Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 18

< April 17	April 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy-deleted by User:Discospinster as A7. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay the Indian

Biography on a person with no real significance. CycloneNimrod^talk? 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-deleted by User:Orangemike as G7. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windstream Green Truck

Spam, article creator has removed the speedy tag three times Frog47 (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#G7 - author has twice blanked the page but been reverted each time. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksej heinze

Contested prod, reason was "notability - fails wp:academic". Autobiography whose prod tag was removed without explanation by author/subject. --Finngall ^talk 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An active but junior academic with no apparent claims to notability yet. GoogleScholar produces only a few hits and Google Books nothing at all. He seems to have gotten his PhD in 2005, based on one of the items in his publication list which appears to be his thesis. He still has a web page where he is listed as a PhD student[1] Does not satisfy WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agree per Nsk92. He may be notable someday but not today.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per [2] DGG (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to speedy per CSD:A7 but the list of publications is, I suppose, a rather tenuous assertion of notability. Delete. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per nom.Divinediscourse (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per [3] DGG (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Just a spammy resume. Qworty (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet a significant academic. DGG (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our PROF test. Eusebeus (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. I'm going to leave the article history intact so that someone can merge if they feel strongly. - Philippe 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy O'Hara

Non-notable political activist from Northern Ireland. The article contains two assertions of notability:

That she was the mother of an IRA members who died in hunger strike. Her son Patsy is clearly notable, but people are not notable just because they have a notable relative
That she was an unsuccessful candidate in the Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007. per WP:BIO#Politicians, failed election candidates are non-notable

The article has no references, but lists two external links. One is a [dead link], and the other is just correspondence on the letters page of an obscure publication. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Patsy O'Hara. She was probably a media focus during her son's hunger strike, and seems to have some symbolic pull today because of the family's devotion to the cause of Irish Republicanism, but there doesn't seem to be a longstanding career of public agitation or something that would make her notable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there is nothing on the article to indicate that it is being considered for deletion. Something should be added, at present this could be an invalid nomination. PatGallacher (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out; it is now fixed. Not sure how it happened, because twinkle reported success. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as wikipedia doesn't have enough space for every suffering Irish mother.Red Hurley (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Patsy O'Hara per Dhartung.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as per Dhartung - the only thing worth merging, if it can be referenced, is a short mention of her candidacy last year. Warofdreams talk 15:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 02:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late night anime

Completely unsourced dictionary-term type article for a non-notable phrase that is simply a description (and a rather "duh" one at that). Nothing found to support this is some special industry term, and an article is not needed to say that "late night anime are anime television series that air during late night or early morning in Japan, usually between 11 P.M. and 4 A.M." Seems to be entirely WP:OR and personal essay on a completely unnotable topic. Collectonian (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Late-night anime" (or at least 深夜アニメ) is definitely a commonly-used term, and an important one to everyone interested in the recent history of Japanese TV animation. The move from early evening slots on major networks to prepaid late-night slots on UHF channels is a very significant evolution of the industry, both economically and content-wise. The Mainichi Shimbun "entertainment white book" for 2006 has an editorial on the year's marking changes called 「深夜、ネット、Ｕ局へ」 ("Towards late-night, the Internet and UHF channels") describing this evolution, for example. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its still primarily a term. If it is important to the history of anime and more than just one source can be found, perhaps a merge to the anime article, with clean up and sourcing, would be something to consider instead? Collectonian (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A term that is the subject of numerous commentaries in reliable sources (which this one clearly is--the reason I suggested that particlar article is just that I had the book sitting on my desk at the moment) deserves an article of its own, I believe. It's too specific to be merged into anime anyway. One could make a case for a merge into history of anime, but that's probably still too specific a subject, as the phenomenon is only about a decade old (note that late-night anime is mentioned in the last paragraph of that article, so it is reasonable to have a detailed article to expand on that). Bikasuishin (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still just seems to be a marketing term. I'd like to see some more of the sourced content that doesn't just confirm what it refers to and actually expounds into its important, notability, etc. Collectonian (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my books are back home, so I can't check the easy references (I'm quite sure books like Moe keizai-gaku or Moe-moe Japan: 2-chou en ichiba no moeru kouzou on the economic side of "moe" have pretty extensive discussions of the late-night anime trend), but here are a few more courtesy of Google:

An interview of producer Toshio Nakatani by Mainichi [4]. He discusses how he came about working on late-night anime and how he garnered so much success in those time slots (which such hits as NANA and Death Note).
An interview of the representative director of the Akihabara Reasearch Center by the Akiba Keizai Shimbun, where he stresses (among other things) the importance of late-night anime [5]
A survey article by ITmedia going over the differences between the American and the Japanese animation industries [6]. Late-night anime is mentioned as a notable feature of the Japanese model.
Several hits on Google Books [7]; the first one alone is likely to have a nice overview of the topic (the book is one of those studies on economics of the otaku market).

That's the sort of things that turn up after a quick Google search. Bikasuishin (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All but the first seems like stuff to go in the actual anime article, not a standalone article on a time slot. Collectonian (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? They all seem like the subject of the article is the subject of those articles, not anime in general. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if it can be sourced to articles like the one Bikasuishin mentioned. Doceirias (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment- This is currently an improper AFD as the actual article makes no note of its nomination. There should be a tag on there letting people reading/editing the article know that it has been nominated for an AFD.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC) blocked sock. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed that. Twinkle failed to add it and I didn't think to check. Collectonian (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bikasuishin. Sci-Fi has recently engaged in this phenomenon with their Ani-monday programming, which is easily sourcable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The article is about the term specific to its use in Japan, not Sci-Fi channels. Collectonian (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - So? It's a notable phenomenon. Whether the current revision includes all available information or not isn't really relevant. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surmountable sourcing problems are not a valid reason for deletion. Bikasuishin (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, sources have already been presented. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see them in the article. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improvement argument, not deletion. Sources clearly exist, they just aren't in the article yet. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per Stifle. And you are wrong Bikasuishin. Verifiable sources are a requirement for articles. Articles lacking independent source citations are deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion standards. These articles, however, can be recreated easily if such sources are found later, thus addressing the reason that the article was deleted in the first place.Divinediscourse (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) — Divinediscourse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. blocked sock account. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But verifiable sources have already been presented. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I believe "WP:AFD standards" are precisely described by our deletion policy. Can you point me to the part of that policy explaining that we should delete articles that aren't properly sourced yet (as opposed to articles that cannot be sourced at all, and other non-notable topics)? Bikasuishin (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This says that unsourced content may be removed from an article, not that an article on a notable topic should be deleted when it is not properly sourced yet (BLP concerns aside). To those of us without the sysop bit, the distinction is far from immaterial. Bikasuishin (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Collectonian, which pretty much states the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 22:42, Apr 19, 2008 (UTC)

Those points have already been largely refuted by the introduction of sources. Do you have anything new to bring to the discussion? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been presented, which means the subject is notable. The other concerns mentioned by Collectonian (besides sources) seem irrelevant to its notability. The article needs a lot of work, though. All the current info seems merely descriptive, and therefore with little enciclopedic value. If "late night anime" is something that made an impact on the anime industry, we need to talk about that on the article; that's enciclopedic content. Kazu-kun (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per efforts to source and establish notability. No reason to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two of the above accounts arguing to delete have been confimed as the same person (Divinediscourse and Insearchofintelligentlife). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Divinediscourse. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except Insearchofintelligentlife did not argue for delete, he only noted that the AfD was incomplete when I first started it, so doesn't seem relevant at the moment. Collectonian (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the astonishingly rapid "votes" and the confirmed alternate account, I do not think we should take into consideration such a "vote". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Nothing "astonishingly rapid" about his voting, and unless he is actually double voting, why shouldn't they count? In none of the AfDs he's posted to that are in my watchlist has he actually made two deletes. In one he commented and later said delete, the other just delete. People are allowed to have multiple accounts and I do not see anything showing he is actually running a sockpuppet (multiple accounts for an abusive purpose) rather than just having multiple accounts for different reasons. Collectonian (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been confirmed to have double voted in MULTIPLE AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AFD is not article cleanup. -Malkinann (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources provided above show that this is a subject notable in itself and can be written about encyclopedically. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per preceding two entries - AfD is not based on quality and I am prepared to accept there are indep sources. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Dewayne Williams

I've been reading over and researching this particular stub for a couple hours now and I can't find anything about it that suggests notability. This individual has an article due to a crime committed which is often cited as a failure in California's three strikes law. This fact makes it a clear failure to fulfill WP:BIO1E. The only pertinent information about this individual and this case is already found on Three strikes law, I see no reason that there needs to be a seperate article. Trusilver 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created the article, I agree. At the time I started it, I was fascinated with Wikipedia's ability to include, well, anything. However, reading the notability guideline certainly suggests this article be deleted. Too bad Mr. Williams never made headlines with any other zany antics. :)--Metron4 (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable on his own, or at all. See WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete per Stifle and article's creator arguments victor falk 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BLP1E. BWH76 (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, with a strong lean toward "KEEP"; default to Keep. - Philippe 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Calpin

Notability? The guy has done nothing of note other than be a production assistant? Ashley Payne (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The Times-Tribune article establishes notability, the article reflects that he has done more than be a production assistant. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just for clarity, the screenplay he wrote Assassination of a High School President has been made into a film which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival this year and should be in general release in August. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five seconds on Google led me to his entry on the IMDB. Appears he's written a movie, which is more than be a production assistant. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Movie credit still fails to meet criteria for notability.139.48.25.61 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He may be more notable when his upcoming film etc. is released. -- The Great Gavini 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other comments - House of Scandal (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, writing one movie isn't a strong claim to notability but it is still a studio release including a top Hollywood star. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Surprising lack of substance that matters to anyone in this article, he is noone. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.144 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2008
Comment Please try to base your notability arguments on notability guidelines like Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. He has made a film that will be released on theathers, so he probably counts as notable --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in the Times-Tribune article. --Beloved Freak 22:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Times-Tribune mention. APK ^{yada yada} 23:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinlover-sa (talk • contribs)
Keep per Times-Tribune mention.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 24.174.47.208 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines for creative professionals. One movie (upcoming), and a job in the film-industry without any significant impact in the industry in general, doesn't make one notable. And an article of "city boy makes good" is filling stuff in any newspaper. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a3, no meaningful content. Author creating numerous nonsense pages. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NuneGa

Neologism with no relevant Google hits. I was close to CSD'ing it under G1, but it didn't quite qualify. RichardΩ6 12 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education, Liberal Arts and Science

Non-notable department of a university. No reliable sources, no relevant Google hits, and the article title is way too generalized and may be confused with other similar subjects. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as hoax/vandalism (CSD#G3). —Travis ^talk 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Exam Syndrome

Possible hoax - no Ghits, no Yhits, something made up one day? ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable sources, and fits no category. Dwilso 18:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: im not 'biting the newcomers' but although its been started today, the first thing anyone does when they know they still need to make it bigger/add references is add an 'in development' stub, also, this looks like a late april fools to me - ever heard of 'phantom exam syndrome'? Kcollis (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Really, this even sounds made up. (It also fails the Google test more utterly than I'd imagined.) "Phantom article syndrome," anyone? Anturiaethwr (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The edit history of the page indicates the author regards this as a hypothesis. This article is balls Beeblbrox (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 per Beeblbrox as pure vandalism/nonsense. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bunk/hoax. Ghits for "Phantom exam" syndrome aren't empty, but the two that aren't WP are conincidental hits. Google Scholar's empty. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a funny joke.--Berig (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G3. Non-admin closure. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Brugal

Despite apparently being "one of the wealthiest women of the Dominican Republic" and "the only Dominican Republic citizen to marry a noble decedant" she doesn't appear to be very notable as I only get nine google hits (26 including similar pages).

She may be a real person but I suspect this could be a hoax along with the likes of the series of Rodolfo Arismendy Parra articles

Rodolfo Arismendy Parra Fernandez de la Vega VillaReal Martinez de Irujo y Fitz-James Stuart y Silvia

Rodolfo Arismendy Parra de Urzaiz y Azlor de Aragon Y Rodolfo Alfonso Marco de Borbon Y Martnez-Bordi De lcantara Tllez-Girnon

All the IP's who edit these type of articles (including Emilia Brugal) come from Lake Forest College so it's probably the same person adding all this nonsense. - dwc lr (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - dwc lr (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless reliable sources can be found, looks either not notable enough, or possibly a hoax. Couldn't find anything useful in google, google news or google books.--Beloved Freak 18:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 This is very likely blatant misinformation/hoax, given the utter lack of hits for her name. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (see WP:SNOW). Stifle (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweatshirt of shame

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism, or a phrase made up among a group of friends. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass notability guidelines and is unverifiable. --Beloved Freak 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references provided also seems like neologism. Dwilso 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP, and probably others that don't spring to mind immediately. Anturiaethwr (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, neologism --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like a high school faze to me, more suited to a blog than an encyclopedia + it if does exist were's the proof? Kcollis (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, could probably have been speedily deleted, as snowballing seems imminent. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know if we are going to get snowed in here, we might just need this sweatshirt. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be ashamed! Spell4yr (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable.--Berig (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made-up. Not even a neologism. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a delete for obvious reasons. But it did make me laugh.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While lawl-worthy, Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's raining, it's pouring, it's snowing, it's boring. JuJube (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was God I hate to do this but... NO CONSENSUS. Default to KEEP. On a personal note, while I agree that not everything that's recreated is a solid contender for inclusion, I would say that persistance in creation is sometimes an indicator that it MAY be appropriate to IAR and allow something to stay. - Philippe 02:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Café Nervosa

... A fictional coffee shop from the TV show Frasier. It's previously been AFD'd with a result of merge/redirect, recreated, prodded, deleted, recreated, restored and is sadly back with us again today. It's not at all relevant in the Frasier article (and therefore is a bad candidate for merging) and has no notability of its own - no reliable sources and has been tagged for cleanup since 2006. Delete and salt please, or at best redirect and protect. -- Naerii 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has a book written about it, titled 'Cafe Nervosa', the Frasier article is quite long so a merge would be unwieldy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cookbook appears to be some kind of fan merchandise; is it notable in itself? The book isn't "written about it", it's a recipe book that includes some quotes from the show (see Amazon). The title ("Cafe' Nervosa: The Connoisseur's Cookbook") is presumably just to tie it into the show. That's not evidence that this fictional cafe is actually notable. -- Naerii 13:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnava (talk • contribs)
Delete/Redirect/Salt the Earth No notability on it's own, no coverage in reliable sources, the cookbook is just a promotional vehicle. Re-creation should be blocked so we don't have to go over all this again. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Only reference in the current article is a geocities site. I'd !vote delete here, but I'm not familiar enough with the show; someone who knows it better may be able to find a good source for this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although it was a fairly standard third place "swing" set used in a number of episodes, it wasn't iconic for the show in the way that Central Perk was for Friends. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per appearance on notable show AND a book. Definitely verifiable and even in an extreme worst case scenario there is a logical merge/redirect point with the show article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't recall anyone mentioning verifiability, but rather notability via coverage in reliable sources, which would not include a cookbook promoting the show. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's your take on sources, which is not necessarily universal. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't universal, but it is the consensus view of the majority of Wikipedia editors, as reflected by the notability guideline. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Merge with Fraiser article. As a fan of Fraiser I can tell you that the cafe was a prominent location within the series. However, I doubt that makes it notable enough to have its own page.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please note that per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Divinediscourse Insearchofintelligentlife (who voted "delete" above) is using a sock account in multiple AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frasier. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect and salt as above. No claims for real-world significance here. Does not merit an individual article. Eusebeus (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Frasier, per above ¨victor falk 14:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per pro-arguments and other non-real places that have survived afds.Londo 06 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.. - Philippe 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Harris

Delete. No notability. Jaymacdonald (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean no notability! That's taking the p**s! He's only just been named in the blooming squad! He actually plays for the team, so that's notability enough for me, it will also be confirmed if he plays against Tranmere Rovers tomorrow. JRRobinson (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you added verifiable references and citations? Jaymacdonald (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no references, and no such thing as the "Coca-Cola league" anywhere. Dwilso 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually a quick Gsearch gives this hit [8] – ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reference from local paper, online edition [9] and plenty of others from a properly formed Gsearch. ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Neutral for now~~ A single, trivial mention in a local newspaper is insufficient to establish notability and being named in the squad does not meet the WP:Athlete criteria of having played in a fully professional league but I'm happy to hold off to see if he does plays at the weekend. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete as he was an unused substitute today and fails the criteria for notability and WP:Athlete. The article can of course be easily resurrected if he does ever make a first-team appearance but for now, all we have is an article about someone for who the highlight of his sporting career has been sitting on the bench. That's not a notable sportsperson. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per comments by Ukexpat. Those sources should be added to the article.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite clearly fails WP:BIO#Athletes as, contrary to comment above, he hasn't played for the team! Of course, if he does play later today, then keep, but thats all WP:CRYSTAL for now. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. On the squad of a team in the third-highest league in England. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just being in the squad diesn't mean the article should be kept. Other articles like Danny Welbeck have been deleted even though they have been on the bench. He is on the bench today, and if he comes on then it will definately be a keep. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I'm sorry but this whole thing seems so silly to me. If he is on the team then he is going to play eventually in the sometime near future. Why delete the article now if it will just be re-created in a matter of months, days, or as it happens hours.Divinediscourse (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per [10] DGG (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "If he is on the team then he is going to play eventually in the sometime near future" - please could you confirm exactly how you know this to be an absolute fact? At the club I support there have been players who have been on professional contracts for anything up to two years but still wound up being "let go" without ever getting onto the pitch.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly - a classic example of violating WP:CRYSTAL. Plenty of players with a squad number have never made an appearance and drifted into obscurity. Until the guy plays a game, for all we know he may do the same. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, re-create if he plays in a professional league ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe there have been a few cases where players with squad numbers for a team in a nation's top league have been considered notable for that reason alone. In those cases I think we considered "announcing this player has a squad number" to be analogous to, for example, "announcing a video game will be released in the near future" (the official announcement being enough to make the topic no longer violate WP:CRYSTAL). But Huddersfield is not in the EPL so that doesn't apply here. ugen64 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Current consensus at the WP:FOOTBALL project is that, even in the Premier League, merely being given a squad number is not a reason by itself to keep an article...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How can this be deleted when the offical Hudderfield Town website has this player in there first team squad. If this page is deleted then this will obviously affect the Huddersfield Town F.C#Current squad page, as the Squad will be missing a player!. How has this gone this far?

See the offical Hudderfield town website [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockybiggs (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting his name be removed from the squad list on the club's page. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it will be a blank link then, either way, referring back to my points its on the offical Hudderfield website. When there are pages for people like Breanna Conrad, surely this should be kept. --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the WP:ATHLETE guideline requires that a player (in any sport) has to have actually played, not just been named as part of a squad. Black links in squad lists are perfectly acceptable - see for example Gillingham F.C.#Current squad, which has two. And comparisons to American reality TV stars are wholly irrelevant..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, with that guideline Victor Moses would have been deleted, for not playing a game for Crystal Palace earlier in the season, but yet represented England U17 in Korea before his Crystal Palace debut.--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That player was part of a mass AfD which was withdrawn due to the nomination being a malformed mess. If he'd been nominated alone and the AfD had run its course then I suspect that, yes, his article would have been deleted for failing to meet WP:ATHLETE..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Absent such a consensus, a deletion would not seem to be possible here, because the case has not been made that any WP:OR/WP:NPOV issues this article may have cannot be remedied through editing or renaming. I'd like to note that the conduct of some editors particularly on the "delete" side was rather poor. In particular, allegations of bad faith or prejudice on the part of the other side are not valid reasons to keep or delete an article. Sandstein (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communist terrorism

This is a POV-fork of terrorism. The quotes used to support the term largely do not use the word terrorism, and use of the term terrorism to describe the assassination of the Emperor Alexander II is blatant revisionism. Terrorism scores 45 million Google hits. "State terrorism" scores 368,000 Google hits. "Communist terrorism" scores 5,500. Top hit is this article. Second is YouTube. Third is "slantedright.blogspot.com". I think you get the idea. A few book sources use the term, but not as a term distinct from the obvious intersection implied by the title, and not as a major thesis, not even as chapter headings as far as I can tell, only as meaning terrorism carried out by (e.g.) communist insurgents: passing mentions not asserting a terminology. I don't see any mainstream sources expounding this term, the sources roughly divide between reliable sources that don't actually support the term (such as the quote from Nechaev which uses the word misery, which is then implied to be terrorism by novel synthesis) and blatantly unreliable sources such as Free Republic. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Neologism in the meaning "state terrorism by a state claiming to be communist". Original Research, Novel Synthesis and WP:FRINGE. Anarchists and populists are mixed up with communists here, so that the term loses all meaning, typical of coatracks. Be prepared for the defenders putting their comments wherever it pleases them (even before or in the middle of the text of the proposer) to make the debate unreadable and confusing. It happened last time. If it is repeated, I propose the solution chosen for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination): move all threaded comment to the talk page. And be prepared for the usual swarm of Russophobes. It happened last time. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that solution is all that useful, really. It just means you have to read two pages to get the same thing most AfDs give you in one. Just being really WP:BOLD in moving off-topic arguements should be enough. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from being simply stupid and against the very nature of AfD (AfD is a discussion; a discussion involves cross-communication, refutation of points where appropriate, and questions asked and answered. What that does is essentially turn AfD into the one thing it isn't supposed to be: a vote. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did say: "if it is repeated" and at this moment I am glad to say it has not repeated.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Paul said: "be prepared for the usual swarm of Russophobes". Is that an appropriate argument to delete an article? I am Russian myself and strongly object using such arguments here. This is not an article about Russia.Biophys (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an argument, just a warning to other contributors here. Fortunately, people here can easily have a look at the discussion of the first AfD. And see that Russia was part of the argument. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not seeing any actual reason to delete here--although I think article may need to move moved to a name with less POV (for instance, Communist organizations accused of sponsoring terrorism). MrPrada (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~ Keep important article, but perhaps rename as "Terrorism in Communist states," - this may be more neutral as it allows space for any right-wing or pro-democracy elements that may be involved in situations in the various Communist states. Vishnava (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! So: change the title, and rewrite the article to exclude the OR and include a different subject. Perhaps delete and make a new article would be easier... Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no reason to delete this article. It does need a bit of cleanup. MrPrada (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could move the page to a POV-neutral title, keep the contributions of good-faith editors to keep us free of potential GFDL violations, and rework the article while preserving the history and the ability to retain any useful information in the history. Deleting edit histories should never be looked upon this lightly, especially when all thats needed is a page move and a rewrite. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not only about terrorism by Communist states, but also about terrorism by communist organizations, but the terrorisms by organizations and states are sometimes difficult to distinguish.Biophys (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had only meant that the article title could be modified to be more neutral-sounding, permitting the inclusion of details on possible terrorist causes/reaction coming from right-wing or other groups, explain the circumstances behind specific acts of terrorism, or explain the difference between terrorism inspired by communist ideology (state and organizations), and by pure despots (akin to Saddam Hussein, Stalin's and Kim Jong-Il's personality cults etc.). I realize that it is not easy, and convinced by Biophys, I change my opinion to a simple keep. Vishnava (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is completely without merit. "Communist terror" turns up 18,700 google hits, "communist terrorism" turns up 6,980 google hits and "Maoist terrorism", just to use one possible additional term, turns up 1740 hits. Of course search engine hits are just one indicator of notability. In the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, communist groups are only second to Islamic. Plainly this subject is notable. It has been used in the mainstream media, see here and here, by major encyclopedias, and in academic journals (here, here and here. Anyone who's heard of the Red Brigade, November 17 or FARC know it's communist terrorism; this article is plainly proper. It is not a POV fork but a separate notable subject. It certainly makes as much sense as the eco-terrorism, narco-terrorism and bioterrorism articles. This nomination is plainly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the nominator's part. If there is POV in the article that can be fixed and is not a basis for deletion. Mamalujo (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good look at what the nominator said. There is no doubt that there is some evidence for "communist terrorism" being used in the sense of insurgency. The problem is the WP:COATRACK here: the most important part of the article is about state terrorism by communist states. In order to keep the coatrack, the authors also included the PLO and claimed it was founded, sponsored or whatever by the Soviet Union. Such info belongs in the PLO article. Note that most people who propose a re-name here are proposing a re-name to something like "state terrorism by communist states" (which would also deal with the POV in the title, which in that meaning is also a neologism) so your examples do not justify keeping the article. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, revisionist neologism. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename I disagree that this is a POV fork. It's a subset of the topic but a large enough issue that it deserves its own page. It is obviously a noteworthy subject. I do think that the title "Terrorism in Communist states" sounds more neutral and would be a better title.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your title may be ambiguous, as it could be taken to refer to anti-communist insurgencey against communist regiems. The article is not about that. I suppose you may mean "Terrorism by Communist states" or "State terrorism in communist states". The problem is the article is structurally a train wreck, as part of it is indeed a badly sourced POV fork and another part is about something else, but very well sourced. Delete would solve that. One set of people could then start writing an article on something like communist terrorist insurgency, which would be very easy to source, and another set of people would then have the very difficult task to source the most important part of this article, referring to terrorism by communist states all the while ensuring that it does not turn into a POV fork of terrorism or state terrorism. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Of course, terrorism in Communist states wouldn't include Mamalujo's examples, because Greece, Italy, and Columbia aren't Communist states.Ben Standeven (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. If there is POV in the article, that isn't a reason for deletion; that is a reason for regular editing to occur, and to be taken to RfC and Third Opinion if that doesn't work. The title, however, should be something more neutral, such as "Terrorism in Communist states" as suggested above. That, however, is also something that should have been taken to the talk page rather than AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to work towards balance. itsa definable subject, and editrial difficulties should not be bypassed by removing articles. DGG (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you explain why you are saying it "definable subject"? Relata refero has brought a significant argument in the discussion that the term "communist terrorism" is not used in any major peer-reviewed journal, there is no etymology of the term, when it was coined, who first used it etc. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy and Paul. Everyking (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite clearly POV fork. Wikipedia is not soapbox. I am assuming good faith and will try to be civil as much as possible in a hostile environment, but what I can guess the article was written with political motivation by right-wing pro-capitalist agenda pushers. The keep votes are bad faith votes, very likely based on political motivation. I can see there is a systematic anti-Communist and pro-Capitalist bias in wikipedia, I have no idea how to counter this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the anti-communist bias could easily be dealt with by changing the title, but that would of course immediately expose the fact that the article is a coatrack. There is bias in the article, but that is probably rather anti-anarchist bias. What do the assassination attempts on the Russian tsars in the 19th century and the later Soviet Union have in common, except for the name Ulyanov? I am still wondering why they did not go back further in time, since a straight line can be drawn to the French Revolution, Pugachev's Rebellion, the Iconoclast rebellion in Flanders in the 16th century, the Münster Rebellion, the Peasants' War and Spartacus, all perfect examples of left-wing insurgency terrorism. As for those who say "improve it then" - the problem in the article is structural.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Take it from Otolemur, there is no such thing as Communist terrorism. This from Otolemur's user page: "'Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because 'the last decisive battle' with the kulaks is now under way everywhere. An example must be demonstrated. Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers. Publish their names. Seize all their grain from them. Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday's telegram. Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: they are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucking kulaks.' —Lenin" Mamalujo (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It was Lenin's order to suppress counterrevolutionary elements and Kulak resistance, who were known for exploitating the poor. Not related to any concept of "Communist terrorism". You are calling Lenin a "terrorist"? United States threated to bomb Pakistan to "back to the Stone Age" after the Sept. 11 attacks if Pakistan refused to help America with its war on terrorism.[12] Will it be US terrorism? Certainly not. Have you come in this AfD for some constructive purpose or with some pro-Wal-Mart/pro-Bush agenda? This place is for discussing this article, not for discussing any quote in any user's page. If you have any argument or any scholarly reference detailing any concept of "Communist terrorism", then discuss that. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy. See WP:SYN. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with content disputes. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not POV fork of terrorism. Terrorism comes in different varieties (see Template:Terrorism), and terrorism by communist organizations and states is one of them. Google hits are irrelevant. This article (including term "Communist terrorism") is sourced to multiple reliable secondary sources, as one can see from references in this article. This article did not change much since first nomination when the decision was "keep". The term is well known and notable. There are many dozens of designated Communist terrorist organizations. Even more such organizations existed in the past.Biophys (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus reached in November. The phrase seems like one people would legitimate look up on an encyclopedia. Other issues seem like Wikipedia:SOFIXIT in nature. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Wikipedia did binding decisions, which we don't, there were sufficient dissenters and insufficient contributors overall to make the term "consensus" problematic in that context. Consensus is represented by policy, in this case WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. You could help by identifying a few reliable independent sources which discuss "communist terrorism" as a theme, as opposed to mentioning it once in the middle of a sentence. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: Karnow, S. Karnow, S. Cory Aquino's downhill slide. New York Times Magazine; 8/19/90, Vol. 139 Issue 4833, p24, 5p, 2c, 1bw Profiles Philippine leader Corazon Cojuangco Aquino. Declining popularity; Weak leadership; Dissent among military; Communist terrorism; Philippine's past history. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If kept, please move to "Communist political violence" as is the case with ("Zionist political violence", or "Palestinian political violence").Bless sins (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have Zionist terrorism and Palestinian terrorism articles, and rightly so. By the same token, this article should stay. However, "Communist terrorism" subject is much bigger than Palestinian or Zionist terrorisms. It includes two parts: (a) terrorism by organizations with communist ideology (main subject of this article), and (b) Terrorism/terror by communist states. Latter subject could be also described by an additional article Communist repressions. This however does not invalidate "Communist terrorism" article. As about renaming, do you also suggest to rename Terrorism to Political violence? That would be odd. Right now, "Political violence" is a redirect to "Terrorism". This is wrong. Any war is a "political violence" but not necessarily terrorism.Biophys (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I think we have altogether too many articles on foo terrorism, where the subject is not established as distinct from terrorism of any other kind. There is no evidence that Zionists are more likely to be terrorists than are Communists, Muslims or Seventh Day Adventists for that matter (well, maybe that's pushing it a bit far). In most cases they boil down to: terrorism by angry people, crossed with list of angry people. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we have Zionist terrorism and Palestinian terrorism articles, and rightly so

Actually, no we don't. They are just redirects to the Zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence pages. Personally, I think Communist political violence would be a much more appropriate title for this article, because much of what is discussed is not terrorism per se but planned acts of sabotage etc. Also, the title as it currently stands conflates the tactic of terrorism (ie non-state actors killing innocent people for political ends) with political terror (repressive means employed by states against their own people) and state terrorism (terrorism promoted by states abroad). As such it is quite misleading.

However, I also have a concern with lumping all communist states and movements together like this because, for one thing, it promotes the impression that communism is some sort of monolithic movement, which is far from the case. It would seem to me to make about as much (or as little) sense as having an article on Capitalist terrorism. I mean, what is really gained by lumping all these disparate groups together, except as a means of denigrating the ideology in question?

The title also leaves the impression that terrorism is intrinsic to communism, which is only one POV and a tendentious one at that. So I see a lot of problems with this article. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Communist political violence could be created, but it would be an article on a different subject. It would include all wars conducted by communist countries because any war is a "political violence", no matter if it is "just" or not, although wars are usually not regarded as "terrorism". Biophys (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back that opinion up with reliable sources? Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wars are in a category of their own and are practically never described as "political violence". So I really don't think that would be a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, wars are violence and they are conducted for political reasons. Anyone could reasonably argue they belong to "political violence". Such renaming would be a problem, not a solution.Biophys (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable topic with verifiable sources. The article needs a lot of editing work and may even need to be split as mentioned above. However, such discussions do not belong in an AFD but on the articles talk page.
Delete. A phrase completely unknown in the academic discussion, with good reason, as it is completely content-free. Relata refero (disp.) 22:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a term completely unknown in academic discussion, why are there so many papers that contain the term? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are practically none except where its used as shorthand for other things, and none in any major peer-reviewed journals that I've found. It doesn't seem to listed as a keyword in the appropriate citation searches either. Its completely unknown in the sense that it is being used as a coatrack for this article. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about a combination of words. It is about a subject of terrorism by communist organizations and states. This subject is notable and described in multiple reliable secondary sources, as clear from sources provided in the article. If one has problems with article title, let's discuss renaming rather than deletion.Biophys (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has this subject been studied as a whole? Or have individual examples been studied? You haven't provided any citations of the former, only citations of the latter which happen to use "a combination of words". That's simply unacceptable. We don't need to discuss renaming if notability hasn't been established. Simple google searches on the "combination of words" are rightly considered irrelevant. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are numerous sources about this subject as a whole. For example, Black Book of Communism has a whole chapter entitled "Communism and terrorism" explicitly on this subject, althouth a combination of words is different.Biophys (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Book of Communism is not numerous. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Please see books "Communism and terrorism" by Karl Kautsky and "Spetsnaz" by Victor Suvorov (included in the article). Want more? Then let's improve this article rather than delete.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These two gentlemen are dissatisfied with communism for any reason. One of them is a Soivet defector and other is an anti-Marxist author. To quench their personal anti-Communist thirst, these two people wrote two books slandering communism in any way. Are these two books describe the etymology of the phrase "communist terrorism"? As Relata refero questioned, are these books describe the subject as whole or collects individual examples? If they collect some invidual examples of terrorism to constitute a concept "communist terrorism", that is unacceptable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, almost anyone who writes about Communist terrorism was somehow "dissatisfied" with communism (and who likes terrorism?). I am dissatisfied with Soviet communism too. I lived there. But there are 500+ books about the Communist terrorism , as clear from the search by Piotrus below. Obviously, a notable subject.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any answer to the later questions? What Relata refero asked. Are these books describe the subject as whole or collects individual examples? If they collect some individual examples of terrorism to constitute a concept "communist terrorism", that is unacceptable. Also see WP:GOOGLE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, they describe the communist terrorism as a subject. One can look in the books. One can simply look at titles "Communism and terrorism" of a chapter in Black book and of the entire book by Kautsky.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You carefully ommitted the original question raised by Relata refero. "they describe the communist terrorism as a subject". Subject? The question is that who founded this subject? Who coined the term "communist terrorism"? Are the books describe this? Is the term "communsit terrorism" described in any major peer reviewd journal? If not then this phrase is an unknown neologism used by Western authors without discussing its etymology. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. On the one hand, Communist states and organisations have used terrorism since 1917. (And the prehistory section is important too, as it traces the origins of the phenomenon, which did not arise in a vacuum.) Moreover, the sourcing appears competent but could use improvement. On the other hand, improvement really must take place - I'd like to see more theoretical discussion, more overviews, rather than a simple paragraph-by-paragraph listing of Communist entities that have used terrorism. Biruitorul (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all the reasons given in the first AfD debate, I don't see what's changed since then. Communist terrorism is no more of a POV fork of Terrorism than are Islamic terrorism, Eco-terrorism, Narcoterrorism or Nationalist terrorism, just a specific form of terrorism that warrants a separate article. Martintg (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fancy the others are specifically discussed and studied. Except for the last, which I have trouble with. Also, otherstuffexists. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of Martintg's articles are really re-directs and one of them is at least as controversial as this one, and flagged as such. OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This is a very valid and necessary article, part of Category:Terrorism by genre. Over here in (West) Germany, the Red Army Faction killed dozens of people, while in the GDR, the communist state killed hundreds who tried to run from it. All that in the name of communism. BTW, where's the large trout, for slapping the nom? -- Matthead Discuß 14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you are using the ambiguous "while" to connect two different entities, you are probably using Novel Synthesis. The members of the Baader-Meinhof gang were offered asylum in the GDR, but many refused and after leaving prison joined political parties unconnected to the SED. Horst Mahler is a nice example: it may even be argued that he was first and foremost a Palestianian terrorist, whereas his mentor, Günter Rohrmoser (we need an article about that guy fast, as he is also the theoretician behind people like Rita Verdonk, Geert Wilders, Jean-Marie Dedecker, and I am only mentioning people in the Low Countries ...), was always pro-Russian (except under Yelstsin, of course). Not the same "communism". Note that by virtue of Biophys's OR that perpetrates the whole article: "Communist states and Communist entities cannot be easily distinguished" the Chilean Concertacion should be called a communist terrorist organisation, since they also gave asylum, to Erich Honnecker.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason why Left-wing terrorism and Right-wing terrorism were deleted - the subject is too broad. The article, as it stands now, merely lumps together all violent acts other than wars performed by various entities (states and organizations) claiming to be communist in some way or other, even when these states and organizations opposed each other and did not recognize each other's claim to the label of "communist." We should only have an article with the name X-ist terrorism if X is a single organization or an alliance of friendly organizations working together. -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a valid topic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see discussion above on why a simple search of a phrase on google books is not adequate. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per past consensus and user:Biophys. Ostap 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This is an obvious POV fork, and I agree with what Nikodemos said. I suspect the only reason it's still up is because this is an anglophone based website where our indoctrinated hatred for communism overshadows our common sense and ability to make fair judgment on something of this nature. A capitalist terrorism or democracy terrorism article, no matter how well sourced, wouldn't last a week. Krawndawg (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article, concept really exists, and certianly is not a POV fork. Certianly do not move, as nothing is wrong with current title. It obviously is a notable term worth an article. Yahel Guhan 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concept really exists? Can you prove? Can you state some major academic journals analyzes the term? "Notable term"? On which basis? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unknown neologism used to tie together disparate phenomena.PelleSmith (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Today is very popular to write POV stuff about communism --Rjecina (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject seems notable and article is well referenced. -- Vision Thing -- 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT. Sincerely. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also can you explain on which basis you are saying "subject seems notable"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow, 108 books with "communist terror" explictly in the title [13], and you ask for a basis for the subject's notability. Martintg (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

democracy terror has that beat at 130 hits. WP:GOOGLEHITS. Krawndawg (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion above, the argument provided by Relata refero, why a simple search of a phrase on google books is not adequate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as unacceptable fork and egregious misuse of the site to promote this nonsense. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill with fire - POV fork, unacceptable, inappropriate and complete nonsense. The material is going beyond references and misquoted to push author’s fork views. I was wondering why it was survived earlier. Therefore, a strong reason to delete.
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The central book of Communism, The Capital, doesn't contains calls to engage in terrorism. --71.119.163.188 (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per many posts above, the teachings of communism don't promote terrorism. The concept of "communist terrorism" is original research and this article is a POV fork which would be more suitably named "Terrorist acts committed by communists". Sbw01f (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. POV fork of what article?. We do not have Terrorist acts committed by communists. Do you suggest renaming? If you do, this article should be moved, not deleted.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not suggest renaming it. I suggest deleting it, which is why I started my post with the word "delete". Sbw01f (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist acts committed by communists will be a blatant POV-push job. Terroist acts committed by others also, Terrorist acts committed by democrats, Terrorist acts committed by monarchists, Terrorist acts committed by anti-communists. There are several anti-Cuba, anti-Communist terrorist organizations Note terrist acts committted by nationalists also. Many terrorist organizations are nationaist terrorist organizations. There are Christian terrorist organizations also, Terrorist acts committed by Christians. There are White Suprematist terrorist organizations also. So Terrorist acts committed by White people. The title Terrorist acts committed by communists will be misleading as it will suggest that communism promote terrorism. Some terrorist organizations claim they are "communist" do not imply that Marxism promote terrorism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you just reveal your plans to delete all other articles in Template:terrorism? Terrorism is often motivated by ideology, and communism is widely known as an ideology that promoted hatred, "terror", terrorism, political repressions, and other crimes during the entire 20th century, as described in many hundreds books. But you know this very well. Do not you? It was you who posted this order by Lenin in your user page:

1. Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers.

2. Publish their names.

3. Seize all their grain from them.

4. Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday's telegram.

Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: they are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucking kulaks.

Taking and executing civilian hostages-"bloodsuckers" is obviously a terrorism motivated by the communist ideology per numerous sources.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your opinion that it's "widely" known as that, but a few fringe books don't substantiate your claim. You haven't addressed the point that communism as an ideology doesn't promote terrorism. Terrorism articles should be confined to specific attacks, known organizations/people, and terrorism promoting ideologies. Also, someone already pointed out that quote from his userpage, pay attention and stick to the issue. Sbw01f (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Philippe 02:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liang Zhenpu

This article (and the two that I'll list below as well) cite sources that are not independent from the practicing organization, and are in fairly and difficult-to-fix POV tone that read like advertising for the organization. Unless notability independently established, delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also listing the following related articles for deletion:

Li Ziming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sui Yunjiang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick cursory search found many additional Web sources. Here are just a few: [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. There are literally thousands of sites mentioning these people. Obviously notable. The articles should be tagged but not deleted.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourced and notable. Further, editor proposing deletion has done so in bad faith, failing to take the few seconds it would have taken to notify the creator of this article, despite having been asked no fewer than four times to do this in future, over the past week. Badagnani (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- This shows that this keep vote is in bad faith. Notification is optional. If this voter wants notification to be made mandatory, the voter should propose it either in WT:AFD or a centralized discussion. Frankly, I think the voter's behavior is bordering on, if it is not outright, WikiStalking. --Nlu (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Insearchofintelligentlife. These articles are on notable subjects but they need to rewritten to be more encyclopedic in nature. The first sentence needs to say who these people are and why they are notable. And Nlu, although I think Badagnani should have assumed good faith, I think you are escalating accusations to an even worse level than he/she did.Nrswanson (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are all notable disciples of Dong Haichuan, as established through a cursory search by numerous sources: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. victor falk 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siji Tzu

I suspect this to be a hoax. Yes, there is a book about him. But no, there is absolutely nothing that I can find in Chinese using the Chinese translation (四季子). The Google Book search, on page 5, describes him as a "mythical sage from an unknown time in an unknown place" but claims that "notes from his lost journals" may be found at siji-tzu.com -- which is a domain that doesn't exist. I see no evidence that the person actually existed or that these writings actually existed and were not simply a figment of the author's imagination. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I follow. You have established there is a book, but you still think it's a hoax? So the book is a hoax??

Seems like a real book to me. SunCreator (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that the book is a hoax -- or, to be more accurate, that the book created a fictionalized personality that didn't actually exist. --Nlu (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find any notability. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL SunCreator (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have either of you actually read the book or even seen a copy? If not than I think you may be making a premature judgment. I personally can't decide either way unless more evidence is brought to light.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is available (at least partially; I have not tried to scroll through the whole thing to see if the entire book is available) on Google Books, and I provide the link above. Nothing that I see denotes that the person is real or that the alleged notes were real. It should also be noted that the book is labelled volume 1, but there is no volume 2 or so on published by the author. Further, Amazon lists the book well past the millionths on its rank of sales, indicating that the book is not itself notable. --Nlu (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability established. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Jacked Up (film)

Doesn't seem to be a notable film. None of the people associated with it have articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The film doesn't appear to be in theatrical or DVD release. I'm afraid it came to Wikipedia a little too early. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep: good reliable sources, should be included in category of American films. Dwilso 18:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube and IMDb are not reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lack of articles for the cast and crew does not infer non-notability on themselves or the film. Having said that, a google search for "All Jacked Up" "Jennifer Mattox", while producing a number of relavent hits, doesn't seem to yield much in terms of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". PC78 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete by User:NawlinWiki as expired prod just as AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truth of the Christian Way revealed

Religious propaganda CycloneNimrod^talk? 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as G11 Blatant advertising. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator industry executive, technical, and management recruiting firm / staffing firm

Advertising CycloneNimrod^talk? 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default to keep). Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melodies from Mars

An unreleased album -- sort of -- with no reliable sources provided and none found. (Actually, it's "a collection of unreleased tracks suspected to be by Richard D. James, better known as Aphex Twin".) In any event, it lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete My suspicion is that this article's information is accurate. However, without verifiable sources I am afraid that it will have to be deleted. I personally would have tagged this article first and waited a while before nominating it for deletion to see if any sources would come to light.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We aren't discussing whether or not the content is accurate, only whether the topic is notable (WP:MUSIC). The article was tagged for notability and sources over a month and a half ago. The only change to the article since then was an edit with a self-revert that failed to return those tags. Digging through its past, you'll see it was tagged for lack of sources for most of its life, until an everything2.com link was used to "verify" it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge with The Goonies Nakon 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One-eyed Willy

Article is about a fictional character in The Goonies, and there's not enough information to extend the article beyond stub stage. Perhaps it should be merged into The Goonies. Compare, favorably, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truffle shuffle Travisl (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable references provided and also fictional. Dwilso 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "being fictional" is not a reason to delete, especially if the fictional character meets the notability requirements for fictional things. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if neccessary I dont know anything about the film the character comes from but if he is a main character he deserves a mention - needs expantion and references though. Kcollis (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not even a supporting character, just a background character. — Becksguy (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge there's no need for it to be deleted, but merging it to the appropriate article might work. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Goonies - Deletion not necessary, but rather a merge with the Characters section. Soxred93 | talk bot 20:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Per Nom.
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Merge is fine too. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to The Goonies Per above comments.Divinediscourse (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per [25] DGG (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to The Goonies per almost all the comments so far. Insufficient for stand alone article at this time. A quick google search doesn't show any thing notable. — Becksguy (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been five days, and the consensus is clearly merge and redirect. I've done so. Travisl (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now someone (not part of this discussion) needs to close the AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UAAP Season 72

Delete as crystal ball. Mccc47 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the (new) nominator. This season hasn't been played yet, and no sources seem to exist on it yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Perlata

Star Wars/Youtube fancruft that does not meet notability requirements. The article is also named for the person responsible for the short film and yet the short film is the item given any hint of notability. ju66l3r (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and I tagged it as such. Original author has blanked the page anyway. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nilsson awards

Appears to be somebody's private vanity award. Sourced to a blogspot page run by "TV Extraordinaire". No indication of notability at all. ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it's a related page created by the same user:

Delete both although I'd like to mention this link - is it connected in any way? Vishnava (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on expanding this article to include its origins, etc. These awards started in Connecticut and are announced by Curtis Dunn. A close friend of mine is on the comitee and suggested I make a wikipedia page to organize the information and display it for those who would like to learn more about it. they have no official site, however, the blog referenced is correct in all circumstances. I worked very hard on entering this information, if these articles are deleted, please notify me first so I can save the information to a document... thank you Hooty88888 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to note that "vanity" is not a reason for deletion (http://www.nabble.com/AFD-courtesy-problem-to2434386.html) Hooty88888 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vanity is not a reason for deletion, true. Lack of notability is, however. Lack of any possible reliable source references is a reason for deletion as well. Although Google isn't the end-all, it's worth noting that searching for "Nilsson awards" returns no results other than these two Wikipedia articles. 47 other entries are returned for the search string, but they are unrelated entries like : "Axel Nilsson - Awards" on IMDb; resumes of people named Nilsson; references to the unrelated Lennart Nilsson Awards; etc. The only place where these "Nilsson Awards" are mentioned appears to be someone's blog. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - this is true, however, where else would you be able to find it? these "awards" are really just announcements. there is no other place to really find this information, which I find useful. I personally like to see the winners of the awards because they are different from all the others. my friend asked me to create this because there is no place she could find about the origin of the awards. I guess I just don't understand, the notability? they are awards, how much notability is needed? what qualifies awards to be on wikipedia? I am not trying to argue, but it took me so long to create these. I understand the issue here, but why can you not leave it up for people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooty88888 (talk • contribs)
      - Wikipedia is not a webhost. If you want to announce your awards someplace, try Reddit or Digg. Cheers! --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attribution of notability for this blog-based award via credible and independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and fails WP:N. Deor (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Dhartung. Sorry if you put a lot of effort in, but next time, before you do a lot of work creating an article, read the guidelines on Notability and What Wikipedia is not. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I understand the "guidelines of notability", but this isn't about announcing the awards or whatever, that was done a long time ago, it is about displaying information about the awrds and the process by which they are chosen... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.168.125 (talk • contribs)
  - Question. Is a podcast of the announcement sufficient evidence? and a talk back with people from the comittee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.168.125 (talk • contribs)
    - The issue isn't whether the awards exist, it's whether they are notable and whether there is sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. A podcast of the announcement and a discussion with the committee are primary sources at best, and don't count as independent sources. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think all I would be able to find is a school newspaper... would that suffice?? It's from the hometown of C.D. Nilsson and they talk about how he use to go to that high school and such... my informant gave it to me for more information to build the page...69.118.168.125 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to establish notability due to lack of third party coverage.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation

Was tagged for speedy, admin declined and tagged for expansion with the comment "better tag, since many of these are being found notable at Afd".

No assertion of notability (unless congregations are inherently notable), and no sources. Seeking consensus. ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are 4 Jewish congregations in my hometown area alone. Vishnava (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because there are a large amount of jewish temples doesn't necessarily meen that this temple is not notable Vishnava. The guidelines for notability for this page would be under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point the article fails notability by failing to provide independent secondary sources and failing to state the temple's notability. However, if such information and sources are added that could very well change.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per [26] DGG (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Just started today, just one hour before it was nominated. --give it a chance--especially because the usual Jewish topics editors will not be editng for the next 9 days due to Passover. Renominate in 2 weeks if nothing more gets written. DGG (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Give an article a chance before you nominate it for speedy. Actions like those of the nominator are really starting to create problems with new editors and their articles. Remember that we aren't working toward a 5-day deadline. Sources exist that verify the subject exists; for the time being, that's all that should matter. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Sorry guys. The editor should probably have put tags on the article for a while before nominating it for a speedy AFD. However, since he/she didn't do that we have to look at this through the eyes of AFD policy. And in this case a I would say Stifle summed it up clearly.Divinediscourse (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per [27] DGG (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Yahel Guhan 02:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The article is now fully expanded with importnat information and reliable sources. The nominator is requeted to withdraw his nomination.
Keep because it is a notable synagogue in Manchester per the NOTE above. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - article now asserts notability with references. – ukexpat (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ukexpat: Thank you, greatly appreciated. (It took a couple of hours to track down the better reliable sources via Google). IZAK (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge with Citizen Athletic Association Nakon 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizen Athletic Association 60th Anniversary Invitation Football Match

Contested prod. One-off set of two friendly matches held to celebrate a club's 60th anniversary. I don't see how this is notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator - an article for one or two local football matches is not notable. It can perhaps be merged with an article about football in Hong Kong, but I don't know which one. Vishnava (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after pruning into Citizen Athletic Association (which is quite short). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2007-08 in Hong Kong football Checkiema (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there so perhaps delete is the answer. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after pruning into Citizen Athletic Association per Roundhouse0.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per roundhouse. GiantSnowman (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, unencyclopedic - Nabla (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vice-Chancellor Salaries and Salaries of Full Time Academic Staff

Contested prod, reason was that this is unencyclopedic original research. Please peruse the extensive discussion between the author and others on the article's talk page. --Finngall ^talk 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside from being very diverse and hard to verify/update, is it not useless information for an encyclopedia? Not all schools are notable and pay packets for individuals are the purvey of some statistical survey agency, not an encyclopedia. Pay changes each year and every school/college may have different arrangements. Vishnava (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original author created a stub stating that he was going to present statistical analysis of pay vs several self-chosen criteria for various universities. Such would fall foul of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN and he was advised of this. When deletion was proposed he contested this on the basis that because the content was not yet written it did not break those policies - but by that reasoning it is a speedy candidate as A1 or A3 (nocontext/nocontent). Also seems to fall foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ros0709 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A1 - no encyclopedic value, relatively unsourced, nothing more than original research mainly. Rudget 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic statistical information of questionable provenance and value. --Dhartung | Talk 21:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR - UtherSRG (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Various reasons have been provided for asserting that the articles content and subject matter are both unencyclopedic. Viewing the above, the main reasons are :

1) WP:OR and WP:SYN, there has been the addition of a novel reason WP:INDISCRIMINATE (presumably under the 'statistics' section, which I will deal with later).

Firstly, the WP:OR arguments. Specifically, according to the rules of WP:OR - what exactly is the original research (spelt out using the wording of WP:OR?).

Quoting Ros0709, "The original author created a stub stating that he was going to present statistical analysis of pay vs several self-chosen criteria for various universities. Such would fall foul of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN and he was advised of this." This is clearly in contradiction to the wording of the introduction of the article introduction currently "This article presents information concerning the amount of pay and the manner in which pay is assigned to Vice Chancellors and general UK university staff in general. The article utilises statistical information derived from the administrative Higher Education Statistics Agency. The article presents a brief (and basic) statistical analysis of the pay obtained by Vice Chancellors within various universities together with an analysis of whether that pay correlates with variables such as geographical location, Vice Chancellor publications records and Vice-Chancellor academic attainment (as an indication of Vice Chancellor merit).", it is NOT WP:OR to present information which is already present within reliable sources. Thus this point FAILS - I am NOT presenting my own opinions AND I am not synthesising anything in the way of viewpoints. As the information stands currently, all the sources are reliable (they are indirectly based upon HESA as a source, which is a reliable source of such information, and could rightfully be placed as an additional reliable source).

The problem is the second half of that assertion: "The article presents a brief (and basic) statistical analysis of the pay obtained by Vice Chancellors within various universities together with an analysis of whether that pay correlates with variables such as geographical location" (my emphasis). It is not original research to present existing information but it would be to make any kind of interpretation or analysis of it. 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

2) No context or no content. The article DOES have a significant contribution to make concerning information of encyclopedic importance to the running of UK institutions. Hence, it is eminently clear that the article AT THE VERY LEAST deserves to be merged with the main article on VCs and Higher Education institutions in general by being added as a clear and separate subsection to those articles.

This specifically applies to the article as it currently stands - empty. You contested deletion before on the basis that the content which would be original research was not yet present. But whilst it is not present the article has no meaningful content. Ros0709 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) Finally, presenting information and "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning (a quote from WP:OR ('Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.') would presumably be acceptable practice within wikipedia. Another additional reason concerning why some of the comments from above which accuse the content of this article of being unencyclopedia should not be held as being covered by WP:OR or WP:SYN.

Summarising source material without changing its meaning is not a problem. If you start interpreting the results and drawing your own conclusions from them then it is. The sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted states: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion ... then the editor is engaged in original research" (again, my emphasis). Ros0709 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4) Issues of context and content are easily provided by linking the article to the main article on Vice Chancellors and Higher Education.

5) Some minor points above also stated that salaries, etc... change with time. This is no way should imply the unencyclopedia nature of the article - there are many article topics which are dynamic in nature I am sure (living biographies are just but one example).

Deathisachangeofclothing (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inappropriate subject for an encyclopaedia list. There's no potential for usefulness as a navigational tool: where are the articles about individual VCs pay that it might link to? Might be suitable in a very different form, as an article - if multiple independent sources have written on this subject; there's no suggestion that such is the case. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article is simply not encyclopedic. victor falk 14:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unencyclopedic, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Beck. Some content already there, if willing to merge some more you'll find it in 'history' - Nabla (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo Story

An early Beck demo. Yes, Beck is notable. This album is not. It was never released, so it requires substantial coverage in reliable sources. I found two reliable sources, both mere mentions. After the prod, the original editor added another, also just a mention. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Early unreleased demo, thus fails WP:MUSIC guidelines for albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pasting in your standard comment doesn't help with this one. Citations from reliable sources are in the article to comply with the verifiability policy. The issue here is whether there is substantial enough coverage to provide notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Merge per Divinediscourse. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Beck article.Divinediscourse (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing to merge. The only sourced material in the article -- the title and existance of the "album" -- is already in the Beck article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main Beck article. So Awesome (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beck. The article in question cannot stand as it is, and the significant parts are already there in the target article. B.Wind (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Some people have remarked that this religious group might be notable if independent sources are provided, but so far none have been provided. If it's very fringe, there appears to be nothing worth merging into the mainline Orthodox church either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moglen Orthodox Archbishopric

Recently founded religious fringe group, no evidence of their existence except their own website (with some evidence of COI Wikipedia editing [28]); number of members doesn't exceed literally two handful; zero outside coverage; entirely non-notable. Probably from the same folks who brought us Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia, as well as this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should not be used as a publicist. The only evidence for the existence of this "archbishopric" is it's website and a free press release. Not notable.--Dexippus (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, without prejudice. Religious denominations and schismatic groups shouldn't really face a stiff bar, if they're mentioned in independent sources. But The Moglen Orthodox Archbishopric plans to hold its regular services in private homes of its adherents, and as such it may be beneath the radar of sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge No need for a separate article - possible merger with Bulgarian Exarchate. Vishnava (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bulgarian orthodox church. BTW, see http://www.mpa-gr.org/?p=17 --Komita (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LOOOOOOLLLL, it's getting better and better :-) "Our archbishop will pray for the lost souls of the EYP agents who vandalize Wikipedia." (For outsiders: EYP is the Greek secret service, that must be me, I'm famous...!) I'll include the kind Archbishop in my prayers too, srsly. – But really, merge? What's there to merge if there is absolutely no reliably sourced information? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you delete both articles, you will angry many Bulgarian people... I propose a paragraph somewhere "There is a group that claims to be a church of Bulgarians in Greece". --Komita (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Both" articles? Which other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Funny but in Bulgarian forums suspect "you" will delete everything related to Bulgarians in Greece... The other is about the organization "Bulgarian Human rights in Macedonia". --Komita (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, are we being discussed in forums too? How nice. Links, por favor? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Only in Bulgarian language. [29] --Komita (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's really sweet to see I'm still remembered ;-p (even if, I must say it's outrageous: I'm still waiting for my arrears from those Greek service espionage cheats...). More seriously, this is really too fringe to deserve an article.--Aldux (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attribution of the notability of this sect to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle. I really tried to find some verifiable sources. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be any news coverage about the group and the only source available is the group's own website.Divinediscourse (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Chalinsky

Hardly any reference to him on Google, none at Google News. His "controversial 2006 book" doesn't seem to be available from Amazon. Looks like a vanity page. —Chowbok ☠ 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless re-written and properly sourced - if it's a vanity piece, it's an odd one, as it mentions a book that "nobody read" - which is hardly enyclopedic! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "nobody read" bit was vandalism added after the nomination. I've reverted it.—Chowbok ☠ 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who?. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomI feel like a tourist (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed. No Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Borderline speedy. See WP:HOLE. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. So completely non-notable [30] and bogus that it probably qualifies as WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable. May be a hoax.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm familiar with most Canadian political writers, and his name draws a big zero for me. Risker (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to all of the above, if he's best known for his book, which we can't find, there's the compounding of the problem resulting from Wordpress TOSing him. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AmazingSuperPowers

single-purpose account user with obvious conflict of interest; insufficient notatability; exaggerated Alexa ratings claim (~~within 20,000, where my search indicated a peak of over 22,000~~ correction; yesterday it peaked at 15,573); bottom line: just not notable enough - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - are you sure you have the right forum? AmazingSuperPowers seems like a well-written, well-sourced article to me. I don't know where the single-purpose account comment came from! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Wcitti (talk · contribs) looks like Wes Citti, one of the creators. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply This does not invalidate the verifiable sources used, and transparency is supported by the Wikipedia community. I appreciate your concern for this article, Cobaltbluetony, for in creation great care was taken in building neutrality and verifiable sources.-- Wcitti ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are there any sources other than primary sources (e.g. the article's website)? MrPrada (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article contains multiple references to where the comic in question appears in print. Dinosaur Comics relies heavily on appearing in the same publication as this one (the Portland Mercury). A version of this articles was created in the past, but that was before it met the notability guidelines, which it does now, as outlined in this and this set of guidelines. I have also listed the exact issue of the Portland Mercury where the comic first appears. Regarding the Alexa claim, whether or not a site has peaked, relevant past successes are applicable because notability is not temporary. Overall, regardless of who wrote it, this article demonstrates cohesive writing, firm sources, and accuracy. -- Wcitti ^{User ¦ Talk} 9:30, 18 April 2008 (PST)
Weak keep A little too reliant on primary sources, but otherwise it seems to be fairly well written and assertive of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The comic only appears in a college newspaper and an alternative newspaper. I think the main grounds for deletion here are the lack of reliable secondary sources that review, comment on and critique the work(I'm not counting college humor as a reliable source, sorry). MrPrada (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but without predjudice against someone with no COI re-creating it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. All the references are to the comic's own website, bar two which are vague handwavings towards possible tangential mentions in newspapers. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Could you be more specific, please? I don't see how direct links or exact volume and issue numbers constitute as "handwaving."-- Wcitti ^{User ¦ Talk} 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm thinking of ref #1. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, understood. The publications mentioned in reference #1 are further explained specifically in the "Publishing" section.-- Wcitti ^{User ¦ Talk} 07:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per TenPoundHammer.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per TenPoundHammer; the article is a new one and I think we ought to err on the side of caution (i.e. inclusion) for now. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sourcing (the two papers cited both carry the comic). No evidence of widespread distribution aside from a (relatively) few college newspapers and self-publications. Viewings on the order of 14,000 pale in comparison of the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of views the significantly notable sites get on one day. As we often say about some articles, we should apply here before saying that the comic is notable for a Wikipedia article: let it grow. If it seems that the comic is relying upon Wikipedia for publicity, it should be deleted as Wikipedia should reflect the notability and publicity instead. B.Wind (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge with High School Musical 2 (soundtrack) Nakon 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous (Ashley Tisdale song)

HSMcruft Sceptre ^(talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. archanamiya · talk 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion, "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." a newcomer would have trouble knowing what it is we're trying to debate here. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge Delete per nom and move relevant information into the article on the movie.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the song is notable and I think there's plenty to say about it that could fill up an independent article. The movie and soundtrack have been reviewed many, many times, providing a lot of potential for content discussing the song and the scene in the movie in which the song is performed; furthermore, the song has charted. There's also probably some things that the actors and people involved in the production have said about it. However, the article should be titled "Fabulous (High School Musical 2 song)"; Tisdale sings it as a character in the movie, not as herself. Everyking (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable song from massively notable franchise. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Whore out a franchise enough and you can get every song from it in the iTunes top 100. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Will. Agree that this does not pass our notability standard. Eusebeus (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And who is Will, Eusebus?Divinediscourse (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ change to Merge Notability per WP:BAND is established by charting. The above argument for deletion seems to object to why the song charted as opposed to if it did. I would add the concerns I expressed above have still not been addressed. but in retrospect it would be better to Merge to the main article on the soundtrack per DHM Beeblbrox (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song was charted = meets WP:N. Europe22 (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. Spending 1 week on a chart, at #74, is not a sure fire sign of something people will care about. Hence, not seeing actual notability (just seeing it meet parameters on a notability *guideline*). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7/G11. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informa LifeSciences

Notability of this company/event is unclear, since no secondary sources are given. Since the article lead say s"Find us on Facebook", I suspect a COI creation. The article was speedied three times and recreated, interestingly the fourth speedy was declined, so I send it here for further discussion. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:ADVERT -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — It's an ad. archanamiya · talk 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely an ad for a company that fails WP:CORP. (As a side note, also poorly written. It took me a while just to figure out what this company does.) Anturiaethwr (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant advertising. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clearly WP:SPAM ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, but without prejudice to recreation of a regular entry. The current article clearly is spam, but the company is real and might warrant an article. --Crusio (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggested bringing it here to get a more definitve community decision than repeated speedies. I'm not defending the article. DGG (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 16:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of emo artists

Very poorly defined and contentious list Sceptre ^(talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Delete! Most of the bands on this list are not even emo bands. Emo is not an easily defined genre, and since the late 90's, it has been terribly confused and stigmatized to the point that many bands--even emo-sounding bands--would loathe being tagged with such a label. Many of the bands on this list fit better into another genre (such as "pop-punk," or "hardcore") and many of them, while containing emo elements, are too diverse to simply be tagged as an "emo band." Emo is not easily defined enough to have a list of bands. If this category must be kept, then it needs serious revision, but imo, this label is too controversial and subjective for anyone to ever come to a consensus about what bands do/don't belong.I feel like a tourist (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a list of notable music artists who have been referred to as, or had their music described as 'emo'. While I agree it's not easy to determine what is emo and what is not, this list is required because at least some artists are clearly emo. The list is well referenced at the moment with sources citing most of the artists. It is required list for Category:Lists_of_musicians_by_genre and useful as a list see WP:CLN. If individual bands are in the wrong musical genre, I suggest raising the issue on the talk page and amending according rather then deleting this useful list. SunCreator (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP I'm not sure how many times this needs to be stated but...IT'S NOT A LIST OF EMO BANDS!!! Sorry for screaming that but that is the 50umpth time that that has been stated. This NEVER WAS a list of emo artists, it IS a list of artists that have been CALLED emo by both varifiable and reliable sources. There are no absolutes here. Some of you guy's want this list deleted because you don't like that some of your favorite bands have been called emo by such sources or that some of the bands don't meet YOUR definition of emo. All of you should read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, writing in bolded caps. That's just bound to make your arguments respected. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename An emo is typically a personality of a person, not a type of band, even if the whole band are counted as emos, the list should be called 'list of rock bands' as most if not all of those bands are rock bands. Kcollis (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply emo is in fact a genre, not a personality type.I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emo is a genre of rock music. --neonwhite user page talk 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems rather excessive and arbitrary to create a list of bands who have been called emo. I recommend that you rename this list List of Bands Who Have Been Called Emo and don't forget to include American Football, Texas is the Reason, and Elliott Smith. Anyway, the reason that I still suggest that we delete this subjective and restrictive list is that it is completely unnecessary, as a category already exists called "Emo musical groups"[31] containing nothing short of an extensive list of emo artists, indeed, the search "list of emo bands" redirects to the list of emo bands that can be found there.I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The problem with your thinking is that this is wikipedia, there are no absolutes. You might want to read some of the wikipedia policies like WP:V, WP:RS and especialy WP:OR. What you're suggesting violates WP:OR, as does the list Emo musical groups which is probably the biggest list of OR I've ever seen. The people there are always trying to add bands that fit there opinion of the emo genre even though it violates wikipedia policy. That's the reason we should keep this list. It's based off sources, not personal opinions of the editors as the other lists are.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article is a fork of the obviously notable Emo article, has clearly defined criteria (see other similar lists List of pop punk bands, List of J-pop artists) and is based entirely on verfiable sources including MTV, AOL music, Rolling Stone, BBC, NY Times to name a few. It is not OR under any definition. Contention is a content issue which effects many articles on wikipedia and is not a valid reason for deletion. Categories and lists are not exclusive as defined in guidelines (Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates). I suggest the nominee withdraws the afd as a mistaken nomination as there is no valid criteria for deletion given in the nomination and most experienced editors can see the article is obviously notable. --neonwhite user page talk 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:SOFIXIT. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Finding and varifying independent sources as to which bands are emo and which are not is a hopeless task. By keeping this page all you are asking for is edit wars and a list that is never accurate. This will never be a stable wikipedia article which is a sign of a bad page.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per [32] DGG (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the afd guidelines suggest, reading an article before commenting is recommended. It is clearly sourced. --neonwhite user page talk 20:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep per 13Tawaazun14. Edit wars are a constant presence on many controversial subjects such as abortion and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. That's not much of a reason to delete an article, particularly since any controversy surrounding a music genre pales significantly in comparison to the more serious subjects like war and politics. Categories and lists are not the same thing and one is not a substitute for the other. There is no reason why both cannot exist for any given topic and other genres do have both a similar list and a category. This list actually has references and as long as it continues to rely on references, it is hard to imagine why there should be any contention if editors abide by the wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning verifiability, original research and reliable sources. --Bardin (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per item 7 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that you're citing an essay that editors are not obliged to follow? It is neither policy nor guideline. --Bardin (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that isn't a valid excuse to delete the article at all. So far this list doesn't and hasn't violated any of wikipedias guidlines and policies. So far the only reason people want this list deleted is because they don't like whats on it, which isn't a valid reason at all. So far, no one has sited a policy or a guidline that it breaks, probably because there are none.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm suggesting that it be deleted and referring you to that for the reason. See WP:ONLYESSAY for a further refutation. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, of course, that too is just an essay. --Bardin (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that the WP:LC that Stifle refers to is an essay that was created by - surprise, surprise - Stifle. --Bardin (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The essay has no consenus whatsoever and is disruptive in nature so i think it is best disregarded from this and any future afds. --neonwhite user page talk 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One that also suggests that simply pointing at a policy or guideline (or in this case an essay as Stifle does above) is also to be avoided. Unfortunately the reasons you are pointing to are merely an opinion of one or more editors and as i have said it quite clearly goes against the consensus that is the established WP:CLN guideline. It is consensus that lists and categories are synergistic, this is not the place to challenge. The makes the essay of no use to an afd. Guidelines also say Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. -neonwhite user page talk 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right then. Delete as the list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category. Happy? Stifle (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which unfortunately is not a valid reason for deletion. Navigational lists are completely accepted and appear throughout wikipedia. This may also be considered disruptive behaviour accoridng to guidelines. Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap --neonwhite user page talk 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've said that already. I disagree with the essay/guideline you are quoting, whatever it is. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per item 7 of WP:LC and apparent difficulty in maintaining a stable page.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, again, WP:LC is neither policy nor guidline. It's advice from other editors, nothing more. We are in no way obligated to follow it, so that's not an excuse to delete a page that follows wikipedia guidlines and policies. You guys have presented no valid reason to delete this page. And how is it an unstable page? (13Tawaazun14 not signed in.)72.81.226.247 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that the essay contradicts guidelines on lists (Wikipedia:LIST#Navigation) on alot of points and established practice. The only valid reasons for deletion are the ones at WP:DEL#REASON. None have been given. --neonwhite user page talk 20:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following" - emphasis mine. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, aside from it's "contentious," i.e. you don't like what's on it, do you have any real reason pertaining to wikipedia guidlines and policy as to why this list should be deleted?! So far, I've seen "I don't like the content," "I don't like the content," "I don't think it's managable," and 2 for "It violates this essay which has no real bearing on wikipedia and is nothing more than advice on lists, made by other editors." "I dont like the content," is not a real reason, as has been explaind a couple thousand times already. "I don't think it's managable," pure BS, people have been managaing very well for some time now. "It violates this essay which has no real bearing on wikipedia and is nothing more than advice on lists, made by other editors," need I say more?!!! Give a real reason pertaining to wikipedia guidlines and policy already, otherwise you just mistakenly nominated a good list for deletion, and should remove the tag ASAP! (13Tawaazun14 not signed in)72.81.226.247 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are in fact other valid reasons for deletion not covered in WP:DEL#REASON. Examples include empty categories that have been empty for four days, templates that are blatant misrepresentations of established policy, and transwikied articles. These other valid reasons can be found on other pages documenting wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A policy is a "widely accepted standard that all users should follow" and a guideline is a "generally accepted standard that all users should follow." An essay, in contrast, merely "contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" and "editors are not obliged to follow it." There is no indication or evidence that the qualifying phrase "are not limited to" means that essays can be cited as valid reasons for deletion. Wikipedia's deletion policy explains valid grounds for deletion. Essays do not. --Bardin (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct sir. All the reasons givin are invalid grounds for deletion. We have 2 personal opinions of what emo is, 2 for it's a navigational list, and 1 it's impossible to source, nevermind the fact that the last one's not true and it's well sourced already. Let's see... 2 + 2 = 4 + 1 = 5 invalid reasons for deletion. Ugh, someone show me a policy and/or guidline that it violates already. So far I only see personal opinion.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIt keeps getting changed everyday. There would only be wars over it. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid reason for deletion. All articles are subject to being changed at anytime by anyone, this is a fundamental principle of wikipedia, are you suggesting the deletion of the entire encyclopedia? --neonwhite user page talk 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, can someone come up with a real reason for deletion and not all this BS? Oh yeah, and now it's 6 invalid reasons :-D.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly reasonable list (see WP:CLN), with well-defined criteria and lots of references to justify inclusion. May want to rename it to something like List of artists classified as emo to try to cut down on the contentiousness. Klausness (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's unecessary and not inline with other similar articles. The definition of a list covers that it is info that has been classified according to criteria. --neonwhite user page talk 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not unecessary and it doesn't have to be inline with other similar articles. Any thing that helps the average reader better understand the list is a plus. A name change to something along those lines makes it easier for the every day reader to understand the list. As not everyone who reads wikipedia is an editor, they probably arn't familiar with wikipedias policies and guidlines and won't know that there arn't any absolutes. As a result, a name change would better able the general reader to understand the article. As wikipedia caders to the genreal reader, that's a completly viable opption for a change to this list.71.179.8.102 (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said wikipedia doesnt alter articles because of vandalism. If you do, you're excusing the vandalism. --neonwhite user page talk 04:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Maybe some people may not add their own opinion to the article. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not policy to change an article due to vandalism. --neonwhite user page talk 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Articles are changed for the perpose of making it more ligible not to protect against vandals. Vandalism problems are solved by blocking the vandal and/or protecting the page. See WP:NOTCENSORED for more.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My point was that a name change would make it clearer to the average user what the criteria for inclusion are, and hence would make it less likely that the average user would make unhelpful changes based on an incorrect assumption about the article. Since many artist who are commonly considered to be emo (and thus would be appropriate for this list) reject the label, I thought it might be good to make it clearer what the inclusion criteria are. Klausness (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense, criteria has never been included in the title of an article. The criteria is clear at the top of the list. --neonwhite user page talk 04:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). AfD is not the best forum to address NPOV issues; take it to the talkpage, RfC or Arbcom if necessary. Skomorokh 23:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah

WP:Content fork of Yahweh. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remind me not to stand near you during a thunderstorm.... Mandsford (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I wasn't drinking when I read that comment, otherwise you'd probably owe me a new iBook. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long running content dispute (not necessarily with the nom, just in general) over the proper name of the Judeo-Christian diety. Both articles have ample sourcing, and are not entirely duplicative. Work out your issues on the talk pages gents :). Xymmax (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly well sourced article. I don't see why it warrants deletion. (I'm trying to resist the urge to say that "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah") -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is clearly a content fork. The sourcing is a laugh, even though some of the worst offenders have been removed this week. The main point of the article, as far I can see, is to circumvent statements in the introduction of the Yahweh article that distinguish between the views of Christian and Jewish theology on the subject; giving the Jehovah article a far less neutral POV. I have been asking the editors of the Jehovah article what distinguishes the intent of that article from the Yahweh article, and although I have gotten responses, I have not gotten an answer [33]. If the editors do not know what the difference is between the two articles who does? The main differences I see are not in content, but that 1.the Jehovah article is more poorly written, 2.poorly referenced [34], and 3.more POV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a little more here because the issue may not have been made sufficiently clear. Both the Jehovah article, and the Yahweh article, discuss how one of the Hebrew names for God (יהוה)came to be pronounced in English. Both articles discuss several different possibilities for pronouncing the original Hebrew (which, according to Jewish tradition, is never pronounced), and both are dealing with this issue as it is in Christian tradition. The Jehovah article is a content fork because it is dealing with the same subject as the Yahweh article: the English language pronunciations for יהוה that were developed and chosen in Christian usage. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV is not a deletion issue, it's a cleanup issue. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I listed a number of issues with the article, which I know are not grounds for deletion. If any of that is inappropriate here, I will remove it. But, considering that many AfDs do not succeed, I thought it worth mentioning some content issues with the article, with the hope that the problems could be corrected. As for the AfD, I am still waiting for an explanation, from those voting to "keep", why the article is really not the content fork it appears to be. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Comment. Both nom and another editor referred to this as a content fork. However, prominent among the example listed at the policy page as to what is not a content fork are articles whose subject is a POV. Religious articles certainly are prone to this, with listed examples such as Creationism or Biblical criticism or Biblical literalism. Aren't the Yahweh/Jehovah articles really just another example of that? Xymmax (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if this is a content fork from Yahweh, it seems to be extensive enough to merit such a fork, and it could not be re-merged back into Yahweh without either losing information or giving this version undue weight. The version I read seemed reasonably well focused on what makes the spurious transliteration Jehovah unique, and describes its history. Perceived NPOV issues do not justify deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator should have looked for Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger. AFD is not the right way to propose a merger. I see no reason for deletion of either article, and don't have enough scholarly expertise myself to know whether the pages are better merged or not. GRBerry 16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per policy referenced by Xymmax. In my opinion it falls under this category of what is not a content fork.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entirely apart from its contents, there must be a Jehova article, just like there must be Yahweh and Tetragrammaton articles. Some people like one name and hate the other (and some hate both), so for religious reasons it is impossible to delete one of Jehova or Yahweh. It is a worthwhile goal to move common content to the 'neutral territory' Tetragrammaton.213.84.53.62 (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't quite see why this up for deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but any reason why it shouldn't be merged with Yahweh? Tarinth (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sure, they are two different ways of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, and have evolved into distinct name, each with its own theological and liturgical use. StAnselm (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an encyclopedia. MrPrada (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jahweh.--Berig (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Editors from both the "Jehovah" article and the "Yahweh" article dialoged with each other in approximately April 2007. A cordial agreement was reached between "Richardshusr"(aka Richard} and Anthony Appleyard in which Anthony Appleyard would write an Article on "Yahweh" and an Article on "Jehovah". After Anthony Appleyard wrote both articles, normal editing started again on each article, and relative harmony has existed on both Articles for approximately 12 months.

In my opinion. both of these Articles should remain as Wikipedia Articles.

In my opinion the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah is a better Article today than it was 2-3 days ago when it first received a label stating:

" The topic of dispute is that Jewish tradition is discussed exclusively from a Christian POV".

Edits were made by myself and several other editors

that have dealt, in some degree, with the issue raised.

To be redundant, in my opinion,

this Article is a better Article today,

than when the above mentioned label was first added.

4.156.15.151 (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't logged in when I made the above 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

comments

Seeker02421 (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. WP:SNOW, etc. I'd love to work on this article, but I fear all my edits will be reverted. StAnselm (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, same thing, different name, can be easily combined and dealt with in one article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a merger would make too long and tangled of an article and there are plenty of sources backing up both.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I kind of see where the nom is coming from, the concept of the word "Jehovah" certainly has enough sourcing available behind it for its own article; perhaps not the one now, but deletion is certainly not the only recourse. JuJube (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep renaming might be appropriate, as the article seems to be largely Christian name for Yahweh, but probably not. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear oh dear. Keep per JuJube. Good-faith nomination but bad reasoning. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep...per the directly above...--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with YAHWEH, for God's sake. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Merge with Yahweh. And make it readable please, currently it's not. //Halibu tt 12:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per above.Biophys (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article is probably too long and may have other faults, but that implies "clean up" not "delete". This is a notable spelling of the divine name and certainly needs an article, particularly in view of its use by Jehovah's Witnesses. However the article does duplicate Yahweh, which might also usefully be pruned. If the decision is to merge, make sure nothing is lost. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Yahweh per Ed Fitzgerald. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Calling this a content fork of Yahweh is like calling Christianity a content fork of Judiasm. Both groups have similar, but distinct views on the diety due to having distinct views on sources - while both accept the Torah, Jews do not accept the New Testament or the views of the church fathers while Christians do not accept rabbinical teachings and in many cases the Apocrypha. Edward321 (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder to what extent Christians "accept" the Torah. Christians regard Judaic commandments in the Torah that are supposed to be mandatory as optional. Circumcision is a good example.--71.119.163.188 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Yahweh.--71.119.163.188 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can the truthfulness of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah ever be verified? Is there a source on the planet earth, that can say with authority, that the Masoretic Text, in which the Hebrew name יְהֹוָה‎ is preserved, "is Scripture that is given by inspiration of God"? Seeker02421 (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as hoax/vandalism per CSD#G3. —Travis ^talk 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Naga

Appears to be a hoax. No sources, and a Google search turns up nothing, which seems unlikely for a gang of "10000". TheMile (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — Should have been nominated for CSD in the first place. archanamiya · talk 14:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alarmist hoaxes are fairly common when dealing with alleged street gangs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Tagged as such. DarkAudit (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Nakon 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography

The result was delete. Chaser - T 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

AfD relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 12. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced article that reads like a press release, and is POV towards making the company look good. Also it has notability issues β^_command 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete advertisement, no claims of encyclopedic notability. Pete.Hurd 07:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 10:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an ad, no assertation of notablilty ff m 17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but revise to sound less like and advertisement and add additional sources (I typed in the phrase on dogpile.com and it seems that it gets more than just a couple hits). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC
Delete Advertisement! There is no background information or research about the topic. References only point to the company's page or friendly sites. Text is generic and marketing slang e.g.: "The EDTFs survey job functions and practices in various specialties [...]" or "ARDMS is the only sonography certification organization to be accredited by the International Organization of Standards"
Keep, this organization is notable because medical proffessionals in the United States can not legally practice Diagnostic Medical Sonograph without being licenced through this organization. The article needs to be re-written but the organization is definitely notable.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. has some notability around the practice of "keepsake ultrasounds" ... there are several articles (I posted an initial external link to a Seattle PI article) that discusses/refers to their credentialing. The article also needs some heavy pruning; I think it reads less like an ad and more like trying to find something to say in order to fill up the white space. Flowanda | Talk 09:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failing to meet WP:ORG. If it wasn't for the Keep votes above I would have speedied this under CSD:A7 by now. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Seems to meet WP:ORG if it is an important licensing organization.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per Google News hits [35]. --Smashville^BONK! 13:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be rewritten for WP:NPOV, not deleted. Plvekamp (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Article not showing subject meeting WP:CORP and not having sufficient independent coverage sources. If this article is to kept, it needs a complete rewrite to part the Red(link) Sea. The comments above mentioning that the article reads like an advertisement are quite valid. B.Wind (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Midget Gems

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Nomination withdrawn. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes no claim of notability. Article has been tagged as needing references for the past 4 months with no worthwhile changes. Completely lacks independent verifiable sources and reads much like an advertisement. will381796 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sourced - Midget Gems are a well-known sweet in the UK. Lots of Ghits, but sadly mostly from retailers. The article needs to be moved, if it's kept, to Midget Gems though, as it's not only Maynards who make them. I found a few non-sales sites that mention them ([36], [37], [38]) but I don't think they really count as reliable sources. A shame, really, as they're tasty little sweets!-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have moved the article to Midget Gems -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article should have been tagged for lacking sources and not nominated for an AFD.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged for lacking sources for the past 4 months (please read my nomination). The article itself makes no assertion of notability, which is a requirement for any article to exist. I could have speedied this due to the simple lack of notability being asserted, but figured I'd bring it here for debate. I'm in the US so I have no idea really what these things are, but if you're in the UK and are familiar, perhaps you'll be able to insert some mention of why these candies are notable. Not every product ever produced by any company is notable, so why are THESE notable? As already said, almost all Ghits are from commercial sources and those that are not commercial websites are from non-reliable sources. will381796 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they exist and are a popular product. Speedy deletion would not have been valid as this is a product and not a person, company, band, organization, or website. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has the qualification for inclusion in Wikipedia changed from the subject being notable to the subject simply existing? If so, when did this happen? will381796 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you'll notice the part where I pointed out it's a popular product. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then this statement needs to be backed up by a citation. Without a citation, it means nothing to wikipedia. Back up the statement of "popularity" and I'll withdraw this nomination. See WP:CITE and WP:SOURCES. Just because several people on wikipedia say its popular does not make it so and if there are no sources to back up this assertion of notability, then the article should be deleted. will381796 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the re-write and the addition of several new sources that clearly state the notability of these candies, I withdraw this nomination for AfD and ask that it be closed. will381796 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Hurt (band)

Non-notable local band with very little non-trivial media coverage. One self-released album, no hits, etc., etc.. Fails WP:MUSIC. Main contributors to the article—if they're not the same person (see their edit summaries)—all appear to be connected to the band. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The refs are all borderline, but in the end they seem to fall just short of significant third-party coverage as required in WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - they have supported some apparently notable acts which, I guess, should confer a whiff of notability to them. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just opening for notable acts doesn't make you notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per TenPoundHammer. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per TenPoundHammer.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia towing laws

Delete I hope I am not being rude when I say this, but there is absolutely nothing notable about this article. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We're really scraping the bottom of notability here.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I enjoyed reading this article and think it adds value to Wikipedia.--Ibmflorian (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any policy to back your argument up beyond WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL?--WaltCip (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't make my way throught the policy yet. First of all, the statement "absolutely nothing notable " could be found in the article is very generic. Only posting an article for deletion with a statement like that is not profound enough. The article is of an acceptable length, explains the background of the Virginia towing laws and backs it up with examples from city laws. There are plenty of references available. Although the article needs to be maintained and expanded there is no good reason to delete it.--ibmflorian 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how are these towing laws different from any other towing laws, in any other state/province/municipality/county etc? Please explain. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They might be different, they might not be - I am no expert about this. Does it change anything about the notability of this article? We would better spend our energy in investigating your question in a new article about Towing Laws than debating whether or not to remove this article.-- Ibmflorian (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The regulation of a particular industry is a subject that is notable and worthy of an article in an encyclopedia. I think that this page should be part of a larger article about laws governing the towing of road vehicles (this is a spinoff of "predatory towing"). Since this is a matter that is regulated at the state and local level, the laws in Virginia should be contrasted with those in other American states. The title suggests "mundane", but the subject of limitations on a licensed business is anything but mundane. Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Why Virginia's towing laws? Where are the other 49 states and the District of Columbia? Ecoleetage (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia was the home of Jamestown, the first English settlement.--WaltCip (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the obvious bad pun: Yes, Virginia, there is a towing law! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is original research and synthesis based on an editor's interpretation of primary sources. There is no indication that Virginia's towing laws are unusual let alone "at the forefront" of anything, and such laws will vary by state and local circumstance. We already have an article predatory towing discussing the pitfalls of private towers generally of which this article purports to describe a solution. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ostensibly about Virginia towing laws but the article is actually a WP:SOAP about predatory towing practices. Delete per SOAP, COATRACK, etc. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am with Eco on this one. The author appears to have a grudge against someone. I tried to wikify and adjust the article but, I can't turn it into something useable. It has a serious POV spin on it. Once the POV is removed you are left with an article about obscure VA laws.--Adam in MO Talk 12:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's already an article on Predatory towing, which links to here. I don't see anything especially notable about Virginia that warrants a special page. Plvekamp (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Take your pick: a synthesis, a POV fork, original research, reads like a magazine or newspaper article, a soapbox... in each case, the solution is removal. Avoiding these by comparing towing procedures of various states or countries would then run afoul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. B.Wind (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. No claim of notability. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Sound

Notability not established for this record label. Damiens.rf 13:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I nominated this at exactly the same time as you. Anyway, Delete for lack of notability. (I swear, I'm not involved with this label, as close as it is to my username.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and your little dog, too) - non notable record label. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Rhygin

Notability not established. This DJ's greatest life-achievement was to found a a non-notable record label, and a website about the music he like. Damiens.rf 13:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not asserted. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no notability per WP:MUSIC or any other guideline. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saskia Boggs

The subject of this article does not seem to meet the notability requirement for authors. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article certainly doesn't assert any notability, and the complete absence of citations leads me to the same conclusion as the nominator. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a contributor to an anthology (that may or may not be notable) is certainly not notable. Anturiaethwr (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable sources and dubious claims of notability.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The creator of the article has been trying to manipulate the process, removing the original prod. That's about as boldly dishonest as one can get on Wikipedia. As for the article, having one piece published in an anthology does not make a writer notable. Finally, please note that the article related to this one has already been deleted [39]. Qworty (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Creators of articles are perfectly entitled to remove and challenge prods, there's nothing dishonest about that. Admittedly they should give their reasons though! Paulbrock (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under CSD criterion A7. No notability, unsourced, no further scope of which to develop. Rudget 17:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B Zhao

Probable hoax. Can't find any sources, that aren't mirrors, to back up any of the information which is currently sourced by a single blog. Onorem ♠Dil 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability asserted, few ghits (except for this article or mirrors of it) - I think it may well be a hoax. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to find notability Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. SunCreator (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bubba73 (talk), 13:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability, as stated by others above. Bubba73 (talk), 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the creator of the article has been banned for vandalism, so it is a probable hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. The only possible claim to notability, a purported match against Kasparov lacks adequate sourcing, and even if it was true, a fairly weak opponent (even a computer) hardly inherits any notability just from playing the World Champion. (Although most players who get to play against World Champions one-on-one are notable by virtue of being grandmasters or of similar strength.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I admit I have a hard time to choose between "complete hoax" and "pure vanity", but in both cases the decision is clear. SyG (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fly UK Virtual Airways

It may not look like it, but this is actually a virtual airline, i.e. a club of people who play flight simulation games. Questionable if any notability or references Stifle (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless rewritten - I still don't understand what the airline actually is, despite having looked at both the article, and the official website! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put this up for speedy, and understand why Stifle brought it here. This is a Virtual airline, meaning it is basically an airline made up for use in a game (ducking now to avoid things being thrown at me for saying that), most often using Microsoft Flight Simulator. There are no reliable, non-trivial, independent sources which have written in detail about this entity to give it notability. The article creator even added the category Category:IATA members, which is a category detailing real airlines which are members of IATA (one of the few cartels still allowed to operate). The other type of virtual airline is one which doesn't hold its own Air Operator's Certificate, owns no aircraft, hires no flight crew, but instead offers flights under its brand by utilising aircraft of a real airline, SkyValue is an example of such a virtual airline. --Россавиа ^Диалог 13:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, non-existent airline. Claiming to be an IATA member really pushes thing a bit too far. I removed that category from the article. DarkAudit (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stay as i wrote the page its only fair i tell you what the reason of the page is As RWA (Real World Airlines) EG: Thomas Cook, Thomsons, British Airways Have there page a Virtual Airline also should It has nothing to do with advertising just so the pilots of this Airline can find the information, Now im sorry but if your going to delete this page i recommend you delete the other Airlines pages aswell cause i am not going to stop remaking this page till it does so basicallly its they all stay or all go its you choice —Preceding unsigned comment added by NellesJason (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC) — User:NellesJason (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment That sounds like an Other stuff exists argument, which is frowned upon, as is your threat to keep recreating the article if it gets deleted. You say it's an airline - the article doesn't make that clear. I have no idea what a virtual airline is, and the article doesn't enlighten me at all! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NellesJason, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with what Wikipedia is not, the relevant section is that Wikipedia is not your personal webspace. Another start-point is WP:FIVE. If you need webspace, I suggest you try recreating your article at one of these sources. To closing admin, I would also suggest protecting the namespace against recreation given the stated intent of the article creator to be disruptive. --Россавиа ^Диалог 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not Google. Your buddies want to find you, tell them to go there. If, as you claim, your intent is to be disruptive, there are plenty of admins waiting for you to do just that so they can drop the blockhammer on you. Is that what you want? DarkAudit (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Audit I dont see what the Problem with the page or any of you is TBH its a Customly Created VA with i have spent time Doing a Wikipedia Page for if you were gonna do this when it was nearly finished you should have done it when you started. as it is still AIP ill carry on with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by NellesJason (talk • contribs) 15:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You do not have any real life airplanes. You do not have any real life pilots. You do not operate any real life flights. To claim real life IATA or ICAO designations is disingenuous at best, a fraud at worst. I never said this was advertising in any way. DarkAudit (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonexistent airline that has never and probably will never exist in real life and completely does not satisfy notability guidelines. This is certainly not the same as a real airline that has real employees, real aircraft, real book systems, real routes, real passengers, etc. Those airline pages satisfy notability guidelines whereas this does not in any way, shape, or form. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did None of you read this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers and will you get over the fact we have an IATA Code? reason for it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Virtual_Aviation_Organization you will be there for hours if you complian to every VA that uses it

The fact that you are 'new' is irrelevant since the page is still not notable. Do not remove AFD templates and other WP templates without approval. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove them. You have been warned. Claiming actual IATA or ICAO designations on Wikipedia when you in fact do not in fact have them in any real life capacity is unacceptable and will not be permitted. At the very least you must note that they are for simulation purposes only, and have no standing in the real world. DarkAudit (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely non-notable gaming club. --87.115.9.231 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and also a fictional airline. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable, fictional airline that someone has made up. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Craw-daddy above. Conpletely non-notable and not an airline, but a game a group of people are playing. Also note false claims of IATA designation and threats of disruption by the author. Freederick (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable organisation. The airline needs to be proven to be notable through third-party, independent reliable sources. A specialist wiki may be a more suitable location for this content. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all redirected Event ID to ]Event Viewer Gnan garra 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Event ID

An article about an ID? How is that even encyclopedic? or even necessary? Not to mention it does not pass the our regular test of notability? The event system of different systems might, but the mechanism of indexing the events recorded, don't think so. Moreover, looks like a dicdef. If at all, just a onle line addition to the event system (such as Event Viewer) article will be enough. soum ^talk 12:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, several articles about individual Events have also been created, adding them to the discussion as well. Associated disambig and redirect pages are also listed here, for the sake of the administrator closing the discussion, should the articles get deleted.

The events, by themselves, also fail the notability test. Hardly any mainstream coverage, except for how-to guides and forums. Plus all those articles contain is the description text from the event viewer description, which can be considered a copyvio. Nothing more can hardly be added, without making it a how-to article. In short, the topics are suitable for a troubleshooting manual, not encyclopedia articles. --soum ^talk 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the list of articles up for discussion:

Main article

Event ID

Events

Disambigs

Redirects

Delete all per WP:NOT#MANUAL. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - a baffling array of articles! As Stifle says, Wikipedia is not a manual.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as per nomination. - TexMurphy (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT#MANUAL. No idea what all these Event IDs even are, but I don't think that we could cover them in an encyclopedic fashion. (Note: Some of these also have PRODs on them.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I already prodded most of the single id articles, so certainly delete those. The creator removed one prod and then seemed to start thinking about the messages on their talk page. No objection to keeping a redirect for Event ID, so I would have waited with the AFD. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Event Viewer; the bunch of specific event ID pages should be deleted though. nneonneo ^talk 17:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Event ID to Event Viewer. The ID information there could be slightly expanded, although the info in this article is not what I would have in mind for that. Delete all of the specific event articles. Wikipedia is not a replication of the Microsoft Tech Support site. --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and Redirect per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who Is Asia Cruise?

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed, called vandalism. Article's creator seems to have ownership issues. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no verifiable info on this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be provided - Definite WP:CRYSTAL material. An apt title for the album though - Who is Asia Cruise? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, sorry... The correct response, who is Tom Cruise? Select again, JediLofty. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete I provided the source but people keep vandalizing the page!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshazimiz439 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The page is not being vandalized. Rather than reverting all changes to the page, please discuss on the article's talk page any issues you have with what's been changed. And, as I've suggested before, please read WP:OWN. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if sources are found this information could easily be placed on the article about Asia Cruise.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Nakon 01:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Soxred93 | talk bot 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnan garra 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In My Mind (Is A Different World - A Cheeky One)

Article does not assert notability; it is litle more than a track listing -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete All albums by notable artists are usually notable, but this one was apparently a digital-only release, and is thus unlikely to have been covered in any reliable sources. Best I could find was this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I looked at WP:MUSIC and it says "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." (my emphasis) which was why I nominated. Have I misinterpreted the rules here? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all. You've just found a fairly rare case where a notable artist has put out a non-notable album -- the one source that I did find was all that kept me from going for a vanilla delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer's otter. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the The Cheeky Girls article, it appears two singles from the album have charted in the UK and other countries, which would seem sufficient evidence of the album's notability. Bondegezou (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : as per Bondegezou. Europe22 (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnan garra 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mido Taha

The notability for this DJ has not been established by the article. The only one source used is an online autobiography (and it doesn't even support the article's text). Damiens.rf 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless rewritten and sourced - the source isn't great and, as the nominator suggests, completely fails to assert notability -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to have been the subject of any reliable third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Last Airbender media information

AfDs for this article:

There is really no point to this article. Most of the information is already in the main article, and everything else consists of useless facts that aere not needed on Wikipedia. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 12:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Avatar: The Last Airbender WikiProject has been notified of this debate. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 12:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There might be a couple useful facts that aren't already covered here, but as the nom points out, most of this is either a.) already covered in the main article, or b.) fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This expands on what is already inside the main article, so I say change the title, but all-in-all keep it. Hooty88888 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carefully move any remaining good information to the marketing portion of the main article, then delete. Hewinsj (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information to the main article. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect without deleting per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Verfifiable out of universe information of a recognizable series can be salvagaed in some capacity. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer, nothing to merge. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the GFDL, it is illegal to delete and merge, we merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No point to a merge. Eusebeus (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Divinediscourse Divinediscourse (who voted "delete" above) is using a sock account in multiple AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, he has not done so here (with the confirmed second account being Insearchofintelligentlife). Please make sure you note that in other AfDs you post this notice too, so as to ensure any sock voting can be properly seen rather than making it appear the AfD has beebn invalidated or somehow flooded with false votes. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lager issue of the two accounts just being used for rapid AfD "votes" (see here and here) and given that, we probably should not take into consideration any such "votes." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Collectonian and TenPoundHammer, no material to merge. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no harm in a worst case scenario in redirecting without deletion in order to keep contributions public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good and notable info, well-sourced. Everyking (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carbon applications

Not encyclopedic, not maintainable, pretty useless list of programs that use a certain Mac OS X API (Carbon). -- Dougie WII (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might this not be better as a category? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a category is better suited for this task. --soum ^talk 12:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - comment to same effect already left on talk page. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely better as a category. All software list articles should be replaced by categories. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what should be a category instead.--Berig (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1, 2, and 7. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Roxxx

May failure in WP:BIO. Sdrtirs (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced article that doesn't assert notability. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.I feel like a tourist (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well doing an internet search I found that she is a real person and in a lot of movies, but I don't want to go the websites to find thhe info to verify this article. lol I wish there was some sort of censure on wikipedia sometimes. lolDivinediscourse (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources added. BangPass/Bangbros is a major producer of pornography that has direct contact with the models it films.
- Comment - well it's sourced now, but the article still doesn't assert notability. Oh... and if you're citing the same website more than once, please use the "name" attribute in the ref tag, otherwise it looks like there are more sources than there actually are! See my edit. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnan garra 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluminense Football Club Youth Squad

Non-notable youth section pf the professional club. Matthew_hk t c 11:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for youth sports. Punkmorten (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this article is deleted, then we should also delete the youth teams of other clubs such as Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Aston Villa, Spurs, Bolton, Man City, Middlesbrough, Arsenal, Birmingham...and that's just a few from England, God know how many others there are! GiantSnowman (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a useful argument. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm simply saying that those reserve teams are equally unnotable. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content except the squad list, is totally copy from the main article. At least some content for Fluminense youth system, how successful it is , or how they played in Campeonato Brasileiro Sub-20. Matthew_hk t c 17:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. If sources are provided I would say it is notable under WP:Notability.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if I recall correctly, FourFourTwo ran a feature article on Fluminense's youth system, which they claimed was considered one of the best in Brazil. This would have been several months ago though. ugen64 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alborz Net

Not notable ISP company Mahanchian (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Redirect to Fuzzy mathematics Nakon 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy math

Do not confuse with fuzzy logic or Fuzzy Mathematics. Article does not establish the notability of this particular use/misuse of the term. No citation is given for the claimed use in the US "math wars" debate. Single reference is to a misuse of the term by George Bush, which is not by itself notable or encyclopedic. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is actually almost begging to be a dab page. The first term can reasonably be redirect to math wars. The second one doesn't really seem to have been that important a talking point, rather a brief attempt to provide some focus for criticism. (There's no good place to redirect: United States presidential election, 2000 barely mentions the debates, and United States presidential election debates has a section for 2008 but not 2000.) In the middle is a wan attempt to distinguish either term from fuzzy logic and other serious mathematical uses. But maybe this just needs reformatting per WP:DAB. --Dhartung | Talk 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put it in a lockbox. The article is unsourced, uninformative, and doesn't seem to exist except for any other reason than to show that the phrase was used during the 2000 American presidential election. Some vague statements about this being an educational issue seem to be thrown in simply to make this seem like more than a neologism that's now an oldie-ogism Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may not effectively establish this point, but the term has most definitely entered the U.S. vernacular with two meanings unrelated to fuzzy mathematics. The first meaning is as a derogatory term for "Everyday Math" and other fashionable math education curricula that are deemed to be seriously flawed. The second meaning is as a negative characterization of someone else's analysis of quantitative aspects of an economic or public policy issue. I get 186,000 hits on Google for the term "fuzzy math."
- Some examples for sense 1:
  - President Clinton's Mandate for Fuzzy Math, By Lynne V. Cheney, 1997.
  - Fuzzy Math: A Nationwide Epidemic, By Michelle Malkin, Wednesday, November 28, 2007.
  - How Not to Teach Math: New York’s chancellor Klein’s plan doesn’t compute, by Matthew Clavel, City Journal, 7 March 2003
- Some examples for sense 2:
  - Fuzzy math on carbon footprints, USA Today, 30 Jan 2008.
  - The Fuzzy Math of Eco-Accolades, Business Week magazine, 29 Oct 2007.
  - Bush Team's Fuzzy Math: Questions About Medicare Cost, Job Creation & The Deficit, CBS News, Feb. 24, 2004
  - CITY'S FUZZY MATH -- PAYS $63M FOR $7.6M TUTOR DEAL: PROBE, New York Post, February 9, 2007

Expand the article and include more sources, don't delete it. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable subject. Axl (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which subject are you referring to -- the "whole math" debate or the use of the term as a pejorative in politics? TimidGuy (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The political argument (i.e. the latter). Axl (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Create a disambiguation page, as suggested above. Fuzzy math (education), will go to Math wars. Orlady and Axl can create a new article titled Fuzzy math (politics). And Fuzzy math (mathematics) would link to Fuzzy mathematics TimidGuy (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just a combination of two English words. I think that the minimum we need for an encyclopaedia article about this phrase is a source which discusses "fuzzy math" as a phrase, not just a source which uses "fuzzy math". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vaguely a duplicate of math wars and a coatrack for discussions on the 2000 presidential election. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Stifle.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and disambiguate per TimidGuy, with the caveat that Fuzzy math (politics) may not be notable distinct from math wars. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Delete and redirect per WhatamIdoing, even better. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anything notable about this topic is already covered at math wars. Its use a couple of times in 2000 as a political neologism is even less encyclopedic. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KleenupKrew. Good suggestion by TimidGuy Roseapple (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to fuzzy math (politics). Create a new redirect page from fuzzy math to the main meaning, fuzzy mathematics, and put a disambiguation link at the top saying This is not about the concept in politics; for that topic see fuzzy math (politics). Michael Hardy (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fuzzy mathematics with hatnote to Math wars. Merge suitable/non-coatrack-y content to Math wars. Keeping Fuzzy math (politics) separate from Math wars is just asking for a content fork: the politically motivated (mis)use of the term "fuzzy math" is just one skirmish in the math wars of the last 20 years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fuzzy mathematics. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as per consensus, non predijuical at 17yrs old (born 1991) request restoration when(if) the subject meets the notability requirements. Gnan garra 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordon Mutch

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jordon Mutch

Contested prod (removed by original author without explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully pro league, and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If he had played in those cup games, then obviously he would be notable, but he didn't, so he's not. – Pee Jay 09:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reserve player for a Premiership side seems to be notable enough. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it's not. He has to have made an appearance for him to be notable. – PeeJay 19:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Says who? Stifle (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Says both WP:ATHLETE and consensus (i.e. tens of other AfDs on premiership reserves - see this and these. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stifle.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to meet WP:ATHLETE requirement ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and nominator. --Angelo (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Convergence of IAS with GAAP: An Annotated Bibliography

Essay containing personal opinion and book reviews: fails Original research; Synthesis of published material. Ros0709 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: to date, eight similar articles have been created within a short timeframe. There is ongoing discussion about them here. Ros0709 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - we are not a repository for personal book reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hope that there's a website for this kind of material somewhere, but Wikipedia certainly isn't it as it's clearly not encyclopedic. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm really suspecting that all these "Annotated Bibliography" things are by the same editor using sockpuppets, single purpose accounts or a combonation of the two. These all are Personal essays by someone (or multiple someones) using Wikipedia as their publisher of original thought Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you noticed the "About the Author" paragraphs at the bottom of some of these? Clearly a class project at the University of Florida, suggested by an instructor who is unfamiliar with the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. By the way, delete. Deor (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I was right! It is a class project! I don't know many teachers who'd do this (maybe someone who's a novice in the ways of Web 2.0), but this definitely isn't what Wikipedia is for. You can also add page ownership to the list of offenses of these bibliographies. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:NOT multiple offender. There's no obligation to keep this in any form, the author should have known better. WillOakland (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research / synthesis. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, essay, Wikipedia is not free webspace, and so on. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to user space. Like the other "An Annotated Bibliography" articles, these are personal notes. The editor is however apparently familiar with the subjects at hand, and should thus be encouraged to integrate the information from those essays into the appropriate articles. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like the various other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are apparently dumps from a University of Florida course. (cf. "About the author" at the end of this article). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)ps: not likely a multiple offender, but apparently all SPA accounts of students of the same course.[reply]

Delete per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Eastern Governments: An Annotated Bibliography

Essay containing personal opinion and book reviews: fails Original research; Synthesis of published material. Ros0709 (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Unencyclopedic personal essay. Gatoclass (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: to date, eight similar articles have been created within a short timeframe. There is ongoing discussion about them here. Ros0709 (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; article on an non-notable bibliography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NOT multiple offender. There's no obligation to keep this in any form, the author should have known better. WillOakland (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research / synthesis. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, essay, etc. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to user space. Like the other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are personal notes. The editor is however apparently familiar with the subjects at hand, and should thus be encouraged to integrate the information from those essays into the appropriate articles. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like the various other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are apparently dumps from a University of Florida course. (cf. "About the author" at the end of this article). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)ps: not likely a multiple offender, but apparently all SPA accounts of students of the same course.[reply]
Delete per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure this is a real book. Yahel Guhan 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century

Mostly a coatrack article for some librarian named Matthew White. The information here is already in articles like List of events named massacres and List of wars and disasters by death toll and Genocides in history, organized in a far superior manner. Merzbow (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although I just spent the last half an hour trying to clean up this article for NPOV, I voiced my concerns about the page almost two years ago on the article's talk page and I've been considering nominating it for AFD myself. The problem is that it records estimates from only two sources, one of them quite obscure and the other not a reliable source (although he quotes from reliable sources).

I guess it's arguable that this page could be salvaged with a broader range of sources but it's been extant for years now and no-one has bothered, apart from which, we already have pages like List of wars and disasters by death toll which cover much the same ground but which as Merzbow suggests are better organized and better sourced. Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The twentieth century is a legacy of the ability of humanity to engage willingly in acts of warfare and atrocity.". This is someone's essay, no sources, with an equally unsourced Top 40 table of atrocities thrown in at the end to show... to show... I'm not sure what it shows. Did mass killings get invented in the 20th century? Mandsford (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verifiable and consistent with an almanac per Wikipedia:Five pillars. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article containes original research. Wikipedia:Five pillars says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy." If multiple third part support data given then the article can stay.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without a doubt multiple third paty data could be found to support these statistics, but that is an example of Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Original research is not an issue here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If people want to fix it, they can recreate the deleted article with substantially different content. There is no imperative to keep terrible articles around because they technically could be rewritten somehow by somebody someday. The fact that the article is redundant is further argument against its existence. - Merzbow (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is far easier to work with an article already in existence. Per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, the topic undeniably has scholarly value, i.e. potential. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the other three articles I mentioned in the nom didn't exist, this article would have potential, but it's just duplicate coverage; fails "It gives some uniqueness to the topic, even if it is unreferenced." from the essay you link. - Merzbow (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then, I see no reason why we could not redirect it to the most appropriate one without deletion in order to keep the contributor's edit history public. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I usually have no problem with merge/redirect, except there is literally nothing in this article worth saving. Every reliable reference is to an incident already covered in equal/greater detail in the other articles. The mass of the article is stuff about Matthew White, which is throwaway. By this standard, we may as well go and create "Mass deaths and atrocities of the X century" for all 20 centuries, as immediate redirects to... where? - Merzbow (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Article itself states, "It should be noted that White himself makes no claims to have any qualifications in a relevant field". KleenupKrew (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the more reason to improve the article per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT rather than to needlessly delete it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and provide additional sources. This is not OR by a wikipedian, although more reliable sources should be used. This is not a content fork of other articles mentioned above, because the material was organized differently and focused on 20th century.Biophys (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Divinediscourse Divinediscourse (who voted "delete" above) is using a sock account in multiple AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant to the articles List of events named massacres, List of wars and disasters by death toll and Genocides in history. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I indicated above, in the case of redundant articles, we redirect without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the reliably sourced stuff into the other articles. then delete. No need to redirect. Maybe turn into a category. But this article shouldn't stay as is, per nom. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the GFDL, we cannot "merge and delete" (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete); we have to merge and redirect without deleting. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MergeGiovanni33 (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yahel Guhan 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:BASH. Sincerely, Stifle (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since pumpkin cannot resist responding to every comment here, allow me to quote a judicious phrase: In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient. To wit: Delete PERNOM. Eusebeus (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to existing articles, as laid out above. Risk of becoming a WP:POVFORK. No need to redirect, since it is not a likely search term. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to full rigged ship. Merge at will. Pastordavid (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Full Rigged Ships

Inaccurate personal essay, wrong in many places, doesn't even stick to the topic of the title. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know much about the history, but it certainly has a weird layout. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - creator notified. I'm also not sure that many of your reasons are good arguments for deletion. Inaccuracies, tone problems and meandering topic issues can be fixed with rewrites and edits, and from looking at the history the article has been steadily improving from its inception. I'd agree there are issues, the scope could be tightened, the layout altered, etc but is deleting the whole thing the way to go? There's a lot of good factual material here and I don't think it would take much to sort out the issues. Benea (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a solution would be to merge with the Age of sail article, and lose any unsourced, inaccurate and personal essay elements? Benea (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to full rigged ship, which could reasonably be expanded with a History section. Much of the article in question has overlap with ship type articles that we already have, so could be jettisoned without loss. If you get rid of the duplicative stuff there isn't a whole lot left. --Dhartung | Talk 10:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – setting aside all other concerns, the title of the article should be History of full-rigged ships — Bellhalla (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Age of Sail article. While Benea has a good point about deletion grounds, the problem with this article is that beyond gaffes such as unsourced neologisms like "Great Tall Ships," the creator made an astonishing error given the seeming quality of the article: calling schooner rigged ships (inaccurately) "full-rigged." As this article is a history of schooners, it is unsalvageable under the current name. RGTraynor 14:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to full rigged ship, per above. Well-written, well-researched, full of content, and it simply needs to conform to the Wikipedia style of writing. The full-rigged ship article could accomodate the merger. Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Especially if it talked about full-rigged ships at all. Which, in fact, it doesn't. RGTraynor 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that it doesn't even get what it does talk about right in many cases. For instance, in the "Five masted schooners" section (the part I came to this article looking at, because I'd just been improving our article on the Governor Ames, the first five-masted schooner) it confuses things mightily. The David Dows was not a schooner but a barquentine (even though it appears to have often been called a schooner), and the article has its build date wrong as well. It then appears to say that the Inca was the next one and the Ames followed a year later. This is wholly wrong as well; the Ames preceded the Inca by eight years, and the Ames' build date was actually that quoted for the David Dows. Based on this, my personal opinion is that it is likely there is little salvageable in this article; it's haphazard, confusing, wrong in many cases, and while some individual facts in it are sourced, overall it contributes little to the encyclopedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mandsford. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per all above. victor falk 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Jude's Anglican Church

This is another unnotable suburban church without any particular claims Grahame (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's also a blatant copyvio from this page. But it does appear the building is heritage listed, which would make it notable (type in "St Judes" not "St Jude's"). So basically it just needs to be rewritten. Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn—I've rewritten as a short stub based on the heritage material, deleting the copyvio and anyway unencyclopedic material from the church website.--Grahame (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also has a strong link with Melbourne University (like St Barnabas Broadway has with Sydney University). JRG (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G7. Oore (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sıla discography

There is no reason a discography needs its own page. Oore (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's an unneccessary information as all the other artists have. well, as i said before, she's going to record an internatiıonal album and the discography page will evolve as she has more videos, more singles, more extra informations that CAN NOT BE in the singles or albums page. so the page should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I would understand if the artist had a very long list, like that of Madonna, but this artist does not have that. There's no reason you can't merge it into the artist's page. Oore (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article should be merged with her main page. The discography can also be recreated when it's more appropriate. You can save your work by just clicking the edit tab and copying contents. Then you can paste it to a text file or to one of your user pages. Louis Waweru Talk 06:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now into artist page until discography becomes larger. Two singles don't merit their own page at this time. Spell4yr (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Finance Academy

This is pure advertising, although it is unusually well done by the standards of Wikipedia spam (which is why I'm not speedy deleting it outright). Judging from the username, the article was created by the institute's president, giving rise to conflict of interest problems. Despite the article's claims of notability, I can find no substantial coverage by reliable third party sources that would make this institute notable, or the content even verifiable. There are no hits in the Google News archives, for instance. Sandstein (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Response to the above by Gosiamadej:

We respectfully disagree with the above assessment. Swiss Finance Academy is a school of substantially larger size (as measured by student enrolment) than many other schools already listed in Wikipedia, and therefore it would be unfair to delete this entry. The school is also endorsed by a very large number of respectable educational institutions who send their students to the Academy. For example:

UK's Durham Business School: http://www.agora.org.uk/news/newsitem.asp?id=431

Carleton College: http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/career/news/?issue_id=100792&story_id=100804

Trinity College: http://internet2.trincoll.edu/TrinExchange/Default.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=2&aid=8700

University of East London: http://www.uel.ac.uk/employability/latest_news.htm

I believe these qualify as independent verifiable sources. Further, the president of Swiss Finance Academy is also president of the Dartmouth Club of London, an alumni organization representing Dartmouth College in the UK:

http://www.dartmouth.org/clubs/dcle/

The Academy's website in itself is a rich source of information with photos of past programs, participating investment banks, and alumni careers: www.SwissFinanceAcademy.org. While this in itself may not be considered an independent source, it refers to other independent sources, and this is not uncommon for other private schools listed in Wikipedia as well.

I have noted the criticism and made the language of the article more neutral.

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia's primary criterium of notability is that the school must be covered in some detail by reliable sources, such as reviews in respectable publications. The links you provide read like press releases written by your school and reproduced on university websites. Due to the lack of substantial independent coverage, the school does not only appear non-notable, but the content of the article is also not independently verifiable, a much more substantial problem. As DGG says below, the background of the president does not really matter. It also does not matter that other articles may be similarly deficient, because we are not now discussing these. This is covered in some detail at WP:WAX. Sandstein (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a college, or university, or business school. it offers no degrees. it's just a summer program. That the president of the place attended Dartmouth does not necessarily add much to the notability of the school he runs. An article needing such support is not about something notable. DGG (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(duplicate !vote stricken by Jerry). The argument that it should be deleted because it is a summer program does not make sense because Wikipedia has a host of summer camps listed which grant no degrees and are no more notable. Take International Astronomical Youth Camp for example. There is hardly any independent coverage about the camp, and there are dozens of others which offer even less notability. I have looked at Wikipedia entries for dozens of schools, including small private colleges, high schools and summer programs. Vast majority of the content on these pages seems to have been written by the schools themselves and is not independently verifiable. Swiss Finance Academy is a substantial organization in public domain that is even undergoing formal accreditation process so that attending students will be able to receive credit from their home universities towards a degree for the work completed at the Academy. To be fair, the same standards for inclusion across the board should be applied. Gosiamadej (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Advert. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(duplicate !vote stricken by Jerry). The purpose of inclusion is to offer information on the Academy in an encyclopedic manner. All entries in Wikipedia are supposed to be held to the same standards of inclusion or exclusion and administrators have a responsibility that they can not arbitrarily call some 'adverts' while include others that offer no more verifiable notability. Gosiamadej (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, you're wrong. Please read WP:WAX. Sandstein (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(duplicate !vote stricken by Jerry). Swiss Finance Academy has had a growth from approximately 40 students in 2004 to over 200 projected students in 2008. The school expects to continue to grow at this rate. This growth is unusually strong and certainly noteworthy. It shows the strong interest the Academy is attracting in its education niche. http://www.swissfinanceacademy.org/universitiesrepresented.htm.

~~Keep~~(duplicate !vote stricken by Jerry). Google search results in hundreds of hits, which in itself may not make the school notable as per Wikipedia criteria, but still warrants consideration.

~~Keep~~(duplicate !vote stricken by Jerry). The Academy has also held winter schools in London (2006) and Boston (2005), and so it is more than just a summer school. It's a professional school with international presence. http://www.swissfinanceacademy.org/photoalbum3.htm

~~Keep~~(duplicate !vote stricken by Jerry). The Academy also has a rapidly growing alumni community that receives continuing education benefits during the year, such as bootcamps in finance. Most recent one was held in Boston in March 2008. This indicates that the Academy is also a community of professionals, and therefore more than a summer school. http://www.swissfinanceacademy.org/newsandevents.htm

~~Keep~~(duplicate !vote stricken by Jerry). The school's faculty and advisors have meaningful affiliations with highly respected schools and have significant investment banking experience as well. For example, Prasad Jayanti is Chair of Computer Science department at Dartmouth College. http://dfd.dartmouth.edu/directory/show/351. His research and extensive contributions to the field of computer science certainly make him a notable individual. http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/j/Jayanti:Prasad.html. The school is arguably an unusual and promising concept that benefits from investment banking and mathematical expertise of its founders and teachers. http://www.swissfinanceacademy.org/detailedprofiles.htm

~~Keep~~(duplicate !vote stricken by Jerry). Many students who have attended the Academy have received credit from their home universities, just as they would receive if they were to attend another university during an exchange program. This makes the Academy a recognized institute of higher learning and education. Gosiamadej (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable independent coverage affirming this topic's notability. Some of the sources listed on the article are dubious such as the Buisness Weekly link that never actually mentions the Swiss Finance Academy and the source citing wikipedia itself which is a big no no.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a criticism made in carelessness because if you read carefully, the Business Week link in the correct context was not intended to mention Swiss Finance Academy, but the MBA schools that present at Swiss Finance Academy.Gosiamadej (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is rather well-done. In light of that, with the consideration that the article currently fails WP:V in lacking independent sources, might I suggest userifying the article? It's not beyond the pale that such sources could be found down the road. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dianetics Today

I was unable to find any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources which significantly discuss and analyze this work. The book itself is not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard, but rather compiled from his writings, by the Church of Scientology. In a search for the title "Dianetics Today" in three different news archives, 2 of the archives came up with zero hits - and in the third the only results were brief mentions, the majority of which appear to be advertisements placed in those publications by the publisher, Bridge Publications (Scientology publishing corporation). Zero results for the book in an index of book reviews in InfoTrac. In a search in scholarly sources, found a mention in Christian Research Journal in an article by John Weldon - but this is only as a citation and the book is not discussed at all. In summation: no discussion of this book beyond a two-word mention of the title in any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Any information could be merged with the article Dianetics - though I don't think there is much useful sourced info as the Wikipedia article itself at present only contains three references affiliated with the publisher of the work itself. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came to the same conclusion as Cirt. the article discribes in detail a book that is no longer used by scientology or sold anywhere. the only information that gives a outside worldview of this book appears to be WP:OR in the Disaperance section. if a secondary source could be found I agree with Cirt that the information could easily be murged with the Dianetics page...but so far my search didn't turn up anything we can use.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources (and anything Scientological isn't a reliable source for anything, much less for this book) are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and merge any relevent info into L. Ron Hubbard.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable book in the Scientology canon, a compilation/abridgment of earlier writings published once in the mid 1970s and not reprinted since. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrambles

Non-notable game, no sources, only link on talk page leads to picture on personal website, and very little on any combination of searches on Google. Spell4yr (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day... in a British school. NN, lack of sources present or available. —97198 talk 09:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Someone shouts "Scrambles!" and throws something (like sweets or money) into a crowd. The first person to retrieve the item wins it." In emergency rooms, they refer to this game as "trampled". However, it sounds like a great thing for a new bride to yell when she's tossing the bouquet. Mandsford (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The appropriate reasons have been said already. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PILE ON per all above. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Sunday (band)

Band with no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, no reliable sources, just MySpace/PureVolume promo links and link to indie label they have released one LP on. Stormie (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article has no citations, and doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as nn-bio and probably a hoax too. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil jack

Non-notable rapper, in all likelihood a hoax. Google hits are virtually all false positives. Search for Freeish Records only returns Wikipedia. No evidence that this person comes anywhere near meeting WP:MUSIC. No sources provided to verify any of these wild claims. DarkAudit (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could find no references to support article. -Icewedge (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article made me laugh at times, it's obviously about a fake artist. Spell4yr (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 Silly vandalism/hoax, given the total lack of support for any of the claims here (i.e., no proof that "Feerish Records" exists). So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found - sounds like a hoax to me! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School Musical 4 (2nd nomination) was closed only days ago. Punkmorten (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High school musical 4

Non-notable, unreleased movie, not yet in production. ukexpat (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just an announcement, with no production start confirmed, and lots of "probablys". Additionally the article is just a lightly-edited copyvio of the source. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Dhartung | Talk 04:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF; film has not yet enterd production. -Icewedge (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Spell4yr (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smell My Picture

Fails WP:MUSIC - non-notable, unreleased album. ukexpat (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no info exists on the album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to know why the article is being deleted, would like for moderators to wait until sufficient information can be gathered(Lord Weasel (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Just realized- forgot to put Future Album Tag on album.(Lord Weasel (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Pastordavid (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrew's Anglican Church, Lakemba

This is just another unnotable suburban church.Grahame (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources. There doesn't seem to be any basis for notability. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am familiar with this neck of the woods and can't recall anything notable about the church. If the suburb article of Lakemba were bigger it would be in it anyway. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Casliber. I have been bold and have now merged the page to the suburb article. There is no copyvio information so this enables the history to be kept while maintaining the link to the suburb if someone wants it. JRG (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emotronic

AfDs for this article:

The article is about a term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there are no references for notability or verifyability. The article also goes against the manual of style WP:NEO Azazyel (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Emotronic does not exist in any factual context, the term has no cited usages in mainstream media or knowledge. Hypermusic (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because a few bands use the term doesn't mean it's a notable genre. Precious Roy (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although the term does seem to be used somewhat (a google search returns several pages of hits), it is a relatively new term and not widely used in mainstream musical press. Until it is a more widely used and accepted term, deletion is the only option. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and also not varifiable as a music genre or subgenre.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Stifle.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete it, it dosen't have enough backing except for myspace, however if this does gets out and gains popularity I suggest we bring this back, but until then it does not have enough support XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-Town Elite Floorball Club

Even from the article's creator, there are no reliable sources for the existence of this team, and only 4 Google hits total for its existence. Corvus cornix_talk 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this team is purely speculative, it is a long time between now and September. EraserGirl (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this page is considered for deletion, but as the author, I believe that it should be placed under the categories of Floorballor Floorball Teams. For example, the Bondi Rockets Floorball Club in Australia states no references. I do state references, but unfortunately they are from the actual League site, and that is supposedly discouraged by Wikipedia. Their club may have been around longer, but this page states more information. Please consider this before deletion. Unihockeypolska (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The references do not meet our requirements at WP:RS, and I would therefore oppose a merge. Corvus cornix_talk 22:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is obviousky a notable organization but without verifiable independent references the article must be deleted.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for re-creation if and when this becomes notable. Right now it is barely above house league play; the players will get pocket money and barely more. Let's see if the local media care to report it before we take on the job of doing so. Risker (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Both articles have nominations that link directly to this AfD, and neither of the articles were edited following their nomination, so I see no procedural basis for delaying this close - maybe there was a server hiccup of some sort? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Country

Appear to be non-notable albums; no reviews, no chart singles, etc. Judging by the label, these were probably self-released, short-lived albums, and probably fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Both have reviews on All Music Guide, but that isn't necessarily enough to keep the albums, per the reasons of the nominator. Spell4yr (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they just have star ratings on AMG, no real review. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is something wrong with the link to this page from the Stone Country article. I could not get here from their. I had to go to the AFD list to accsess page. That is a major problem and this AFD might have to be done over.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Per Spell4yr.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virgilio Salentes

Seems to fail notability; the only contributor to the article is Mr. Salentes himself. He's the director of one department of one commission; while holding a government position grants a certain amount of notability, we have to stop after a certain point. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed. Unfortunately Mr. Salentes, most of us lead boring little lives. EraserGirl (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, laced with COI ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Davis (comedian)

Davis' claim to notability appears to be that he has appeared in support of international acts and operated a projector for Al Gore. I don't think that this makes him notable. Grahame (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another life of quiet unnoteworthy desperation. EraserGirl (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable in Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.40.116 (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not according to the Australian Google, for which there are only 40 hits [40], once you weed out an eponymous snooker player. Few of the remaining hits seem to be about this fellow. RGTraynor 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May be known in corporate presentation circles in Australia, but that is not enough to establish general notability. Also much of the article seems to be original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to have notability in the wider community (even in Australia!). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's creator is its subject, hence the predominance of original research (ie. own life story) Murtoa (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus puts forward sources and suggests rewrite; nominator withdrew nomination. WilliamH (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Large Hadron Collider

Its a collider that might possibly exist at some undetermined date in the future. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. RogueNinja_talk 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, there don't seem to be any sources on this yet. I was a little worried, since when I first saw the title, I had the "D" and "R" in "Hadron" transposed... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep important idea and project that is well-attested on the web in reliable scientific sources, including Fermilab's web site: [41], [42], [43], [44]. The article understates its importance and the level of active interest surrounding it. JJL (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep. This is an extremely notable idea in particle physics. Numerous sources including New York Times are available to assert notability. Nominator may want to review these sources and consider withdrawal per obvious notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought this was for the LHC. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I almost did the same thing when I saw that wikipedia was going to delete the Nathan Hale article. Turns out it was another nathan hale. In the revolutionary war. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Like the LHC, this is also an extremely notable idea in particle physics. Numerous sources exist to assert notability. Nominator may want to review the available sources and consider withdrawal. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with changes and sources Clearly the VLHC is an extant project, even on the drawing boards. I would argue it is notable as the follow on to the largest particle accelerator in the world. In that case, it would probably be much better if we found some sources that allowed us to use the words "planned" or "projected" instead of "hypothetical". It would also do to show how this accelerator fits into the plan for future particle physics, maybe cross link it to something on the higgs-boson. Either way, it can't be kept as is but the subject itself deserves an article. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with rewrite. This is a very notable idea, but the way it's presented doesn't make that notability clear. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but, like said above, with serious rewrites and sourcing. Spell4yr (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Based on the article, I thought it was just made up. RogueNinja_talk 10:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Institute

Non-notable Irish organisation described in this article as "think-tank", but which actually appears to be (or have been) a membership association without the secretariat usually associated with a think-tank. The article's talk page shows that a few years ago the article was the subject of externally-mobilised edit wars between supporters and critics of the organisation, but that activity seems to have died down, presumably because the FI appears to be defunct (its website is broken and appears to have been abandoned)

The only links or references are either to FI-related sites, apart from a list of links in Freedom Institute#Media. All of those links appear to be to articles written by members of the FI, rather than articles about the FI, and the onky one which even mentions the FI is this article in FrontPageMagazine.com, which gives it one brief mention in paragraph 13.

Without any sign of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, I think that the Freedom institute clearly fails WP:N. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Trivial mentions in the media with insufficient depth or independence. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. I am somewhat politically active in Ireland and have never heard of them. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is something wrong with the link to this page from the Stone Country article. I could not get here from their. I had to go to the AFD list to accsess this page. That is a major problem and this AFD might have to be done over.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Did you mean to post that msg to a different AFD debate? I don't see what "Stone Country" has to do with this article, so I'm not sure what you mean. I checked Freedom Institute, and the tag was there, fully formed, with the link in place in my edit of 18 April, 02:11, which is when this AFD page was created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Stifle.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it has a bit more form.Red Hurley (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Badly needs cleaning up, though. Neıl ☎ 12:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steroid usage amongst Dominican Athletes

Besides strong Biography of Living Persons concerns, this is a point of view essay and original research, not an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix_talk 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - with cleanup. there are other articles which are similiar including List of Major League Baseball players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs , List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report, Doping at the Olympic Games, Pittsburgh drug trials, and List of doping cases in sport This only shows that that occur amongst Dominican Athletes. ChuloConWepa (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — If you have issues with the content, the solution is absolutely not deletion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP is always a grounds for deletion. So is OR. Corvus cornix_talk 02:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - every sentence is cited. how is it OR ? ChuloConWepa (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless we want to also create pages on Steroid usage amongst American athletes, Steroid usage amongst European athletes, etc. Spell4yr (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEANS. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because we don't have those articles doesn't mean we should get rid of the one article covering steroid usage by a particular ethnic group. Create those articles. Monobi (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sport in the Dominican Republic (if it's created...). Punkmorten (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN SashaNein (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion, "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." The least you could do is link them up so newcomers have some chance of making sense of the debate. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fine, fine I'll just do it myself. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the article has ten citations for its about 13 lines, it is not a BLP issue if we simply quote what reliable sources say. OR isn't grounds to delete the whole article, and any BLP concerns are solved by sticking to existing sources in print, as most of the article currently seems to do. Merkin's mum 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiable, but non-notable topic. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Stifle. Although the info might make an interesting part of a larger article on steroid usage among athletes in general.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per kmweber. Monobi (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well-sourced and appears to be of importance. If anything, it is only in need of cleanup, and AfD is NOT cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How does being a Dominican athlete who did steroids make you an encyclopedic topic? Now if any of these people are notable as individuals then they can just have their own article. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Cooper

Don't think that this "senior adviser" to Condaleeza Rice is notable. Apparently he's in charge of her travel arrangements. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources required by WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The individual clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~He exists, but he's not the subject of any reliable sources, at least none that I see. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

The article is chock full of them. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. And this is why we scroll down all the way to the bottom before saying anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the refs provided seem to be reliable (independant of the subject and a reputation for accuracy). And that ref only mentions him in passing - i.e. he hasn't received significat coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And once again I second guess myself... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; only one reference, which is only incidental and trivial coverage. The subject certainly exists, he just isn't notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being substantially undefined and totally arbitrary, so-called "notability" is also irrelevant. Verifiable existence is all that matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you if Wikipedia was striving to be an ideal encyclopedia, but sadly, isn't. Hopefully this can get changed at some point in time, but for the time being, Wikipedia includes only things that are particularly notable; in that regard, it's a specialized encyclopedia where the threshold for inclusion is notability, which while somewhat arbitrary, has clearly defined guidelines on what notability entails. Celarnor ^{Talk to me}

We can change that, and the first step can be taken right here, right now. It's not like we're obligated to follow any of those "guidelines" or "rules" you mention anyway. They're only suggestions--merely descriptions of what has sometimes happened in the past that are totally unbinding on us in the present. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are guidelines and policies are policies. You seem to be refusing to get the point. Yes, the Ignore All Rules policy stands, but it seems like you may be misunderstanding what Ignore All Rules is and what it is not. If you disagree with Wikipedia's notability policies, then propose to change them. Doing otherwise is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disrupting nothing. I'm not advocating we "ignore all rules"--we have no rules to ignore in the first place! There's no need to try to change the "rules", because we're not bound by them in the first place. All we have is our own judgment as to what's in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Make an argument based on that, rather than just quoting a bunch of arbitrary, meaningless, and irrelevant alphabet soup. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Weber is impervious to argument, and seems to think he's joined Wikipedia circa 2004. The community used to have broad support for that idea, but has moved on. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIO. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has tenure in public view, but not notable for his own actions. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as organizer of important diplomatic conferences, and references to show it. DGG (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two references provided do not establish notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, but not per Kurt Weber. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Divinediscourse (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per [45]--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Orangemike, non-admin closure. (That was fast.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew ll of Bellingen

Looks like nonsense. Sesel (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good lord! This looks like a hoax. Renee (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Reads like a nonsensical hoax to me. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Negotiation Institute

I did some searching for this organization, and I honestly couldn't find much beyond directory mentions and the like - nothing significant from second or third party sources. This appears to fail WP:CORP. I don't see the recognition purported in the article. [46] and [47]. The latter appears reliable - but it's just a single source. Also [48]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There also appears to be a WP:COI issue with the article. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable PR. Agree about the COI -- 12:38 am? Who would know that? Renee (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This org was just started a couple of months age. Fails WP:ORG. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The organization clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt, are you being facetious? The issue isn't WP:V. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be, since that's the only relevant, important issue. Nothing else properly matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are garage bands out there who exist, and who can be verified on myspace, do they deserve their own article in spite of WP:MUSIC? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard all of Kurt Weber's endorsements He is being purposefully disruptive of the AfD process in order to make a point. DarkAudit (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not being WP:POINTy, at least not in my book. He just has a different interpretation of notability than most of us do, it seems. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As often as he wanders into AfD with nothing but "it exists" as his rationale, he is being disruptive and pointy. DarkAudit (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketsuekigata (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Minkythecat (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Hoax article, fails WP:CORP going away. Only 22 G-hits, and almost all of them seem to refer to an (equally obscure) eponymous outfit based in New Jersey. Note also that the Google links given above are dated well before the foundation of this purported organization, and that the weblink in the article doesn't work. Finally, I was suspicious too of the timestamp given for the alleged incorporation, and coincidentally researching Massachusetts incorporations has been a part of my job for years. The Massachusetts Secretary of State's office has no record of this outfit. [49] Perhaps Kurt Weber has some information unapparent to the rest of us? RGTraynor 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the fact that the website goes to a domain holding page - a bit clue that's it's a lot of bollocks? --87.114.37.6 (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but not conclusive, given that the outfit was purportedly incorporated only three months ago. RGTraynor 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it was only incorporate in 2008, it claims to have been founded in 2007, highly unlikely that it would not have produced a website in that time period. --87.112.225.5 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP RGTraynor, the Federal ID Number for the ORG is 000969016. I did some research, if you search the massachusetts corporate database you will find it. It is a registered non profit. MassRec (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Odd it's not listed in the database under its actual name, but that's a minor fillip. What is considerably more of a scream is that for a lark, I decided to track down the listed address of this organization, "Suite 4," 19 Westbourne Terrace, in Brookline MA. According to this listing [50], it's a single bedroom condo currently on the market. So, MassRec, what policy grounds are you citing to support a Keep? RGTraynor 04:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: RGTraynor I am not trying to be argumentative, but it is listed as International Negotiation Institute Corporation.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 12:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faronics

Non-notable software company. Dougie WII (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP.--RyRy5 (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. I think it passes WP:CORP now. --Eastmain (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The company clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merely existing doesn't mean that it's suitable for a Wikipedia article. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I exist (at least last time I checked), and yet I don't have a Wikipedia article. Does this mean that I should? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has notability guidelines beyond what merely exists. Are you trying to make a point? Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those so-called "notability guidelines" are (a) substantially undefined, (b) totally arbitrary, and (c) completely irrelevant. Verifiable existence is the only meaningful criterion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a more defensible position if you did verify the existence of organizations before claiming they exist; Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Negotiation_Institute being Exhibit A. RGTraynor 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:CORP. There hasn't been significant third-party coverage. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep publications like Globe and Mail, Macworld are good, as well as information on the kind of product that has been appreciated in the software industry. Details about it being a large company with overseas bases and its product being used in K-12 schools is notable, in my opinion. Vishnava (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kurt Weber's cocky attitude and this article's lack of verifiability. If some relevant 3rd party sources can be found, then improve the article and keep it...maybe...I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Kurt does this all the time; I'm surprised he hasn't been banned already. That should not influence our decisions on this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep this company seems notable enough, but the article needs to be improved.I feel like a tourist (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are sufficient to establish notability. And please, folks let's keep it civil. Kurt is as entitled to his opinions as the rest of us. I don't agree with him at all, but we're not here to talk about Kurt, we're here to discuss the relative notability of this article. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete. The articles mentioned were briefs written about product releases with no additional reporting; even with a staff byline, those sources aren't enough to establish notability for a company that's been in the industry as long as this company says it has. The company claims notability in the educational field, so articles in related trade publications would be acceptable, but I could find none carried online about the company or its software, but if there were articles anywhere, the company would probably be promoting them. Flowanda | Talk 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Flowanda.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALERT per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Divinediscourse the above vote seems to be from a sockpuppet. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maker of popular software. Monobi (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ConsumerBase LLC

Fails WP:CORP. There are 1060 Googehits, but none seem to be from reliable sources. Only five GoogleNews hits, three of which are press releases, and the other two only mention the company. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:N.--RyRy5 (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the founder Lawrence P. Organ, unless he's unnotable as well. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination rationale. Vishnava (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Brewcrewer. It seems this company was bought out and is now a unit of a larger company that is a redlink, Beeblbrox (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Stifle.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please note that per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Divinediscourse the above vote is from a now-blocked sockpuppet. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BLP1E is pretty clear on this, and no arguments have been put forward that suggest Ms Schvarts has any other accomplishments than this one event. Arguments consisting of "article is well-referenced" or (worse) "keep because individual exists" are particularly weak. Neıl ☎ 12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aliza Shvarts

Subject is not sufficiently notable; she's enjoying her "15 minutes" for a story about a college art project (ostensibly she deliberately got pregnant and had abortions; it was a hoax). I don't think this meets the stadard of WP:NOTE. -- Narsil (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is POV, but she is already notable now (major news coverage relating specifically to her). Whether or not she is notable 1 year from now is unknowable and unimportant. Protonk (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article less than four hours ago. The subject has received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources including, but not limited to The Washington Post, Daily Telegraph, National Post, Chicago Tribune, Chronicle of Higher Education, FOXNews and United Press. Major developments in the story (hoax?) are still breaking and information on the individual concerned has yet to appear. I strongly recommend we give an article a chance and recommend that the nominator withdraw. Skomorokh 00:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well-referenced, in contrast to the stuff on the web. Andrew73 (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shvart's publicity may have come for an odd/unusual reason but keeping this article justifies an individual entry for anyone that momentarily is mentioned in multiple news outlets for doing something controversial/important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.204.35 (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:PERNOM your comment does not carry much weight as the nom has not made any argument. The subject clearly meets the basic criteria of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, so in order for anyone to take the delete arguments seriously, you will need to make some sort of exceptional claim. Skomorokh 01:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The nom argument is clearly that this is a well publicized hoax that does not meet notability standards. This entry justifies an entry for every college prank that appeared in a newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.204.35 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment What this entry justifies is entirely irrelevant. You cite notability standards, but our general notability guideline states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Maybe I am missing something, but this subject (including ~~the hoax~~ the later-revealed nature of the art project) clearly meets this general formulation. There are other formulations of notability which might support this articles deletion, but no-one here has cited them. Skomorokh 01:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I don't think WAX applies here, the argument is not that we have deleted other similar articles in the past, instead the argument is that wikipedia is not meant to be a clearing house for publicizing college pranks.
Comment STOP throwing the word hoax around. Let's be VERY clear. A hoax in this context refers to the article itself unless we specifically say it doesn't. In this case, what we mean to say is that the actions of the subject of the article weren't what was originally reported to be the case. However, as she has achieved notability for the report project and now (possibly) discovery of the truth, this article should stay. If the facts bear out that this was a hoax, then the page can be updated to reflect that. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My apologies for using the word "hoax"--I can see how it could be misconstrued! Yes, I did not mean to imply that the article was a hoax--I only meant that the article is about a woman whose only claim to notability is that she (seemingly) perpetrated a hoax. As to whether she actually is sufficiently notable--well, yes, my argument (perhaps made poorly) was that I don't consider a single college art project, with a flurry of day-of articles, to be sufficiently notable to get the artist a bio page. But I recognize that it's a judgement call. I'll be perfectly happy to defer to the Wiki.Consensus, whatever it happens to be. (It might be worth waiting until tomorrow to see if the attention persists at all.) Also, I think it's fair to say that the notoriety is about the art project itself, and about Ms. Shvarts only as the perpetrator of it--so perhaps the "notable" article should be about her project, and Aliza Shvarts should redirect there? -- Narsil (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. I didn't mean to imply that you meant to assert that the article was a hoax. Please accept my apologies if I sounded that way. What I mean is that the word (and words like it) has power all by itself and we should be careful using it. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. We all get our 15 minutes, but that doesn't entitle us to Wikipedia articles. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- whew Thanks--I knew there was a policy that applied, but I couldn't find it. Yes, what he said, WP:BLP1E. -- Narsil (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The individual clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is non-notable. A minor high school prank which after a very short news cycle, won't even be a useful memory. An individual's mere existence is also not a criteria for a WP article. I exist and don't merit one . . as yet. EraserGirl (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is and yes, you do. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My last on this one, I promise, my voice is probably in this one too much (though I have nothing to do with the article per se). I don't think that BLP1E means that articles like this should not exist. I feel it means that articles where the person is tangent to the act shouldn't exist. If the article was about a yale student who was the victim of a crime or was witness to some otherwise notable event, then the line "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted..." applies. As written, the line doesn't apply if the verifiable and notable news coverage focuses on the person as the instigator of the event. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yale University and add a small controversies section to that page. Artist not notable on her own. Spell4yr (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because something is outrageous does not make it encyclopedic.--Doc^g 09:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But extensive coverage in reliable sources does make it notable, and we include articles on things which are notable. "Encyclopedic" is too vague a term to be helpful. Walton^One 10:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As is "notable" - this is newspapers today, and probably chip paper tomorrow. No evidence (yet) of longer term significance, and we are not a newspaper.--Doc^g 13:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge to Yale University or rename as an article on the controversy, depending on amount of material. The incident is notable and has received extensive news coverage, and should not be whitewashed; however, we also need to avoid pseudo-biographies as per WP:BLP1E (a policy which I don't agree with, but it is policy). Walton^One 10:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepgiven the usefulness of this for the anti-abortion movement, it seems just a matter of common sense to realize this will remain a matter of public attention. In this particular case the article being under her name is appropriate. DGG (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "just a matter of common sense to realize this will remain a matter of public attention"^{[citation needed]} - isn't that crystalballery?--Doc^g 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This girl doesn't deserve a wikipedia page for something she made up.w0rd (talk) 09:38, , 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete: A clear failure on WP:BLP1E grounds ... and quite aside from anything else, speculating on the enduring notability of a news story one day old is crystal-ballery at its most speculative. Ravenswing 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I hardly feel that a high school prank deserves an entry in an encyclopedia! Will we putting an article on the 13 year old German boy who was quoted in all the papers about Nasa being wrong over an asteriod hiting earth in 2029,Then was proved wrong!I think not-neither should we entertain this item in the Wikipedia.A hoax is just that a hoax.Hardly worth an entry.Rosenthalenglish (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you should reread the sources. This is a BA thesis at Yale, with authoritative sourcing for validity.

By the way, there are some new developments, not yet added to the article. from the Chronicle: [51] I will admit they make it somewhat less notable.

for events that are recent, yes we have to predict on the basis of judgment what will remain important. Crystal Ball does not refer to how we judge articles, just to the content of articles. If the article said "this will have attention over the years" that sentence certainly should be removed from the article. But we here need to discuss whether the event will be remembered.-- We do not wait to cover things until they are old, just until we can tell that they are notable. DGG (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn hoaxer. —Burn Down Babylon 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OSHII- IT'S NOT OVER YET GUYS! http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24528 - SHVARTS REFUTES YALE'S CLAIM THAT SHE DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING.

Move to 2008 Yale Undergraduate Senior Art Show, as that's really what's notable, and what the article's about. Usual stuff. Wily D 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person hardly merits a wikipedia entry. It may be shocking now, but is it really memorable? I say that the page should be taken down for a few months to a year & then judge whether she merits an entry. As it stands now, I truly fail to see what is really necessary to include here. If we are to include things such as this, why not also include other shocking acts or peoples that are routinely mentioned in the news or others who have done extreme art? She created something shocking & got mentioned in the news. Barring any other occurence such as an attempt at her life, her expulsion, or something similar, there is nothing that merits an entry. We may as well enter in the random performance of a streaker or cowtipper. There really seems to be no difference. (And if it matters, there is a video floating around the internet of Shvarts talking about how the entire thing truly was a hoax & how she fooled everyone & is continuing to do so to gain attention. If I can find it or get someone else to find it, I'll post it.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

I actually found a decent comparison to this young lady. About a year ago there was another art student who went around dressing roadkill in children's clothing to make a statement. While she gained a large amount of publicity & stayed in the media eye for a while, her actual relevance quickly faded after the controversey died down. I have a very strong feeling that after her art performance the controversey will die down. I wouldn't be surprised if she were to admit it was a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep this article. Keepscases (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move somewhere perhaps. She's notable now, it's "crystalballery" to say she won't be at some point. If in a few months nobody cares, then we can delete the article. But right now she gets hundreds of news results and the incident seems to be continuing. --Rividian (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rividian. She's certainly notable right now. -ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per BLP1E and the article's a sort of advertising, gaining attention for someone whose whole notability is perhaps due to attempts to seek it. Merkin's mum 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Let's not confuse newsworthiness, which is fleeting, with notability, which is not. TJRC (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge to Yale University, which has had many more notable things happen in its 300-year history than this. I prefer keep over delete, but not strongly. Mangostar (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I believe merging this or redirecting this article would be the best option. She however does not merit her own biographical page.User:Thegiantpaperpanda 8:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I think that the subject may have become national news primarily due to the sensationalistic or insufficiently researched content of a college newspaper article. That does not seem like a good justification to have an encyclopedia article about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or create an article for the event. Not redirect to Yale. As stated above, only Yale claimed this was a sham (in lieu of using the h-word). Shvarts quickly rebutted, claiming she has several recordings of her activities as well as saved, frozen blood. This seems to be a notable moment in activism, art, the abortion rights movement, and for the uproar it caused, which has been covered by (NY Times, US News and World Report, Slate, AP, FOX News, and a slew of other reliable secondary sources). Perhaps instead, according to WP:BLP1E, an article for the event could be created with a redirect to it from here. —Rhododendrites (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. She made it clear that she cannot prove she was ever pregnant, seems like that short circuits the significance of the performance.

I'd observe that the fact that she cannot prove her pregnancy is part of the point of the performance, yes? Something about ambiguity? 71.244.244.213 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like a contrived justification that was created after the artist was caught in a lie ...

Oh, quite probably - but, bizarrely, it's a statement documented by sources in the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Move to 2008 Yale Undergraduate Senior Art Show. I'd like to add my voice to the people who are saying that this article (if not outright deleted), should be moved to mention only the actual art performance itself under the 2008 Yale Undergraduate Senior Art Show, as that is really the most applicable place for it to be. As it is right now, this article is serving as more of a advertisement than anything else. This person is not noteworth enough to deserve her own page. Merge it under the 2008 YUAS as a newsworthy mention. Other than this publicity stunt, she has done nothing else to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with some of the other comments here. This "event" should be moved to the YUAS. As it stands, it is more of an advertisement than anything else and again she is only known for one stunt that cannot be proven either way. If she has a page anyone who pulls a stunt would be justified in doing so. The only reason hers got so much notoriety is because of the abortion aspect, which again is not proven in either case. Thus, it should not be added to any abortion entries. (Thegiantpaperpanda) 11:59 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Move per Tokyogirl79. It's obviously a notable event, but the individual isn't, so much. 71.244.244.213 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only part of the entire event that's notable is the initial Yale Daily article that mistakenly sensationalized the story. At best this should be merged with an article about menstrual blood art.
Strong keep, her art has a lot of coverage, making her notable. Saying this should be deleted is like claiming that a musician whose first single a number one across the world should be deleted as per WP:BLP1E. Blatant misrepresentation of Wikipedia policies. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Divinediscourse (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are plenty of reliable secondary sources confirming her notability. — brighterorange (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an article on a notable in-progress current event. Shandamoon (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: The subject has had other artwork displayed and exhibited. If we set this most recent whatever-it-is aside, would those other performances or exhibitions been sufficient to show notability? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Wait a month or two and see if this person is deserving of an article after the media furor is over. This AfD is premature. Oore (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the reactions she recieved within 2 days is enough to illustrate the polarized opinions on the subject. highly contraversial, the article is aligned with wikipedia's mission. Candymoan (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of those in favor of keeping this article are confusing notability (which is the criterion by which we determine whether to have an article) with newsworthiness (which is about how much attention the subject is getting, the existence of "polarized opinions," "controversy," "current event" etc.). TJRC (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's got the media enthralled with its twists and turns, will likely be as referenced in the future as the infamous elephant dung painting that was so loathed by Giuliani, and the artist probably has way more up her sleeve. Cjs2111 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) but change its title. There is clearly not enough material there for it to be a biographical entry, and Aliza Shvarts does not seem notable enough to have such an entry anyway. However this particular "performance art" and the controversy it has generated appears to be notable and article worthy. Meowy 01:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the "event" is more notable than the person. She should not have a bio page as per WP:BLP1E. I think the "event" every right but this article as it stands is unnecessary.Thegiantpaperpanda (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has received notable media coverage due to her abortion artwork. It's not been confirmed whether or not it is a hoax. Notability does not expire. Whether anybody will remember her in a year or not is completely irrelevant.Save-Me-Oprah ^(talk) 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To say that this article violates WP:BLP1E is most likely true. To say that WP:IAR overrides WP:BLP1E is patently true. The topic of the article is currently receiving attention from numerous news sources, and has been the subject of lesser such attention repeatedly. The article meets the WP:5P, as well as WP:V,WP:NOTE, and WP:RS, as well as not violating any policies contained within WP:BLP (which both diminish the image of Wikipedia and open it to legal pursuit) While including it serves the encyclopedia no harm, excluding it certainly may. It's true, the argument is straight from the inclusionist playbook -- WP:NOHARM. But looking above, the comments for delete are also generally WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:NOTPAPER comes to mind, and I think the combination of that and all the previous random policy documents should illustrate that it's not sensical to delete a three day old verifiably sourced article on the basis of non-notability. Fuck, did I make any sense at all? WP:WOTTA. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've contacted Shvarts in regard to whether or not she wants there to be an article. If she has no objections then presumably harm arguments won't have much water. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N and WP:BLP1E. Article is about a notable event performed by Ms. Schvarts, not about Ms. Schvarts herself, although her name is the most appropriate title to use for the article. Whether this deed was a "hoax" -- and nothing but gossipy opinion has so far suggested that it was -- is irrelevant, as it has stirred up national attention either way.--Father Goose (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Shvarts affair and revise accordingly. Subject is not notable beyond the confines of the brouhaha raised by her "project". Groupthink (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to be about the affair rather than the person. The project and the things surrounding it are notable, and the article currently reflects that. Might as well move it there rather than delete it all and start from scratch. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to an article about the controversy, which is clearly notable. I'm indifferent about whether the article remains at Aliza Shvarts or at Aliza Schvarts art controversy or something like that, but either way the subject is worth having an article on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Groupthink.Grsz ^talk 06:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." The policy is pretty clear. APK ^{yada yada} 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Changeling: The Dreaming. Done. Neıl ☎ 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nocker

Non-notable fictional race from a role-playing game universe. No references found in search beyond those from original game book sources, fans sites and other wikis. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Changeling: The Dreaming. Not notable and too in-universe. I do see that several otehr races have been broken out for this game; perhaps there is a stylistic argument for that, but I still feel that merge is best. JJL (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this subject has no meaning outside of the particular game. EraserGirl (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.--Berig (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under CSD criterion A7. Non-notable group/record label. Unsourced by third parties. Rudget 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landspeed Records

Delete No assertion of notability. No major (or any) references help this matter either. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manna Music Inc

I was looking through wikipedia the past hour and thought that this article wasnt notable and is a probable copyright violation.--Pookeo9 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep They seem remotely notable, but the article definitely needs to be improved as it does not really cite any third party sources.I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while there are not a lot of good sources on the web, that is not surprising since this company has been out of business since before there was a web. Because of the notability of many of the label's artists, I think it passes WP:BAND. As for it being a copyvio, that is of course a huge problem, but the nom has not explained why they believe it to be one. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first section is indeed a light rewrite of http://www.mannamusicinc.com/mmi.htm, although since that is mostly a series of lists in paragraph form it may just barely pass muster. The second section sounds very similar in tone but I can't find the original. Both may originally stem from album sleeves or some other print source produced by the publisher. The article needs a complete rewrite and should probably be moved to Manna Music with a redirect from Manna Records. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have re-written some of the page. I have also included more references, including info from ASCAP on the song "How Great Thou Art" and showing that Manna Music Inc owns the song. If there is any more that I need to do, please let me know. -- Steveund | (talk) 03:31pm Pacific Time 18, April 2008

Comment

Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle.Divinediscourse (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations, reliable sources and verifiability are all grounds for improving this article. They are not acceptable grounds for deletion per WP:DEL#REASON and WP:BEFORE. I quote from the latter: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. The only relevant issue to consider here as far as I can see is whether the subject is notable. Winning an award for Gospel Publisher of the Year from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers strikes me as being notable enough. --Bardin (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I suggest the issues here are far too complex for an AFD at present, and suggest further discussions on the relevant article talk page. Neıl ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suvalkai Region

First, this is a an unreferenced article under a rarely used name ([52]); this redirect (Suwalki region) is 20 times as popular. It has been suggested in the past that this article should be merged with Sudovia [53] (aka Suwalszczyzna [54]), the target article should be renamed either Suwałki region or remain as Sudovia. Certainly, no evidence has been presented (despite discussion split between both talkpages - Talk:Sudovia and Talk:Suvalkai Region) to support the existence of the two articles on the same region (no refs differentiate between entity A - Suvalkai Region and entity B - Sudovia, together with entity C - Suwalszczyzna and entity D - Suwałki Region - they are simply the different names for the same place (here, for example, is a Polish government site that equates Suwalki Region - a redirect to Suvalkai Region - with Suwalszczyzna, a redirect to Sudovia... Also, note the lack of Lithuanian or Polish interwikis on Suwalkai Region, and extensive interwikis on Sudovia (surely if the Suvalkai Region was important as a separate entity, Lithuanian or Polish wikis would have an article on it). Simply put, one of them severs as a POV fork, with one article being geared towards the Lithuanian POV and another one, towards the Polish POV. In the end it's one and the same region and both POVs should be presented in one article. Hence, I believe that this article should be merged and redirected into Sudovia, which may or may not need to be moved to Suwałki region. Merger of histories would also be useful here, as both articles have been relatively significantly edited in the past. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Suvalkai region with Sudovia. Do include map, table and most of text. greg park avenue (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HUH??? A) AfD is not a place for discussions whether articles should or should not be merged. Therefore this AfD is not proper and should be speedily closed. B) Suvalkai Region or Suwałki Region is a very small border area disputed between Poland and Lithuania - the reason for the Polish-Lithuanian War in 1919 and 1920 and center of the Sejny Uprising. Sudovia is one of the five regions of Lithuania - a concept which is extremely difficult to explain to a non-Lithuanian. Suwalszczyzna is a geographical/cultural/historical region in Poland. Sodovia + Suwalszczyzna = Suwałki Governorate, an administrative division of the Russian Empire which was split along ethnic lines when Poland and Lithuania declared independence in 1918. It's distinction comes from as far as the Sudovians, an extinct Baltic tribe. All these terms talk about different areas in different time periods in different countries. If the article does not do a good job explaining the differences, they should be improved. Confusing terminology is not a reason to merge distinct articles. Renata (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy reopen. A user involved in the discussion should not speedy close it. The article as it stands is unreferenced OR and thus ripe for deletion - though merger I think would be the preferred outcome. AfD is a good place to debate that. Finally, Renata: in literature I have read those terms are used interchangingly. If you want to defend your different definitions, please follow WP:V, provide refs to back them up - preferably one which do discuss them all and compare (democracy may have 200 different definitions but it does not mean we need 200 different articles on the same concept).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And so as to avoid accusations that such a user should not speedy reopen it either, I concur with Piotrus's decision to overturn the closure. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record: opening AfD discussion for a merger is bad enough, but opening it to override the same discussion that takes place on talk:Sudovia and does not go in the direction a user wants, is a gross violation and abuse of WP policies and procedures. Renata (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Renata arguments. Although I'm also convinced, that there are better ways to discuss merger than ultimatum to delete the article or merge.--Lokyz (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be glad we support merging an unreferenced article. It's just your friendly neighbor attitude. Keeping it is out of question until the proper references are provided. greg park avenue (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll let this personal attack go, references now are provided in the language most of the opposing force should understand.--Lokyz (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are not two different articles on Alsace/Elsass. Tymek (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maps:

Suwałki Governorate in yellow - approx. the total territory discussed here
Sudovia in pale orange. One of the five ethnographic regions of Lithuania. Think of it as an administrative subdivision of Lithuania.
Suvalkai Region (sometimes also "Suwałki triangle") in dark purple - territory disputed between Poland and Lithuania in 1918-1939
The same "Suwałki triangle" in the context of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

Don't have map for Suwalszczyzna, but it's pretty much the Suwaŀki Governorate that's now in Poland. My zero Polish knowledge is enough to understand that that article in Polish Wikipedia has nothing to do with Lithuanian Sudovia. And Sudovia has really nothing to do with Poland - it's a region of Lithuania. So it's a mistake to redirect Suwalszczyzna to Sudovia. It should be an article on its own. And then we can discuss whether to merge Suwalszczyzna with Suvalkai Region as those areas do largely overlap. Renata (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where map of Suvalkai Region came from, Soviet sources? I guess so. There are their military bases marked on the map, and only Soviets could consider Poland as still sovereign country back in 1940 which is news to me. Besides, it looks like a pacification map to me, hardly a proof of historical heritage of Suvalkai and its region, but I still vote to include it into Sudovia article as a document of bygone era whoever drew it. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I drew the map based on Lithuanian map published in 2001 (full details in description page). It does not show any specific date and I made it to illustrate a ton of different territorial changes and disputes 1919-1940 (focusing on 1939-1940 period). Soviet bases are there because it was a condition for transferring part of Vilnius Region to Lithuania. And label "Poland" is there to give general context and not to indicate anyone's sovereignty. Renata (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor drawn maps are useful but there are not a valid reference. This still leaves the article pretty unreferenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor drawn maps shows to contributors, who is unfamiliar with situation, simple fact - those regions are different.M.K. (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maps might differ, regions often change its names but these still stay the same though, even if they are not marked on any map for some time. Unlike many streets in post-Soviet era cities including Russia, Poland, Lithuania and in many other ex-republics or ex-satelites, so called regions of Soviet domination - these are always on any map - only their names change. greg park avenue (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article appears to be referenced. Martintg (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide quotations from the references with definitions, as far as I can tell they are nothing but three random mentions - uses of the name - in the context that would pefectly fill the Sudovia region, too. Nobody is denying that Suvalkai Region is a (very rarely) used alternative name for the same region. The fact that we can reference the existence of a term used in a redirect does not mean the redirect should become a POV fork. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Suvalkai Region article into Sudovia, the same region. Visor (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suvalkai Region article into Sudovia, the same region.Art to integration --Lukaszenka (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. It's no good anyway. //Halibu tt 10:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-seems completely unfounded concept. A short paragraph on territorial claims by Lithuanian nationalists will be enough in Suwałki article. All the talk about "concept will be difficult to understand to non-Lithuanians" and ancient "extinct Baltic tribes" convices me of OR and nationalist bent.--Molobo (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brilliant! U.S. Department of state up to date information is nationalist bent.What next? M.K. (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no matter what the usual WP:IDONTLIKEIT suspects say. This term is established in English literature [55] and used by apparently non-Lithuanian authors, while the Polish-POV term [56] is, as so often, promoted by many Polish-named authors, and "Polska Akademia Nauk". -- Matthead Discuß 14:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A remark Matthead, please keep you POV about Poland and its institutions to yourself. Tymek (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Please, such unproductive comments, those definitely would not make your case look better. M.K. (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I read both articles and couldn’t help but noticing that the article Suvalkai Region is written along the old geopolitical lines as if the 1919-1920 dispute never ended. Its existence is based solely on semiotics. We can hope for a fair size comprehensive study with potential for a good article only if it is merged into Sudovia as part of its own history. --Poeticbent talk 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and rename to "Suwałki Region," which best reflects the region's current native name. Nihil novi (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep + gross misuse of WP principles. When the contributor initiates proper merger process on the articles in question and do not find support on talk pages for such POV from different contributors and at the end yet again lobbing for merger on complete improper venue, indeed such behavior could be called, as already noted, as gross violation and abuse of WP policies and procedures nothing more. And till now, despite the Renata's best attempt to demonstrate that those regions are completely different from each with illustrative means, we see volunteers who still insisting that those are the same region. Despite the fact that even U.S. department of State uses Suvalkai region terminology. Curios enough that only Polish contributors insisting on deletion and I can image that after this "nomination" failure we will see yet another attempt, it will be a renaming procedure to "proper" name...M.K. (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, recommending some rewrite to distinguish it as an ethnic region, apart from the various political entities that it belonged to. There are a good number of refs to Suvalkija in Gbooks and Gscholar [57],[58] and some solid refs on plain Google as well [59]. Archeologists use it [60], as well as the US Dept of State. Suvalkai Region vs. Suvalkija, they seem somewhat interchangeable, per this ref [61], but that can be sorted out later. If you look at this last ref, you see how it was divvied up in various ways over its history, but its usage by archeologists and ethnologists argues for a separate entry. Novickas (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the article has been rewritten with an ethnologic focus, so presumably this will go to a naming conflict. Yuck. Some preliminary results:

75 for Suvalkija in Google scholar: [62]
21 for Sudovia in Google scholar: [63]
187 for Suvalkija in GBooks [64]
95 for Sudovia in GBooks [65]
66 for Suvalkai area in Gbooks,[66] it's a little harder here because Suvalkai is also the name of a town, but most of these seem to refer to the area. Novickas (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC). Add link Novickas (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regular Google:

3,100 English pages for suvalkija -wikipedia -wapedia -wiktionary [67]
1,580 English pages for sudovia -wikipedia -wapedia -wiktionary [68] Novickas (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per Poeticbent. Space Cadet (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Novickas summed it up pretty well. --Irpen 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we agree that this is too complex for an AFD? Move it somewhere - all participants will be notified? Novickas (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - AfDs are often a great way to grab people's attention - as we all know, "merge" tags or talk-page posts can often sit for months without anyone caring, but this has a certain urgency about it. Now that attention has been grabbed - a legitimate purpose of AfD, within limits - I think it's time to close this and for all involved parties to head to the talk page and resolve the dispute somehow. Biruitorul (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? AfD is used for grab people's attention??? Deletion policy clearly states that disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page.Moreover suggesting that "merge" tags or talk-page posts can often sit for months without anyone caring is wrong in this case, as merge proposal on article's talk page attracted a lot of contributors (including completely neutral) [69]. The only "problem" was that extensive discussion on article talk page denounce Polish lobbing for merger, quite clearly. Therefore now there was made another attempt to eliminate not handy article to certain POV on this venue. Actually, this "nomination" should go till the end and we will see if new precedent of using RfD will be drown. M.K. (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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