Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ජපස (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 2 August 2008 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Disclosure Project. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 1 August 3 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. The delete argument was that the article fails WP:CORP, which is refuted by the article having multiple (two) reliable publications having written about the organisation. The opinions to delete did not strongly support the deletion argument, and are overwhelmed by the opinions to keep. Kevin (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Disclosure Project

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

Fails WP:CORP. Not a notable organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The BBC report viewed this group with skepticism which does not establish its notability. More reliable sources would be preferred. Artene50 (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What with the risks to Gary McKinnon right now it's imperative this article be kept. Absolutely imperative. In fact I suggest it might be 'powers that be' that are trying to hush up this whole affair - and that is simply WRONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.201.30.110 (talk • contribs) 08:27, August 3, 2008
  • Merge into Steven M. Greer. There's probably not enough here for a stand-alone article but it's sourced and relevant to him. Reyk YO! 04:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In the public domain. Has a National Press Club source. Strong Google tree [[1]] WP:N Vufors (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Steven M. Greer Timneu22 (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - NPC source, membership includes notable persons. There was a lot more info here before it was cut down. Perhaps more could be added to justify its existence as a stand-alone article. snake666 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Steven M. Greer. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The 'strongest' reasons to delete are pretty weak. The fact that the BBC was skeptical is maybe more reason to keep than delete! - DannyMuse (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whats the problem with the person nominating this? P.S. This is an Australian page, looked after by the Australian editors, how would this U.S. nominator have any idea about the project unless he read it on wiki. 124.180.23.63 (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge to Steven M. Greer Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge (to Steven M. Greer). The caveat on 'merge' is that little of the information in the article appears to be sourcable to the citations -- which appear to be dismissive of the group and cover mainly contrary opinions in the underlying 'controversy' (leaving the group's notability highly questionable). HrafnTalkStalk 11:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Steven M. Greer with rigorous attention to WP:RS. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect that which is supported by WP:RS sources to Steven M. Greer, per Eldereft. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, Merge/Redirect to Steven M. Greer per Eldereft (and others). Shot info (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Troodon (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 5 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.145.230 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep marginaly notable. CENSEI (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Steven M. Greer, or redirect to a sister wiki--bugmee, 7:27 EST, 8 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.199.12 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Vufors Coachuponnow (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Gazimoff 22:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volkan Turgut

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

Completely non-notable individual with the sources not showing any notability either, some just linking to base websites rather than actually sourcing the statements. –– Lid(Talk) 01:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus; (default keep all). Although relisted three times, the discussion has gone stale without any consensus. The deletion policy requires a keep outcome in such a case. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aivars (name)

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

co-nominating the following pages;


Delete nn given names, no evidence that the names are borne by anybody notable (these are a series of nn stubs created at the same time, one already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laimnesis (name)) Mayalld (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, just like the previous one. ww2censor (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Above evidence shows that most of the names are born by people having an article on Wikipedia. Some of the people are notable, some are not. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
move - Agree with Denis tarasov. The page should be created and those names placed into it. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't watching the other articles, Imants is also the name of a famous Latvian chieftain. Before we decide on keep and move, I've noticed there are separate articles on other names, does that mean these are not considered "notable" enough? If it's a notability issue, the proper procedure would be to tag the articles as such, no? (And can people please log in when offering opinions on what to do with articles?) —PētersV (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Especially when [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.146.213.30 they seem to spend most of their time thinking about what articles to delete.) —PētersV (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - There is little information an article on any name can give - the origin and meaning of the name and a list of people who bear that name - such articles are doomed to be stubs and mostly serve as disambiguation pages. Names are significant and tehnicaly meet notability guidelines - they are well known, they have been subjects of published works, for example, Aivars is name of more than 13 000 men living in Latvia, it has a name day and is described in at least one book (according to population register's database [2]). Whether we have many articles on people named Aivars or not is not important as it is not subject of the article - it is just as relevant as asseing notability of Cat by counting how many articles on famous cats we have would be. Now if other pages on names in Wikipedia are left to hapily exist as disambiguation pages I see no reason why these couldn't, as for Sīmanis - it is Latvian variation of Simon could be merged into that article as a variation or redirected there. As for moving to seperate list - there was a list of Latvian women names, which as far as I remember was moved to Wiktionary along with other similar lists ~~Xil (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 11:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okiefromokla questions? 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence the names are notable. Having someone with the name doesn't mean the name is noable. Wikipedia is not a name guide and the existence of other name articles is not a reason for these to continue to exist. Note I'd say the same for a lot of English names, they don't end up at AfD as often. I don't think List of Latvian given names is a solution because how would it be defined. Could any Latvian word be a name? Couldn't any name be used by a Latvian? TravellingCari 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Latvian names in question above, except Sīmanis (Simon), are unique to Latvian culture, language and dates back to times prior to christianisation of the Baltic tribes. To answer your questions: 1. No, not any Latvian word can be a name. The names has roots going seven to eight hundred years back, something similar to the names from the Norse mythology. 2. Any name can be used by a Latvian, but that is not the point. The point is these names are tied to Latvian culture and language through history and mythology. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all One or two notable names doesn't mean the name should get its own article. That's like saying every music group signed to a record deal should have their own article evne if they've never released anything or recorded anything.MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 06:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The names are listed for deletion due to the following reason: "nn given names, no evidence that the names are borne by anybody notable" I provided the evidence and still you think the articles should be deleted? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these names have no place in Wikipedia and it's irrelevant whether someone notable bears the names. Punkmorten (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is irrelevant whether someone notable bears the name, then it is irrelevant to list the articles for deletion since that is the reason for listing the articles for deletion. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there was a recent AD delete for a similar list of Indian names. no reason why this should survive — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiragPatnaik (talk • contribs)
  • Keep all. Part of the greater scheme of Category:Given names that are all inherently notable by the very fact that they are manifest and widespread. There seems be some confusion with editors at this afd whether there is someone notable with these names or not. The claim to notability had nothing to do with notable people having that first name. Otherwise, there would be grounds to make an article about not only the notable persons first name, but also the pair of pants that he wears. Rather, all widely used first names are considered notable, where there are articles about people with that first name and whether there aren't. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


*D elete all per nom. ww2censor (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Duplicate !vote strikethrough by Jerry[reply]

  • Keep all (except perhaps Sīmanis, which can redirect to Simon). Articles on given names are extremely well established as a type and these fall squarely within the established pattern. Latvian names are no less article-worthy than anyone else's. Whether or not the names are used by anyone notable, is totally irrelevant, but it's been demonstrated up above that in fact they are, which puts paid to the nomination as stated. And no-one has come up with any other reason why these articles should be deleted. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, aside from Imants all the article says is "... is a masculine given name." So they make no claim of notability. No sources are provided. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added source and refs to Dzintars, Gatis, Indulis, Laimonis and Modris, plus an assertion of notability (I would need longer for the others). Bearing in mind (1) that these are stubs and by definition require further expansion and (2) that as User:Xil has already pointed out, there is not that much to be done anyway with a name article, might these now make it over the bar? HeartofaDog (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've done the others too, except for Simanis (as above). But as 7 out of the remaining 9 are DAB pages in any case, which don't need either notability or sourcing, this was a pretty time-wasting and trigger-happy nomination. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, changed my opinion, the source provided, "Siliņš, Klāvs, 1990: Latviešu personvārdu vārdnīca. Rīga: Zinātne", suggests that the topic is the subject of scholarly attention. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yippee. However, I've taken the opportunity to re-read WP:DAB - which of course I shd have done before tackling this lot - and have re-tagged them correctly (I hope). If kept they all need to be renamed as follows:

HeartofaDog (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K eep Duplicate !vote strikethrough by Jerry - These were useless oneliners when nominated, but now have some content, sources and an assertion of notability - which is a lot more than the majority of existing Given Name articles have. They are still stubs, ie, they are still very short articles with room for development: the remedy for that is additional work, not deletion. HeartofaDog (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To whichever administrator decides to close this, please DO NOT relist it again. No reason to. Thanks, Wizardman 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under-21 European Football Championships Sponsorship Conflict

Under-21 European Football Championships Sponsorship Conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor local news story about a fast-food chain at a sports arena refusing to bow to McDonalds sponsorship during a tournament a year away. Prod removed. Warrants at best a mention in 2009 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jonestown Carnage

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

Fails WP:BK. No outside reviews/criticism/notice. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andromedans (extraterrestrial)

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

No indication that this a recognized term. The two outside sources: the Guardian and Space.com do not use the term (I believe that the references are being put in there to improperly maintain this article as being notable). Since there are only primary sources, this article is essentially a fringe soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, AfD rationale pretty much says it all. The two solid sources don't actually discuss the ostensible topic, which apparently doesn't exist outside of fringey sources. <eleland/talkedits> 01:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the Guardian reference, which was being misrepresented, as well as a paragraph of unsourced speculation. Still appears to be non-notable OR. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 01:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a little disingenuous to claim space.com as a source, since it only mentions that Alex Collier believes in Andromedans. A better source would be Alex Collier himself, which would then run into notability problems. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Few people would associate the term "andromedans" with this TV series since the term is not actually used there as such very much (the name of the main character in the series, a creature artificially created on Earth using instructions from an alien radio signal, is "Andromeda") and not that many people outside of U.K. are familiar with the TV series anyway. To the extent that the term is actually used in real life, it is by UFO conspiracy theorists and UFO believers in general who think that andromedans are the real thing, that they did in fact visit Earth, etc (the text of the article actually makes it clear). So if one were to redirect this entry anywhere, a more logical target would be something like UFO conspiracy theory or Extraterrestrials or Unidentified flying object or something else along those lines. In this case the usage is sufficiently rare that no redirect is required. Nsk92 (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think this term is in wide use. JIP | Talk 14:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Given that the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, it would be a hassle for anyone from there to come visit us here on Earth, even the "angels". This would work only as an article about fictional references to the galaxy, such as in the Star Trek episode, "By Any Other Name". Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a hoax. QuantumShadow (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY. Article now contains multiple sources. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave windass

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

Unnotable. I really wished it would be speedied but I think it would be suitable to AfD. HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_2&oldid=229338324"