Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 12

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RHaworth (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 12 March 2008 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShamanDhia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 11 March 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ShamanDhia

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

Shameless self-promotion by a digital media artist. Is she notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TRUE! I am SO ashamed for making these mistakes! :) Please don't ban this page address if someone else wants to write about me later. I responded to the notability issue here:(talk)



the Hitochi Princess (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia http://supervert.com/essays/technology/interactive_show - about "The Interactive Show"[reply]

other sources are hyperlinked from my school site: http://dm3519.aisites.com So, for example, the link goes back to me, but the link will display the newspaper article from the Buffalo Evening News. (which I bet I'm not supposed to scan and publish again) I am a "first generation" digital media artist, meaning I started exhibiting in 1992 (very early on - especially for females) and all my stuff is written and published on free sites, because it is in line with my philosophy of digital media art - so if yahoo! is not a reliable source because my Earthwork Artwork is housed there, I'll ignore it or delete it from my page. (?) I think I am a sort of special case, because I am working exclusively on the internet, and ecommerce is an element in my digital media creations, so everything has a donate button on it, it doesn't mean its commercial. I've never received payments from anyone on my so-called commercial sites, and they get very few hits.

http://www.geocities.com/shamandhia/fol.htm
People who mention me do it on blogs, like PIMAtalk (yahoo! group) I am not trying to advertise myself or my projects - I just want to get a legal page up about myself, because I am familiar with the content, and I can provide the information in the correct format when I know what it is.
(and your comments here have helped me understand a lot and have been very helpful so far.)
the Hitochi Princess (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

US Copyright info for Golem: (GOLEM_lives_783k.jpg)
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
Golem.
Type of Work: Visual Material Registration Number / Date: VAu000699904 / 2006-03-02 Title: Golem. Copyright Claimant: Denise Mortillaro, 1969- (Shaman Dhia, pseud.) Date of Creation: 2006 Previous Registration: Appl. describes preexisting material. Basis of Claim: New Matter: adaptation of design & additional artistic work. Copyright Note: Cataloged from appl. only.
Names: Mortillaro, Denise, 1969- Dhia, Shaman, pseud.

161.38.223.246 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

  • Strong Delete per WP:COI, WP:AUTO and WP:N. Neutral The autobiography part is fixed, and I see an assertion of notability, but I can't find too many things concerning her and it still sounds a bit biased.-=Elfin=-341 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above below. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 02:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching this debate for the past five days since I made my initial recommendation on this matter and after reading through everything that has been written from all sides I now feel that I should like to weigh in once more. As I see it, this article, as it stands today, sits right smack on the line of the notability, referencing, and verifiability criteria upon which the proposed deletion largely hangs. The arguement for notability could be made, but would hang only by the slimmest of threads as there is still no independent, secondary source coverage that meets WP:RS standards. A mere breath in either direction could make it a clear keep or delete, but as it stands, the decision as to whether or not this article is up to standards seems to hinge on subjective definitions and semantic hairsplitting. However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so we can, in some cases, sidestep the "rules" or indeed dispense with them altogether. In such marginal cases where policy alone does not give us a satisfactory answer, I think it is incumbent upon us to use more abstract methods of arriving at a descision including the consideration of other criteria not normally considered criteria for deletion. I would therefore suggest that the following be considered:
  • This article could hardly represent a more clear-cut case of conflict of interest with the author of and only major contributor to this article being the subject of the same.
  • Wikipedia is already deluged with similar articles in which an individual writes an article about themselves or their own band, company, product, or thing they just made up at work/school.
  • The deleting of the non-notable or unsalvageable examples of such occupies a significant fraction of the overall deletion process at all levels (speedy, prod, AfD.)
  • The author/subject of this article has stated that she feels that she is "clearly worth a 1 in 2.4 million exception." This statement--which is hard to interpret as anything but conceit and arrogance--would undoubtedly be echoed by all the other author/subjects of the aforementioned articles about themselves, their bands, companies, etc. which are so often (and rightly) deleted.
Therefore, I believe that (lacking a clear direction from policy,) I must still vote for deletion for the simple reason that, in my estimation, Wikipedia is simply better off without it than with it. To allow this inclusion only serves to further encourage any of the millions of people with a marginally notable accomplishment or two, a few free hours, and a healthy dose of self-importance to flood the site with an equal number of self-congratulatory autobiographies and advertisements. I realize that this alone is not sufficient to merit deletion, I simply offer it as a straw that broke the camel's back in addition to the very marginal notability, etc. To that I wish only to add that none of the above is intended as a judgement on the individual who is the subject of the article, only this particular article's fitness for inclusion. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral only hits on Copernic is self published.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right now the whole page reads like a reseme. In fact it could be used as the header for one. The only activity mentioned that may have any notablility is Golem, and there are no secondary sources linking Denise/Shaman Dhia to the project, only primary. With the lack of any public coverage other than that which is drummed up by the creators themselves (including this article), this article dosn't have the notablility to remain in Wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2008 ::)
Take a look at these, please:
EXHIBITS AND PROJECTS
Mar-92 Leading Edge Humanism - Buffalo, NY (Buffalo News; Wednesday, March 18, 1992 p.B9)
Nov-92 The Interactive Show - SoHo NYC (Artforum; November 1992 p.108)
Jul-96 Stations of The Underground Railroad - Lewiston, NY (GUSTO Buffalo Evening News; Friday, July 19, 1996 p.19)

Thank you for below ;) I very much appreciate your comments and guidance.

I would like to try to keep working on this until it reads - the "resume" style was an uninformed attempt to document "notability." This is my first experience creating on wiki, and though I understand the resistance to autobio's, I only learn by doing, and I can only do this page because I am familiar with the content. I will re-write, but I have class now 'till 5

the Hitochi Princess (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

Question do you have links for those articles?Coffeepusher
http://dm3519.aisites.com/DMORTarts.htm (all links/articles are outlined here)


There is a GoogleEarth entry for the UGRR project with 117 downloads.

http://dm3519.aisites.com/gusto.jpg <-- notes The Castellani Museum was at that time the first web site for a museum in western new york and cites me, "Dhia

Mortillaro."
the Hitochi Princess (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

161.38.223.246 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However she does sound like a good teacher, from the few comments I did findCoffeepusher (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Elfin. Neutral - I am interested in seeing how this article develops before taking a stance. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Aside from showing the nadis, this is self-promotion, and Wikipedia does not advertise even the most worthy of persons or products. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ShamanDhia (I responded to some stuff here, as well)the Hitochi Princess (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

http://chsn87.wikidot.com/graduates <-- fact check about HS. Is this a secondary source?

161.38.223.246 (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

  • Comment The page was created by a newcomer on wikipedia, and although it did violate WP:COI and WP:AUTO, I believe that was more a newbie mistake rather than for the wrong reasons. Im going to ignore all rules in saying, can we actually save this article and turn it into a valuble contribution to wikipedia? I would like to use the AFD to improve an article for once, rather than mesuring its heart to the feather of the law. its just a thought.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Coffeepusher, for the vote of confidence  :) I re-wrote part of the page as a narrative, and I'm looking into the format for citing the statements - thanks for the welcome message with all the info - VERY HELPFUL!! I'll be uploading a photo soon, then I'm just going to wait for a verdict about this page.

161.38.223.246 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

Thanks again, I sent the permission letter for my portrait today: forthcoming; also thanks for the listing, David. Do I change the tag at the top of the page for speedy delete or leave it alone (I'm a total newbie in wiki). the Hitochi Princess (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]
From my talk page "I am trying to give away Art through Wiki, which is what it is all about, I think." IMHO shows that there is still a grave lack of understanding about what is required to address the concerns that have been voiced herein. SkierRMH (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: [Ticket#2008031310018777] Permission for Denise Mortillaro portrait from photographer Catrina Genovese

Just got confirmation for my photo. The "resume read" has improved, but needs work still, I am requesting time to work on this as I am new to wiki and even though the page might be deleted regarding coi and auto, because I am familiar with my own work, I can more easily navigate the formatting in wiki and learn about the permissions and references - there's no way I could have done this much on an article that I know little about. I believe CoffeePusher understands correctly my issues qualifying me as a "special case." Other editors are not reading the comments, and take offense to my "crude edits" which are newbie mistakes - like answering in-line to the posts to which I am responding. i would clean up the page and fix it, but I really want to stay with one page at a time, and my time is running out for "ShamanDhia." Honestly, even the mean editors are helping me a lot with this (as did the "bots.")

From RHayworth's talk page
It is still shameless self-promotion. Have some modesty, woman. As I have already said more than once on this page: wait. When you become notable someone will write your bio for you. You have also done very crude edits to the AfD discussion, moving my signature to the end of stuff I did not write. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I was responding in-line to the comments because I was late getting the welcome message, and this is my first experience editing on wiki. Others have neutralized their opinion based on my edits. Thanks for the feedback, and I will try not to be so crude in the future.161.38.223.246 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia 161.38.223.246 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

I think RHayworth is dead wrong, and no matter what I say that is always going to be her answer to me, and skimming content returns that attitude...but there are intelligent people reading and watching... I know for sure because some of my students at school reported what they read about me here, and were very involved in the discussions and also concerned about how I felt about being so "attacked." I explained that the yelling was mostly from auto-responders, not the people. (They see the ! and the colors and they get upset...they don't really read the messages.) They saw the comments and asked what I thought about the whole thing - the experience...they are taught in school that wiki is not a good source of info. They also told me anyone can post anything they want. We had a pretty long dialog about wiki and I don't mind speaking up for this system in college lectures.

ok - here's one for you. I did a website for an artist in 1996 that was hosted on hisname.com. Now another guy with the same name has that domain. I have the code, still. It was published on hisname.com, with a credit in the source code to me. If I put it on my site at work (college), It is considered self-published, or self-referencing...but it would be considered differently if it were hosted or linked differently, and the actual thing is a website. It's sort of the first one I made. http://dm3519.aisites.com/default.htm Check it out - its pretty cool. If I say published on hisname.com in 1996, and people go to hisname.com, they see his name, but that guy is not the guy who owned the site in 1996, and he doesn't know me.

ok - another one - then I want to include my EarthWork, but its sitting on geocities. I really made something out of the Earth elements, and its in NYC. http://www.geocities.com/shamandhia/fol.htm It was posted on a bunch of usergroups newsgroups.. yahoo ones I think PIMAtalk. How would I cite these if I were to include them in my page? How can they be wikiproofed? oh, yeah...someone did write my bio: (you have to look for my realspace data, not the cyberspace stuff) by that I meant you have to use my name, not my nick/id. http://www.artinstitutes.edu/newyork/experts_sec.asp?catid=305 does that count for anything with wiki? Its not on my faculty page.

I'm personally all about free speech and free art, and in the tradition of artists being a little different, and in the spirit of the wiki revolution, I think that at least one auto-bio by a conceptual digital media artist should be tolerated, watched, and formally accepted by the wiki community...because it will be a long time before anyone not in the digital media art realm will be able to understand my work enough to write about it. By deleting this page you are actually censoring progressive work that should be discussed and shared in a reputable cyber-community - that's not the purpose of wiki - ...yes, here I am being shameless again...

I'm only talking about the site I made in 1996 this month, because when I made it, no one knew what the hell computers were, let alone the internet, and art has always been a fringe culture in the US, so I never showed stuff or talked about it, because nobody knew what it was - also the technology available today (and storage space, and video, etc.) makes it possible to share it now...people can understand it and talk about it - but they couldn't do that in 1996. The people who did try to write about my stuff early on got most of the vocabulary and terms wrong, anyway...even Elizabeth merged my nick with my realname -"Dhia Mortillaro." A lot of people do that.

And the underground railroad stations project is huge, even 12 years later...and constantly growing, I put the googleEarth tour of the stations online in 2006, i think - not very many people understand the contributions of the Native American Indians - helping people navigate through the landscape from one station to the next - all the way to Canada. The map I made was a render from a topographical download from NASA and photoshoped to look like niagara falls... that screen became the GoogleEarth tour in 10 years. That's so cool.

Wiki is a kind of Plexus linking ideas and thoughts and threads. If you weave in my thread you're voting to remain progressive and adaptable. If you delete this page you are falling into lock and key karma power struggle stuff. You guys can understand that, but my waiting to be noticed by regular people to earn the honor of being "notable" beyond what I already am is crazy from my perspective because of the kind of artist I am. I can only truly be notable in cyber-communities, which are mostly friends and fans. Not always "reliable."

I'm long winded and sel-reflective tonight because I know I have to fix my bio tomorrow if there is any chance at all to save my page... oh yeah, and I have to figure out the footnote thing still. Thanks for reading, and thanks for the crash course in wiki publishing this week! I really had a lot of fun; and, I know the experience will influence how I approach my work in the future.

24.188.143.21 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

I guess the blog-like entry above should go on the discussion page? A few questions in closing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ShamanDhia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.246 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article is still an artist resume. Intro does not state clearly why this person is notable. This is a notable artist?, art instructor?, psychic medium? References and links show the normal self promotion a working artists does, that is not notability, that is an artist's directory listing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sign of meeting WP:BIO criteria. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DELETE Vanity/ CV page, fails WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:N, etc.... I would list for speedy if not for the references and how detailed it is. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated since above 3 delete votes, msgs left on talk pagesthe Hitochi Princess (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

  • Delete The self-promotion is understandable but this artist is not yet notable. User:ShamanDhia should examine Wikipedia:Autobiography. Aramgar (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong Delete "...my waiting to be noticed by regular people to earn the honor of being notable beyond what I am is crazy from my perspective..." Thus does ShamanDhia continue to blithely demonstrate to us regular people that she considers her exceptional self absolutely worthy of a 1-in-2.4 million exception. And to claim "skimming content" as a basis for our failure to accommodate and consequent philistine intransigence is a bit rich coming from one who has so far given every indication of failing to acquaint herself with the WP that covers requirements for articles. Despite the efforts made to help and Coffeepusher's generous view of your newbie status. Please try to give us something to verifiably source your WP:N - so we can seriously consider your article - before any more self-regarding and frankly getting-on-forWP:BOLLOCKS essays. Plutonium27 (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearly worth a 1 in 2.4 million exception. How exectly do I need to prove it to you? Notability is not the same as poularity. My sources span 15 years and include the us copyright office, Buffalo Evening News, Art Forum Magazine, and the Castellani Museum Newsletter. What cuts it from your perspective? This is not an all inclusive list, just the basics to frame the article and provide evidence of notability, which is not the same as popularity. The issue isn't if I am full of myself or not. The issue is that AdF might be used in some instances to improve an article and keep it as a valuable contribution to wiki. Those able to respond to that idea, are the ones I can work with. Flippant and sarcastic judgements that discourage attempts to improve article quality should be tempered.the Hitochi Princess (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia The edit history shows evidence that I am continually becoming aware of all of your formating and standards. Are there questions as to my N because the sources I submitted are not accepted, or is it that I need more of them, or different kinds of them? Maybe revert if this version reads worse than the earlier one. I haven't even been here a week yet (6th day). I'm not trying to insult anybody. If this version is Bullocks to you, read an earlier version and say if it made progess or not. I know the AUTO is always a valid arguement from your end.the Hitochi Princess (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia "..but always remained focused on the idea of creating income throgh the internet instead of with regular jobs." I said it again in the page "regular" refering to out of the internet. Sorry, I feel badly that I was crude again after I said I would try not to be in the future. the Hitochi Princess (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nomination withdrawn by candidate. Non admin closure. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dozy Vs. Drake - Upon Further Consideration

Dozy Vs. Drake - Upon Further Consideration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN single released on CD-R by an indie band, fails WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks for catching my error, that was supposed to be in CD5 format, not CDR. The band is notable, and this was an official release on Revival Records. All Music Guide has published coverage on this single (here), as well as Trouser Press Magazine (here); therefore, this release is notable enough to keep according to WP:MUSIC.(Fulmerg (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Okay, I listed for AfD mostly based on the CD-R release, since that usually wouldn't fulfill WP:MUSIC. Since that was a typo, and the sources you added show independent coverage, I will withdraw the AfD. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb john clark

Caleb john clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bio created by User:Calebjc. Is he notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think so. The very best I could find was this which still doesn't cut it for me. Also the WP:AUTO issue is a problem. —Moondyne click! 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable Chris! ct 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not only is vanity a potential, but there is the matter of Geogre's Law here: a person with miniscule letters for the name is in trouble. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tack on WP:COI. BusterD (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ozan Girgin a Lawyer

Re Ozan Girgin a Lawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnoted legal case - Interesting and informative perhaps but simply not noted in the wider world. proposed for deletion but declined by the article's creater with the talk page note Just because there was no media interest does not mean this is not an important case. No news articles, scholarly ones, books etc... Fails the notability test and the material is not verifyable to reliable sources Peripitus (Talk) 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. If it isn't deleted, it needs rework - as it stands right now, it's not even made clear what country this happened in. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's obvious that it's speaking about Australia but I find no evidence that he or his case are notable. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   jj137 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Blenkey

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

Despite the previous nomination, this person is not notable. I can find two online references to him - this and this - both of which talk about him in the context of other events, his coverage is not really in relation to the crimes he has been convicted of. Likely violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP1E in addition. One Night In Hackney303 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nothing indicating broader significance of crime or criminal. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We neither track criminals nor advertise when they get out. Only crimes that serve as a "crime of the century" or a cause celebre qualify. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, couple more stories but none are about him on his own. If any evidence can be found that he's notable, I'd change but I don't see it. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 not having a WP:SNOWball's chance. Non-admin closure with db-afd tag on page. --Auto (talk / contribs) 16:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Lake Bonavista, Public Elementary

*Lake Bonavista, Public Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable primary school. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:N (no significant media coverage, seeing that it's an elementary school). -=Elfin=-341 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SHEESH. JJL (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In the unlikely event that this article manages to survive this AfD, it needs to be moved to the school's correct name, Lake Bonavista School. I would also note that the article, despite being about a school, contains errors such as "It also has it's own e-mail", "The groups that they have is ...", and "... we have recived four new teachers". I find this disappointing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I second WP:SHEESH. I suppose this could be an argument for a 'policy review message' --where the first time a person creates an article they get a message about policy with a message "please make sure article conforms to policy". Nephron  T|C 05:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources. --DerRichter (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's also misnamed. How many school boards include asterisks in their school names? Utgard Loki (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Part of the claim to notability appears to be a child's broken arm. Forgive me, but boo hoo, that's not enough to make the school noteworthy. Especially since the source (unsurprisingly) doesn't say anything about it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, this article had previously been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Khan and the current nomination was going the same way. –– Lid(Talk) 11:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant Balmaceda

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

Doesn't assert notability. Fails WP:BIO. No references provided. On the other side Contribs|@ 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kid Icarus. A minor section in that article would be reasonable, if someone more familiar wishes to merge it in. Black Kite 08:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palutena

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

Article has no notability as established through multiple reliable sources, and is just a repetition of plot and character information from Kid Icarus and Smash Bros. Brawl. As such it is duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Icaarus would make more sense than Smash Brother Brawl since the character originated from the Kid Icarus series and not the smash bros series. --76.71.209.55 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Does not show, and I am unable to find, any third-party sources asserting indepedent notability of this person. Black Kite 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel James (Record Producer)

Daniel James (Record Producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is unclear how this record producer is notable enough to warrant an article in his own name. No decent referencing to verify and reads like a promo. Concurrent edit warring at his wife's article suggests a possible COI by one or several SPA's —Moondyne click! 00:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ——Moondyne click! 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If claims in article are all true then it might meet WP:N standards, but there are no sources that meet WP:RS standards so it lacks verifiablilty. I tried a Google search and found nothing that meets WP:RS, though, admittedly, the search was complicated by the fact that Daniel James is a very common name. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I'm not convinced that the work listed on the article asserts sufficient notability. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several references have been added to verify that article is legitimate Laveeto (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one has suggested he's not legit. Its notability we're discussing here. —Moondyne click! 00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, crystall ball concerns and fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangled But True

Tangled But True (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No verifiable info exists on this album; composed mainly of unsourced rumours. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tov Rose

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

Bio of an inspirational speaker. Has been deleted once as nn-bio. Rather spammy article. Is he notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Non-notable, WP:AUTO issues. —Moondyne click! 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The previous deletion was speedy, per WP:CSD#A7, so it is ineligible for G4 deletion. It is as eligible for A7 deletion as it was before, though, as the deleted version differs from this one mainly in having more internal and external links, but has very similar text and very similar lack of reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article contains no WP:RS compliant sources and none were found with Google. Claims are made of marginal notability in the article (TV and radio appearences) but nothing verifiable. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 02:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Coffeepusher (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable, lacks reliable sources, could have deleted it as G4. Oysterguitarist 05:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion or evidence that he's notable TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy DELETE no assertion of notability Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Chiefs

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

Article violates WP:NOT#INFO. The article simply lists chiefs of Punjab, none of whom have their own article. Article does not mention why any of these people are notable. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep don't hate me because I find it WP:USEFUL. JJL (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article clearly states why these people are notable, viz that they had great wealth and influence. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Coffeepusher (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, not that I can imagine what this particular directory might even be good for. These village headmen of the 1860s were not notable for anything other than a mention in—what was effectively—a British (colonial government) directory. As headmen, they would have been influential among their tribe, and they would have represented tribal property, but they almost certainly did not have "great wealth and influence" (emphasis mine) as has been suggested. The sole source of the "Punjab Chiefs" directory is a report of the kind that that were made all the time, and all over the British Empire. These reports of inter-tribal (read inter-familial) relationships/rivalries were made because, if united, local tribes could be a hassle to British interests. To play off one tribe against another, one had to know the relationship between the two. The WP article is just the product of that hum-drum colonial divide-and-conquer politicking, tabulated as a directory, and patently failing to be about Punjab Chiefs. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a very valuable article containing information on key political Punjabi leaders during the period of the British Empire in Punjab. Very historical, very valuable and very notable. However, it needs a good clean up and also if the editor who began article adds more information to it to make it more valuable from the books you used. It has the potential to be a article with great historical and history preservation article. Good work, some of the names are very hard to find due them only being in old books, this info impossible to find on internet. Please add more info from books you used to make it more valuable.--Trv93 (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis article serves the purpose of a reference for historians studying the history of the Punjab during the colonial period of British India .in relation to Punjab chiefs , their family backgrounds , clan , and tribes .

Robert Montgomery (administrator) who commissioned the book, himself served as Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab a position of prime political significance during this historical period . The significance of this article as a reference point to this book and period may also be valued from what one the authors of this book Charles Francis Massy has to say in the preface. :-

“I was asked “ to write a business –like book of reference for District and Administrative Officers , studying brevity and eschewing minute detail .”These instructions I have obeyed at the sacrifice of much interesting matter which came under my hand. The book will not attract the general reader: but it will probably be found useful as one of reference, and every endeavor has been made to secure an accurate record of modern facts affecting the families. “

Having said this I would like to add that there is scope for improvement in every article including this one and as such all pages may be considered work in progress.

The reason cited that for deletion has perplexed me viz “The article simply lists chiefs of Punjab, none of whom have their own article.” If not having an article on Wikipedia is fair ground for deletion , we may as well assume that wikipedia has already touched upon all subjects worthy of inclusion , I find this logic abhorrent .Cheers Intothefire (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a list of quite possibly notable people. It's actually more of a list (perhaps should be renamed), which is allowed to be rather similar to a directory. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all by Splash. (Non-admin closure) --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Calavari

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

Nonnotable artist, but I don't think it would be very A7 or PRODable. A Google search shows very little, and it reads suspiciously like a vanity or even attack page. Although critics are mentioned, the critics in question are not mentioned at all. bibliomaniac15 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

check my references, but critics is maybe a wrong word to describe general people discussion, although if some of them really are critics. And yes, the search result on google didn't gave so many hits, which I became quite surprise about, theirfor I wrote this article about Calavari because I think he is an interesting character, and yes, I have actual meet him in real life and acctualy own a painting made by him, I have put alot of time into this article, although I clearly send out the wrong message, I don't know what vanity mean, but I could probably guess, or the meaning of "attack page". anyway. It's not deletion of this article need, it's the grammar and correction of my bad english language, and even change the word "critics" to something else, I don't know how I could get references to all the critics, they are probably more unknown then Vincent Calavari.

Novell73 (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)novell73[reply]

    • Comment look at WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:BLP. Especially with the comments about things like his sexuality, you need to show that others have commented on him in newspapers, magazines, journals, etc.--that others have taken notice of him and written these things and that they're not solely your opinion. JJL (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please see also the following four articles on his paintings:
I declined speedy deletion requests on two of these as they did not fit the speedy deletion criteria, but if the artist's article is deleted then I think these should be, as well. At the least, unless a lot more sourcing and information can be found for these paintings, I think they should be merged with the artist's article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Okey, I could probably try to find comments about him in magazines, newspapers or journals, I guess I can stop by the local library to search in the archive to see if I could find anything, and if I found something... should I add the source to the reference section? (so you and others could verify) or should I wait?

Novell73 (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)novell73[reply]

    • Comment please do add sources if you have them. JJL (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The current source is an omnibus citation, and the article is highly intrusive, personal, and spurious looking. The artist does not appear to have wide fame or note. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another "artists directory" entry, problem being, Wikipedia is not an artist directory. Primary editor should take note of that. Also, unless this guy has a twin brother, Damion Calavari should be added to this discussion/deletion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The funny thing is that the original version of that article [1] gives Damion a 1984 birthdate and, as reference, a book first published in 1965, as did Vincent's article until the primary editor obviously thought better of it [2].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. By the way, an Amazon online reader search of the English version of Mel Gooding's book (the Swedish translation is listed as a source) yields no references: [3]. The index doesn't list the artist either.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Him, his twin brother Damion, and the paintings too.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as NN. Please don't waste our time with this sort of unreferenced contributions. / Mats Halldin (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuego (Spanish Version)

Fuego (Spanish Version) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Duplicates content found at the Fuego (The Cheetah Girls song) article. Most content has also been removed. PROD was contested by page author. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirects are cheap. --Canley (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect, it's more-or-less that already - just mention who did the Spanish version on the main article and you're done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE --Duennschiss (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Would you care to comment on why? AfD is more than just a vote. Hersfold (t/a/c) 12:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'll comment on why: is the redirect useful? No. Is someone going to be typing in "Fuego (Spanish Version)" in hopes of finding what the redirect would be to? No. Is there some vital reason to preserve the work of the editor in history? No. Is there some part of the present article that is useful or explanatory? No. At present, it has no context and no description or explanation (hence the "it's almost there now" -- almost as empty as a redirect). I cannot see any reason to make this a redirect, and it's clearly a violation of deletion guidelines. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, this is not at all a likely search term and there's no reason for it to be left as a redirect. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Agree that redirect is pointless per the reasons Utgard Loki gives.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_March_12&oldid=197627565"