing left to the article or charity itself to write about, let alone establish notability. No hits on google news and one irrelevant hit on google scholar. Themfromspace (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Keep Being a bonified charity that helps children (and the blind) and has been around since the 1870s may be enough to be notable due to the longevity alone, including being the oldest in S.A. Granted, the article absolutely needs work, but since the organization has been around over 130 years, I am betting there are plenty of references (and other notable events) available, even if more are buried in a library. If this was a 10-20 year old charity, I might be more inclined to agree with nominator. Since they are not, I think you have to give an ample opportunity to develop. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I get 18 hits on gnews. Are you confident you selected "all dates" when doing the search?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep per the above supplemented by this, although the book doesn't have a preview available. There's probably more available as well. TravellingCari 20:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep This article has passed the prime WP:N guideline test with a secondary references that could be added with Google News finding 18 refs, and the book reference above. If anything, this article just needs a cleanup, wikifying, adding citations.--Takver (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I have done some tidying up of the article, removing POV marketing/promotional information, wikifying, adding categories, an info box, and the citation to the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry on William Townsend. The Secondary refs from Google News still need to be gone through to see what else can be added.--Takver (talk) 06:00, 10 September 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. MBisanz talk 02:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    William Atkinson (actor)

    William Atkinson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable actor with only minor, one-off roles that are often uncredited. — Scientizzle 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:40, 13 September 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, utter unencyclopedic crap. Moreschi (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matanuska Maid Dairy controversy

    Matanuska Maid Dairy controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Violates wp:NPOV by serving as a coatrack to attack a political candidate. Bordering on being a soapbox as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per WP:COATRACK and b/c event is not noteworthy in its own right --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:30, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 03:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vincenti

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

    Absolutely nothing here that establishes any notability. However name articles have had a tendency to generate discussion so I'll bring it here. TravellingCari 17:13, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 03:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kompressor (musician)

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

    unreferenced, notability not established by any third-party references Wednesday Next (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • KEEP Now that I have searched google, holy cow, there plenty of ghit, including reviews and the like. The article needs improving, but there appears to be plenty of reviews including [12] and more. Not the biggest artist, but lots of sites carry his lyrics (he copyrights music, not lyrics) and lots of independent coverage of him as well. A little work will indicate he is notable enough for inclusion. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep Kompressor is definitely notable. Google turns up many relevant sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Yet another case of "I've never heard of it so it's not notable. [13] [14] It's survived this long, of course, because it's not NN. That would naturally be the most likely reason, and one that bends my mind a lot less. KeithTyler (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2008 sig added by Pharmboy
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines due to not having significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Garling

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

    Orphaned, foreign language articles do not exist and based entirely upon primary sources. There does not seem to be any reliable sources- probably an A7 candidate, but I don't feel comfortable speedying due to the fact the article, at first glance, doesn't look that bad. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete no notability. Some of those listed websites don't exist any more (that says something about notability). The enthusiast's website Final Fantasy Insider is not notable, and because Garling posts content there makes it a primary and unreliable source.--Lester 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Despite the fact that many of the sites are not working anymore it still does not constitute that deleting is the appropriate action as clearly a number of sources provide enough evidence to support the article's claims. From the current sources it can be deduced that Garling is a notable enough character for a Wikipeida page due to his significant contributions to the internet gaming scene. Therefore the article should be kept until further evidence arises. JleeLink (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can see, the subject has never been mentioned by a single reliable source. Anyone can comment on forums, set up blogs and write for minor websites. Doing so does not make you notable in any way. If it did, I think the majority of us would be notable... J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the core of my social experiment. I noticed that you have articles on actors that have effectively starred in nothing in their lives, people that are completely unknown to select circles and social niches/cliques. Thus, I found this Michael Garling - his articles are read (beknownst/unbeknownst) to 15,000 individuals worldwide daily, and yet because it is an internet videogaming website, he is considered insignificant? Thus, we find Wiki's personality flaws. If the Garling user is deleted, does this not mean that other such D-grade actors should be deleted? Or is it simply because a 'third-party' website has mentioned them once (probably upon their request) that they are allowed to remain?--RobbieMayona (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hello everyone, this is Michael Garling. Thankyou for taking the time to write an article based on me User:RobbieMayona, and thankyou to the moderators for your civilised dealing with this matter. I am unsure as to how many third party comments you may want, so I have taken this into my own hands at this point. You will notice in the Final Fantasy Insider section and new paragraph, I have linked to a third party comment from 2006, there are more that I have access to/could find if required. Thankyou for your time.--124.189.64.35 (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is the subject of commentary, not simply having the name on it, sadly. They would need to discuss your impact or discuss what you do, or other such joys. THey would also have to be a reliable source, I believe. I must say I'm a bit disappointed that RobbieMayona decided to use you to make a point rather than taking the discussion to the proper forums, namely the notability pages. AfD, IfD, MfD etc are to enforce policy, not set it, so I can't imagine what he thought it would achieve. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Frankly, I'm unsure what he was looking to do either. All I know is, a Wiki article based on me seemed like an interesting move, and as soon as someone tells me I'll be "making a stand", I'm generally there. As you have proved your point, and as I can't find the time to hunt down every single person that's ever discussed my impact, I would say it's time to delete the article. Thankyou for your time everyone! Let's hope User:RobbieMayona is able to see on the same terms and end the argument...--124.189.64.35 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, quite a well-written article, but writing for (now defunct) video game websites doesn't scream "notability". Due to lack of third-party sources on this person, I am forced to conclude he does not meet WP:BIO at this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 13 September 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 g7, blanked by author (who says he's going to post somewhere else). I haven't created the redirect, but feel free to do so if you want. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mind Science

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

    The term "mind science" is not in widespread use; the content of this article as written is nearly 100% original synthesis. Details: I should start by saying that I have a Ph.D. in neuroscience, and therefore am an expert in the domain this article purports to be about. The first sentence is, "Mind Science is the field of study describing how symbolic processing affects the central nervous system.". The term is not in standard use with that meaning, so this is already OR. The remainder of the article is a mixture of facts synthesized in an original way, and statements that are either non-factual or incomprehensible, such as, "The physical nervous system sits in an ideological field, with varying probabilities for life." My preferred solution would be to replace this article with a redirect to Cognitive Science. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with redirect to cognitive science. miquonranger03 (talk) 16:42, 9 September 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), consensus is to keep, AfD is about deletion if article can be improved it should be Fr33kmantalk APW 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Virtual workplaces

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

    This survived a previous no-consensus AfD ~2 years ago. There's no question the term exists. A search turns up places that identify as/have virtual workplaces but no evidence there is any encyclopedic material from which to build an article. The current article has issues, namely OR, SYNTH and ESSAY, but that could be fixed if there were material to build an article. TravellingCari 16:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nomination: essayish and unencyclopedic. Sentences that begin with introductory phrases like With information technology playing a greater role in the daily operations of organizations today. . . are reliable harbingers of bollocks to follow. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The premise of the nomination is false as there are substantial books on the subject. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - the concept is notable even if the article does need improvement. Note that according to naming conventions, the article should be named Virtual workplace. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Several good references can be easily found. [15] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:52, 13 September 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), reasons for deletion have no merit, any inaccuracies in article have already been corrected. Intel352 (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    X-Cart SEO

    X-Cart SEO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article is not encyclopedic in nature. It is commercial advertising written by the software author and not an unbias third party. WebsiteCM was in fact linked to websitecm.net which was purchased by the author and redirected to the article authors website (phpsitesolutions). This article is not meant to benefit the web, the wiki community, or anybody but the author. WebsiteCM (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is not encyclopedic in nature, true, as the article was written in the same style as Comparison of shopping cart software. Additionally, regarding bias, the article can easily be edited by others (and has been) to provide any corrections necessary. The incorrect links were corrected, according to the article History. This article is intended to benefit anyone looking for a comparison of X-Cart SEO module solutions, just like anyone that views Comparison of shopping cart software looking for shopping cart solutions in general. Additionally, this article is more accurate and unbiased than any other X-Cart SEO articles that are currently available on the web. Intel352 (talk) 22:35, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 03:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Eringer

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

    Unintelligable nonsense, with about 100 BLP violations and bad bad sourcing. Probably conspiracy nut-job stuff. There may be an interesting article here,, but wow.....Let me end with a quote

    "Various articles on the Internet connect Robert Eringer to Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, in addition to the CIA. In one piece, convicted murderer Ira Einhorn voices his belief that Eringer was involved in an operation to make him disappear[3] while he was still living in France contesting extradition. (Einhorn currently lives at Houtzdale State Prison in Pennsylvania.) Another piece, by rogue MI6 spy Richard Tomlinson, whose blog actually did disappear[4] after mentioning Eringer by name, claimed that Eringer was part of an operation to make his writings disappear."

    Sheesh! Troikoalogo (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If it was just BLP violations and ridiculousness, I'd just put a cleanup tag on it, but this appears to completely fail WP:N. Gnews turns up nothing, and Google itself just turns up conspiracy sites and such. Delete per WP:N. miquonranger03 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment. Thanks for a great read! The Pottker vs. Feld et al. (et al includes Robert Eringer) court case seems to be definitely notable. Here's the <presumed genuine> court memo [16] NVO (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete the current article, which is a blatant violation of speedy deletion criteria (BLP violations and intended solely to attack the subject), and start over with a fresh stub. He may have some mild notability as an espionage fiction writer. Apparently, the global-conspiracy crowd thinks him a subject for their conspiracy theories, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to give undue weight to their theories, nor any weight at all to them for that matter. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:40, 11 September 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. MBisanz talk 03:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jubbly

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

    Contested prod. Article is about a made-up food. TN‑X-Man 15:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me, but this is NOT a made-up food. Just because you have never heard of it does not mean it has been made up. If you are not from North East England, then you probably won't have heard of it, however please do not sit at your computer and imply that I am making things up. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - Without citations this appears madeup. Rob Banzai (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment These do seem to actually exist: Jubbly Ice Lollies. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make them notable, but they don't seem to be made up. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That product does not appear to be the same thing in the article. Rob Banzai (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Comment - Your link is a good one, but the article seems (to me, at least) to be referring to something else. Possibly it's a case where a brand-name is used as a generic descriptor (such band-aids, scotch tape, etc.)? TN‑X-Man 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict with comment below)I think you're exactly right, Tnxman. If that is the case, the the article should be deleted, no? And an article about the brand name product can be created IF it can be proven notable? Dawn Bard (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. The brand name is one thing, but this appears to be different. If the brand name can be shown to be notable, an article definitely could be created. TN‑X-Man 16:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There you go, so it does exist. I would like an apology for it being implied that I have been sitting here making things up (which is the same as telling lies). I was a raised as a good Christian and I would never ever tell lies. So delete the article if it makes you feel better, but please do not suggest that I have made things up.

    --Bravo Plantation (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Bravo that product is not what you describe in your article. You describe an ice lolly being manually mixed with a soft drink to create the "Jubbly." That link is to a manufactured product. Without further clarification and citations this still appears to be unsupported. Rob Banzai (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When will I find out if my article is going to be deleted or not? It's been hours now. Thanks. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah I know the article isn't mine :) It was just a figure of speech as I created it! --Bravo Plantation (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete based on Bravo Plantation's admission that he just made it up. Edward321 (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Add it as a comment to the Slush article. That would make the former more substantial. --Shieldfire (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A Message to Edward321

    You posted on the talk page for 'Jubbly' that it should be deleted as I confessed to "making it up". Please remove this comment as I NEVER once said this. I consider the comment that you made to be unjustified, and quite illegal. Please remove your comment and issue me with an apology or I will take this further. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines and is not a good redirect. Davewild (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Umph

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

    The tablet exists, but amid false positives, there's no evidence this is a notable product. TravellingCari 15:47, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 03:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncle Castro

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

    There's some vague hand-wavings of notability but nothing that backs up the claims. Searching under his given name is hard but with filters doesn't show much of anything nor does his pseudonym. His "only interview" doesn't assert notability and there's no evidence he passes WP:MUSIC. TravellingCari 15:39, 9 September 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 moved to essay author's userspace at User:EricDiesel/Coatrack Argument for Deletions. Keeper ǀ 76 15:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Coatrack Argument for Deletions

    Coatrack Argument for Deletions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a personal essay, not an encyclopedic article. On top of that it's so byzantine I have no idea what it really means. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the article got moved to userspace so there is no longer a need for this Afd. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:43, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 03:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Skyler Samuels

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

    Non-notable, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable actress without verifiability to reliable 3rd party sourcing which covers her specifically in a non-trivial manner. Nothing I can find confirms guest "star" in a sense beyond one appearance and technically you only ever have to be on the same show twice as the same character to be "recurring" (so I'm not sure we can even try to stretch things on the "significant" roles front. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 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), merge has been done very well and redirect can now be created as per the community consensus reched Fr33kmantalk APW 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim Leclerc

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

    Failed election candidate with no other claims of notability, fails WP:POLITICIAN. justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge to Liberal Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, agreed. I've moved some info to that page, so we can close and create the redirect. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:43, 10 September 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. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shii Ann Huang

    Shii Ann Huang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    She is just a reality show contestant who has done nothing of note apart from Survivor. Yes, she has been on two seasons, but precedent (and another one) shows that that is not enough. -- Scorpion0422 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there some sort of way to determine viewer usage and views of this edit? If literally no one is reading this article, then whatever. If it is generating traffic, it should stay. Unless of course you are one of those mindless Shii Ann fan's that can't handle any criticization of her (and there is plenty), you better get used to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the point of having any article about anything if it is full of subjective comments by a user with poor referencing skills. That is not encyclopedic. And that said user should be considered a vandal of the article, and the rules of wikipedia in relation to that should be implemented. We all know who I am writing about.
    My next set of criticism is for Scorpion. You only nominated this article for deletion because of the activities of a troll. Since when do trolls get rewarded for their efforts. And scorpion, you are clearly no implementing the same criteria across the board for nominating articles for deletion when clearly there are plenty of other Survivor contestants that should be nominated for deletion as well on the same grounds that you nominated this one. Yet you've focused on this one scorpion, because of this troll, with his or her subjective views of the person in question, and as such are rewarding this said troll. That is not constructive to wikipedia's standards, it is destructive. If he will be rewarded for his trolling and vandalism of this article, you will be setting a precedent to everyone else that this tactic and antic works, and it will encourage others to act the same toward all other types of articles.
    As for my opinion: I think Eliza Orlins and James Clements articles should be put back up. Shii Ann's article should stay, but should be kept reliable just like any other article on anything else on this site. And Kathy from Marquesas should have an article placed up. All contestants who have been in more than one season should have an article. That is not how it presently is, but that is the way I suggest it should be. That is the most objective way. Criteria of 'significant' stuff they did outside Survivor is measured subjectively and 'most popular' criteria is even more subjective, unreliable and unencyclopedic. Yeldarb68 (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was going to nominate it for deletion eventually anyway, even had there not been a troll. And please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I will get to those other Survivors eventually, but I don't like to flood the afd process with afds for similar people. You seem to have missed the point of an afd, it is not for criticizing other users, it is for discussing the merits (or lackthereof) of an article. -- Scorpion0422 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the problem isn't Shii Ann's article, Eliza's article or any specific article. It is the fact that there is no clearly defined criteria of what is acceptable and what is not. I suggest before deleting anyone else, the criteria should be defined first. That way, you can implement the criteria more smoothly. Doing it in reverse is nonsensical. And deleting things on the grounds of "Well, Kathy doesn't have an article, so let's delete James. James got deleted so let's delete Eliza. Eliza got deleted so..." So go clearly define what is acceptable. It is far too wishy washy at the moment. That is not encyclopedic, it is chaotic. And furthermore, this talk of getting to other Survivors 'eventually' is hard for me to believe. Why exactly were James, Eliza and Shii-Ann targeted for deletion before the likes of Clay's article? And I am not out to criticize you, I am criticizing the process. How can I say whether or not Shii Ann's article should be deleted where I have absolutely no criteria to judge that by? There should be strict criteria. Kind regards as always, Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is NOT the place to discuss the process; this is the place to talk about whether and why (or why not) THIS ARTICLE ONLY should be deleted or not, that's it. If you have any complaints about policy or guidelines, please indicate your grievances at the appropriate talk pages. MuZemike (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the appropriate talk page to argue that the contestants who were selected by the producers to play a second time are just as noteworthy as the winners? Tell me what talk page exists for me to urge in favor of such? Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, no assertion of notability, and while they were a contestant they seem to have done little outside of appearing on Survivor and spinoffs. The precedent for winners of reality shows exists but from reading this article (which I found difficult) she didn't win. The Cleanup and Refs templates have been sitting there for nearly a year, it has had its time, now it must go. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER - mutiple seasons on Survivor probably get her safely into the TV personality box, though it's a close call. Would be nice to have something at WP:OUTCOMES for cases like this one. Townlake (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:BLP2E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I say keep it up, it seems to generate traffic and is about a TV personality, whether you agree with the person's merits or not. I think Scorpion though made a good point when he said that it is for discussing the merits (or lackthereof) of an article. When it comes to lack of merits, I can't think of a better example then Shii Ann. Still, if the page is getting views, let it stay. If it isn't then oh well. I mean, you have said you have seen SURVIVOR SUCKS and know what the majority of people think about Shii Ann. Why not let the facts against her stay as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that this user has been adding his personal opinions and views on this person to the point that the page actually had to be protected. No doubt he would love to see it remain so he can continue to have a place for his views. -- Scorpion0422 03:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I've stopped doing that once I really GOT what this was about. It is a shame that posting stuff that was directly shown on the show is not good enough to be cited anymore....I mean, most of what I post millions of people saw. Oh well, I personally like it and since I still think you are one of the Shi Ann defenders I have gone up with on other websites, I am laughing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to burst your bubble, but the article is viewed by (on a good day) 50 people per day. So in reality, maybe a hundred people saw. -- Scorpion0422 13:55, 13 September 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 considered making this a soft redirect to Wiktionary, but decided against it on the balance of convenience. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clinician

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

    Dictionary Definition, offering nothing encylopedic, definetly can't be turned into an article. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and redirect to clinic. Why propose deletion? Doesn't make sense.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Because it is a definition that adds nothing to the clinic article which isn't entirely related, and the content is already covered in wiktionary. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not sure about the redirect. The clinic article is about the medical clinic. Clinician does not really refer to the medical context. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This term exists already at wikt:clinician and this article offers no relevant additional information than is kept at Wikitionary. The entry here is only formated as the definition of the term. As such, an links to this page should update to link to the term at Wiktionary. Fr33kmantalk APW 21:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep, article has been updated with references and consensus seems to be keep. Fr33kmantalk APW 21:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Boyd

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

    Non-notable photographer, fails WP:V; the only non-self-referential source is from a public exhibition where his name is listed in a group of artists with no other biographical information. A search on Google UK turns up no reliable sources, but a flurry of self-publishing photo sites such as Flickr, deviant ART, Myspace and the like.  Ravenswing  14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello. I apologise for the state of the Alex Boyd article. This is mainly due to my poor referencing skills. I will attempt to clean up the article this week, and make it more relevant for inclusion. Iam currently a Scottish Art Historian (University of Glasgow), who believes he is worth inclusion. Your help is of course appreciated. Ayrshirearts (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly any evidence you can provide that he does, in fact, fulfill the criteria in WP:BIO for creative professionals is helpful.  Ravenswing  14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep I had originally proposed this article for deletion, but the changes to the article made today including references make this article now a weak keep. If the forthcoming exhibitions were to come off then it would be a definate keep. Jenafalt (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Can this article then be reconsidered at the end of the month? While I believe that he is notable due to working with several major label acts amongst others, as well as being praised by a leading Scottish Photographer - Harry Benson, It would be good to see if the Bucharest exhibition happens. Can the deletion notices now be removed? Please advise.

    Ayrshirearts (talk) 12:37, 12 September 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), consensus is to keep Fr33kmantalk APW 21:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Westie (person)

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

    This article lacks any sources what so ever and seems to be more of a lengthy dictionary entry rather than a useful encyclopedia entry

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary Yet this article has a thorough, albeit unsourced definition of the term

    Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

    Wikipedia is not a soapbox

    Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

    124.184.251.254 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Much of the article is sourced, and the "unsourced" definition in the intro is sourced by bits lower in the article. Our articles need to have definitions (we won't know what they're about otherwise!); the point of not-a-dictionary is that our articles must have more than definitions. This article isn't original research, and it need not be a soapbox or indiscriminate, which I don't believe it is anyway. Good faith effort by the IP nominator, but I believe s/he misunderstands what these policies mean. By the way, at a time when this article was entitled Westies (people), it was kept at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Notable topic, as attested by some of the sources listed. Yes, wp is not a dictionary; but article do need to define what the subject is. Any original thought in the article should be removed or tagged ({{cn}}, {{or}}, etc.. There is nothing indiscriminate about the info in the article, it is all about the term "Westie" and the associations with that title. Characters in science fiction movies who are named for U.S. politicians would be an indiscriminate list... Good faith nomination, but this article simply needs some work. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Mdssummermsw. JRG (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, not just not a dicdef, but an interesting social phenomenon that is certainly notable and encyclopædic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep. Agree that it is a social phenomenon. It is the subject of scholarly research.[17][18] ShipFan (talk) 16:05, 11 September 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. seicer | talk | contribs 13:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keratosis pharyngis

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

    Definition, article isn't even beyond 2 sentences, either needs expansion to stub quality, or deletion until improved. Neuro√Logic 18:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC) This entry was incomplete. Listing it now. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Expand or speedy delete per nom. Han-Kwang (t) 15:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - now sufficient content to be a stub article. Han-Kwang (t) 15:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A minute spent on a Google search reveals a fair number of medical journals and other reliable sources, suggesting obvious possibility for expansion. There is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I expanded it a little. There seems to be only a handful of available sources, but that doesn't mean a stub wouldn't be useful. Narayanese (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - A notable condition which might reasonably be searched for. The article needs to be webbed in. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It definitely needs expanding, but there are enough published articles about the condition to justify its inclusion in wikipedia. When I was checking it out, I did notice that it sometimes appears under derivatives of the name (e.g. pharyngeal keratosis, keratosis pharyngea, and various older terms), so perhaps the article should reflect this, or the correct medical term confirmed.~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep- just like many medical, plant and other more scientific stubs we have. Sticky Parkin 21:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Its a stub, but we dont delete articles for being stubs RogueNinjatalk 22:47, 9 September 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 (G4) and salt (Non–admin closure) as blatant recreation of recently deleted material. Article also creation–protected (salted) to prevent further recreation. MuZemike (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Kevin and Lew Show

    AfDs for this article:
    The Kevin and Lew Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a promotional entry, with the entry being created in parallel on Conservapedia and Wikipedia (it was originally flagged as a copyright violation). The entry was seemingly created by people related with the show, and the show clearly fails WP:N. There is no evidence of coverage by any reliable sources, never mind that of a substantial nature. zero google news hits to try and find coverage from. While the show has aired since the last RfA, the notability really hasn't. – Toon(talk) 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as nominator – Toon(talk) 14:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Radio show that airs only on student-run college station. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete - Highly promotional ad for blatantly non-notable program. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Waitaminnit, that's actually a G4! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 9 September 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. Xclamation point 02:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Candice Barnes

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

    I don't know why this page was set up about me. I have corrected the information initally posted (as there were glaring factual errors) but I really do recommend it be deleted. I'm definitely not notable or worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Lolliebuzz piebarnes (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tending toward keep Aren't television presenters generally considered notable, and aren't these awards enough to guarantee notability? I'm not familiar with these awards, so I'm not sure, but this person seems notable to me. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete at subject's request. Basic courtesy plus WP:BLP.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy due to subjects clear wishes. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The subject's request has nothing to do with this deliberation, otherwise many other articles would be deleted from Wikipedia when the subject is notable. In this case, however, the article does not meet WP:CREATIVE to warrant keeping. WWGB (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:BLP and WP:Notability. Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete ignoring "supposed" subjects request (I'm sorry but, without proof I'm disinclined to automatically believe these claims). The article itself still seems to fails our criteria for inclusion based on the notability and [[WP:V| verifiability}} issues. I don't see anyWP:BLP concerns at all though so if someone would be kind enough to educate me on what in the article is causing "concern" it would be greatly appreciated. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, I'm not seeing any real notability here beyond being a garden-variety regional newsreader. One award, but it doesn't strike me as enough for WP:BIO. Note that a comment from someone on the talk page who may or may not be the person in question was not factored into my decision. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:14, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 03:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Uttara Computers

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

    It claims it's a school but it seems like a n-n private institute with very little information under its old or new names. While ghits aren't the be all and end all, there's no claim or evidence of any notability. TravellingCari 13:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Redirected to linguistic purism, and therefore closing this AfD as moot; also per WP:SNOW. The content of the page has been preserved at the originating editor's user page, at User talk:Iwanjka/Language purification. The content appeared to be an essay about editing Wiktionary and Wikipedia, and as such should be somewhere other than article space. On the other hand, I saw nothing in it that would appear to require erasing the history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Language Purification

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

    Unencyclopedic, incoherent, rambling essay: some sort of online collaborative WP:OR involving an external site. VerticalDrop (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete an incoherent rant is what this article wishes it could be when it grows up. Note that there are a small but significant number of Google hits for "language purification", but none of them seem to be what the article is talking about. In any case, none of the current content is salvagable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Breaks almost every single rule we have Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy? This seems to be somebody's essay about editing Wiktionary and Wikipedia, not an encyclopedia article. I'd be happy to put it on a user page. Suggest that the instant title be made a disambig page between linguistic purism and linguistic prescription. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and created that subpage and copied the text to it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete if left in its current form (note--at time of typing there's a notice on the article saying it's undergoing a major revision). In its current form it fails WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:SNOW, hence the speedy.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Someone has had an insight on how to improve communication, and written an essay. The article has convinced me, although I'm not sure of what. Mandsford (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete now that it's userfied. There's no need for a disambiguation page unless the term "language purification" is actually used with several different meanings. A simple redirect to linguistic purism would be fine, however. --Amble (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Subject is real and I've warned the multiple contributors that the tone and content are unsuitable to WP. It's not userfied as of this writing, but it could be a good idea - Skysmith (talk) 06:33, 10 September 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 Conservative Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election#Sault Ste. Marie. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cameron Ross

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

    Contested prod. Subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, as he is unelected, and is non-notable beyond that. The soonews.ca reference provided is reliable, but I do not feel it demonstrates significant coverage. Other references are press releases/official bios. TN‑X-Man 13:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - That sounds like a good idea. Count me in under redirect. TN‑X-Man 14:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Robinson (footballer)

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

    Previously deleted as a result of this AfD. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in fully-professional league or competition. Source in article indicates that he's played for Barbados at international level, however, this source does not mention Robinson's name. --Jimbo[online] 13:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Can't turn up any sources other than [19], which shows him as coming off the subs bench for Mansfield Town. To the best of my knowledge that does not make him pass WP:ATHLETE. And I certainly can't find anything which corroborates the idea he played for Barbados. Porterjoh (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I'm finding plenty of sources over a decade - [20], including this BBC article that says he is/was a senior Barbados international. Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you actually read those articles? The first link to Google news lists his name in squads for Conference National games, which is not fully-pro, failing WP:ATHLETE. That one BBC link, calls him an international with no proof that he has played. Like the link to the story on Hendon's website, which said he played against N.Ireland - but he didn't (wasn't even on the bench). --Jimbo[online] 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something fishy here ... Nfitz (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:ATHLETE - unless evidence of the contrary can be found. --Angelo (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Minfo (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nom and Jimbo above. No evidence he passes notability non of google search hits from Nfitz satisfy. Internationals are recorded - show me one team list on a WP:RS that lists him playing for Barbados and I'd be happy to keep, but a vague unsupported low level BBC article doesn't cut it. Lazy journalist I reckon.--ClubOranjeTalk 11:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Features included in the Melways Street Directory

    Features included in the Melways Street Directory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The Melway is a street directory, and is notable in the city of Melbourne, Australia as the article linked to shows. However listing what features a street directory contains is not encyclopaedic. Wongm (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. This is far too detailed and not a likely search term and no reason to re-direct. TravellingCari 15:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - No notability outside of the Directory, no reason to include all of it in the article on the Directory. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - not notable in any way, nor is it even useful. I'd be very interested in hearing the rationale of the article's creator as to why he or she even thought this was worth the effort typing in. I don't normally criticize in this way, and of course there's no question of Good Faith, but I just have to ask why in this case. 23skidoo (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:IINFO. Irrelevant information. Murtoa (talk) 03:51, 11 September 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. Nom withdrawn. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Boetsch

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

    I'm not sure whether this person meets the notability bar for sports people, so I thought it would benefit from wider scrutiny. He seems to get some coverage (from a Google search), but doesn't appear to have won anything of note. In addition to some cleanup and neutrality issues, the article has a few edits from a Tboetsch... but not enough that I'm convinced it's a vanity article. Anyway, it needs more eyes on it than just mine ;) EyeSerenetalk 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If he's been fighting in the UFC he passes WP:Athlete for competing at the top level. Article may still need a clean up though. I'll have a go. --Nate1481 13:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep per Nate. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep concur with Nate1481.JJL (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's not as cut and dry with MMA fighters as other athletes, but I see fights at 3 major UFC events (2 of them wins.) One good reference in there, and it looks like there's more out there based on a quick google news search.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nom withdrawn. Thank you all for the input. My suspicion was of a possible vanity article of borderline notability, and we have enough of those already ;) However, I'm persuaded by the comments from those who know the sport better than I do, so if someone wants to close this AfD...? Thanks again, EyeSerenetalk 16:11, 9 September 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 (A7) (Non–admin closure) MuZemike (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Underhill

    Chris Underhill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Delete. Unreferenced, unable to confirm notability, a vanity article that reads like a resume. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete under A7 (non-notable person). I originally nominated the article for speedy deletion, but the tag appears to have been inappropriately removed.  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 13:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete Shameless Self promotion....Speedy under A7 benjicharlton (talk) 14:21, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 03:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm That

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

    Crystal single. Article based on rumors. Kww (talk) 12:38, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Data Airlines

    Data Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Delete non notable "sub-record label" per WP:GARAGE, and WP:ORG Mayalld (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't think that this article is among WP:GARAGE rules. This record label's artists are having their own albums, they were on real tours, they're not formed their bands yesterday. Well sorry, I have no experience of making and filling good articles. With best regards, --I0ngunn3r (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Data Airlines is a established comercial label with distributiondeals with one of the three largest distributors in France (the first and only chipmusic-label to accomplish this. It is not, as earlier stated in the article, a sub-label to anything. IMO its very relevant to wikipedia in general and the chipmuisc/8-bit history in particular. Deletion would be a catastrophy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.165.156.94 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related

    deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Agree with Hello Control. I could find no 3rd party news coverage of Data Airlines or of Dubmood for that matter. Sashaman (talk) 06:44, 20 September 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 Deleted per WP:CSD#G11. Article was essentially an advertisement for pLotdev Multimedia LLC.  Frank  |  talk  12:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Digital Content Provider

    Digital Content Provider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article has little or no content and focuses on one account executive at Plot Mulitmedia Developers. «JavierMC»|Talk 12:23, 9 September 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 deleted per WP:CSD#G7  Frank  |  talk  12:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Cassidy

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

    No longer in use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rome1972 (talk • contribs) 2008/09/01 16:29:20

    • Speedy delete. Blanked by author and/or invalid redirect. So tagged. Dpmuk (talk) 12:23, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 03:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Andre Ramos

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

    No global, general or independent notability, no reliable sources, and an orphan. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete There is a lack of sources for verification and the subject appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Borderline speedy. Obscure Mormon official. 66.65.85.250 (talk) 04:37, 6 September 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)--Chenzw  Talk  01:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:Overcategorization. Muhammad said "I talked to an angel last night." Should I create an article named like that?!

    Proposed article: I talked to an angel last night. HD1986 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, on the grounds that: 1) The claimed deletion rationale is bizarre, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 2) This article was kept after a previous deletion nomination, and the proposer has offered no explanation as to what, if anything, has changed since then. 3) The article is about a valid entity which is worthy of inclusion here (even if the article needs improvement in some respects). AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — just to clarify my position, I don't think such an article should be voted on to whether keep it or not. Having such a voting is a clear bias. I'm going to make an article called "kill every man, woman, and child in Canaan" soon and categorize it under "Jewish phrases," and let's see if they will have a voting over it or not. Secondly, and more importantly, if there should be a voting the voters should be neutral users. I mean not outspoken fanatics such as user:AnonMoos; and since this is an article that is basically anti-Islam, the muslim view should be taken into consideration to maintain NPOV. Since I'm not Muslim, I'm not going to explain the Muslim POV, but I'm an Arabic-speaker and I know that this letter was not properly translated to English. HD1986 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever -- Herem is an article partly because the word occurs in the Old Testament, but "kill every man, woman, and child in Canaan" is not discussed on Wikipedia because that phrase occurs absolutely nowhere in the Bible. Meanwhile, getting back to the actual relevant subject of the article at hand, it's an indisputable fact that early Muslim historiography contains accounts of Muhammad and other early Muslim rulers sending a number of letters or messengers to surrounding rulers saying essentially "submit to Muslim rule / overlordship or prepare to be conquered" -- and that being the case, there's no reason why this subject can't be covered on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I wonder on what basis you deduced that I am allegedly a "fanatic". I'm sure that I have much more valid information available to me to conclude that you're flitting about hither thither and yon in Wikipedia making making dogmatic arrogant pronouncements on matters you really know rather little about (not to mention knocking my Watchlist offline -- and the Watchlists of a number of other users as well -- with the "Homat el Diyar" nonsense...). AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • General semi-random observation -- P.S. Right now I'm in the position of simultaneously being called an Israeli stooge by the self-pointed defender of Islam User:HD1986, while getting disapproval from strong Israeli nationalists over on Talk:Majdal Shams... AnonMoos (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is not a vote, HD1986. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — "kill every man, woman, and child in Canaan" occurs literally absolutely nowhere in the Bible, but the phrase "Aslim taslam" occurs absolutely nowhere in the Koran neither literally nor implied. Actually I think a more sensible translation of the letter is this one Muhammad's letters to the Heads-of-State. Muhammad explains what he means by his threat when says "if thou rejects, thou shalt bear the sins of the Arisiyins". He is threatening with God not with using force.HD1986 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one ever did claim it was found in the Qur'an, as far as I'm aware. Meanwhile, the translation in that article attempts to emulate ca. 1600 King James Version style early modern English, with mediocre success (something which does not necessarily add to its comprehensibility) accompanied by frequent personal interpretative explanations in parentheses. And on some occasions, similar letters were sent out in anticipation of planned military attacks... AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Added comment on translation deficiencies in that article to Talk:Muhammad's letters to the Heads-of-State... AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Check out the new page: O generation of vipers. HD1986 (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First off, this would appear to be a violation of the WP:POINT and primary sources rules. Second, quite a number of Christians would find the wording "the Christian god Jesus Christ" to be offensive. Third, Christianity and Judaism did not exist as separate religions when the phrase was uttered (the word "Christian" itself didn't even exist until after Acts 11:26) -- at the time Jesus was a Jew presenting an interpretation of true Judaism. AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So the wroding "the Christian god Jesus Christ" is offensive though it is factually ture, but "Aslim Taslam" and the whole presentation of this article isn't offensive? I'm sure Jews don't consider abandoning the Bible laws and the observance of Shabat the "true Judaism". The worthiness level of that article is equivalent to this one's.HD1986 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See Ceyockey ... within less than an hour, the new article has gotten a speedy delete tag. No discussion, no opinions ... this is what I'm talking about ... BIAS ... HD1986 (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I think you are referring to 'this is not a vote', above. That does not mean 'one person will decide regardless of others' opinions', HD1986, but rather that bias introduced by counting 'me too' votes is ignored in favor of pros/cons arguments. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2nd comment The article was rejected for speedy deletion, HD1986. Many many pages are tagged for speedy deletion which are not automatically deleted; every speedy-tagged article has eyes put against it for a "is this consistent with policy" check by an administrator, who decides whether or not to delete speedily. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep. It is well-sourced and notable. Religious phrases, such as Render unto Caesar... are common. If this exists and its mentioned in multiple sources it should be kept. Also the nominator should not attack people in the AFD-- or elsewhere for that matter. We66er (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete per WP:NOT#OR. As it stands now, this is essentially an essay containing largely original research/synthesis. Yes, it is clearly sourced but it is not encyclopedic.  Frank  |  talk  12:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral for now Hard to determine whether this is notable enough for an article of its own. There are a few secondary or tertiary sources in the article, but mostly it's primary sources. This source describes the phrase as famous (celebre). This literary work may be making an ironic allusion to the phrase. (In my mind, if a phrase is well-known enough to be alluded to in literature, it merits mention somewhere in wiki, perhaps in its own article.) Is there a list somewhere that this could be merged to? Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Sarcastic nomination + appearance of legit sources in the article = I don't see a compelling reason to delete. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Well sourced, viable topic. Some of the wording can be revised (through remember that not all articles must adhere to a Judeo-Christian viewpoint in use of terminology, as long as NPOV is maintained) but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 15:53, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Breakout Degree

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

    Contested speedy. Subject lacks WP:RS, probable failure of WP:BAND. Movingboxes (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, no verifiable evidence that this meets WP:NMG. I declined the speedy because the article asserted notability in the form of playing with blue-linked bands and having three album releases. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No evidence they are notable. Yet. Article can be recreated if they make it to notability. --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable. Take it to MySpace. Grsztalk 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable; no verifiability to claims of connections. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 16 September 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, consensus to merge/redirect, will perform Fr33kmantalk APW 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christine Innes

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

    Running for political office does not qualify for notability. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. When someone runs for office they are of public interest and therefore worthy of notability. If having been elected is the minimal criteria for political notability then the incumbant has an advantage over other candidates by having their profile accessible through Wikipedia. This makes Wikipedia a tool that can cause imbalance in an electoral race.Rybada (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have no problem with a listing of candidates and their information, but I notice that in the 2006 Liberal candidates list there are links to individual profiles for people who were not, and have not been, elected. I don't understand why this page shouldn't stand as have others.Rybada (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:WAX. That's a good argument for removing those articles, not for including this one. justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Especially during an election campaign, such articles are naturally going to proliferate. Wikipedia might not catch them all right away, but their existence doesn't justify more of them. Also, keep in mind that some unelected candidates may already be notable for other reasons independently of their candidacy, such as their prior career (e.g. Marc Garneau, Peter Kent) or having previously served in a different political role (e.g. Marilyn Churley). Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move per Mindmatrix. -Royalguard11(T) 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI, we're currently trying to solve this problem en mass before it happens. Discussion here. -Royalguard11(T) 04:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move and Redirect per Mindmatrix. Suttungr (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Dont know the exact guidlines to deletion, but I specifically sought this page out after reading on electionprediction.org (forgive the spam its just where i heard about the riding) that the riding could go eitherway. I think the page provides useful information and is infrmative. I do think the article is longer than it needs to be at this point but defineatly doesnt require deletion (at least in my thoughts)Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per Bearcat. Even if she was sufficiently notable, it would only be for one event, this election. (See BLP1E. If she is elected, she can have an article. DigitalC (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Mailman

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

    This page is for a minor league baseball player currently playing Class A level. The page has been tagged since December 2007 for Notability, has not seen any major improvement since its creation, It Lacks secondary sources and does not meet the current Notability guidelines for professional baseball players Hardnfast (talk) 12:51, 2 September 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. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Del Rey (band)

    Del Rey (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unnotable band. The entire article is an unverifiable timeline. Tavix (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No sources to demonstrate passing WP:MUSIC (and no obviously reliable ones avalible either via google). Eluchil404 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Doron Sabag

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

    Self promotion. Non-notable rich man. Fails both WP:N and WP:BIO. No independent reliable source. No references at all. Created by Nimrod Kamer, a user that was banned both from English and Hebrew Wikipedia because of spamming (He wrote many article about himself/his friends and his films - such as this one). This user has some sock poppets (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marina T..) The article about this 'film' creator was deleted. In fact this article was should be deleted on first nomination. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doron Sabag beacuse User:Marina T. (who was banned for massive copyvio) and User:Shmila who voted "keep" are both sock puppets of Nimrod Kamer.

    To prove is is nn: [21] - only 313 results most of the from Wikipedia and mirrors. [22] - see that most of the results are from mirrors of Wikipedia. --Plantended (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - It seems that this nomination is based on the personality of the article's authors and not on the article subject. Currently the article doesn't cite proper sources, which must be improved, of course, but a quick search in Hebrew (דורון סבג) reveals that Sabag is indeed a notable art patron. He is mentioned many times in the art sections on all leading Israeli web sites - Ynet, NRG, Haaretz and others. (As a side note: the claim that Shmila and Marina T. are Nimrod Kamer's socks was never proved. I tried to prove it and failed.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it's not. I would nominate it no matter who is the author. --Plantended (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. per nom. THFFF (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete - He is nobody in Israel. No reliable source. --Qwerty1234 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete despite the possible sockpuppetry as noted by Amire80: the article really doesn't demonstrate notability through sources. If reliable sources are added, however, keep. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I added references, including Haaretz calling him one of the most influential people in Israeli art. They are in Hebrew; feel free to ask anyone listed in Category:User he to verify them. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1. Newspaper is not a reliable source. 2. He is nn according to this article. --YYOOYY (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newspaper is not a reliable source??? Haaretz is Israel's oldest daily newspaper. How is it not reliable? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The article requires additional notes but if he is mentioned in Haaretz calling him one of the most influential people in Israeli art, it makes him noteworthy enough. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:28, 12 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eudemons Online

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

    Non-notable game with no independent coverage or interests in said game. Bigbigbigbigbigbackground (talk) 01:00, 31 August 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Extra-Terrestrial Exposure Law

    Extra-Terrestrial Exposure Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    An unnotable law that seems more a trivia remark than anything of encyclopedic value. Failed PROD with prod removed without explanation by an IP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Unfortunately, when the only source of an article is snopes.com, there's not much content. This wasn't a statute, but a federal regulation, 14 CFR §1211 and it wasn't as trivial as the article makes it seem. When the regulation was promulgated in 1969, there was a legitimate concern about whether contaminants would be brought back from space exploration. The astronauts returning from Apollo 11 were even quarantined as a precaution. There's room to add more content and to provide a context that removes it from the "crazy law" category. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unfortunately, when the only source of an article is snopes.com, there's not much verifiable content. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, there are other sources in the world besides snopes.com where things can be verified, such as this one. I'm going to do some checking about. Mandsford (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. That the US had a procedure for extraterrestrial quarantine sounds pretty notable. We can't find newspaper articles about this? Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Like Squidfryerchef said, this is a notable due to its impact.Retodon8 (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fr33kmantalk APW 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    F.C. Prabis

    F.C. Prabis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    That team don't exist.. you can see in [23]. That team is not listed in any level of Guinean football leagues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs)

    I decided to be bold and add the above articles which are all almost identical. Similar arguments will apply to all of them. ~ Eóin (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Those calling for deletion seem to be keen on rsssf.com, which actually shows that this team did exist, at least in 1994 and 1995. Whether it still exists is irrelevant to its notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Phil, and other comments I've scattered among recent AFD's by the same editor against football clubs in Guniea and Mozambique. Neier (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Also from rsssf.com:
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Inferno (truck)

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

    There's no evidence that this truck is notable per WP:N. While the series it races in may be notable, that doesn't extend to this individual truck. Cf. also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avenger (truck) (2nd nomination). B. Wolterding (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    J. Drummond

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

    Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question Is there a deletion reason for this disambiguation page? I'm not seeing one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete I've edited over 4000 disambiguation pages but not seen one like this. It is unclear if anyone on the page is known only or primarily as 'J. Drummond'. Itis simply a list of all the Jameses, Johns, Jacks etc., who all have their own pages. It does not serve any obvious purpose. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Patrick Hattenberger

    Joseph Patrick Hattenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article has some claim to notability ("well known photographer"), so speedy is not warranted. Prod was contested. Article seems to have been created by subject's daughter. As asserted in the article by the creator, there are no sources available, hence fails WP:BIO. Crusio (talk) 18:35, 6 September 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), consensus clearly seems to be keep Fr33kmantalk APW 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Justin D. Edwards

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

    Subject does not seem particularly notable by WP:PROF He is a full professor, but not of an endowed chair, and at a university a fair way down the league tables. He appears to have held a one-year by-fellowship at a Cambridge college, but this is a non-stipendary vistorship (per http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/admissions/fellows/Fellowships.php#b). Has written four books, and edited a couple, but almost nothing turns up on google scholar (e.g., 5 citations for his 2003 book, 4 for his 2005 book, 2 of which are actually the same citation, none for his 2002 book, although I was able to find academic reviews online}. The external links on the wiki page are mostly to book reviews, some of which were merely of books he edited. I also did not find anything in his academic cv that suggests notability (http://www.bangor.ac.uk/english/staff/edwards.php).} Crieff (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. GoogleScholar is notoriously bad in fishing out citations in humanities (WP:PROF mentions this) and one should look at things like book reviews and book library holdings as more reliable indicators of notability for such cases (again, per WP:PROF). In this case I checked two of his five books in WorldCat. The book "Exotic journeys: exploring the erotics of U.S. travel literature, 1840-1930" returns not just the book listing but also 6 reviews of the book in academic journals listed in WorldCat[24] (which is already fairly unusual). The book is widely held in academic libraries (in the U.S. WorldCat lists 179 libraries holding the book[25]). The second book, "Gothic passages: racial ambiguity and the American gothic" produces even more impressive results in WorldCat. Again, 6 reviews of the book in academic journals listed there[26]. According to WorldCat, the book is held by 594 libraries (most are acdemic libraries) in the U.S. alone[27]. These are extremely high results for an academic book on any subject. Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete.Thanks for the caveats re GoogleScholar, Nsk92. I still have doubts about whether the subject satisfies WP:PROF. For starters, there are only three reviews, not six, of the 'Exotic Journeys' book listed in WorldCat, and five reviews, rather than six, of the Gothic book (you counted six and six because some of the reviews are listed twice, for some reason). Three reviews of one book and five of another does not strike me as particularly unusual, especially in the field of English (lots of profs, lots of journals), and especially when the topic of the book is historical Americana (Exotic Journeys) or Americana/Race issues (the Gothic book). There are just two reviews of his third and most recent book on WorldCat, which is on Gothic Canada. (If his books were being reviewed because he is notable, rather than b/c the topic is relevant to a broader cross-section of academic, I would expect him to have consistently high review counts.)
    • I'm also unsure about how much weight should hang on the library holdings, which again, at least to my mind, don't jump out as particularly high, especially given the nature of the books and the discipline. Can you say more about why you think those numbers are 'extremely high results for an academic book on any subject"? Moreover, widespread library holdings would be relevant, I think, when they reflect the esteem with which an author is held by the academic community. Are you confident that the library holdings in this case are evidence that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" (per WP"PROF? I doubt, for example, that Alice Lloyd College Library in Pippa Passes, Kentucky holds the book because it was specifically recommended for purchase by a member of faculty or because its author is on a 'must buy' list because of his notability. What seems much more likely is that a library made a buying decision based on the title and nature of the book.
    • Moreover, the UK library holdings of books by the subject are extremely low, especially considering he is based in the UK. His 'Gothic Passages' book is held by only five libraries, his 'Exotic Journeys' book is held by just three libraries, and his 'Gothic Canada' book is held by just four libraries. In each case, one of the libraries is at his home university, and the bulk of the rest are UK copright libraries (which get a free copy of every book published in the UK, and mantain vast and indiscriminate holdings of academic books). This does not seem consistent with someone who has made a significant impact on his academic discipline. Crieff (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To put library holdings into perspective: I know firsthand that Elsevier considers an academic book that sells a total of 300 copies WORLDWIDE a VERY good seller.--Crusio (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, a note on protocol. By a Wikipedia convention, the AfD nominator usually does not cast an additional !vote in the AfD itself. The nominating statement is already understood to be a Delete !vote and will be counted as such by the closing admin. (So a "Comment" or "Response" header for your comment above would be more appropriate). Regarding the number of reviews in WorldCat, you are correct: I had not checked that the reviews listed there were distinct. About the number of library holdings: all I can say here is that I am expressing a personal opinion based on my prior academic-related AfD experience. For scholars in humanities (and sometimes in natural/exact sciences) I always check WorldCat data. It is fairly unusual to see academic book reviews listed there at all (one typically has to do JSTOR etc searches to find the reviews in academic journals). And I had not seen a number as high as 594 in WorldCat for any academic book in any subject before. So I am inclined to give it substantial weight, especially since most holdings listed there are in academic libraries. Re UK vs US, since the subject matter is about cultural studies on U.S. and Canada, it is natural that most scholarship on these matters is done in the U.S., so the U.S. data is most relevant. Nsk92 (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A more careful search shows more academic reviews of the books mentioned above than the WorldCat data indicates. E.g. for the "Gothic passages book" we have reviews in: International Fiction Review[28], Humanities and Social Sciences[29], English Studies in Canada[30], ANGLES Volume III[31], American Literature[32],Poe studies[33], JOURNAL OF THE FANTASTIC IN THE ARTS[34]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CommentThanks Nsk92 for the note about protocol. I hadn't realized a nomination counted as a delete, since I can imagine nominating an entry for discussion before one has decided it ought to be deleted (when one suspects, but isn't sure, whether it should be). I am still inclined to think that the book review count is not at all out of the ordinary, and that the library holidings reflect the title/topic of his book rather than his notability, but realize that would be the kind of thing to discuss on the WP:PROF talk pages (I think that holdings are very unreliable, in that it is too easy for there to be false positives, and the criterion is much easier to meet than the other criteria). Crieff (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep The book reviews are sufficient evidence of importance in his subject. DGG (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Nsk92. Quote WP:PROF: It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. I find the idea of "5 reviews is nuff, but if you only have 3, we'll finish you off" highly disturbing. And, concerning the validity of library holdings as an indicator: is it not better to be false positive than false negative? --Saaska (talk) 13:47, 9 September 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 consensus of dicussion is to keep, if article needs cleanup then that should be done, del inappropriate Fr33kmantalk APW 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lance Nielsen

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

    This page is unsourced, has no in-linking Wikipedia pages, and appears very much to be an autobiography. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 05:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment None of the three points in the nomination are reasons for deletion, but reasons for cleanup. The crucial point is whether reliable and significant coverage of him exists, not whether it's in the article at present. However, since I can find no such coverage of him in news, Google books, or reliable websites deletion may be the correct course. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This from the article is a start, but not quite enough on its own to establish notability. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup. In addition to the Guardian article noted above, there is a BBC news article and an Evening Standard article. Sufficient to establishnotability, if that is what is in question. As previously noted, the nominating rationales are all reasons for cleaning up the article and not deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good finds, Whpq. Definitely enough to justify keeping. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:10, 10 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of live-action role-playing groups

    List of live-action role-playing groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A list of non-notable clubs of a specific type of game. I CSD'd just about everything there, except for maybe 3 articles which did mention the corresponding club in a 3rd party source that was not a passing mention. — Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 08:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong keep a number of the groups mentioned have strong evidence of notability in terms of media coverage, see both their articles and the citations at the bottom of the list for items that don't have articles yet. Ryan Paddy (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I viewed the list, and about 60 percent of the items had no sources that met our policy, WP:SOURCE. Now, about 60 percent of those articles are deleted. A catagory would fit this much better than a list.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Only one single source provided is verifiable and follows policy, and notability requires significant coverage. A single news source is not significant. One of the sources provided does not follow policy, as it is not independent of the subject, the rest are in different languages, which does not follow WP:V, meaning they must be in english to be verifiable if they are to be used on the english wikipedia.—Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's true that some of the subjects listed have no evidence of notability, and removing them from the list would be warrented. That doesn't warrent the deletion of the list, because a number do have evidence of notability. You have marked some of the articles on notable subjects for speedy deletion, and some of those deletions will now be contested, so it seems premature to claim the articles don't exist. Citations being in foreign languages does not negate verifiability, please read WP:NONENG more closely. English sources are preferred, but not required if the only sources available are non-English. Neither does it negate notability. Are all subjects that are mostly notable only in Germany or France not sufficiently notable for the English wikipedia? No, they are notable, language is not a barrier to notability. This list operates better as a list than a category, as it allows room for brief descriptions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The list is superior to a category as it can provide brief summaries; a simple list is inferior. Now, if the list were to be depopulated it would obviously cease to be relevant. But it's not depopulated yet. Wait until you've successfully deleted them, then kill the category. — Alan De Smet | Talk 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To anyone investigating who notes that most of the links to full articles are dead: about a dozen were just CSDed for failing to claim notability and deleted today. I believe the deletions were in error; many of the articles did note why the groups in question were notable, but failed to make it clear to a casual review or to someone unfamiliar with LARPs. I would expect at least a half-dozen to be back soon. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps I'm overlooking it, but WP:CSD doesn't appear to list "lack of references" as grounds for speedy deletion. More core point stands: the list was only recently depopulated. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Yes, it does: They failed to assert why they were notable. Notability is derived from reliable 3rd-party sources that are independent of the subject. Since there were no 3rd-party sources that were independent of the subject, no notability is asserted, and therefore they are subject to A7.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 23:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alan is correct in stating that lacking references does not qualify an article for CSD. The CSD page says under A7 ("does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") that "This is distinct from questions of verifiability". If I write an article which says "Mr. Foo is an author whose books have sold millions of copies and won the Booker prize" when he is not, then I have asserted notability which saves it from A7; however, since the claims can't be backed up by sources it fails verifiability and can be deleted at AfD. The two concepts are independent. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Olaf is right. I would encorage an admin to check out any speedy deletions based on Daedalus' misinterpretation of CSD, and to report back the extent to which any of them are genuine A7s. AndyJones (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a mis-understanding of the policy, but I will admit a wrong action for a CSD. As to the CSDs, even if my reasons were wrong, they were my reasons. The deleting admin was following policy correctly, and deleted my nominations accordingly.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 05:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand "I don't have a mis-understanding of the policy, but I will admit a wrong action for a CSD". You appear to be saying you DO understand the policy but you misapplied it deliberately. Is that what you mean? If not, what do you mean? Either way I stand my my suggestion that an admin looks these over to see if they are genuine A7s. AndyJones (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, an admin already looked over these, just look at the deleting admin's userpage. Some of the articles that I nom'd were declined a speedy, but most were deleted under what an admin saw classified as A7. As so my knowledge of the policy, no, I did not make a mistake on purpose, that is what a mistake is, an error in judgment.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins have been known to make mistakes. Usually through haste and carelessness, to which they are as susceptible as anyone else. A few have even been known to speedy articles based on misinterpretations of policy. (And there is even the possibility that one or two might be deliberately deleting on the basis of what they think the policy ought to be, and relying on not being challenged effectively. ) The reason they don't harm the encyclopedia as much as one might think is that we also rely on editors in general to be careful in their speedy nominations. It's rash here or anywhere to do potentially harmful things without knowing the rules and trust that those in authority will correct one's mistakes. DGG (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Few if any of the groups listed are notable enough for articles. If any of them are, they should probably be discussed in the main LARP article. Just because something is a list doesn't mean it doesn't require reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Unless you're claiming that there is no such thing a notable LARP group, which I think is ridiculous. If there are non-notable groups listed then delete those entries, not the entire list. At a glance though I think a bunch of those that were deleted via CSD should have gone via AfD as I'm pretty sure I've seen mainstream news references to some of them.Kmusser (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are numerous notable groups in this list and I endorse the comments above that this deletion spree is improper and should be reverted. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There are thousands of LARP groups in the world, and all could potentially be added to this list, making it an indiscriminate directory of LARP groups. This is in violation with WP:NOT. Arsenikk (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep Not indiscriminate. Only the notable ones will be included. Almost all such groups in the world are in fact not actually notable, and can make no plausible case otherwise. I've deleted a number myself. The ones that pass will be suitable for the list. This argument can be applied equally wrongly to any list: "we should have no list of mathematicians, because most mathematicians are not notable." Equally true & equally irrelevant, for we remove articles on the ones who are not. )DGG (talk) 16:25, 11 September 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. If article needs improving it should be improved. Deletion is for non-savable stuff Fr33kmantalk APW 23:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Listening Books

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

    This article needs to be removed for the time being, so it can be restarted with a neutral point of view, in accordance with wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astephensbooks (talk • contribs) 2008/09/09 08:58:13


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources do appear trivial, and two relists failed to salvage the article. Ultimately notability is fatally low. — Coren (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lupertazzi crime family

    Lupertazzi crime family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced article, almost completely in-universe, searching for references reveals only trivial coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, there is trivial coverage, however there isn't significant coverage, so it should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The many sources seems quite significant in covering the various members of this family and here are some more. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 10 September 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) 08:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't seem to decide what needs to be done for this article, but it is a branch of "what some call the greatest show of all time" which may give it notability. I can't decide. — ^.^ [citation needed] 08:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 23:50, 18 September 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. Creating Scotland national football team - last 10 home games seicer | talk | contribs 13:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scotland national football team - last 10 away games

    Scotland national football team - last 10 away games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The information within the page appears to be covered in Scotland national football team 2000–2009 results. Information about the supporters points system might belong in other articles such as Tartan Army or Scottish Football Association but having a separate article in order to list this particular promotion seems pretty redundant when the fixtures themselves are listed elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a news site and having a list of this type goes against the principle of trying to put information into its historical context. Guest9999 (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete or merge the specific promotion as suggested. This page will go out of date every time a new game is played. MadScot666 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. – PeeJay 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Most of the information within the page is covered in Scotland national football team 2000–2009 results, however in a form that makes it hard to determine what the last away games were. Information about the points system could be incorporated into Tartan Army. See FIFA World Rankings top 25 rankings for an example of another page that "goes against the principle of trying to put information into its historical context" and also contains information that goes out of date every time the rankings are updated (i.e. once a month). Dpw77 (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article you mention is about the ranking system, it's details, history, mechanisms and commentary on it (such as criticism). This article seems to exist not to explain the points system (which doesn't seem to have received much coverage) or supporters group (which already has an article) but - as the title suggests - just to document a constantly changing list. Guest9999 (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete without merging: there's nothing significant about the "last ten away games" that will need to be merged that likely doesn't already appear on the page. Moreover, this is a ridiculously unlikely search target: merging will create a useless redirect. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:NOTNEWS / Townlake (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge a google search for "scotland away games" or "scotland away matches" has the page as the second match. A wikipedia search for "scotland away games" has the page as the first match. None of those searches is ridiculously unlikely. Dpw77 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete, does not belong in an encyclopedia for the reasons stated. Punkmorten (talk) 07:49, 10 September 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. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shii Ann Huang

    Shii Ann Huang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    She is just a reality show contestant who has done nothing of note apart from Survivor. Yes, she has been on two seasons, but precedent (and another one) shows that that is not enough. -- Scorpion0422 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there some sort of way to determine viewer usage and views of this edit? If literally no one is reading this article, then whatever. If it is generating traffic, it should stay. Unless of course you are one of those mindless Shii Ann fan's that can't handle any criticization of her (and there is plenty), you better get used to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the point of having any article about anything if it is full of subjective comments by a user with poor referencing skills. That is not encyclopedic. And that said user should be considered a vandal of the article, and the rules of wikipedia in relation to that should be implemented. We all know who I am writing about.
    My next set of criticism is for Scorpion. You only nominated this article for deletion because of the activities of a troll. Since when do trolls get rewarded for their efforts. And scorpion, you are clearly no implementing the same criteria across the board for nominating articles for deletion when clearly there are plenty of other Survivor contestants that should be nominated for deletion as well on the same grounds that you nominated this one. Yet you've focused on this one scorpion, because of this troll, with his or her subjective views of the person in question, and as such are rewarding this said troll. That is not constructive to wikipedia's standards, it is destructive. If he will be rewarded for his trolling and vandalism of this article, you will be setting a precedent to everyone else that this tactic and antic works, and it will encourage others to act the same toward all other types of articles.
    As for my opinion: I think Eliza Orlins and James Clements articles should be put back up. Shii Ann's article should stay, but should be kept reliable just like any other article on anything else on this site. And Kathy from Marquesas should have an article placed up. All contestants who have been in more than one season should have an article. That is not how it presently is, but that is the way I suggest it should be. That is the most objective way. Criteria of 'significant' stuff they did outside Survivor is measured subjectively and 'most popular' criteria is even more subjective, unreliable and unencyclopedic. Yeldarb68 (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was going to nominate it for deletion eventually anyway, even had there not been a troll. And please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I will get to those other Survivors eventually, but I don't like to flood the afd process with afds for similar people. You seem to have missed the point of an afd, it is not for criticizing other users, it is for discussing the merits (or lackthereof) of an article. -- Scorpion0422 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the problem isn't Shii Ann's article, Eliza's article or any specific article. It is the fact that there is no clearly defined criteria of what is acceptable and what is not. I suggest before deleting anyone else, the criteria should be defined first. That way, you can implement the criteria more smoothly. Doing it in reverse is nonsensical. And deleting things on the grounds of "Well, Kathy doesn't have an article, so let's delete James. James got deleted so let's delete Eliza. Eliza got deleted so..." So go clearly define what is acceptable. It is far too wishy washy at the moment. That is not encyclopedic, it is chaotic. And furthermore, this talk of getting to other Survivors 'eventually' is hard for me to believe. Why exactly were James, Eliza and Shii-Ann targeted for deletion before the likes of Clay's article? And I am not out to criticize you, I am criticizing the process. How can I say whether or not Shii Ann's article should be deleted where I have absolutely no criteria to judge that by? There should be strict criteria. Kind regards as always, Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is NOT the place to discuss the process; this is the place to talk about whether and why (or why not) THIS ARTICLE ONLY should be deleted or not, that's it. If you have any complaints about policy or guidelines, please indicate your grievances at the appropriate talk pages. MuZemike (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the appropriate talk page to argue that the contestants who were selected by the producers to play a second time are just as noteworthy as the winners? Tell me what talk page exists for me to urge in favor of such? Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, no assertion of notability, and while they were a contestant they seem to have done little outside of appearing on Survivor and spinoffs. The precedent for winners of reality shows exists but from reading this article (which I found difficult) she didn't win. The Cleanup and Refs templates have been sitting there for nearly a year, it has had its time, now it must go. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER - mutiple seasons on Survivor probably get her safely into the TV personality box, though it's a close call. Would be nice to have something at WP:OUTCOMES for cases like this one. Townlake (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:BLP2E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I say keep it up, it seems to generate traffic and is about a TV personality, whether you agree with the person's merits or not. I think Scorpion though made a good point when he said that it is for discussing the merits (or lackthereof) of an article. When it comes to lack of merits, I can't think of a better example then Shii Ann. Still, if the page is getting views, let it stay. If it isn't then oh well. I mean, you have said you have seen SURVIVOR SUCKS and know what the majority of people think about Shii Ann. Why not let the facts against her stay as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that this user has been adding his personal opinions and views on this person to the point that the page actually had to be protected. No doubt he would love to see it remain so he can continue to have a place for his views. -- Scorpion0422 03:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I've stopped doing that once I really GOT what this was about. It is a shame that posting stuff that was directly shown on the show is not good enough to be cited anymore....I mean, most of what I post millions of people saw. Oh well, I personally like it and since I still think you are one of the Shi Ann defenders I have gone up with on other websites, I am laughing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to burst your bubble, but the article is viewed by (on a good day) 50 people per day. So in reality, maybe a hundred people saw. -- Scorpion0422 13:55, 13 September 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), Conensus is to keep, prior AfD recent=keep Fr33kmantalk APW 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tanya Haden

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

    Previous nomination was No Concensus. Subject has no claims to notability outside of being married to Jack Black, and notability is not inherited.. The only sources provided are actually articles about her marriage and childbirth, both of which would not exist were she not married to Jack Black. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Keep Last AfD was only two weeks ago. GlassCobra 17:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't a valid reason to keep. That AfD ended in a No Concensus, meaning that nobody could agree. That's the whole point of starting a new one. Please at least back up your vote with a valid reason to keep the article. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I must agree with Rwiggum. I frequently vote Speedy Keep when AFDs are reopened after such a short interval, but when no censensus is reached, it is perfectly acceptable to try again. 23skidoo (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. She's one of the Hayden Sisters and Daughter of a famous Jazz musician —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.124.19 (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete - The sources given in the article and the article itself give no indication of her being independently notable. She's the girlfriend/wife of Jack Black, and did a cartoon voice in one of his movies, and was involved in what appears to be some NN musical projects, but that's not enough. Wikipedia notability policy has established that being related to someone famous doesn't make an individual notable (see, for example, the various attempts at getting individual articles made for the children of Angelina Jolie. No prejudice against creating a new article down the line if Haden begins to achieve notability through solo recording or acting. 23skidoo (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:52, 9 September 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. TN‑X-Man 18:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Underdark

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

    Unnotable setting in a fictional game. Fails WP:CRUFT and WP:FICTION. Tavix (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    KEEP. The Underdark is a major fixture of the D&D RPG setting which includes the game, related novels and video-games. While the article could use some work the subject is of relevance to a number of other notable topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.157.248 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Primary setting of bestselling series of novels. Indeed, Drizzt and the Underdark are (due to the books) familiar even to many people who don't normally read fantasy and wouldn't be caught dead playing D&D. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep In addition to what's noted above, the Underdark has appeared in derivative works, such as DartMUD. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable setting for an actual game. And a series of popular novels. And a MUD. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Countless video games, comics, novels, etc. It's a really big deal in its genre. Not a very good article, though. -- Poisonink (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - the article is sourced, just not properly sourced. The smallest amount or research uncovers many books including quite a number of NYTimes Best Sellers, so it most certainly meets the requirements of WP:FICTION. Plus according to WP:ITSCRUFT, Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion, but rather improvement. Since there are no reasons remaining to support deletion the article needs to be kept, but improved. Web Warlock (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, per above.--Robbstrd (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There was also a sourcebook about the Underdark, uncreatively itself named Underdark that is mentioned in a brief gloss amidst the article's dreck. I believe the book itself had enough third-party reviews to confer notability. Whether to keep the book and the setting in the same article or disambiguate will be an editorial decision, but speaks to the acceptability of content under this title. Serpent's Choice (talk) 04:36, 11 September 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. BJTalk 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Xiphoid

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

    There is no actual term called "Xiphoid" to reference wirstblades and its variations. The term is simply an idea of a few people in a forum and thus is not widespread enough to have an article of its own. In the dictionary, Xiphoid appears as: 1. "Shaped like a sword, ensiform." and 2. "Of, or relating to the xiphisternum."

    The article provides interesting, even useful, details about a pop-culture phenomenon. Currently, there is no wikipedia article for "Wristblades". If the only objection is the name, then I'd suggest simply retitling the current article as "Wristblade", with a possible redirect from "Xiphoid" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.4.152 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Two of the three sources are fictional movies; they're not reliable sources for the notability or alleged significance of this word, and the items it is purported to describe. While there may be a valid subject for an article here, it needs to be written from an academic perspective by someone with a grounding in the history of armaments, using terminology which can be shown to have a wider usage, and without the present focus on fiction and amateur projects of dubious safety and legality. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:11, 14 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Ian Mathers

    Jonathan Ian Mathers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Also Includeded in this discussion

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

    This guy is an independent flash artist, like thousands of others. Absolutely nothing to establish notability. Having some experience with fans related to his endeavors I'm going to get this out of the way now: Afd is not a vote. Showing up and claiming he's notable, or anything of the like without providing sources which meet WP:V and WP:NOTE won't result in this article being kept. If you want this article kept you need to provide the sources and whoever said this is full of crap. he's real, who would a fake person make flash shows that meet that criteria. Blogs, forums, stories from your kid brother, and college newspapers don't meet that threshold for inclusion. To get the ball rolling the guy doesn't even get coverage in some of the lower end blogs google news sometimes returns search results in: [35].Crossmr (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment since both people brought it up, I'm going to include it in this Afd. I think there is a template but I haven't done it before. Neurotically yours suffers from the same issue. No notability at all.--Crossmr (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless some firm evidence of notability is forthcoming. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was debating whether or not I should include it, or do it separately or wait or what. I've tried to clean it up for a long time but its been an uphill battle. I just finally thought to check on notability and found there really wasn't any.--Crossmr (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After this article goes, the Neurotically Yours article could probably be uncontroversially speedied. It's (mostly) sourced to Newgrounds. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 9 September 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. yeah thats right, EDITed!!!
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alberto S. Gallerani

    Alberto S. Gallerani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I can only find one source for this person, "Business Update; Makeover corporation delivers on site medical services at Florida facility" that lists some of his qualifications. I do not know whether that is enough. Are there more sources out there, or should this article be deleted? Commander Keane (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unreferenced, overly advert-like, obvious COI (see article history) and presents no actual notability. The "medici star breast lift" gets all of 2 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Agree with this position unless proper references can be found, as stated above. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete as a copyvio, a noted in the last few comments. Thanks for finding this. I have checked a few entries, and noted that the selection of events exactly matched the one in the book, and that many entries had either the exact same wording, or one only marginally changed. Even though I had participated in this AfD, I don't feel that closing it as a copyvio is a problem. Fram (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Batman's career timeline

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

    I'm not sure this is within our remit. I'm thinking along the lines of possible original research, since fiction is not something which can be readily defined given the tendency for writers to change things as they see fit. I'm also wondering how it fits in with WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a collection of indiscriminate information. If there is no inclusion criteria, this will merely grow to be an index of all Batman appearances with plot summary. And if an inclusion criteria is applied, how do we determine it? This is a worthy goal for a fan-site or even as something a fan could submit to DC as a proposal for publication, although I'm not sure what prior publishing on Wikipedia would mean. I suspect DC have a stronger copyright case than we do. Which also calls into play copyright concerns. There undoubtedly are some if this list reaches comprehensiveness. I don't think it is within Wikipedia's remit. Therefore I would suggest deletion. Hiding T 09:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 09:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Holy in-universe plot summary, Batman! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 11:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Holy - you apparently didn't read the page, nor WP:OR, nor WP:PLOT - Batman... - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going with Keep on this one because it does cite sources, and there are other timelines similar to this one that are not under dispute. I'd say to merge it with Batman, but this timeline contains too much information to merge. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 11:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Almost all those sources are primary source. Those that aren't are not being used to support the timeline itself but the positioning of facts upon a list made up out of nowhere. The list itself is what should be deleted. Hiding T 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      So you don't have a problem with the information, just that it was presented in a list format? (Listing based upon the publication date of the comics that the information was presented.) I've got to be misunderstanding you. - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that is it in a nutshell. Explain to me the cut-off point for inclusion. And I'd go further than you with the list title: (Listing of events related to Batman in order of occurrence in first publication or broadcast). I see no end to the list, and no selection criteria other than the whim of the Wikipedian; the very thing WP:OR and WP:NPOV guard against. Here's a scenario: "Why can't I add this?" "Because I said so." "Why have you added that?" "Because I think it is important." Hiding T 08:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, but that's an easy answer. Such events are defined as "notable" enough (to be added to the list) via sourcing. Just because the page isn't currently sourced to your or my preference, doesn't mean that this (which I might call a "stub list", despite its length), should be deleted. (And I think Postdlf makes some interesting points below, as well.) - jc37 00:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete because although it's well-researched, it's... original research. The sources are the comics themselves; this is not reporting on anything verifiable. It is drawing its own conclusions and reporting plot directly from the source. I'm going with "weak" because I hate to toss away someone's work so cavalierly...but it is not in line with policy.  Frank  |  talk  11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Take a moment and please actually read WP:OR, please. much (though not all) of the page is from a primary source. And believe it or not, primary sources are allowed under certain conditions. And I believe that this is one of those. - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I would suggest Jc, it is you that needs to re-read WP:OR. It clearly states "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" is original research. This list synthesises and analyses events that have been depicted in comic books based on a position imposed by a wikipedian. It's the very definition of WP:OR. This isn't a debate about whether we are allowed to use primary source; this is a debate about how we use them. We cannot use them to advance a position. Either every Batman appearance is to be included or none are. Here's another scenario: Say a work exists which does precisely this, delineates Batman's career. Wouldn't that make the perfect source? It would give us the perfect inclusion criteria, the perfect listing, and the perfect copyright lawsuit. So, you can't do this because to do so you have to make it up, and if you're copying it you can't do it because you're breaking the law. Those, for me, are the breaks. You need prior analysis to make the point that this particular time-line is of note; and if one exists, you immediately breach copyright law. My issue is with the list itself. It cannot be other than WP:OR and WP:POV. You simply cannot add one published event and not another to this list without advancing a point of view. Now maybe a case can be made for keeping the list if we only add items which have been noted in secondary sources; for example Les Daniels notes first appearances in his book on Batman. But that to me has issues with copyright law. Hiding T 09:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I have read it. Believe it or not, I read that section on sourcing almost every day that I edit here.
      And I disagree with the "all or nothing" scenario. As I mentioned above, inclusion should be based upon sourcing. Yes, I would like to see every line of this sourced, both from the issue noted, and from some source noting/illustrating its notability for inclusion. But that makes this a "work-in-progress". Place a template at the top requesting sources, and perhaps even try to help. But to propose it for deletion because it's not currently sourced seems rather anti-wiki to me. I thought starting a page with the hopes someone else would help, was one of the keystones of Wikipedia. - jc37 00:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete; I can sort of see the value in a list like this, but our article on Batman already does it so much better, albiet in prose form. The article needs a cleanup (and probably a rename, too) if it's going to stay. Some entries, like "The Joker and Catwoman (then, referred to as "The Cat") debut in the launch of Batman's own, self-titled series", are all well and good, but stuff like "Batman dons night-vision goggles for the first time" isn't exactly relevant to the series. Nifboy (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with most of your points. But since AfD is not cleanup, this shouldn't be deleted, but instead cleaned up! - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In this instance no-one has yet suggested how this article can be cleaned up to satisfy policy. To me it means creating a completely different article. Therefore... And AFD is cleanup. I have never understood how the idea that afd is not cleanup took hold. What on earth are we doing through deletion if not cleaning up the database? AFD is cleanup. But this is a side issue and doesn't serve to debate the merits of the article we have before us, rather than the article we wish we had before us. Hiding T 09:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      "In this instance no-one has yet suggested how this article can be cleaned up to satisfy policy." - I believe I have, and I believe J Greb has, below.
      And nearly every other XfD has changed to from X for Deletion, to X for discussion, except AfD. I'd love to see the name changed to indicate exactly what you said, that AfD can be done in order to "peer review" an article as to whether it should be kept, deleted, renamed, cleaned up, etc. But that's not quite clear yet with AfD. If you would like to start such a discussion I'd be happy to join in. - jc37 00:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Plot summary with zero context. Trying to shoehorn this into another article via merge would probably do more harm than good. Townlake (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Batman is one of the most iconic, recognizable characters in all of comics. He has been around since 1939 and has had numerous adaptions made about him (via animation, live-action television and film, and video games). It would do the character more good (in terms of serving as a relatively important history lesson) than you could imagine to showcase a "career timeline" through all of the important eras/ages in the comics. Besides, if you're going to delete this article about Batman's career timeline and more importantly, his evolution as a superhero/crime fighter, then you might as well do the same about the article entitled "History of Superman". TMC1982 (talk) 7:19 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment That's not a good comparison to ask people to make... a bullet point, cruftfest, in-universe POV list and a fairly well written, prose piece that is grounded with real world context. That's without looking at the footnotes (minimal 'notes as opposed to "mini-articles") and reference (some but more needed vs "There are some there?"). And then there's the 44 external links... - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And on that note... Delete. Yes, "History of Superman" is a good example of how an article for the publication, licensing, and merchandising history of a long running comic book character. But what here now isn't that type of article, and it doesn't look like it will become that type of article. - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still, a "career timeline" registers as a source of history and relevance. Except for the Batman article, it focuses strictly on the comics/publication from 1939 through the present. And another thing, how exactly is this a POV list? The primary source was from "The Ultimate Batman Guide". Besides, how else is a timeline supposed to look light other than anything resembling a "bullet point, cruftfest"!? TMC1982 (talk) 7:42 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Another thing J Greb, why does it bother you that I've provided at least 44 external links? I would figure, that you were somebody who would otherwise appreciate the idea of backing up the article with what's otherwise known as sources (so it won't just look like original research in your estimation)! TMC1982 (talk) 7:55 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
        • "POV" is the point of view, the voice, the aspect that the article is phrased in. Yes, this is given the vernier of dealing with publication order, but it's strictly "in the overall comic universe story, this happens, then this, then this, and he does this, and then he first uses this now, and then faces him and her." That's speaking from an in universe POV. Worse, its presenting information from an editor's own decision of what is important.
          "Besides, how else is a timeline supposed to look light other than anything resembling a "bullet point, cruftfest"!?" Bluntly? Delete the cruft. Tighten it down to "• 'Cover date': Batman's first appearance in print. (Series #)", drop the plot points, and work on a threshold where items are added or removed based on how trivial they are (for example, the introduction of the Batmobile isn't trivial, but the first use of night vision goggles is). The last, finding that threshold, is going to wind up being a thorny issue with a lot of items needing discussion about why they are included.
          External links — Read through WP:EL, especially the "Important points to remember" section. Point 4 and 5 apply here. First, "Keep it minimal". 44 isn't minimal, even 11 is a bit much. Second, "Try to avoid linking multiple pages from one site". Only 1/4 of the links are base hubs, the rest are all sub pages. And if they are the references, then put them in a reference section, or, even better, use the in-line {{cite web}} to cite the specific subpage in the article body. Though keep in mind, using them as references means they are what would be considered "reliable sources", and a few of them (especially those that are part of other wikis) will fail that.
          - J Greb (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with most of what J Greb said above. No question that the page needs cleanup. One thing I'd like to disagree with though is: "...in the overall comic universe story..." - The events aren't in the "overall universe story". In fact, many are not considered cononical in the DCU. - jc37 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Indiscriminate collection of in-universe information with poor writing throughout. This is not necessary at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't my intent to provide in-depth or lengthy paragraphs (for a year by year point of reference). That's sort of what the main Batman article is for. TMC1982 (talk) 8:33 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Regardless of your intention, this article is unnecessary and full of information that simply dictates items taken from the comics themselves, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, why exactly is it unnecessary? I already said that Batman is one of the most iconic, well known characters in all of comics and popular media. Just because you believe that it's unnecessary, doesn't automatically mean that it is truly the case. Besides, there's already an article called "Batman in popular media" besides the main/general "Batman" article. TMC1982 (talk) 9:40 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Batman being well-known and iconic is not a valid rationale for keeping this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You still didn't exactly answer my question about why it isn't "valid rationale" for keeping the article other than vaguely stating that it's an "indiscrimate collection of in-universe information with poor writing throughout". TMC1982 (talk) 10:38 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)
            • ...and examination of What Wikipedia Is Not provides a valid rationale for deleting this article. I'm as inclusionist as they come when it comes to Wikipedia, but this type of article isn't appropriate for the purposes of this site. Townlake (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, in universe plot summary (in a different format than the usual plot summary, but a plot summary nevertheless). A timeline that focuses on the different media, the recption, the succession of artists, ... may be a good article in some cases: a timeline that focuses on the story or the characters isn't. Fram (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      First, please show how it's a "plot summary". (To me, this merely looks like a list of events in a publication. A bit different than summarising a plot.) - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      How is a "plot summary" different from a list of events? How is something like "Julie Madison calls off her engagement to Bruce Wayne because of his playboy lifestyle. Meanwhile, using the name Portia Storme, Julie dons a Robin costume as the Dynamic Duo battle Clayface." not a plot summary? If you add in the plot summary of a book the page numbers of where X happens, it is still a plot summary. I don't see any difference with this. Fram (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if we were to agree that this page is overall a plot summary (of which I still disgree somewhat), WP:PLOT states the following: "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." - In this case, each of these is even less than a "concise plot", but just a note about certain events that occurred in a specific publication. It's a list of events, presented as a list which is sorted by year of publication (not "in-universe" years). And it's useful per Wikipedia:Summary style, to many of the other Batman-related articles. So this page is "part of the larger coverage" of Batman and the Batman Family of articles. - jc37 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete I can honestly see the merits of a timeline article for this fictional character but, the information needs to timeline both the in-universe and "out-universe" stuff. For instance ret-cons and why they happened need to be included. Real world impact needs to be included in order for this to be properly viable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If you feel that the page "needs" something, then let's add it. (AfD is not cleanup, after all.) Though I think that there are some good examples of what you note. - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Listcruft of the worst sort, WP:WAX is not a good enough argument to keep it. treelo radda 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Neither is WP:CRUFT to delete it. Care to actually comment rather than "vote"? - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that is true but exchange "listcruft" for "a list not suited for Wikipedia" if you like. I did read it and found it to be a bit too in-depth for Wikipedia. I won't shirk from calling it cruft if it's only of specific interest to fans but don't assume I'm just "voting" because I feel a deletion would be better than a cleanup. I've said my part, I won't argue to defend my position any further, it's just an AfD. treelo radda 22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      AfD is not a "vote". So if you don't more fully explain your position, the closer may rightly ignore/discount your "vote". - jc37 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. In-universe, plot summary, listcruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I see that I'm in the minority here, but in looking over the page, it seems to me that several of those commenting above didn't actually bother to read the page. (And really look quite a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Comments of "listcruft", in particular.) This isn't an "in-universe timeline". Otherwise, the character would be almost 70 years old "in-universe". And that's obviously not the case. This is a list of major events in a publication. The first time that x happens, for example. So this is a way to put the various other articles related to Batman into perspective. DOes the list need some cleanup? Yes, obviously. But that's not a reason to delete it. - jc37 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That the in-universe universe doesn't follow normal ageing is not really evidence that it is not "in-universe". This list discusses what happens in the story. "What happens in the story" = "plot summary". It does not discuss artists, publication rhythm, circulation, reception, format, ...: all things that can be discussed in the form of a timeline and which would be "out-of-universe". This isn't... Fram (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Not in the story, but rather in each story. Each story is presented separately ordered by "real world" publication. And note that quite a bit on this page isn't currently considered canon for the current "history" of the character Batman, so it isn't part of an "ongoing story", per se. And this information is listed in order of publication, and not "in-universe". - jc37 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with the "in-universe" comments above; this is ordered by real-world publication (issue cover date), and attributes all of the fictional events to specific comic book issues. In that sense, it is similar to television episode lists (e.g., List of The West Wing episodes) which give real-world data such as airdate for context but contain one or two lines of plot summary. Because this is organized by real world chronology, sources the actual publications by title and issue number, and does not give excessive plot summary, I don't believe it is any more in-universe than such episode lists, and no more of a copyright concern. Contrast with the abhorrent Fictional history of Spider-Man which attempts to depict current "canon" (i.e., what the character's current editors have cherry-picked as "true" of the character's past) without any real-world chronology and with minimal reference to the actual publications; I do believe that such an in-universe "fictional history" is at risk of being a copyright infringement because it's just a condensation of fiction, without the transformative context and educational justification provided by real world facts.
    • That being said...I'm not entirely sure that Batman's career timeline is appropriate for a stand-alone list article. I don't know that it has any greater inclusion criteria problem than a prose article about Batman's publication history would have as to what individual comic book issue stories merit description, but maybe this timeline format is a bigger invitation to overinclusion. But my issue is that it more seems like preparatory notes for a list article (presuming the information is valid) than a list article in its own right. For now I'm just going to say weak keep and retitle to something appropriately out-of-universe that accurately reflects its contents (something with the words "publication history"), but at a minimum it should be userfied or otherwise preserved as a good resource of the character's development. Postdlf (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no need for this article to exist. It's an indiscriminate collection of information, much of which is trivial, with no clear criteria for inclusion. Just because parts of it are out-of-universe doesn't make it notable. And at the very least, the article should be retitled, because it doesn't focus on Batman's career (which it shouldn't anyway, because he's not real); instead it lists assorted events from Batman-related comics. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I agreed above with the need to retitle ("Batman's career" is an in-universe title) and am aware of the concern of including trivia, but at present it seems to be limited to debuts of characters and devices, and notable story events (character firsts, changes, etc.). So what we have is a real-world chronologically ordered list of how the Batman character has been developed and used over time in DC Comics; we know from reading this timeline that the origin story regarding his parents' death was not introduced until several months/issues after the character's debut, that Gotham City was first mentioned as his home nearly two years later... There could probably be some trimming (I don't know what the significance of his first use of night-goggles is supposed to be), but I don't think the timeline is inherently or necessarily indiscriminate and I don't think it's impossible to maintain. Postdlf (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • List of events in Batman-related publications (or "...comics", or something similar)? - jc37 00:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Postdlf: Would the article title and content you're referring to essentially be Batman franchise media?  Frank  |  talk  02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I understand your comment. Postdlf (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it just seems that if you retitled the article, it would be the one I linked above.  Frank  |  talk  03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understood that's what you were saying, but I don't understand why you'd say that. Postdlf (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been asked to clarify my thinking on this, and I think it is important to do that here rather than on my talk page, because it affects this article. I have no objection to this article being kept. I have no objection to it being userfied. But I want to clarify the purpose of the list and that the purpose of the list meets the remit we have for ourselves. My thinking tends to mirror Postdlf's. At the minute the article has a minimal lead which conveys absolutely no context for inclusion criteria, something which our guidance on lists and leads expects. Now that's a clean-up issue, yes, but, depending on the context of the list, it can be a deletion issue too.
    • Now let us take a stroll down the list. We have Batman's_career_timeline#1940. What makes this grouping more discriminate than any other sequence of events from the published comics? What happens if Batman ate a jam sandwich in December? Do we add that? Do we not? How do we add and edit this list in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? I don;t see how you can. Some lists can be made on Wikipedia within those two policies, because they define themselves: "List of Olympic medallists" defines itself, there are no immediate POV issues over inclusion and there are no WP:OR issues since Wikipedians are not making value judgements on what goes onto the list. WP:V is not an issue in either of these lists, the Batman facts are easily citable to the comics, the medallists to Olympic results. So, how do we discriminate what we place on the list without breaching our policies. What makes June Madison worthy of entry? Does this mean every romance is to be listed?
    • SO we have another issue with the list: the point of completion. If this list becomes complete, in my mind that means it has to list every single case that Batman has worked on, because this is timeline of the career of Batman. It also means it has to reflect every depiction of Batman, movies, serials, radio, novels, because we have no qualifiers. No context. No limits. Now before anyone attempts to rebut this point I make this strong caveat: The onus is on you to show me inclusion criteria which don't amount to original research; they cannot be arbitrary limits decided by editors. These have to be self selecting rules. I can't think of any. I apologise for that. The best I can come up with is making an aggregate list of all events and characters for which we have an article, because those events and characters are of note per WP:N. So, I have no objection to keeping a list. I object to keeping this list in this form. I appreciate AFD is not clean up, but I have to balance that against Wikipedia not being a place for indiscriminate pieces of information or a place to publish original research or copyright infringing material. And in my opinion, if this list were to be complete on the criteria seemingly imposed, there would be copyright issues. Mike Godwin has stated that "relevant provisions of copyright law, trademark law, etc" have to be followed when writing about fictional universes. An article of this scope, when complete, does not appear to me to be within copyright law. I think it pushes fair use too far. I am prepared to accept that point is open to debate, especially by Postdlf, and that ultimately no opinion is worth more than a Judge's.

    Hiding T 08:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • This is probably moot at this point if the copyvio comments below are accurate (I have not checked), but I think your interesting comments merit response. I think the inclusion criteria for a list such as this are the same that limit any article—the editorial judgment of our fine volunteer contributors as to what is significant and relevant rather than trivial. 2008 in the United States has no expressly stated limiting criteria for what events occurring in 2008 in the United States should be included, and so could obviously expand to a ridiculous "point of completion," so that anything reported anywhere would literally fit. Yet I don't think we're overly concerned about whether maintaining that list invites such entries as "Britney Spears photographed without makeup outside a Denny's in Topeka" or "Detective Comics #506 published, in which Batman eats a jam sandwich" (actually a truly fabulous image to ponder). And I don't think such lists necessarily have different concerns than prose articles. The main article topic Batman also doesn't have any express self-selecting criteria as to what information about Batman should be included that would exclude a description of Batman fabulously eating a jam sandwich. So the integrity of that article depends just as much as any list upon the editorial judgment and consensus of contributors that such fact would not be significant enough to merit coverage. See also Wikipedia:Handling trivia and WP:UNDUE. Postdlf (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as copyvio from Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight (ISBN 0-7566-1121-0). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Copyvio verified. The Amazon book listing lets you search the contents of the book. Townlake (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In looking over the link, all I see is a note that there is a "timeline" in the table of contents. Can anyone verify that this timeline is that timeline? If so, then yes, delete without prejudice. But if not, I presume that this isn't a reason to delete. - jc37 00:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Two editors have noted it, and the link above will allow any other editor who can successfully use a search box to do the same. Townlake (talk) 04:03, 12 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Walsh (musician)

    Paul Walsh (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Directory entry for a musician with no claim to notability other than by association. Google for "Paul Walsh" +$BAND turns up 2 hits for Chokingwood, a handful only for the other associated acts. And he's only 17. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - notability is neither asserted nor established, and I can't find anything independent that establishes it. No prejudice against later inclusion if he becomes notable.  Frank  |  talk  12:01, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ramon Calliste

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

    Non-notable football player - has never played in a fully professional league and so fails WP:FOOTY Dancarney (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails notability criteria at WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he makes a fully-pro appearance. --Jimbo[online] 12:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails notability criteria at WP:FOOTYN. -- Alexf42 12:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Can I point out the essay project note template at the top of the WP:FOOTYN, where it states "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's". The criteria for footballers is at WP:BIO#Athletes. Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 12:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You are correct. We need to make it a little stronger. It is supposed to be a refinement on WP:ATHLETE specifically for footballers. Won't use it then until we get a consensus to modify. Thanks!. -- Alexf42 15:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Has not played at the highest level per WP:Athlete, i.e. in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - playing in 7th level (or is it lower) of football in England. Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No pro or internat app, recreaet if and when...--ClubOranjeTalk 11:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:13, 13 September 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 as he has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hue Frame

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

    Contested PROD. fails notabity criteria. does not satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Did not appear in fully professional league game or represent full national team, done nothing else of note ClubOranjeTalk 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranjeTalk 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete New Zealand's football league is not fully professional, as is Northern Ireland's, so the subject fails WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. Has not played in a fully-pro league / competition. --Jimbo[online] 09:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. I'm always a bit reticent to say delete for footballers playing at the top level in a country without a professional league . Glentoran are about as strong a side as it gets in N.I. - second only to Linfield (Canterbury United, mind you, are shite). No objection to re-creation if he either transfers to a pro side or plays full internationals (either of which seems possible). Grutness...wha? 00:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Has played for Canterbury United, highest level of football in New Zealand. Nfitz (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Some leagues just aren't as notable as others and some just aren't notable at all. There's a reason why every player of the ASFA Soccer League (American Samoa's top league) doesn't have an article and it's because the league is not notable, professional or not. New Zealand's top league just doesn't infer notability, therefore making his games played non-notable as well. GauchoDude (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. However a sensible redirect target has been suggested so will recreate a redirect to Bikini News after deleting. Davewild (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Penny Drake

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

    Actress with only minor film roles. No suggestion or evidence otherwise, no references or reliable sources indicating notability or awareness by the world at large, and tone is promotional. CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep, as the creator of the article I feel obliged to vote that way;) Well, I don't have much familiarity with the detailed standards for notability in this area, so I'm happy to defer to the opinion of those more experienced, but it seems that this person has a major supporting role in at least one movie we consider notable, as well as the co-starring role in a podcast thingy we consider notable, so she seems notable enough for a page of her own. Particularly because it gives interested readers (coming from either of those articles) the chance to find out something more about her (otherwise there woud be no link path between the two articles). If tone is felt to be promotional, that can be solved by editing and not deleting.--Kotniski (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete she isn't notable in accordance with our policies/guidelines. Nor is this properly verifiable per the reliable 3rd party sources criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you point me to the policies/guidelines you refer to? And why do you consider the source unreliable?--Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marginal delete. See WP:ENTERTAINER. She satisfies the "major roles" part, but not really the "notable films" (they seem to have been seen by many people, according to IMDb, but the ratings stink). Also, no significant interviews or press coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I understand this; if the films aren't notable, then shouldn't they be up for deletion first/as well?--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    to answer your last question first. Probably but, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a valid discussion for keeping or for deleting articles as each article needs to be judged on its own merits. As for the others she seems to fail notability because uncredited roles don't make people notable nor do supporting roles count as "major" roles unless they actually play some major part in the film, which so far I can't find any reliable 3rd party reliable sources to verify which are a couple more policies/guidelines which she fails. I consider IMDB unreliable for a number of reasons one of which is that anyone can add stuff to it (and there is a history here at Wikipedia to show what lengths some people have gone to to try and look notable when they aren't). The reliable sources policy can explain it in more detail. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then, I can't find much in the way of sources either, so I accept the deletion. But propose a redirect to Bikini News (assuming that isn't getting deleted as well), where she definitely played the starring role. --Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. That article has problems of its own and I've tagged it for improvement. If it is notable, verifiable, etc than a redirect would make sense. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm doing that then. I've merged a few of the links from this article into that one.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 10 September 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. There is certainly no consensus to delete the article, and there is no clear agreement on what potential redirect target could be used, if any; such a discussion should be taken up at Talk:World's Greatest Athlete. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    World's Greatest Athlete

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

    The article is simply duplication of parts of Decathlon and List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_athletics_(men)#Decathlon. The premise for the title is shaky at best: the referenced article states that traditionally the term is used for the Decathlon winner but does not limit this to Olympians; although this is a definition it is not the only definition and indeed the referenced article argues against it. WP:V and WP:OR issues; no place to merge to as the article is merely extracted from others - Delete. Ros0709 (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep At least three other major encyclopedias (Brittanica, Colliers, and Academic American) mention this title as given to the winner of the Olympic decathalon. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - this is almost a neologism. As nom says, it's not the only definition of the term, and is therefore not encyclopedic. That these people have won the decathlon is verifiable. That they are thus the "world's greatest athlete" is not.  Frank  |  talk  12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_athletics_(men)#Decathlon. The only point of the article seems to be that the Olympic decathlon winner is sometimes called the "world's greatest athlete". While that is true, it's not the basis for a separate article. It is a legitimate redirect. Mandsford (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to The World's Greatest Athlete, a notable movie which is probably what most people typing this in are actually looking for (if they were looking for decathalon information, they'd type in decathalon...) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I initially was in agreement with that (I'd forgotten about the 1972 Disney film), but I think the term is legitimate search for both the film and the decathlon winner; hence, making this a disambiguation page is probably a better idea. Mandsford (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, and I created the page in the hopes that someone could help expand it, because I'm interested in knowing more about the origins of the term, etc. I didn't know the title was given to the decathalon winner until I was looking up the info for the page. If there's a majority for it otherwise, a redirect/disambig page sounds fine :) Morhange (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - These people are real greats however they are not the World's Greatest.Damien22 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge/Redirect to Chiranjeevi. Action completed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Srija

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

    This biography is a one-event article and hence I felt this is of no encyclopedic value. I took it to AfD and here is its discussion. My concerns (as you might see from its talk page) were and still are the following:

    • Srija is known only for one event
    • The contending editor claims 200000 Google hits, whereas my contention was that he had a very poor argument because it was a non-valid general criteria as per WP:BIO and also that the article cannot assume inheritance from her father-actor-budding politician, Chiranjeevi.

    Based on my understanding, I don't see the existence of this article on its own. Since it is notable for one event and verifiable, I suggested a merge with Chiranjeevi's page. But the contending editor doesn't seem to budge from his stand of google hits and a bunch of Chiranjeevi fanatics supporting his cause. Mspraveen (talk) 06:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mspraveen (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: even 200000 links does not help in writing 20 sentences on her. That's because all of them deals with the same event. Other than her marriage, which was the single event that brought her into news, there is no other notable event/work involving her. However, the event should get mentioned in Chiranjeevi page, if not added already. --GDibyendu (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Chiranjivi. Subject has no inherent notability. Notabilit comes frombeing Chiranjeevi's daughter. --Deepak D'Souza 09:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Srija clearly passes WP:BIO and WP:N.[36] A search in google draws more than 200000 hits.Enough for a person to establish notabality for an article.The article clearly passes WP:BIO and WP:N.[37].Enough for a person to establish notablity for an article and further WP:GNG.

    The article has independent and neutral sources. She is a household name in Andhra Pradesh is not limited to her marriage ,court case or a movie which being planned and her being chiranjeevee's daughter.There is Significant coverage from Reliable sources and Independent of the subject about her She is became celebraty in own right and she continues to hog the limelight.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Can you tell us under which criteria in WP:BIO this subject is notable? I could not find any. Rather it seems to fit WP:ONEVENT Also take a look at this:WP:BIO#Family.--Deepak D'Souza 12:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.of WP:BIO and further clearly meets WP:GNG There is Significant coverage from Reliable sources and Independent of the subject.There are 159000 hits in google about her.[39]and over 200000 [40] The fact that the marriage was a major event and she happens to be Chiranjeevi's daughter alone does not make the subject one event or inherited.There is significant coverage both in Indian and International Press about her. I will rewrite and improve the article in due course if it survives this AFD. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Your comment seems to convey that the marriage (and obviously events surrounding it) was a major event. Kindly refer the WP:Bio guidelines for articles about people notable only for one event. Reliability or notability are not considered here because it carries undue weight. Can you assert independent notability of the subject? What if she was not Chiranjeevi's daughter? Will you warrant some 19-year old's elopement as an encyclopedic entry? Mspraveen (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There's nothing in the article to suggest the events connected to this individual are notable enough to make a viable article. IF the planned movie is made, then that might change things. In the meantime, I just don't see the viability. If this article is kept, it needs to be rewritten from scratch. It's quite poorly written as it stands now (however, this is not a factor in my opinion). 23skidoo (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. This incident of Srija and her small bio can be included in the article on Chiranjivi. -- Borfee (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merged and summarized the relevant and key portions from Srija to Chiranjeevi. See this diff for details. Mspraveen (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 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. Sources have been found to establish notability and the article has been rewritten to establish notability. A consensus has emerged, after the sources were found, for keeping the article and the article has been rewritten to properly reference and make into less of an advert. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Midtown comics

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

    Although this organisation does exist, a peering through google seems to throw up no real notability in either a normal google search nor a news search. Seddσn talk Editor Review 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NB This afd didn't file properly, and since i filed this AFD additional external links have been added. However I am still dubious that this shop retains enough notability. Seddσn talk Editor Review 07:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This site has huge presence over internet (some 250,000 + results when we search for the brand i.e. Midtown Comics). It is highly respected site and brand by google and is on first position for terms like: buy comics online, online comic shop, online comic store and many others. Placeholder signature for User:Ahmansoor Many people has mentioned Midtown Comics on their blogs as well.

    Wordpress blogs mentioning midtown comics http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&suggon=0&q=midtown+comics+site%3Awordpress.com

    Bloggers blogs mentioning midtown comics http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&suggon=0&q=midtown+comics+site%3Ablogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmansoor (talk • contribs) 07:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blogs are not considered reliable sources since they are unsuitable for fact checking. You need to find third party independent sources. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Although they have advertisements just about everywhere and are huge (in volume) they don't appear to meet the notability criteria for significant coverage and such. The article as it stands is just an advertisement. Sandbox it if appropriate but, otherwise delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-notable online store. Fails WP:COMPANY. The article is rubbish too, the only actual information contained therein is that it's an online store based in New York and founded in 1997. Plrk (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom & the above. --Herby talk thyme 12:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:CORP. Article has virtually no information, and no claims of notability. The whole "look, we got mentioned in a blog!" part also strongly suggests non-notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment probably going to get beat on for this but, if the things being added are actual references which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner than they need to be in the references section not in the external links. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very Weak Keep some of the references appear valid. Article is still basically an advert and we need to change this pretty quickly. I'm not removing refs or links but, the map, press releases, etc should be removed in order to avoid the end result looking like something that has a volume of sources to avoid the need for quality sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - New contents added - would add more in future to make it more informative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmansoor (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck bolded keep, you've already had your say. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Article has been re-written to remove the blatant advert material, and to integrate information sourced from reliable sources (New York Times, Publisher's Weekly). Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Consensus of several editors over several days is that this is a hoax; no edits to page disputed this after tag was placed (in fact no edits to the page after that at all - disputing or otherwise), and no other contributions to the project by the creator of the page.  Frank  |  talk  12:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Macheagle

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

    This seems like a hoax to me after searching a few databases for this species of bird, so delete per WP:HOAX. Gary King (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoax. Recommend CSD instead of AfD. Thanks. HG | Talk 06:05, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FlashPack

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

    Notability problem. No reliable sources or references. Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with this field. However, is this article really notable and necessary? Can't these few lines be merged with one of the various articles about Flash? Not sure there's much here to add. Thanks for your consideration and I apologize for any error on my part. HG | Talk 05:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. There is a weak consensus that these lists/articles are appropriate. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Detroit Tigers minor league players

    Detroit Tigers minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Los Angeles Dodgers minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Milwaukee Brewers minor league players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    These pages are a nice idea but they border on indiscriminate information. Not only that but they will be impossible to maintain. It's hard enough maintaining the main roster much less the roster of the 5-6 minor league teams for each franchise. Many minor leaguers do not nor will they ever have articles, so this isn't that useful either. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete all WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a starter, but this is also just redundant. Those templates already exist as part of the articles for the specific minor league teams. While they're tough to keep current, WP:NOTNEWS. The notability guidelines laid out by WP:BASEBALL say "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." Probably many of the players for whom there are little mini-biographies at the top of the pages will go on to appear in the Major Leagues (and thus attain notability, per WP:BASEBALL at the very least), and when they do, articles on them can be written. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have CFD'd Category: Lists of minor league baseball players, as it would be wholly unneeded were this AFD to go through. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Nomination is factually incorrect--not only is it possible to keep these rosters maintained, they have been maintained. I'm not sure why we're even discussing the roster templates, given that it's the minor league pages--a separate concept--which are under discussion. The purpose of these pages is to provide a place to discuss members of a minor league organization who are not yet sufficiently notable to justify a separate article. Nominator would do us all a favor by explaining how these articles are indiscriminate, or perhaps even suggesting what more discriminating criteria might look like. These articles were born out of extensive discussion on the WP:BASEBALL talk pages; it's disappointing to be confronted with such a nomination. Mackensen (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So 150 or so non-notable people combine to satisfy notability requirements for an article? Is this what you're saying? Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 09:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Striking that, because I'd be arguing for the deletion of dozens of pages about particular minor league teams with that comment. Pages like these are still redundant to those pages, however. The little mini-biographies are of no real value, either - why do we need a page full of stubs about non-notable people? When they reach the Major Leagues, write individual articles then. There's no hurry, so I don't know what the problem with that would be. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 10:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The flaw in your reasoning is that somebody wants to write about the topic. What reason is there, in policy, to tell them that they're wrong? Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all - agree with Mackensen. There is no requirement that every item in a list should be notable, and I don't see that listing players in a particular team is 'indiscriminate'. Neither do I understand how a collection of articles for individual players can be combined to reconstruct a deleted team list. Occuli (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all: WP:NNC is pretty clear: notability requirements are much lower for inclusion within an article. Also, we have an abundance of people at WP:MLB clamoring to add articles for even the least notable minor league players - surely they would be willing to maintain these lists. If maintenance costs are stated as grounds for deletion somewhere, I've never seen it. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all: If these pages were taken to their logical conclusion, they would each include mini-bios on some 180-200 non-notable players. Each of the pages would be several hundred thousand bytes long. That's assuming the bios remain at one short paragraph each. Devoted fans, friends and family, would probably stretch most beyond that though. HurricaneSarah (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further Comment The one player who is already on this page, Zachary Simons, seems to be notable since his bio is supported by third party sources and he is a professional athlete. This is all that is required by WP:BIO. Why not just make an article for him? HurricaneSarah (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N calls for "significant coverage". It's hard to determine whether either independent source is devoting significant coverage to Simons since one is a broken link and the other is a newspaper not available to me. But neither mention Simons in the title. Unless there is clearer evidence, I would vote to delete Simons if the current content were broken out into a separate article. To your first point, the list would surely be split into smaller pages before reaching several hundred thousand bytes long. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a maintenance question, not a question of principle, and not limited to this topic. Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep All Listing the key players in a minor league system is certainly notable. These pages are being maintained and will be, so the nomination on it's face is invalid. The information is useful, multiple sources can verify the information, it will be maintained... there is no reason to remove them. Spanneraol (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Although the content of articles isn't limited as much, this is like the notable people sections of communities: we have no real need or good reason to include a list of people who share nothing that makes them notable. Anyway, this doesn't necessarily discriminate on its "membership", as it logically should have many more than 200 people: I'm sure that, over the decades, there have been many more people on Tigers minor league teams than just how many there are now. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has there been discussion/consensus to remove such lists of notable community members? I see such lists all over. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beg pardon, but they share membership in a professional sports organization, with all that such membership implies and entails. Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural comment. Judging from the comments so far not everyone is aware that three separate articles are listed, with varying levels of content. Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These articles are all in the process of being created and will eventually have lots more info on them. Spanneraol (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep All: In addition to the excellent points raised by my colleagues above, these would make excellent companion pages for the teams that have historical listings of their minor league affiliates. It helps to explain the recent minor league history of the club. As per my own comments at WT:BASEBALL, criteria for inclusion would have to be (and I believe, are being) strictly defined, using WP:N as an umbrella and consensus at WP:MLB for even more stringent guidelines. I can assure any and all delete voters who are worried about page maintenance that there are indeed a plethora of Wikipedians ready to maintain articles about various minor leaguers - there are certainly enough of them created on a regular basis. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all. Many players in these articles don't have a separate Wikipedia article. These pages provide a place for key players in a minor league system. AdjustShift (talk) 17:19, 11 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Almagill

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

    Just a farm, with no claim of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Consensus is that the organisation fails the notability guidelines. This is no prejudice against anyone writing an article on the event which establishes it's notability. Davewild (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Twin Cities Pride

    Twin Cities Pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod, removed with the comment "seems notable per a Google news search". A Google search turns up the event of Gay pride in Minneapolis/St. Paul, not the organization. The org is local and doesn't pass WP:ORG. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:49, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Queer West News

    Queer West News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. "Online newsletter for the southwest of England". Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems I didn't finish the AfD process - now it's up. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 03:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the above argued points regarding deleting this article as I too was unable to find sufficient sources on Google News or Google Books. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:12, 14 September 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 as there is no proof that he has played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Gkionis

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

    Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. Removed prod due to perceived notability of Cyprus 2nd Division or Belgian 4th Division. GauchoDude (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete neither Cyprus 2nd division nor Belgian 4th division are fully professional, so the subject is not notable. --Angelo (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as Non-notable, has not played in a competitive game between two professional sides. Brilliantine (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. User has in no way shown that 2. Cyprus is not fully professional, and if as user Brilliantine says one requirement is "has not played in a competitive game between two professional sides," this is absolutely not the case as any match between Gkionis' former club MEAP Nisou and over half of the clubs from 2. Cyprus last year were fully professional matches. Deletion has already been removed from the page once and I feel that the person re-adding such nomination simply has a vendetta due to some personal unnecessary high standards, especially give that he can not definitively prove that 2. Cyprus is in fact not fully professional. NJDevils1087 NJDevils1087 (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do not delete Nick Gkionis's site because the clubs in the Cypriot 2nd division are professional.

    Cypriot football league system article clearly states that they are only semi-professional. This is not the same as fully professional. Brilliantine (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So noted with no proof whatsoever in that article, Brilliantine. There is no link or source to definitively state that clubs in the Second Division are in fact semi-professional. As Nick was a former player with one of the 2. Cyprus clubs, I suggest we remove the deletion block for now and let him get valid information from sources directly involved with the league, rather than go by an unsourced Wiki entry. I also feel that any club that can reasonably expect to reach the highest tier of club football in a country is for all intents and purposes fully professional, but that is not a source, just an opinion. NJDevils1087 (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Well-written, well-referenced article. All-American. Claims of notablity. Nfitz (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played fully-professional. I'd hardly say three sources is well-referenced. Being all-American doesn't confer notability either. --Jimbo[online] 18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Jimbo, this is unproven. The reference to semi-professional comes from Wikipedia article Cypriot football league system, which is itself 100% unsourced and clearly not able to be validated. I continue to recommend that we let Nick talk to league contacts for confirmation of this before any deletion occurs. NJDevils1087 (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and re-create once Gkionis plays in a fully professional league. Since MEAP Nisou may be a pro club competing in a league with some semi-pro clubs, he could have in theory played in a cup match against a pro club and passed WP:ATHLETE. However, rsssf.com has MEAP losing in the first round of the 2007-08 Cup to an amateur club. Jogurney (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If one match against a fully pro club is considered passing WP:ATHLETE, the matches MEAP contested against relegated Division A/Marfin Laiki League (1. Cyprus) clubs, all of which are fully-professional as per the sourced Cypriot First Division. In addition, WP:ATHLETE lists criterion as "an athlete that has participated in the highest levels of amateur sports. This, in the United States, should include both the NCAA and PDL for soccer. NJDevils1087 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Clubs have to be fully pro. In any case, only around half of the teams in the First division are fully pro (I know, I can't source this at the moment - sadly I only understand ancient Greek rather than modern. 'The highest level of amateur sports' I take to mean to relate to sports where there is either no professional setup in that country, or where the amateur and professional sports are so different that they are viewed almost as different sports - for example Amateur Boxing. I think this is supported by the wording "highest levels of amateur sports" - your interpretation of this would be suggested if it read "highest amateur levels of sports". Brilliantine (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - The highest level of amateur soccer would be the U-23's, otherwise known as the Olympics. Since he has not participated in such, the NCAA and PDL is non-notable. No other NCAA soccer athlete or PDL athlete have articles on wikipedia due solely to the fact that they've played in those leagues. GauchoDude (talk) 08:13, 12 September 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. There is no consensus here about whether this is notable enough for a seperate article or not. This is no prejudice either way to a discussion on the talk pages agreeing or disagreeing on a merger. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Top Gear Winter Olympics

    Top Gear Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Merge into List of Top Gear episodes or delete. This single episode isn't any more notable than the others in the series, and they don't all have their own articles. Ged UK (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep: Bearing in mind the recent expansion of the franchise, it is far too early for comparisons to be made to other programs over split content. The state of Top Gear Australia has to be noted. Specifically, if the magazine and the publicity campaign were launched months ago, shouldn't Steve Pizzati have an article by now? I know that the UK hosts have been reviewed locally, so there definately are references available. Ottre (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a connection between Top Gear Winter Olympics (a stand-alone episode) and the as-yet-unaired franchised creation that is Top Gear Australia? I'm confused. -- saberwyn 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: why, exactly? The UK program had over 400 million international viewers, so isn't it obvious the article stream is now determined by multiple criteria? This is as yet unspecified, therefore it is too early to delete any "special" episode articles. Ottre (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is Articles for Deletion. Merger are best organised by tagiing the respective pages with {{merge}} or one of its sub-templates, and holding a discussion on the talk-page of one of the articles involved. -- saberwyn 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:40, 9 September 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), consensus is to redirect which has been almost done, will complete Fr33kmantalk APW 00:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Our Lady Of Perpetual Help School

    Our Lady Of Perpetual Help School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete as a non-notable elementary school. Tavix (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:37, 9 September 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. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dominick Evans

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

    Non notable. No secondary or tertiary sources available. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I could not find anything about this guy on Factiva (6 hits for "Dominick Evans", none related to an author) and without newspaper coverage sourcing this article will be difficult.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can get newspaper articles to back up many of these claims. They were posted primarily in the 1980s and 1990s in the Toledo Blade and the BG newspaper. They're mostly written in his old name, Meghan Lawniczak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.68.63 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – Notability in a geographical region is still notability. While the subject of the article may not be recognized as notable on a large scale—say, globally or even nationally—it is regionally, and I would say that this merits keeping this article on Wikipedia. It could use some revision, and as time permits, I can help to work on that. Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 20:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:29, 9 September 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. BJTalk 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Nevard

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

    Obscure creationist. Only claim to fame is to being the secretary of the likewise-obscure Daylight Origins Society -- itself under AfD. The article currently cites no third party sources, and the majority of the sources it does cite only make trivial mention of the topic. HrafnTalkStalk 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Regardless of whether the Society is notable, this person is not notable. Fewer and less notable google hits than, say, me. (A good litmus test, to be sure!) HG | Talk 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It seems clear that being involved with running an organisation, even if notable, does not confer notability. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Being the head of a not-well-known group doesn't seem to be a claim to notability. (Even if the group were notable, we wouldn't very often have individual articles on the group's officers unless they had outside claims to fame). EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Redirect to Daylight Origins Society. Insufficient notability other than as officer of the organization and editor of their magazine. With a redirect the content can remain accessible in the history of this page, so editors can retrieve it to perform the merge. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [modified my comment after further research.]
    Update: The other article at Daylight Origins Society has been kept, following an AfD closed as "no consensus." I've reviewed the details and sources in this article (as of this current time stamp) and confirmed that there is nothing on this page that is not already in the other article, except for a couple of sentences that are unsourced. Therefore, if the decision is to merge and redirect, no merging of content is needed. This page can simply be redirected to the other one, and all the information is already there, as far as I can tell. There seems to be no need to delete this page and its history, when a redirect will do just as well. If the decision is to delete, it would be a good idea to add a redirect after deletion anyway, since just about all of the sources that discuss the organization also mention Nevard. It's not a big issue to me either way, but it seems the redirect would be the best solution. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge then delete any interesting info into Daylight Origins Society, and then delete that per it's discussion. Or just delete as it's non notable. Verbal chat 17:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete after merging any significant information into the DOS article, though there may not be any as all the sources are selfpublished. . dave souza,duplicate !vote removed by Jerry talk 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "merge then delete" is not a valid recommendation (same as "delete after merging"). "Delete unless (fill-in complicated criteria which requires research outside of the discussion here)" is equally unhelpful. Please help out the closing administrator by !voting consistent with the deletion policy. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC
    • Comment There's no deletion policy prohibiting or invalidating !votes that are conditional and complicated. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply to that is here. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Searched through google findings. Couldn't find an independent reliable source to confirm any claim of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the above deletion argument as I too was unable to find any sources on either Google News or Google Books. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable individual, the info is all in the DOS article and in the unlikely event of someone searching for him the search box will find the articles with his name, so a redirect is unnecessary. . dave souza, talk 21:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dave, this is your second "delete" !vote here - your prior entry on this page is at 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC). Would you like to strike through one of them, or change one of them to a "comment"? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed his first !vote. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Jerry, my impression was that this ws a new vote discounting those that were qualified by mergying any useful information into the main article. So, my view is to delete. . dave souza, talk 12:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christina Mendez

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

    I was asked by an anonymous user to nominate this article for deletion on his/her behalf.[45] The anonymous user, 72.75.98.105, had previously placed a prod template on the article with the following rationale: Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria.[46] The prod was removed by another anonymous user. On the fate of the article, I choose to remain neutral. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:21, 9 September 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. There is no consensus for deletion here (and a source has been found for some verification meaning there are no overriding policy grounds for deletion. Davewild (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Korg i3

    Korg i3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Notability concerns lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak to moderate keep. I'd be very surprised if they weren't easy to find, though probably more likely in hard copy than online. Still, a quick google search turned up such items as this and this. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Grutness, stating the obvious, those links prove existence, but don't represent significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Phil - true enough, though as I said, there should be quite a number of hard copy items about this synth. The i1-i4 series were popular synths back in their day. You're right about the two links I added, but they were mainly to show that such synths are at least still being talked about, despite being in that area which is "old technology" but not yet "classic". Grutness...wha? 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per fist sentence of WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true, unless references provided,per WP:PROVEIT, this article is in Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006, there are no articles on Wikipedia that have been tagged for lack of references longer then this article. Jeepday (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Maybe it isn't the Korg Triton, but it's notable. Music magazines from the early 90s probably don't have their archives online, but there's enough in Google News to verify the main points, with one source calling it, along with the i2, Korg's "most advanced instruments to date". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:15, 9 September 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. While I personally think this should be deleted, and voted to do so. I think that there is enough here to go ahead an close this as No Consensus to Delete. If anything, the trend is to keep the article based upon the rising interest in the article. I see no reason to keep this article in AfD when the outcome appears so obvious to me. Another week will only result in "No Consensus" or "Keep" I don't see delete being a viable option as the church garners more speculative coverage. I do advise keeping a close eye on WP:Coatrack as this should not be an article about Palin. Unlike Wright, Palin left the church when she decided it was too extreme. Similarly, I do not believe this church would be notable at all if it wasn't for the fact of people trying to create a controversy similar to the Wright-Obama one. The similarities just aren't there. This is, at it's core, IMHO a non-notable church. There are other churches of similar size with equally questionable ethics that have garnered local attention (as has this one). In Denver there is a Pentacostal Church that has more independent notability than Palin's former church. But with the intention of making the church an issue, it has an artificial sense of notability. After the election, regardless of who wins, I think this AfD should be revisited, but at this time, I don't see it being deleted due to partisan politics. I know it shouldn't play a factor, but let's face it. The church is the flavor of the day. In a few months, I hope people realize that the hype around it today is merely wp:notnews. There is no need to relist. Keeping this AfD open is not going to do wikipedia any good, until the election is over, the church will be an issue..---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wasilla Assembly of God

    Wasilla Assembly of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article speedied under G4, graciously recreated to allow consensus to delete. I don't believe notablility has been established, and I'm going delete as notability is not inherited. Synergy 02:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment "graciously recreated to allow consensus to delete" is a very odd phrase to use in launching a AFD debate, as it presupposes the outcome. Some editors argue for keeping and others for deleting. The closing admin should judge the merits of the arguments presented in relation to the applicable guidelines and policies, rather than any pre-ordained outcome or any mere plurality of "votes." Edison (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find it oddly worded at all. If you checked the history, you would see that there were two prod tags on the article (none by me) which were removed by TheFairix. Then, Justinfr tagged it for speedy as G4. At about this time, a few editors were objecting when it was then deleted. I then asked that it be restored so we can take it to here to hold an actual debate. Graciously recreated... only means that the admin did it without further objection, and I found that very honorable, as I knew this would be a semi-controversial AfD, yet it saved us the time of a DRv. Synergy 12:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church cited by Fairix, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy, not notable, likely coatrack target. Kelly hi! 02:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepDelete - I think it's best not to speedy this, so that if it's created again, it can be speedied as an article that was deleted as a result of a full debate. Nope, I've changed my mind. This church has now obviously gotten multiple, independent coverage in major media sources. (Note, Synergy's comment is in reply to my original delete !vote.)--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. Which was my only intentions when asking for undeletion. Synergy 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By this reasoning, you would be creating a condition whereby if it is deleted here, but later becomes clearly notable (there are now 412 News stories on Google), it would be very difficult to stop an article from being deleted. Why are so many people so interested in keeping this article out? The Wasilla Bible Church or Larry Kroon article based on a February 7, 2007 Atlantic Monthly article would not have been deleted without a five day period and debate, if Palin had not been nominated a year and a half later, which amounts to a kind of “reverse non notability”.EricDiesel (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church and especially concerns about WP:COAT. The church is not notable outside of its association with Palin and, at best, warrants a mention on her page, not its own article. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The only true claim of notability for this church is that a potential VP of the United States is/was a member of its congregation. I don't think that's quite enough. Any information relevant to Palin should be included within her bio. - auburnpilot talk 02:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but closely watch for coatracking and POV pushing. The two Anchorage Daily News articles on the church's community service projects are more then enough to establish the church's notability. The article is a target for coatracking, POV pushing, and general vandalism, but that is not a legitimate reason to delete. Let's not let the recent actions of two edit warriors cloud our judgment. I also found several other articles about the church's community service and outreach in the Anchorage Daily News archives while looking for links to the existing citations. --Farix (Talk) 02:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Query Is it being suggested here that any Church with
    1. with two mentions
    2. in a 70,000 circulation newspaper
    is a Church which is notable and should be included in the Wikipedia? Is that the objective criteria seriously being suggested here? patsw (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't think of a single church in my community that doesn't do community service projects and food drives. I wouldn't create an article on any of them, however. (And yes, there are local papers that have covered their efforts) - auburnpilot talk 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability guidelines only state that coverage must be significant, and from a reliable third party. It doesn't segregate between "local" and "non-local". To ignore the ADN articles is to ignore the notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 02:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is a target for coatracking, POV pushing, and general vandalism, but that is not a legitimate reason to delete. Who was using that as a rationale to delete? Synergy 02:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because that is obviously why other editors are dismissing the reliable third-party sources in order to vote for deletion. --Farix (Talk) 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume otherwise. That sentences describes almost any article currently on wikipedia. Synergy 02:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All of these were brough up by searching the ADN archive. Unfortunately, linking directly to them is difficulty since the archives search engine doesn't create direct links.

    Farix (Talk) 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    for the record I don't doubt ADN is reliable or 3rd party but, it is only one source and therefore on it's own doesn't meet the verifiability criteria of multiple sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is yet another example of supporters of Sarah Palin trying to limit content that might hurt her political aspirations. There are literally 100s of churches in Category:Churches in the United States, many of which have far less notability than this one. Why haven't these received PROD tags? Because they aren't in the public radar. In other words, they are LESS notable.--Appraiser (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose I need to go put my tinfoil hat back on, since you seem to be able to read my mind so well. In other words, don't make such unfounded accusations; they don't accomplish anything. - auburnpilot talk 02:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • response - Appraiser, that's utter nonsense, and you need to make an apology to every editor you've insulted here. I suspect I'm to your political left, but your accusations are grossly off-base and unfounded. (And don't pull out the useless WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, either; if there are in fact other articles about non-notable churches, nominate them for deletion and we can discuss them.) Ad hominem attacks against other editors will get you banned, and certainly will do nothing for your position. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Notability is not inherited. All keep arguments boil down to the fact that Sarah Palin went there and that's not a strong argument. Tavix (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've provided two additional articles about the church's activities, combined with the two already existing on the article. That should be more then enough to establish notability. They have nothing to do with Sarah Palin or her associations with the church. What more must you need before say that the topic is notable? I am also insulted that you've declared my keep vote has anything to do with Palin when I didn't even bring her up. It clearly demonstrates that you haven't even read my comments. --Farix (Talk) 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply There are three sources. One is about Palin, so don't argue with me there. The other two are from a search site which does nothing to give information about anything, just the fact that a small town newspaper did a story about some fundraiser. Notability is not estabished here, its just a church and besides the fact that Palin went there, has nothing over the millions if not billions of other churches in the world. Tavix (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I didn't cite the New York Sun article, I did cite the two, now four, ADN articles as evidence towards notability. And since Anchorage is Alaska's largest city, it's as relevant as any other news source from any other city in the US. Declaring it as a "small town paper" and therefore not contributing towards notability is a disingenuous argument to make and reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 03:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query Does anyone have full access to the various ADN articles? I generally can't tell from the free intros whether or not they amount to significant coverage about the church. The one titled "Fundraising Offers a Chance to Cool Off" is a grand total of 79 words in length, I can tell from the length alone that it is not useful. The "Harvest of Help" article appears from the intro likely to be non-useful; it looks likely to have at most one or two sentences about this church more than what is visible in the intro. GRBerry 02:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable church, period. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and RESTORE CONTENT ESTABLISHING NOTABILITY edited out.
    Notability- Google has 412 NEWS results for “Wasilla Assembly of God”, and about 14,500 pages that are not News.
    Notability- Palin has had more than two churches and pastors. Yet only two are notable, since their controversial teachings are mirrored in the very reasoning for public policy positions that made Palin a historic figure in the first place. They are notable, not by being linked to Palin, but to public policy posisions adopted by a government official.
    Notability- Furthermore, both were featured and quoted for their controversial positions in either the Atlantic Monthly or the Chicago Tribune.
    Reliable Sources- Atlantic Monthly, Chicago Tribune, and numerous other sources were cited.
    The Atlantic Monthly story predates Palin's nomination.EricDiesel (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't the Atlantic Monthly flogging the libel that Palin's youngest kid really isn't hers? Kelly hi! 05:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Atlantic Monthly Article was written on February 07, 2007, a year and a half ago, long BEFORE Palin was pregnant. But the two Wikipedia articles on the church and pastor were deleted once Palin was nominated, amounting to a "reverse notability" policy.EricDiesel (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:N, WP:COAT etc etc. Mayalld (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Even now, when the church is getting media attention because of Palin, there don't seem to be many (if any) references written about the church. They rather simply refer to it while Palin is the subject. Notability has yet to be proven. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 06:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More CITATIONS OF NOTABILITY Per a Google search on the gollowing deleted articles -
    Wasilla Assembly of God is featured in 412 NEWS stories, and is on about 14,500 web pages.
    Ed Kalnins has 20 NEWS stories featuring him, and is in 2,560 web pages.
    Wasilla Bible Church has 50 NEWS stories, and is in 2,400 web pages.
    Larry Kroon is in 20 NEWS stories, (including being featured a February 07, 2007 Atlantic Weekly article about his anti Semitism that predates Sarah Palin’s nomination!), and is in 1,460 web pages.
    Yet all these articles were deleted for nn or lack of news sources.
    The Atlantic Monthly documenting Wasilla Bible Church anti Semitism came out on February 07, 2007, a year and a half BEFORE Palins was nominated.
    The articles on Wasilla Bible Church and pastor Larry Kroon would not have been deleted if Palin had not been in the church at the time of the anti Semitic church rant, or had not been nominated for VP, which is sort of "reverse non notariety".EricDiesel (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I'm rising to the bait and I probably shouldn't but, your last statement is both a fallacy and insulting to the many editors on here that actually care about the project. The artilces on Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon would have been deleted even faster without the mention of Ms. Palin because they still would not have been remotely notable and verifiable within the policies and guidelines of this project. Verifiability means weighing quantity and quality of an article's "sources"/"references". The guidelines are quite clear on notability not being inherited and that verifiable claims of importance/signifcance must exist. Being "notable" because someone "famous" attends isn't valid, period and accusing valuable and honest contributors ot the project of bias simply because you disagree with them is ridiculous (as is spamming people's talkpages with the flawed rationale). Personally, I say ban all "coverage" of people's pastor, schoolteacher, etc from wikipedia regardless of political party, country of origin, etc. I'd rather see less about all of these non-notable people than constantly get badgered by people pushing agendas one way or the other. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the only possible way to test this theory would have been if the articles were created at that time. Oddly enough, nobody found either subject sufficiently notable for inclusion at the time. I wonder why? I'm also curious where the national coverage on this supposed outrage was? The mass media was as indifferent to these small town churches and preachers as Wikipedia was. Right up until Sarah Palin became nationally famous, that is. Sorry, but these people and organizations are just as non-notable today as they were last week as they were last year. Resolute 00:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Subject receives a passing reference in a handful of very recent news articles (WP:NOT#NEWS) but doesn't stand up on its own when examined for notability (WP:N). Article mentions Sarah Palin in order to infer notability, but could also be used as a basis for documenting Palin's religious views outside of her own article (WP:COATRACK). As subject and similar have been mentioned in passing in very recent news stories they have been picked up by search engines, however the quantitiy of results returned does not bear reflection on the quality or depth of information on said results (WP:GOOGLE). As the subject does not hold claim to any notability independent of other more notable subjects, it could potentially be speedily deleted (WP:CSD#A7). Having said that, the discussion here is useful in order to clarify why the subject is not notable, as well as examining and addressing any points the original authors may have. Many thanks, Gazimoff 08:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three 2005, 2006, and 2007Anchorage Daily News stories cited are not recent, and independent of Palin. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Take away the WP:Coatracking and this is a NN church which mainly gets non-trivial attention for its past association with Sarah Palin. • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cited 2005, 2006, and 2007 Anchorage Daily News stories are independent of Palin. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Without the coatrack aspects, the church is not notable. Anything that needs to be said about this church should be said at Sarah Palin. Deli nk (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • STRONG KEEPPalin’s religious affiliations and beliefs are the subject of intense scrutiny by the national media. And not merely the left wing media. USA Today, MSNBC, the Associated Press. Also the Wall Street Jorunal and the New York sun which are not left of center papers.

    Yesterday, articles on her churches, Wasilla Bible Church and her pastors Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins were deleted after AFDs that were up for less than 24 hours. These articles ought to be restored, improved, monitored, and expanded. These are real and important topics. We are choosing a President. The beliefs of a woman with non-negligible odds of becomein President are relevant. Here are the first few entries on today’s News google, I searched Wasilla Assembly of God. It is not a mere incidental mention. These are articles about her church, pastors and beliefs. There are many more today. It does not require a crystal ball to know that there will be more in the coming days.

    Pentecostalism obscured in Palin biography By ERIC GORSKI and RACHEL ZOLL – 5 hours ago ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Sarah Palin often identifies herself simply as Christian. Associated Press [47]

    Palin's Faith Is Seen In Church Upbringing By SUZANNE SATALINE September 4, 2008; Page A6 , Wall Street JOurnal [48]

    Palin's former minister comes under scrutiny Updated 11h 37m ago

    By Robert Stern, USA Today

    [49]

    Editorial of The New York Sun | September 4, 2008 New York Sun, United States [50]

    Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God' The Associated Press - 10 hours ago [51]

    The Palin church video MSNBC - Sep 2, 2008 [52]

    Palin Asks for Prayers that War be "Task from God" Washington Post, United States - Sep 2, 2008

    A Visit to Palin’s Church Newsweek - Sep 2, 2008

    US troops in Iraq on 'task from God': Palin The Standard, Hong Kong - 10 hours ago

    Elan26 (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

    Your entire keep argument amounts to the church is notable because Palin is a member. This is directly in opposition to WP:NOTINHERITED. The church must be covered significantly in mulitple reliable 3rd party sources separately to this one congregant otherwise it fails the notability and verifiability policies and guidleines that have already been pointed out to you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTINHERITED has not been applied to Presidential candidates. Their children , churches, pastors, neighborhoods, former houses, become notable by association with them. Madonna’s pastor and house of worship have pages. Surely Palin’s beliefs are more important.Elan26 (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
    WP:NOTINHERITED is universal. Otherwise, I haven't seen specific mention of it applying to authors and therefore I'm notable (and yes I understand the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS irony of that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Her place of worship is notable on its own.[53] GtstrickyTalk or C 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ::::::::: Sorry, maybe I'm being thick but, why the link to the Kabbalah Centre? Have you entered into the wrong AfD? Or were you trying to make some sort of point I'm unaware of? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I was in fact just being thick. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please go back and look at three edits I just made to the page based on one article, today's SP story. 1) Palin was baptized here as a teenager. 2) she worshipped here for many years 3)the church on which the church building is located was renamed in noror of the former pastor. SWorking form today's news articles, similar, objective, well-sourced articles can be created for Wasilla Bible Church and all of her pastors who are indeed nsuddenly,notable, yes, notable because of her nomination. This is factual, significant information. There are pagges for churches attended regularly by most candidates.Elan26 (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
    Please go back and read the policy. Notability is not inherited. Just because she is notable doesn't make the church notable. Please stop with the circular argument. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've already addressed the significant coverage by reliable sources and have rewritten the article the reflect said sources. It's not perfect, but notability has been established for the church. The church clearly doesn't need the Palin angle to establish its notability. --Farix (Talk) 13:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we need to restore the Wasilla Bible Church article, which is also well-sourced and notable.Elan26 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
    It still needs significant coverage from multiple sources for verifiability. And Deletion review is that a way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple sources. there are at least three good sources from the Anchorage Daily News about different events that the church has been involved in. --Farix (Talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ADN is one source. But, I grant you they are separate articles by the same paper. Maybe it's an interpretation problem from my side (or vice versa). Either way I'd rather see papers, magazines, etc beyond ADN discuss the subject in a significant manner. I haven't found anything yet. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mutilate articles, multiple sources. They just happen to be by the same publisher. However, WP:NOTE doesn't require multiple sources in the first place. Only significant coverage, and the articles on "Winter Rock Fest" and "Rally Point" are more then enough. --Farix (Talk) 13:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I still have to disagree on the multiple article=multiple source thing and I still prefer something significant from non-ADN source but, can we simply agree to disagree for now (or discuss multiple article/multiple source in a more general location)? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the church is involved with a non-notable concert/event does not make the church notable. The fact that a concert that attracts 1,000 kids gets coverage is more an indication of how little it takes to get coverage in Alaska than about true notability.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources I just added a description of the church form today's Wall Street Journal. There are many more, but I'm out of time. The press is all over this church. The problem with this discussion is that some of us believe that in the case of potential presidents, everything is relevant. Sometimes people are so important and their religious affiliation is so important to them that it merits coverage. Madonna's Place of Worship and her spiritial leader have pages.Elan26 (talk)Elan26
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply but her place of worship is notable on its own.[54] GtstrickyTalk or C 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grudging keep- as I stated in the previous AFD. The church has, much like Trinity United Church of Christ achieved (not inherited) notability thanks to a prominent political candidate's attendance. Problems with POV and content are matters for cleanup, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a bad comparison. Reading the Trinity United Church, it appears notable even without its association with Obama, in the context of its role with the history of Chicago. Further, the whole town of Wasilla has fewer people than Trinity has congregants. justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at this typical AFD for a typical church. It does seem that we are raising the bar unduly in this discussion.

    [[55]] First United Methodist Church (Lufkin, Texas)Elan26 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

    • Keep, strongly. A major US national political candidate's membership confers notability on this local church, especially since she acknowledges that her religious beliefs inform her political beliefs. Nationwide attention has therefore been paid to this church, making it easily meet any notability guideline you care to mention. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Five Requests for Clarification on Wikipedia Policies and Standards summarized from numerous Palin related Wikipedia deletion discussion pages

    ( Five Requests are Questions by OP author of article being discussed on long question link below) EricDiesel (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK
    1. The 5 day period doesn't apply when the admin invokes WP:SNOW, which means that there is no point going through the motions for 5 days, because the debate is so firmly on one side that there isn't a snowballs chance in hell of a different outcome.
    2. This isn't relevant to the debate. We just don't do WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
    3. The number depends on the status of the sources, and whether any of them are PRIMARILY about the church, rather than about something else, but mention the church.
    4. Could we have that again in English?
    5. can you provide examples?
    Mayalld (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is all being addressed on his talk page where it belongs. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - notability is not inherited. Regarding the tl;dr above, well...I don't envy the closing admin. But this church is not different than the thousands of others like it across the country (and perhaps the world)...99% of which do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It is unlikely that the subject of this article will have any more notability than a passing news interest. News articles "about" this church are really about one of its members. Peacock (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nom. --Tom 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which of the various edits on four articles are being examined for notability?

    Numerous edits on the four deleted pages also deleted information including

    1. the location and context where an agreed on notable anti Semite's made some of his most published controversial remarks about Jews,
    2. The quotes relating to the etiology of various public policy positions and reasoning for them made by an elected governor, and voted on in response to this reasoning by 100 US Senators, including in the funding requests for he oil pipeline approved by the Christian God, and approved earmark requests, and other places. EricDiesel (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More Keep arguments
    • A student of history interested in the common content of the hundreds of news articles and thousands of web pages regarding these four article titles should have an encyclopedia entry explaining the mass of news articles, collecting the quotations generating the news stories, and citing legitimate sources for further research.
    • The varoius quotes by various persons, both those agreed to be notable and not yet agreed to be notable, are not appropriate to be placed in a Sarah Palins article, since their relationship to the etiology of her ideas is only implied by the news articles. Yet the old quotes, having generated hundreds of news stories, both after and BEFORE Palin’s nomination, should be collected SOMEWHERE.
    • If these four articles are not deleted, given the rate of accumulation of information on them, they would likely all grown into a valuable encyclopedia resources for modern historians and political scientists researching related public policy reasoning. Isn’that one of the things making Wikipedia unique, being a nearly instantenous source of encyclopedic knowledge? EricDiesel (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Non-notable church that appears to fail not only WP:N, but WP:NOTINHERITED and/or is a target for WP:COATRACK... just because someone who is notable attends the church, does not make the church itself notable... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP [2nd !vote struck] – This Information Does Not Belong on Sarah Palin Page, as suggested. - Information in this article does not belong on Sarah Palin Page, as suggested all over the place.
    This would be grossly unfair to Sarah Palin. There are numerous suggestions here and elsewhere that information on these pages, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon, more properly belong on the Sarah Palin page.
    The principal information is the quotes generating the news stories.
    • Delete. If the church was independently notable now it was also independenly notable a couple of weeks ago. That the article is only now being created is absolute evidence in my mind that the notability of Sarah Palin is the sole claim to notability of the church, and as others have pointed out, notability is not inherited. Notability is also not temporary, so bring this back for consideration when the election is done and dusted and there can be no claim of political motives; right now it looks like there is a massive political agenda here. Ros0709 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Wasilla Bible Church: This discussion seems to ahve become a WP:DelRev discussion of that article, which seems to have been the subject of a BAD FAITH AFD closure, perhaps for US party political reasons. That article should be restored and the AFD allowed to run its course. However the mechanism for that is to request a deltion review. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the closing admin would object to reopening although no one has asked. see User talk:Seicer GtstrickyTalk or C 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked on Seicer's page.
    • I also asked that Wasilla Assembly of God, Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, and Ed Kalnins articles be put back up for continued contributions. All four were evolving information in completely different ways. There is a third Sarah Palin pastor who is most often in the news, but not notable on his own as far as I know.
    • The DELETE recommendations on this page aside, Larry Kroonand Wasilla Bible Church are getting coverage in the Israeli press, while Ed Kalnins and Wasilla Assembly of God are getting coverage on reports about God's will on earmark requests, because they are all NOTABLE for different reasons.
    • The videotapes of speaking in toungues and video sermons previously available at the two different kinds of churches may be back up before this is deleted again.
    • Is there a way to make sure Seicer sees my request and argument? OPEricDiesel (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge -- This is an article on a NN church. The best solution for such articles is greatly to shorten them, cutting out all elements of WP:ADVERT and then merge what is left with the town where it is located in a section on churches. If that section becomes too big it can be forked as a separate sub-article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- If there are articles about schools all over the world, why not about churches? It's true that an article on this church would likely not have been created had Sarah Palin not been nominated as the Republican VP candidate, but given that the article has already been created. I do not see the existence of the article as a POV fork. Dems on the move (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Each article has to be individually considered in relation to WP policy, not other articles. See WP:WAX. Ros0709 (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the Governor of the state, and perhaps the VP of the United States is (or was) a member of this church, then this church is definitely notable, and the article should be kept. Dems on the move (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia policy is that notability is not inherited. In this case the notability of a member of the congregation does not of itself confer any notability in the church itself. Ros0709 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. That's why nobody has bothered to write an article about the church that Joe Biden attends. Obviously, Palin's membership in the church is notable, making this church notable, Just like Barack Obama's church is notable (Trinity United Church of Christ). Dems on the move (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep sufficient number of reliable sources to confirm notability in this instance. - Francis Tyers · 19:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep many mainstream reliable sources have been talking about it lately. bogdan (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Where's the proof? You can't just say that there are reliable sources without giving some examples. Tavix (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this coatrack. There are no non-trivial independent sources primarily about this church, it's just a completely generic local church. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as a) this really needed to go to review first, as is the case with many Pentecostalism-related articles, and b) coverage in the Christian media which confers notability may emerge in the near future. Likely a premature nomination. Ottre (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply a) This is a review. We are reviewing whether or not this should be deleted. b) Your statement that says that sources will come in the near-future is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, which makes that arguement false, don't assume things are going to happen in the future. Tavix (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Just about every major news organization is reporting on this church, automatically making the claim of "non-notablity" ludicrous in the extreme. In fact, this particular article for deletion should be strongly considered as an instructional prototype of those articles for deletion which are merit-less on their face. J.R. Hercules (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What?!?! Just about every major news organization is a huge exaggeration! There has only been a couple of Alaskan newspapers that report that Sarah Palin went there. Notability is not established so this church is seriously not notable. Tavix (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Are the Associated Press, USA Today, ABC News, and the Wall Street Journal what you consider to be "a couple of Alaskan newspapers"? J.R. Hercules (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn church, coatrack article, notability is not inhereted. Church is reported on exclusively in the context of Sarah Palin. Resolute 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:TheFarix (Talk | contribs) (4,760 bytes) (Given the four Anchorage Daily News articles about the church's activites that have nothing to do with Palin, notability has been established and this template in inappropriate.)
    * I am new, so I don’t know how to find the referent of where the parenthetical comment finally appears.
    Does this mean the debate to KEEP is over?EricDiesel (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Not in the least. In fact, I don't even think the comment is warrented. Tavix (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should every church which has been mentioned three or more times in a 70,000 circulation newspaper have a Wikipedia article? Is that the objective criterion for inclusion when it comes to churches? patsw (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a good point. But a better argument to KEEP is that the thousands of media stories about this church quote one of its pastors and his views, and the quotes have nothing to do with Palin, so the quotes do not belong on Palin's pages. If this article is deleted, there would be thousands of news articles about what this church's poastor is quoted as saying, and there would be no place to enter this information on Wikipedia, without guilting by association Palin with the remarks. Wasilla Bible Church should similarly get its own page back, as it is in the Israeli press for remarks made there by the notorious anti Semite David Brickner. I am the Original Poster of this article, my first on Wikipedia, and the origninal Delete recommendation was based on there being only the three ANchorage Daily stories, and one Huffington Post, and this page got created. Since then there have been hundreds more reliable sources published, most of which have content about things which should not be on Palin's article as she did not make the controversial statements.EricDiesel (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, read WP:NOT#NEWS. Let's look at the so-called thousands of media stories on this church:
    • If they appear now, it is solely because of this Church's connection to Palin.
    • The media scrutiny iteself of this church, motivated by their desire to do a gotcha on Palin is irrelevant to the Wikipedia.
    • Palin's religious beliefs, if they become significant to her biographical article, are going to appear there without undue weight
    • The Wikipedia doesn't do extrapolations. Eric, we're not going to predict that apart from Palin, there's going to be something this church is going to do which will make it more significant than any other community church which has several mentions in a 70,000 circulation newspaper without a Wikipedia article. patsw (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete Notability is NOT inheritied. The ONLY reason this was created was to try to captialize on Sarah Palin's nomination to promote the church. She is no longer a member I beleive. This article will never be edited again after 3 months. SALT. mboverload@ 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are three Anchorage Daily News stories cited in the article about this church, all of which have nothing to do with Palin, from 2005, 2006, and 2007. One is from BEFORE Palin became governor. Please reconsider delete recommendation or respond. EricDiesel (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I would like to emphasize two points:
    1. I've lost count of how many editors have stated that anything of interest regarding the church rightly belongs in the Sarah Palin article. That argument is a complete non-starter: there is simply no room in that already-very-long article for this material, much of which has nothing to do with Palin in any event.
    2. The contention that the church's connection with Sarah Palin must be completely excluded from the notability equation is taking things to an extreme, and therefore grossly unfair. Before her selection as McCain's running-mate the church probably had borderline notability, but surely the heightened level of media scrutiny must count for something. Suppose we were to insist on excluding the most notable aspect(s) of other churches (or other types of organizations, etc.) -- How many of those articles would survive AFD??
    Cgingold (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to mention that I added another source, an article by ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper. Cgingold (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Based on satisfaction of WP:N due to multiple articles found so far in ADN as discussed above, predating VP nomination of Palin. "Multiple sources" does not require "multiple newspapers," just multiple stories about different aspects of the subject in reliabe and independent sources. Different jourmals, newspapers, books and magazines are clearly preferred, but so far we are only seeing sources which are readily available via online search, which does not search the text of all newspapers in the state. In addition to sources which appear to show notability of the church independent of the membership of Palin, there are major national sources which go on to discuss the church membership in light of Palin's nomination and her attendance there from the time she was a teenager until 2002. This does not mean that any mention of the church as a part of the spiritual background of Palin is inevitably a WP:COATRACK. Any edits which violate guidelines or policies can be corrected by those fearing them placing the article on a watchlist, as I plan to do. There is no inherent non-notability of a church just because a notable person attends it, Edison (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Query Are you suggesting that the threshold for inclusion in the Wikipedia is three appearances in a 70,000 circulation newspaper -- that any or every church crossing that threshold of verifiable appearances in reliable sources could have a Wikipedia article? If so, then Where are all the small church articles? Thousands of churches would have already satisfied that criterion if there were interest on the part of an editor.
    Comment An article on Wasilla Assembly of God practically shouts WP:COATRACK. How can anyone with experience in the Wikipedia not assess that such an article would be very short but have a lot of edits with the edit summary "rm -- this is not the place to discuss Sarah Palin"?
    • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Absent a single congregant's recent spotlight, this place has no particular notability. If local coverage of every other NN house of worship meets WP:N and we're going to keep all of them, then... No, that would be more of a mess than all the Warhammer articles, sorry. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wasilla Bible Church and Ed Kalnins (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Kalnins) have been restored and changed to redirects to Sarah Palin. Is this a compromise option suitable for this article too?
      Comment "Wasilla Assembly of God" has 561 news hits at Google News Archive.[56]. Many of these relate to the Palin candidacy, but just as for schools, having notable alumni is an argument for notability, rather than a reason for deletion. The Wall Street Journal,"Palin's Faith Is Seen In Church Upbringing" [57] is the first hit. It has substantial coverage of Wasilla Assembly of God and its pastor, Ed Kalnins. It says Palin was baptized at the church while in junior high school, and attended until 2002. Few churches have such extensive coverage in such a reliable and independent source as the WSJ, which cannot plausibly be called a Democratic or leftist source. If this article is deleted, then the McCain campaign's efforts to hide Palin's pentecostal faith background, as covered in the Associated Press article[58] "Pentecostalism obscured in Palin biography" needs to be presented in some other article, such as one on the McCain-Palin campaign.The Associated Press carried a story "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'" [59] with substantial coverage of the Wasilla Assembly of God as Palin told its graduating School of Ministry students that "the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a 'task that is from God.'" and how "God's will" had to get a gas pipeline built. The AP article says she still attends conferences and meetings at the church. Anyone in the U.S. is allowed to "religion surf" and not commit to a particular faith, so she can certainly say her faith is "non-denominational," but that does not remove the substantial coverage of the Wasilla Assembly of God in major news media which would easily satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG for any other religious congregation. The former proposed but rejected notability guideline for religious congregations, WP:CONG represents the views of a number of Wikipedia editors, and says in one of its guidelines "The congregation has, or has had, notable members or worshippers, for whom the particular church was formative in their work or their life. These people must also be notable under WP:BIO and should ideally have their own article, and their involvement in the church. The church's involvement in their lives should not be trivial, and should be significantly discussed in their biography." The inclusion of Wasilla Assembly of God in the Palin article is a separate editing question,regarding a presently protected article, but it seems undisputed that she was baptized there and attended until 6 years ago, and made important policy speeches there. Edison (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very BAD idea to redirect any of these to Palins. It was bad idea to direct Wasilla Bible Church to Palin, too. Wasilla Bible Church is all over the Israeli Media for having the notorious David Brikner speak. Palins may not even have known this. It should not redirect to Sarah Palin as this would imply a guilt by association of Palin for Brickner's antiSemitism. It should have its own page unDeleted. Similarly, Wasilla Assembly of GOd must have its own page. It has videotaped examples of small church style speaking in tongues, and videotapes of very controversial remarks by one of its pastors, Ed Kalnins, who is not its current pastor. This would guilt by associate Palins with the controversial remarks, quoted all over the major media. The place to put information abuot the quotes is on this page, not Palin's page, which again would guilt by associate her with his bizarre remarks. By the way, this is a KEEP argument for this article. Why such intense Delete pressure on this small church, which is notable for being featured in different articles in the Anchorage Daily in 2005, 2006, and 2007, AFTER Palin left this church in 2002, and BEFORE she was governor. EricDiesel (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (Voted merge above) -- Except that Sara Palin received believers baptism there and its former pastor (who has no article) took part in her inauguration as governor, I see little of notability in the article. The history section merely recounts Sara Palin's association with the church. The rest of it merely recounts the church program (very ordinary) and its doctrines, which are typical of Assemblies of God, a mainline Pentecostal denomination. This indicates that the church is essentially non-notable (see also WP:CHURCH). The truth is that most churches are NN; as a Christian, I would love it if this were not the case. This means that the present article cannot survive as an article. However there is an alternative to deleting, which is to merge a brief summary to Wasilla, Alaska#Church, which is at presnet a mere list. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect -- I have followed by own advice and undertaken a merge of this article to Wasilla, Alaska#Church. This article may now satisfactorily be converted to a redirect to Wasilla, Alaska#Church. I maintain the view that this is a NN church. The fact that the present pastor has expressed controversial views does not make him or his church notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Small, non-notable church with one past notable member. This is not a vote for redirect. This is a vote for delete. --Crunch (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Obviously because of the Palin connection. I know that notability isn't inherited, but this isn't inheritance. Palin is obviously notable, her views, her religious views, and the communities or churches in which those views developed are also notable for the influence (or its lack!) they had upon her. That's different to mere (and inadequate) "notability by association". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Obviously because of the Palin connection, and its the only thing remotely connected. Random Google searches don't work, you need articles ABOUT the church not articles that mention the church as "the church palin visits" You can talk about the influence it may have on Palin elsewhere... Jacina (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an issue about quality though, not existence - improve, not delete. I really want to read an article (surely this is the core of our "notability" concept anyway?) that explains to me the teachings Palin has been exposed to and how widely held they are by others. This article might not yet cover this with its content, but this is something I'd like to see covered and this is the place in article namespace where I think it ought to be located. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely this is the article to do that with. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly interesting, but how homogeneous are all the Assemblies of God? They state themselves that pacifism in particular is a matter for individuals and individual churches. Where is Palin's church's position on that important issue? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep has had independent coverage in the media. Watch out for coatracking though. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Many editors who have commented for deletion have been dismissing the Anchorage Daily News articles on the church, effectively using a combination of WP:LOCALFAME and WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. However, neither WP:NOTE or WP:RS mentions anything about circulation of the sources. Instead, they set the requirements that the coverage by a source independent of the subject, that the source is reliable, and be the coverage be significant (i.e. more than trivial but may be less than exclusive). The Anchorage Daily News is independent of the church, is a reliable source, and combined provided significant, non-trivial coverage of the church's activates. In addition, the size or potential size of the congregation is not a factor in notability. A church with a congregation of 40 can still be included in Wikipedia if it can pass the general notability criteria. At the same time, a church with a congregation of 1,000 can fail the notability criteria and be considered non-notable, albeit unlikely. Moreover, just as Palin's connections to the church does not automatically make the church notable, it also does not automatically make the church non-notable. Also, WP:COATRACK does not trump WP:NOTE. WP:COATRACK is something to watch out for, but it is a valid reason to delete an article on a subject that would normally pass WP:NOTE on its own. --Farix (Talk) 14:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you meant "but it isn't a valid reason to delete an article on a subject that would normally pass WP:NOTE on its own". Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Notability has been established with multiple, non-trivial, independant, reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:COATRACK, article is just a way to smear a political candidate by showing what a "crazy and out-of-the-mainstream" chuch she attends. --CliffC (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- I don't think this satisfies the notability requirements on its own. Unless the minister there does something to make the church famous on its own, I don't see why it would be notable. McCain's church, after all, has no article as far as I can tell. Coemgenus 20:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul Riley should be added to the Religion section o:f the Sarah Palin article. Associated Press reports “Her pastor for most of her time at Wasilla Assembly of God, Paul Riley”. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCeGgS4vbVt6qpxTpahCgGn_R-dQD92VOKVG0
    • 1. Paul Riley is NOT notable, as he only appears in the media talking about Palin as far as I know, and notability cannot be inherited. If he becomes controversial, or is the subject of media stories for some other notable thing, only then he should only then get an article.
    • 2. The “controversial figure” Ed Kalnins IS notable, since the content of the many media articles in which he is featured regards his controversial remarks. These remarks should NOT be on the Palin page, as there is no information I am aware of that directly links Palin to the controversial remarks. E.G., USA Today reports “The Rev. Ed Kalnins had no way of knowing he'd be a controversial figure in the 2008 presidential race.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-palin-pastor_N.htm . So Kalnins should have his own article in which his controversial remarks can be documented, as well as his bio, and any information about him that can be sourced.
    • 3. Larry Kroon IS notable. He is in many major media stories linking him as far back as 2004 to the highly controversial Jews for Jesus and David Brickner. The Atlantic Monthly magazine reports this Jews For Jesus pamphlet (PDF) from 2004 that reveals more details about Palin's pastor.” This is a year 2004 association, long predating Palin’s rise from mayor. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palins-pastor-a.html Numerous other news articles report on Kroon, e.g. The Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-alaska-palin_monsep01,0,3504940.story . The 2004 stuff is unrelated to Palin, so Kroon should have his own article. It is unclear Palin knew Kroon would be speaking when she recently sat through his sermon.

    EricDiesel (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Er Kroon and Kalnin don't deserve articles either. Both again are primarily notable through their affiliation to Palin. Most of the articles that I looked at for the two of them on Google News were where they were quoted about their thoughts concerning Sarah Palin. Nothing about the two of them from reliable sources (Yes, there were a few blogs/opinion pieces/perspectives, but nothing that is considered reliable.) Also there are a number of people who have affiliations to controversial groups. How many ministers have connections to the KKK but aren't notable enough for an article? How many ministers have called somebody who votes for X a sinner don't have articles? Just because an article mentions a person does not make that person notable---even an isolated article here or there does not make them notable.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep solely because of the Associated Press and other sources that focus on the church. If media wish to focus on the church because of Palin, that's their right, but we must not find a church notable simply because of a former member: otherwise I could write an article about the church where I grew up simply because a U.S. representative was once a member there. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- nn Church. X Marx the Spot (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- nn church. The main defender of this page is arguing that there are 412 (now 611) articles that mention this church on Google News. What he is failing to mention are a few of the other pertinent facts concerning these articles. Most are merely mentioning the church in passing as a reference that Sarah Palin attended the church until about 6 years ago---thus, most are not about the church, but about Sarah. There are also a number of cases where these articles are duplicates of each other. Eg, one news story is caught by several sources and repeated over and over again. Third, a number of the occurences (even in Google News) are opinion pieces/blogs.... thus, not considered reliable sources. When I looked at the articles on the first page of GoogleNews, I found only one article about Wasilla. It was a blog about how the churches website was brought down by too much internet traffic. The church is not generating all of this activity because of the church itself, but rather because of it's affiliation with Palin.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want to point out that the so-called "blog" that you refer to is actually a straight news article (not an opinion piece) by ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper, and should be regarded as an RS. Cgingold (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So then why is the word BLOG prominently placed at the top of Jake Tupper's straight news article and the website is: http://BLOGS.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/website-with-sp.html???---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See footnote 5 of WP:V about blogs. "Blogs" from reputable news agencies can be acceptable sources despite the label. I'm against keeping this article per WP:COATRACK and WP:NOT#NEWS, but this should be a non-issue. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will accept that rationale. ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is a NN church. Just because it has a notable person that does not make the church notable. Remember, Palin is not the subject the church is. Speedy Delete! Canyouhearmenow 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Church does not have any independent notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment PAKISTANI PRESS COVERAGE is ABOUT this church’s SERMONS (not about Palin, who left the church before the sermons were given).
    • Church is notable for the sheer volume of blogs on its ssermons, pro and con
    • Church is now iconic for small town American churches. EricDiesel (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this church delivers a certain type of message through blogs again does not make it notable. There are thousands of churches throughout the USA that give the same or simular messages and it in no way makes them notable. The only reason this church has found favor here is because of Palin. This church has not even reached the popularity of Brownsville Assembly in Florida. I continue to support a speedy deletion. Canyouhearmenow 00:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A tiny church in the middle of nowhere that is blogged on by thousands as far away as Pakistan and Iran is notable for that reason alone. The delete arguments were made before the national and international press started reporting on the content of sermons given when Palin was not even there (although you could not find this out by getting info from Wikipedia since the content of the sermons causing the controversy is instantly deleted as soon as it is put in the article) claiming Coatrack, when it can not be a Coatrack for Palin, since she was not even there for the controversial sermons reported in the media). EricDiesel (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This institution is now notable whether people like it or not. Sarah Palin is famous/notorious for her conservative Christian views and this is her conservative Christian church.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are now 16,400 Google hits for "Wasilla Assembly of God" in quotations. If you delete this now, be prepared to reargue this.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep The church is self-evidently notable. I just read the article and found it fascinating. Wikipedia is at its best when its writer-editors are allowed to present readers with exactly this sort of encyclopedic summary of references. People come to Wikipedia for the information -- deleting this fine little article would be a real shame. catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Persons running for office should be an open book to the electorate. This includes where they go to church. BingoDingo (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It is just getting picked up by major news network: [60] [61] --Voidvector (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternate/Compromise proposal

    Given the divide here between those who favor keeping the article and those who favor deletion, I would like to suggest a solution that I think might garner support from both sides. Rather than keeping this as a stand-alone article, how about creating a new article, Churches in Wasilla, Alaska, using the material in this article along with material from Wasilla Bible Church as sections, along with sections for any other churches in Wasilla. It seems to me that the subject is undeniably notable, regardless of whether or not any of the individual churches are believed to meet notability. Peterkingiron suggested above that this article be merged into the section on churches in the article on Wasilla, Alaska, but adding this much material would clearly overload that article, so it would make more sense to split it off as I'm proposing. The new article would also make a much better redirect target for these church articles than any of the other options. Cgingold (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the original poster and agree with User:Cgingold, but the content of the sermons that is causing the controversy should be allowed. The Jews for Jesus sermon at the other Palin church under the Wasilla article keeps getting deleted from that claiming coatrack. But Palin has nothing to do with it, and international Jewish antidefamation groups were outraged about the church before Palin was nominated. This coatrack argument is being abused to keep content out of anywhere. Why is everyone claiming coatrack not doing the same over at the United Trinity Curch article which has a section header "Controversy" site if they are arguing with NPOV?]] EricDiesel (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly disagree. Grouping otherwise very different "organisations" (churches representing different religions) into one article not only sounds to me like a bad idea, it probably also fails WP:NOTTRAVEL. My earlier suggestion was that the article should follow the example of Wasilla Bible Church and redirect to Sarah Palin. There was objection to that (which I understand) but that article now directs to Wasilla, Alaska, which seems more appropriate. Cgingold's concern was that would then cause the Wasilla article to get overloaded but I think the point being made by a number of contributors here is that most of the content in this article does not belong in WP at all. Ros0709 (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I honestly don't see why it's a "bad idea", as long as each church has its own section. Second, I really can't see how WP:NOTTRAVEL would apply to this proposed article -- it's nowhere near being any sort of "travel guide". With regard to the idea of adding this material to the Wasilla, Alaska article, I don't think it would be considered appropriate to add more than a couple of sentences about each church to that section, out of understandable concern for overloading it -- and that would certainly not be adequate space to deal with the subjects in sufficient depth. Lastly, and most importantly: given the level of national and international interest in Wasilla's churches, I think it is incumbent upon Wikipedia to address that subject in a forthright and balanced way. I would really hate to see us take the easy way out, avoiding the subject by simply excluding the information from our pages. Cgingold (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a news agency and notability is not temporary. There is no reason why it has to have this in it at all at present when there are plenty of other resources available. The best way to ensure a more balanced approach would be to wait until the dust settles and consider the issue in retrospect, when the conflicts of interest which are evident here are less pronounced.
    • Comment. It seems clear to me that however it may be dressed up this article is being used entirely for political capital and it is disingeneous to suggest otherwise. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; I am amazed that this debate, which merely fans the flames, is being allowed to continue so long. OK, we get it - Sarah Palin has some religeous views that some (myself included) may find bizarre. Can you stop mud-slinging now, or at least do it somewhere more appropriate? Ros0709 (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but precisely where is the supposed "mud-slinging"? With all due respect, Ros0709, that's a load of horse manure. This article should not have more than a couple of fairly brief mentions of Governor Palin -- she certainly should not be the main focus by any means. In fact, by devoting sufficient space to each church, the likely result would be quite the opposite of what you and a lot of other editors are assuming, because readers would also learn that in many respects these churches are pretty much like other churches. Just so you know, I detest scurrilous attacks regardless of the politics. I have personally removed such material from Wiki articles on figures of both the right and the left. And last night I chewed someone out in no uncertain terms for sending around a completely bogus email accusing Sarah Palin of trying to ban a humungous list of books from the Wasilla library. So don't presume there's some sort of political agenda at work here. It seems to me the real political agenda is on the part of certain editors who would like to see Wikipedia cleansed of any reference to this subject. Cgingold (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is straying dangerously close to WP:ATTACK territory so I suggest we calm down a little. The problem is, as I believe is obvious, this is a massive target for political point scoring and if you look at the article history you'll see it has been used in this way: strongly link Palin to the church and then show its pastors to be extreme and dangerous. The version I checked just now is cleaned up considerably. It's probably too much to ask, but is there a version of the article which people can agree is acceptable, and can agree to have fully protected against further editing until after the election? Ros0709 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Ros0709. This is not supposed to be an issue of how long we can keep this debate going. There are several things that can happen here. We can add it to the Palin article as a place she attended for worship, we can put it in and article about the state. The bottom line is this subject. We have to decide if this subject is notable enough to have its own page. That's the bottom line here. Until Palin, this church did not recieve any notability worthy of a page. Let's just redirect to Sarah Palin's page. That would solve this issue IMO. Canyouhearmenow 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already explained why this suggestion cannot possibly be regarded as a solution because that article is so packed full of info on every subject that there's no room for more than a passing mention, so Canyouhearmenow, and would you please address that issue directly? It seems pretty clear to me that the real point of doing that is precisely to limit the amount of information provided about these churches. Cgingold (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further agreement with Ros0709. However, I suggest we redirect to Wasilla, Alaska. That article already has a section on churches that mentions Wasilla Assembly of God and Wasilla Bible Church, and that they were both attended by Palin. The bible church link already redirects to the town. justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already demonstrated that the church has received the coverage required by WP:NOTE and the coverage existed prior to the Palin nomination. Also, this discussion has not yet reached a consensus, so it must go the full five days. Finally, there are just as many, if not more, WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:NOTBIGENOUGH arguments for deletion then there are "Palin is notable therefore her church is notable" arguments for keeping the article. And both are equally invalid arguments. --Farix (Talk) 13:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There does seem to be a prodigious amount of Wiki-lawyering aimed at trying to remove these articles, and if they can't be removed, trying to make certain that the articles do not cover these churches' teachings.

    Yes, a couple months ago these churches may not have been notable enough. Yes, it's Sarah Palin who's responsible for much of the attention being paid to them. All of this is irrelevant. Ford's Theater was a minor local venue until it became the focus of a great deal of attention due to matters entirely irrelevant to its productions. It now meets all relevant notability criteria. And so do these churches. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The fact that it could be alluded to in Palin's bio isn't satisfactory to me. Numerous other biographical articles have sections split out to separate articles, do I need to give examples? The fact she is a VP contender warrants review of this church which is reputed to be a little outside the norm. Besides, if Palin's husband warrants his own article, I think her religious background does as well -- it's only one of the major sources of controversy surrounding this particular VP candidate, that is noteworthy. --Biturica (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What you appear to be suggesting would actually be a very different sort of thing, Biturica -- i.e. an article focusing specifically on Palin's religious background and how it relates to her political positions. That might be a worthwhile article in its own right -- but it's really a separate issue from what we're arguing about here. Cgingold (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, users will expect to find an article on this church, and its absence will only serve to embarrass Wikipedia. This is also a clear case of "no consensus defaults to Keep." Any possible claim that there is some COATRACK or BLP violation is countered by the fact that Palin left the church in 2002 because it was too "extreme". (here's the NYT source on that) That means that Palin, unlike Obama, got out while the getting was good. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The church has received extensive coverage in the media, and the reliable and verifiable sources included in the article satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep, of course. "Only notable due to Palin" still means "notable". --dab (𒁳) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Lots of press on their beliefs and speakers. We66er (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (or merge, per User:Cgingold's proposal above. Churches are certainly not inherently notable, but many churches are notable. We do tend to have articles about the larger, more influential, oldest, etc., local churches in America. People's wider interest in this church was of course piqued by the association with Sarah Palin, and that introduces issues of WP:NOT#NEWS and coatrack (which is a commentary on WP:NPOV). But it is still a church in its own right, with a long history (especially for Alaska), important in its community. I think we have to separate the two issues: (1) is the church itself notable, all considering (that meanss including both its independent notability and its being a chapter in Palin's life), and (2) can we cover the church without giving undue influence to the controversy involving Palin, and its use to criticize or question Palin. I think the answer is yes, and yes. That means if we keep the article people have to be careful to avoid turning it into a hit piece. But we face this all the time in other articles, the need to cover charged subjects yet stay neutral. Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Associated Press reported another one. Wasilla Assembly of God has announced an upcoming "convention" to pray for God to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals. This is still another international news story about the controversial positions of this church. Current events historians or scholars studying the church, and there appears to be a lot of people like this now, need an encyclopedia article where all of the controversial positions of the church can be read about. This information is not appropriate for an article on Wasilla, nor in an article about Sarah Palin. One would expect to find it under an article named Wasilla Bible Church in a section like "Controversial Church Positions Public Issues". EricDiesel (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It is certainly notable since the future VP (Sarah Palin) might be a member of this church.--Raphael1 21:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Just as Obama's controversial preacher and church have their own pages, so should Palin's —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Clearly sufficient newscoverage to establish notability. Nsk92 (talk) 04:13, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LunarStorm

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

    Lack of clear notability, sourcing. Does not appear to be particularly notable. rootology (C)(T) 13:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notability is permanent and at least some of these appear to be reliable sources. If someone cares to translate and show that they are not I'll reconsider. Nuttah (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB (any more). Stifle (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Your statment insists that this article did meet our notability guidleines at one time, but not any more. I would expect every administrator to know that once notability is gained, it cannot be lost. SashaNein (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Between the IHT article, this and coverage in other books on Google there seems to be a significant presence in reliable sources, meeting WP:WEB. I don't know what you mean by not meeting WP:WEB 'any more', but notability is not temporary. Or are you talking about a previous version of WP:WEB? Olaf Davis | Talk 14:05, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A.C Jenkins

    A.C Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I've found nothing on the internet that A.C. Jenkins is a notable MMA fighter or model as the article claims. The main contributor seems to be the subject of the article which is a conflict of interest. --Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 04:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as a vanity page. No references in the article to independently assert notability, and from a cursory search, not much outlook for any. At least it's not a pure hoax. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as obvious vanity page of non-notable person who created their own article Theserialcomma (talk) 07:40, 11 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Famster

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

    Lack of clear notability, sourcing. Does not appear to be particularly notable. rootology (C)(T) 13:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete A few mentions in a couple of news blogs aside, it doesn't seem notable as a lot of the information on this site over the internet seems to be self-published. ~ NossB (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:58, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ServiceDeskUsers

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

    Lack of clear notability, sourcing. Does not appear to be particularly notable. rootology (C)(T) 13:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 10 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MoDaCo

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

    Lack of clear notability, sourcing. Does not appear to be particularly notable. rootology (C)(T) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:53, 9 September 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), lack of refs not best reason to delete (improve them), keep seems consensus, no recent action Fr33kmantalk APW 02:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC) redirect (see this) to Knurl (band), as there's no-one at all in favour of keeping this article in its present form. Daniel (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pholde

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

    Non-notable band/project, fails to meet the guidelines of WP:MUSIC PKT 14:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete due to lack of references. If the list of album releases was verified, it would suffice to pass WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep/merge Seems to have adequate notability and might usefully be merged with related articles like Knurl (band). Colonel Warden (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree about "Adequate notability", but perhaps Alan Bloor should have an article rather than the two projects connected to him. Or perhaps not. PKT 03:01, 10 September 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. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Berg (Kabbalah Centre)

    Michael Berg (Kabbalah Centre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable bio. Involved in the Kabbalah Centre but notability is not inherited. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Very Weak Keep although it may contain claims of importance/significance (depending on how you read the bit about his translating) and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (meaning myself and not the nominator) he does seem to have coverage in multiple reliable sources here(although I'm not sure how indepth they all are and the article could probably do with a good rewrite). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW if that reads a bit weird it's because I changed my mind mid edit. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please understand that I'm definitely not saying anything about any inheritence of notability. Also May I enquire what the WP:OR in the article is? Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no sources cited, ergo the entire article is WP:OR. ;-) -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    okay :-) thanks for explaining. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, article does not assert notability, which is not inherited. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:28, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rod Johnson

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

    Public address announcer for the Minnesota Timberwolves. Notability concerns. Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:50, 9 September 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. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Studio thinking

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

    No indication that this is an established term rather than OR. Magnus Holmgren (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as neologism. The book does exist on Amazon, which may or may not be sufficient for the book to have an article, but the term itself does not warrant one ArakunemTalk 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:50, 9 September 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. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Midatlantic Music Conference

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

    Article is about a non-notable music conference, and appears to be mainly an attempt to advertise the event. --VS talk 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - As a mixture of advertising and non-notability. TN‑X-Man 17:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:50, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gürman Siblings

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

    I found this on List of YouTube celebrities but with no sources. I couldn't find any either. So not sourced and not notable. Arnold6343 (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as unsourced and non-notable. i prodded this as such but was denied with the (to me, rather unsatisfactory) explanation that "[a] Google search reveals possible notability, though I don't speak Turkish". But as we know, it's on the person who would keep the article to ensure that the references are there. tomasz. 09:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there is an entire article about them at this Turkish news website (in English, too), but most Google mentions seem to be just links to the video. Somno (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Nothing but video links from my Google search. Note also the Turkish interwiki article is also an unsourced stub. Fribbler (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete without prejudice (if they are later notable they can recreate). The article is little more than a stub anyway, and notability should come /before/ wikipedia rather than as a result of it. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - These siblings has a TV show on TRT. Isn't it notable enough? I started the article because I wanted to see some notable Turkish on the list. OnurTcontribs 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If they really have a TV show, they might be notable, but I'm skeptical because if that were true it would be in the article and sourcing would be no problem. As written it's just yet another "Check out my youtube video" article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 9 September 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. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tracey Cote

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

    There are some vague assertions of notability but nothing that backs it up. She was covered in one issue of her college's magazine, but she hasn't done anything that establishes notability per WP:ATHLETE. She's had "competitive national and international finishes" but they don't appear to be in Olympic or other championships that would mean playing at the top level. TravellingCari 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No substantial independent sources. Does not meet WP:BIO. Horselover Frost (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Nothing on the page indicates why she is notable enough for an article. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:48, 9 September 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. The nominators confusion of what this article is about is understandable, since the article lacks context, and is mostly a bundle of external links. WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3 come into play here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Japan cultural differences

    Japan cultural differences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I don't like where this article is heading. Differences from what? Western Culture? Why not talk about it in Culture of Japan or Japanese popular culture? Mblumber (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. From American, according to the article. Would this open the door to ten thousand articles entitled "Difference between X-ian and Y-ish culture"? Richard Pinch (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of number-one country hits (United States)

    List of number-one country hits (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    All of the sublists are red links, and this page is redundant to List of years in country music, in which all the Number One hits area already listed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect. Rather pointless and redundant.--Crossmr (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article strikes me as a work in progress (2008 is a blue link for what it's worth), and the article is narrow and defined enough to clear the requirements of WP:LIST. I certainly don't see how the two articles you're comparing are redundant; the "List of Years" article doesn't at all claim to do the same thing the nominated article does. Townlake (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoops, better clarify, I goofed. Looked a layer deeper in the "List of Years" article and there were the hits, though I still don't consider the articles necessarily redundant since the nominated article makes the info easier to find (or theoretically would if it was complete, heh). Townlake (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Easier to find? Sounds like a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. We don't duplicate information out of a list just because its easier to find that particular information. We might take information from an article and put it in to a list for that reason but not from list to list. Otherwise I might decide that I should create List of number-one country hits (united states) default sorted by age of the country singers oldest child because its more useful for me to have the information in that form and following that logic it should be kept. We might duplicate information between lists if there is additional information being given in the second list that can't or shouldn't be included in the scope of the first list, but to just take a certain piece of information out of one list and put it in to another by itself serves no purpose.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete - a page of redlinks --T-rex 18:13, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Olesya webb

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

    Non-notable performer. Only 69 Ghits for all mentions of her name, nothing on Google news. Corvus cornixtalk 20:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment If the article is kept, it should at least be moved to Olesya Webb. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Has she competed internationally? I don't think she is notable or valid. Maddie talk 02:51, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reagan Dunn

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

    This is Reagan Dunn's professional resume, posted by his associates from his office at the King County Council. See this sockpuppet case for more background on that issue. Aside from huge COI concerns, this article is poorly written, and sourced only (and recently) to Dunn's official biography with the King County Council, which the officeholder provides for publication. It is highly POV and reads like propaganda for the candidate. Article would need to be completely rewritten to be encyclopedic and nonpromotional, but since a county councilmember isn't really notable, it probably won't be. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:45, 9 September 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. MBisanz talk 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Barry Hyndman

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

    Nominating the article for deletion based on a lack of reliable third-party sources and questionable notability. Jeremiah (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:43, 9 September 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 Withdraw. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaves of Grass (film)

    Leaves of Grass (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    IMDB says that the status of this film is unknown. Schuym1 (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the fact that they have just released an advance poster for the film, and it continues to be the subject of articles such as this one, I don't really think its production is exactly in doubt. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 03:25, 9 September 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. seicer | talk | contribs 13:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mikayla (Album)

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

    Article is about an album that doesn't exist. Edgehead5150 talk 02:57, 9 September 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. BJTalk 08:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dale Mitchell (ice hockey)

    Dale Mitchell (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable other then playing in the OHL/AHL which is not notable, if WP:HOCKEY maintains Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports#Ice hockey players. There some news sources such as this where he had a bunch of EKGs done on him. But then so did a bunch of other people. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 02:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete for Now per WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't competed in professional hockey. If he does get called up to play in the NHL, his article can be restored/recreated, but right now this is a crystal ball. Tavix (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Player meets WP:ATHLETE in that he played in a fully professional league. The American Hockey League. -Djsasso (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Meets WP:ATHLETE by playing in the professional American Hockey League (ask their union http://www.phpa.com ). ccwaters (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:HOCKEY hasn't heretofore dealt with that outdated standard which blows great holes through WP:ATHLETE, never mind the many elite level European leagues, professional leagues of long standing and ice hockey's own history, in which the NHL has not always been dominant or even extant. I've just removed that language.  Ravenswing  20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't think I even knew that that writting was there before this, that definately doesn't apply to WP:HOCKEY's way of thinking regarding notability. -Djsasso (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep since the AHL is a fully professional league, despite the apparent misconception that it is not. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. WP:Athlete takes precedence over WP:Hockey. The AHL is a fully professionaly league. Patken4 (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If he has signed with Toronto then the article should stay. Raphie (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per above. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 00:29, 12 September 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 G11 by Jimfbleak, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 11:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tents For Rent

    Tents For Rent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable business/corp spam: There is no information which makes this business any more notable than any other tent rental company. Raehl (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mathmo

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

    This is a definition of a slang word. It goes against the specific criteria that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (point 2, reference slang) Mrh30 (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as a WP:DICDEF -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 13:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – The word, in and of itself, has gained enough attention by 3rd party – reliable – verifiable – creditable , as shown here [62] sources to meet the Notability guidelines established by Wikipedia. ShoesssS Talk 13:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the issue is whether it's a word or not, it's the fact that the article is a dictionary definition of it, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Mrh30 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my comments below -- simxp (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've read through the top few links that you've supplied to establish notability. All they do is use a slang term in place of the word 'mathematician'. I agree that 'mathematician' is notable for the purposes of an encyclopaedic article, but could you clarify how the links show that 'mathmo' is notable as distinct from the definition 'slang term for mathematician'? Mrh30 (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Dicdef, and a slang dicdef at that. Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a dictionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:NOTDICDEF point two does not apply here: this is not a "slang and idiom guide", it is an article about one word. WP:NOTDICDEF point one is also not an argument for deletion: it states that "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content" -- i.e. if it's a stub, tag it as such and help expand it, not delete it -- and goes on to explicitly state that "a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic". Notability is addressed by User:Shoessss above. -- simxp (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no sources are given for the history of, or other facts about, this word, as opposed to evidence that it is has actually been used or has a certain meaning. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. How does linking to WP:Notability address notability? It doesn't matter whether it's a word, that's irrelevant. Fatigable and grandiose are words, but they don't have articles. —johndburger 00:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I shouldn't need to explain why.... just look at my username! ;) However on a more serious point, others have already raised why it is not a mere dict dif. (also I'll note I have had very little to do with this page beyond fixing vandalism, and I didn't start it myself. So there is no conflict of interest on that point). Mathmo Talk 06:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per above 202.89.38.70 (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My position on it, as a former Cambridge Mathematician, and hence a genuine 'mathmo', is that it is very much just a slang term that is used within the university (and possibly others). It's in the same league as any number of other slang terms such as 'bop', 'ent', 'p'lodge', 'natsci', 'compsci', 'asnac' and so on. In order to be a valid article, it really needs to show some significance beyond just being a slang word. Otherwise, all the words I've just listed ought to be put in. It might be more appropriate to have a single article called something like 'Cambridge University Slang' with a proper encyclopaedic discussion. Mrh30 (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Mrh30. Randomblue (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However http://en.wiktionary.org is a dictionary so move it to there.Delaszk (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A dictionary definition is a dictionary definition no matter how many people reprint the definition. For an encyclopedia article we need more than a definition and etymology (which are dictionary types of information). --Rividian (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This AfD was previously closed by NonvocalScream, but he reverted his own closure per this DRV. Rationale available in history. lifebaka++ 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a term it violates WP:NEO and WP:NOT there is also no establishment of notability. Name drops are trivial coverage. The link above to google news is nothing more than half a dozen name drops of the term. The only source which gives it any coverage is a university/college level news paper which does not confer notability. If some reliable sources start writing articles about the term Mathmo, then feel free to recreate the article. As it stands its a term that is barely used in mainstream language and is barely on the radar. We're not a compendium of all human knowledge and that we're not a place for things you made up at school one day (which the policy may still say, if not its rather appropriate here).--Crossmr (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No real notability established, sources are only trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'd say move to Wiktionary, normally, but there's absolutely no real notability established, nothing that can be substantially used towards this end can be found on Google or Gnews, and, of course, it violates WP:NOT. miquonranger03 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — First, not notable to identify the subject as an article; References are not verifiable and it reads more like a dictionary definition. Macy 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place for dictionary definitions. Tavix (talk) 02:53, 9 September 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. Churches are not notable except for in exceptional cases seicer | talk | contribs 13:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Flat Creek Baptist Church (Oakwood, Georgia)

    Flat Creek Baptist Church (Oakwood, Georgia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article with virtually no third party sourcing about an unremarkable church. The article extensively cites internal church documents, and makes reference to the headline of a single newspaper article, without giving any information to allow anyone to actually find the article, or any indication of the depth of coverage therein. Fails generally notability and verifiability guidelines at WP:N and WP:V, despite the impassioned pleas of its primary author. gnfnrf (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete — No evidence of notability and no third-party references. Macy 01:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per WP:N and WP:V. I'm coming up with diddly-squat on this. :D miquonranger03 (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Churches are typically non-notable unless it is a megachurch, is a historical building (such as on the list of National List of Historic Places), or has been covered in major news mediums. Since this church is none of the above listed, this should be deleted as non-notable. Tavix (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual churches are non-notable, and the church's own publications and records cannot establish the church's own notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Completely non-notable and unverifiable in secondary sources. —97198 (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:ORG and the reasons above, no evidence this church meets anything that established notability TravellingCari 13:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 13:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete with a reminder to speedy delete the scanned church directory once this is deleted, as the directory image is uploaded as fair use with no real chance of being used elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Quoting User:Morydd from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination), "lack of links to [this page] could be equally interpreted as information that is missing from Wikipedia rather than proof of lack of notability. Since Morydd was persuasive enough to get that AfD closed as a keep, obviously his or her arguments carry weight Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what your point is. Both (a) another completely different AfD and (b) the lack of links, are irrelevant. —97198 (talk) 06:22, 10 September 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mathew Chuk

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

    NPOV and not notable. The article is a Bio, but fails to meet the notability requirements as set out in WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO1E. It has been proposed before, but it seems was only retained due to notability in regards to one event in 2007. It is possible that Mathew Chuk's election is notable, but this does not warrant a bio, or one of this detail. Also some of the references don't even say anything about this individual - just student politics in WA.

    I suggest deletion, or merger of WA Student Guild section to University of Western Australia Student Guild and NUS section with National Union of Students and subsequent deletion. Petrol pyro (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. I don't see any reason to overturn the Keep decision of the previous AFD. Plenty of sources, including major ones. Obviously needs to policied (like all Bio articles) for WP:BLP issues, but that's a separate matter. 23skidoo (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per my reasoning at the last (2nd) AfD discussion. I also congratulate the nominator on learning how to use AfD in their first few posts here! Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep I agree it has NPOV issues and contains much more commentary than the subject warrants, but neither is a valid reason for deletion. There are clearly enough reliable, independent verifiable sources to establish notability. Perhaps if the article was improved it may be picked on less often! Murtoa (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete While there a are a lot of 'sources' you should actually have a read of some of them - many say nothing about Mathew Chuk, and at best are only peripherally relevant to support the contentions at the text. Hence most of the article is not verifiable. There is an argument for merging in the the National Union of Students page, as the only verifiable/notable information is that Mathew Chuk was elected to NUS - his actions at UWA are no more notable (in the wiki sence) than many other student politicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.190.180 (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, there are a few sources that don't mention Chuk, but this points more to a decent re-write of the article to remove irrelevant content. A poorly written article is not grounds for deletion. I still think he probably satisfies notability requirements, but maybe a merge into NUS could also be appropriate. Murtoa (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Few of the reliable mainstream sources (i.e. not campus newspaper or newsletter) mention him except peripherally and in passing, in one case giving him a short quotation with respect to a general human interest article on many young political figures. The positions he's held do not merit WP:POLITICIAN levels of notability, and his news mentions seem to stem from WP:BLP1E. He may be a promising student politician, but, egad, he's a student politician. RayAYang (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable in terms of third-party sources, and the significance of his election. Note that since many predecessors in his position have become national MPs or Ministers, the fact that a non-ALP student politician uniquely won this election is very significant.Sumthingweird (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Lankiveil. JRG (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 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. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    University of Manitoba Students' Union/Sandbox

    AfDs for this article:
    University of Manitoba Students' Union/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unused article space sandbox created in January 2007 to resolve some Election controversy problems for reasons that no longer exist. -- Suntag (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was No consensus (default keep). For more details, please read talk page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Latino ice hockey players

    List of Latino ice hockey players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Indiscriminate list about the latino hockey players. Its racist! There isn't a List of Canadian ice hockey players or List of American ice hockey players, so why should the latinos be singled out? This list also fails WP:SALAT as I want to bring this point to the table I found there: "Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone." Lists of this nature are too specific to really be of interest to many people. What's next, a List of Jamaican bobsledders? Tavix (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Black ice hockey players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), found this one as well and nominating for same reasons. Tavix (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Suntag (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must note that some of these are not the same thing. Black Intellectuals for example was an article about a book which is quite different. -Djsasso (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I will note that isn't the only one. Just to pick another one off the list. The MLB one was an unreferenced essay which was original research. This is a verifiable list with references to the phenomenon. -Djsasso (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some more to the above list. -- Suntag (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I move to delete both of the nominated pages. They are certainly discriminate to race and too specific to be useful. QuidProQuo23 01:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? There aren't many or no (name an ethnicity besides Canadian or American) hockey players in the NHL, but why should we have a list for every ethnicity? Simply put, the Blacks and Latinos are being singled out, and that's just plain racist! I thought the world got over that by now. On another note, references #1 and #3 is mainly about Willie O'Ree and his honors, which is just like bringing up an article on Jackie Robinson about baseball: He might have been the first, but there have been more African-Americans after him. Tavix (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, please. It's not racist to highlight the accomplishments of minorities in fields where they have little visible presence. It's beneficial to do so. It tells young readers that they can succeed in any discipline regardless of their race/ethnicity. And to answer your first question, there are multiple, non-trivial sources specifically about blacks and Latinos in ice hockey (here are some more general articles than what I linked to above: [66], [67], [68], [69]) so these two general topics satisfy WP:N.
    • I do think it might be better to merge the two articles into a bigger article with more prose, like Minorities in ice hockey, or something like that. But that wouldn't require deletion. Zagalejo^^^ 02:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both Certainly, both articles could use a little bit more context. Even in the 21st century, there are a lot -- and I mean a lot -- fewer black or Hispanic NHL players than there are major league baseball, NFL, NBA, etc. For years, Willie O'Ree was one of the few in pro hockey. That there are more now than there used to be is the product of initiatives, some by the NHL, to try to get more black and Hispanic athletes interested in ice hockey. Historically, though, places where people grow up playing ice hockey have also been places where the non-white population is smaller; and basketball, baseball and even football have been less expensive than ice hockey for a family with a young athlete. Mandsford (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both per alot of what Mandsford and Zagalejo said. It is actually more of a help to those races than being racist to have such lists. I would probably support a merge to List of Minorities in ice hockey or a specific article such as Minorities in ice hockey but an outright delete here is not approrpiate. -Djsasso (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Both: I can't see any more reason for this than for lists of black or Latino players in any other sport, lists which I somehow can't find, and to answer Zagalejo's comment, Wikipedia is not for upholding racial pride. If the subject of blacks and Latinos in ice hockey is a noteworthy one (beyond the simple demographic fact that there haven't traditionally been many in hockey-playing areas), then it should be a standalone article or section in Ice hockey.  RGTraynor  16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Racial pride" was not the crux of my argument. I've already linked to seven non-trivial sources that explicitly discuss the issue of diversity in the NHL. I'm sure I could find seven more. A single standalone article on that general topic might be better than these two lists, but such an article would take some time and skill to craft, and until that's done, I see no harm in preserving what we have right now. Zagalejo^^^ 19:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article is appropriate. A list is not. No one disputes that there is a wealth of sources out there on the subject generally, but as it stands such a list would be indiscriminate and impermissible.  RGTraynor  19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes them indiscriminate? Zagalejo^^^ 05:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In so far that names are added without any attempt at a definition. Let's take the black list, for instance, where Dirk Graham is added to the list because he has a mixed-race parent. I'm unsure as to what about someone who's (at least) three quarters Caucasian makes him "black," beyond the old racist measure that just a drop of black blood made an otherwise pale person "black." Beyond that, the list includes "semi-professional and prominent amateur league players" without attempting to define or limit either, and fact-checking goes by the boards: one wonders how long "Saucy 'Professional' McFoodlefist" (which has been up on the list nearly a month) would remain, for example. Will those do for starters, or shall I vette the whole list?  RGTraynor  11:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'd appreciate if you could go through the whole list and list the problematic entries. :) I was planning to clean up that article today, and I could use some help. (I added references to the Latino list last night, because that one was easy.)
    • To answer your main point, as long as we have sources that clearly indicate that a player self-identifies as black, or makes a point of emphasizing his black heritage, then we can leave him in the list. If it's iffy, just leave him out. I'd probably remove the amateurs from the list, unless it seems like they'd be able to pass WP:N. Zagalejo^^^ 18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There's kind of a "List of white NHL players" right here. It's called the player index at nhl.com; the exceptions to the thousands of players in the register are the 22 names in these two articles. It's not quite as much of a "trivial intersection" as List of Jewish American athletes because there is a reason for the low number of minorities in ice hockey. Mandsford (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite aside from the inaccuracy of your assertion - that list, in fact, does include every player in the NHL, whether white, black, brown or chartreuse - I'm interested on hearing the policy grounds for your support of keeping these lists; truth be told, you haven't actually proffered any reason for doing so.  RGTraynor  05:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Always a pleasure hearing from you, RG. The comment about the player index was, of course, intended as a joke, since most of the persons happen to be white; I don't think anyone would actually believe that nhl.com excludes any player from its list. It's like the old joke about a picture of the "White Caucus" in Congress, with a photograph of a joint session. As far as policy grounds, lists such as these are proper for the purpose of illustrating a point (in this case, that there are few NHL players of Hispanic or African-American origin). If someone were to assert, "There never have been any Hispanic players in hockey", this information would disprove the point. And yes, in some cases, ethnic origin is relevant. A list of white football players at historically black universities (HBUs) such as Grambling University, would be encyclopedic. A list of the first 100 African-American players in Major League Baseball would be relevant. If a particular ethnic group has, historically, not been part of a group, it's a fact worth noting and providing information about. Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I really have no opinion either way on keeping vs. deleting, but some people really need to learn what "racism" really is. Throwing out the race card where it clearly is not warranted is disingenuous. Resolute 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:SALAT and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Brilliantine (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Both There are so many articles like these not just hockey articles to eliminate this one you will have to delete all the others Gang14 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • For example the Category:Black Canadian sportspeople but we can't allow black or latino hockey players? Gang14 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - List of African American Medal of Honor recipients is a former featured list, so there is room for notable race intersection topics. However, Sports figures are not Medal of Honor recipients, Academy Award winners, billionaires, inventors, or abolitionists - all kept intersection topics. Reasoning that seems applicable is at Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. In sports, African-Americans are not treated differently from Italian-Americans or French-Americans, even though there is referenced material about all three. If the topic is not legit for a category, I don't think it can be legit for a list. Also, Wikipedia:Listcruft applies. This intersection list will not be able to show how the relationship between African Americans and Ice Hockey is manifested as a notable topic. None of the race-sports intersections have been kept. Relevant deleted articles include: List of African athlete * List of African-American NFL quarterbacks * List of black rock musicians * List of black characters in videogames * Black reality television participants * The Explosion of Latino Players in MLB. It seems that Wikipedia notable race intersection topics require that the race be intersected with an exceptional endeavor (Medal of Honor recipients, Academy Award winners, billionaires, inventors, or abolitionists) rather than a typical endeavor (sports). Suntag (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment While sports might be a "typical" endeavor in the sense of many people being athletes, acceptance at the highest level of sport competition in a sport is considered exceptional; a "major league" player is inherently notable, and it would follow that under that criterion, the presence of black or Latino NHL players in a league that hasn't had even 25 such players is a notable "race intersection". Thanks for supplying the appropriate policy; now this becomes a question of whether this meets that policy, and I think a good argument can be made that it does. Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are entire books about black hockey players, then it's clear that some people do think it's a notable intersection. For the record, I'm quite surprised the quarterback list was deleted. Perhaps it was woefully incomplete or something, but until recently, black quarterbacks were extremely rare, and there are plenty of sources documenting their struggles to gain acceptance. If I had noticed that discussion, I would have made a fuss to keep the article. Zagalejo^^^ 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply There are books written about Canadian hockey players too. Seriously, that point does nothing. Tavix (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But those books don't make a special point of emphasizing the players' Canadian-ness.Zagalejo^^^ 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both These are meaningful intersections that have been frequent subjects of media coverage establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-notable intersection. If somebody wants to write an article about Black or Latino NHL players, that would be a good article to have. Corvus cornixtalk 02:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, there are entire books about the topic of black ice hockey players, on top of dozens of newspaper articles, so outside commentators do think that's a notable intersection. I'm not against a prose article about diversity in ice hockey, but I don't see why we can't hold onto these lists for now, and merge them into the prose article when it is created. They'd be valuable appendices. Zagalejo^^^ 03:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • General comment If these articles are deleted after all, could the administrator at least let me keep copies of them in my userspace? Zagalejo^^^ 03:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there would be a problem with that. But being I voted keep, I couldn't be the one to do it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete as G6. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 07:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Postage stamps and postal history of India/Sandbox

    AfDs for this article:
    Postage stamps and postal history of India/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unused article space sandbox created in 2005 to resolve some image positioning problems for reasons that no longer exist. -- Suntag (talk) 00:14, 9 September 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 broken redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Albanian Terrorists

    Please delete this article. It is obviously a tentative for vandalism from User:Nexm0dbalkanian (talk) 14:08, 9 September 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. Hoax seicer | talk | contribs 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Madden

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

    I can find no sources indicating that this person is an Olympic swimmer. It seems highly unlikely that this is an accurate biography given that. I also removed some odd statements that were potential BLP problems. Taken all together I suspect that this is a hoax of some form. Possibly meant as an attack page. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong delete Likely hoax, fails verifiability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete HOECS. Rather blatant hoax. Brilliantine (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Seems like a hoax, no sources to be found that don't involve the Good Charlotte member. If he was born in 1992, the line due to some issues related to his personal life, was unable to compete in the 2004 Athens Olympics would suggest that those personal issues involve him being 12 years old, too young for the Olympics at the time. Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 10 September 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_9&oldid=238280209"