Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 10

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mywikieditor2007 (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 10 September 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 9 September 11 >

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. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian Medical and Dental Association

International Christian Medical and Dental Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a group for doctors and dentists who are Christians. Nice, but not important as far as I can tell. No independent sources. A few thousand ghits, most of which appear to be blogs and social networking sites. External links make up much of the content and without the internal and external links it would be a very short article indeed. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


:Delete Not Notable - loose group of people Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008 Indef-Blocked as sock puppet LegoKontribsTalkM 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Redirect considered, but this is an unlikely search term. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Britney Spears songs

List of Britney Spears songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BSpears already has album/singles pages as well as a discography page. This article fails WP:NOT#IINFO and a lot of this information is unsourced, such as "leaked songs" and "working titles". It also contains a bunch of titles that she supposedly sang at various concerts and a few titles from not-yet-released projects. This artist does not have nearly enough recordings to justify such a list (as opposed to, say, The Beatles). eo (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fog Lane Park

Fog Lane Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to establish the notability of what appears to be an unremarkable public park. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy's girl fetish

Daddy's girl fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, then delete again. I don't even know where to begin. Deltabeignet (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sources. I don't really care what the subject of the article is, but I do care that there are no sources. I ran a few book searches I found nothing on this topic, just some psychology texts on non-sexual family roleplaying therapies. Reliable sources covering this fetish are needed, otherwise there's no evidence this is an encyclopedia article rather than original study of the hobby of random internet people. The former is good, the latter is not what Wikipedia is for. --Rividian (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Ageplay with cleanup Atom (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough sources to even warrant a merge to Ageplay. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know where to begin to rework this article!--Ret.Prof (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the potential literary sources, this can stand on its own. As usual, we will probably have to adapt what we consider as reliable sources to this type of article, just as we do for other subjects that lack representation in the conventional mans of publication, and where most of us are unfamiliar with the actual literature. In my opinion, another in the continued saga of deletions of alternative sexuality. WP, the supposedly contemporary encyclopedia where things not found in maintream lterature are ignored. I care about the representation of the subject field, but not quite enough to go looking myself where i would need to look for sources. DGG (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No RS's, and there is no evidence to suggest that this is an actual fetish rather than merely a vanilla sexual fantasy (that is, an activity that is used for sexual variety rather than an actual preference over all other sexual expressions).
— James Cantor (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite 10:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Maybe we're reading different references here but to my knowledge the first reference does not mention fetishism, and instead it refers to a small number of people experiencing a sensory connection between their navel and their genitals; this is not fetishism - to become sexually aroused when one's genitals are stimulated - the manifestation of a fetish is beyond, or necessarily occurs without physical stimulation of the sexual organs, otherwise sexual pleasure would itself be a fetish. The second reference is to a blog - which is not considered a reliable source of verification. The two external links point to sites for people with an interest in the navel, but only one of those indirectly meets the criteria of what constitutes a fetish (and is a commercial site), with the other more relevant to a fetish for tickling. Redblueball (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We can't be sure for whom it exists though can we? How do we know (without reliable references) that we're not simply writing an article based on the casual whims of three people on one weekend last spring, or the ideas of world's worst entrepreneur? Redblueball (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete . as already said, ANYTHING can be the focus of a fetish. Only very few are recognised specifically by mental health experts, the others just get grouped together. There is nothing here that merits a unique article, rather than addition to the paraphilias list. (The same can be said about most of the similar stubs).Yobmod (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just as you say, a great many things, though not literally everything--at last not so far-- can be used as a fetish, and for those that actually are, then they are notable, if thre are any reasonable sources at all for their use in fiction or reality. What gets classified by mental health experts has nothing much to do with it. DGG (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then, what's the reason for "keeping" the article if the fetish can only be referenced to a single commercial web page? What's stopping my friend and I from writing an article about our forearm fetish, or knuckle fetish? Redblueball (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There exist internet-based interest groups for this sexual interest, but there is little science to suggest that it is different from sexual interests focussed on any other non-reproductive body part. I recommend merging it into partialism.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 03:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As with most of the articles on the fetishes there appears to be an inconsistency over the meaning. It has been said before that anything may be subject to a fetish, but the inconsistency arises over the opinions on the degrees of significance. There are fetishes that are "mere fetishes" - a personal preference akin to a lifestyle choice, and then we have the notable fetishes that are defined by psychological literature, referenced to inanimate objects, and have notability as measured by its popularity within internet groups. From my experience of internet groups a "fetish" may refer to anything at the expense of the realisation that the declared thing of choice may actually be incidental to sexual pleasure, or used like a prop. It is when the object loses its incidental prop-ness that it truly becomes a fetish object. Consequently, I think the "penthouse" reference is probably using "fetish" in its "proppy" sense... use comparable with picking a setting and objects for a porn shoot (properties that are essentially incidental to the human subject). Redblueball (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire fetish

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

Attempts at finding reliable sources have failed, and reliable sources are unlikely to exist given the neologistic, marginal, idiosyncratic and sexual nature of the subject. By the same token; the subject's notability is absent, and therefore the article is unable to avoid the function of "advocacy". Redblueball (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Vampires as a subconscious sexual metaphor is something that has been explored in both pop writing and more serious works, but I'm not sure if that warrants this as a separate article from 'vampire'. 129.89.68.62 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment If vampire fiction does refer to sexuality then there's not much point saying we have something distinct here in a "fetish for vampires", unless behaving like a vampire for sexual arousal is worthy of a article, but this seems akin to supporting an unreferenced article on "kids enjoying pretending to be ghouls". Redblueball (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Yes, the fetish does refer to(pretend or fictional) vampires. But since vampires are intrinsically fictional that's not a reason to delete. DGG (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This fetish (more accurately called a paraphilia) is discussed in more than one high-quality RS (examples follow), but the professional literature calls it "vampirism." I recommend keeping the page, but renaming it to match the RS's.
Vanden Bergh, R. L., & Kelly, J. F. (1964). Vampirism: A review with new observations. Archives of General Psychiatry, 11, 543-547.
Prins, H. (1985). Vampirism—A clinical condition. British Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 666-668.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. henrik•talk 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese profanity

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

This is a list of semi-notable at best obscene phrases. It is entirely unsourced, consists mainly of original research, violates our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, and our Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information policy. Therefore it should be deleted from Wikipedia, with the option of giving it to Wikiquote or Wiktionary proposed to those projects. MBisanz talk 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amuso

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

nn website PongPingKong (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - newsworthy - covered by The Guardian (UK National Newspaper) in this article and industry leading blog Mashable in this article. Nickentrepreneur (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.77.59 (talk) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). I recommend that this article be improved to address the mentioned concerns, and failing that, renomination in a few months would be appropriate. Although already having been relisted, this discussion has failed to attract very much participation, and it is not possible to find clear consensus in it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hill and the Hillbillies

Billy Hill and the Hillbillies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable group. Performs at Disneyland with rotating members, only sources are primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a search through Google News shows there are articles from the Buffalo News, LA Times, Modesto Bee, and Las Vegas Review-Journal behind pay walls but the summaries indicate that they are the primary subjects of the article. As such, reliable sources do appear to be available offline to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply The articles are all behind pay walls, but based on the article title, and the lead sentence in the summary, it's quite clear they are the subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caselex

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

Disputed PROD. Not quite /blatant/ advertising, but pretty damned close. Plus dubious notability. 9Nak (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page updated to counter arguments for deletion. Caselex is a high impact service, see award won in 2008 and classification provided by epractice.eu listed under sources. The alliance that has built and supported the service is substantial, however if you are not into European law it may be hard to grasp the value and contribution of Caselex. However the pure fact that the service is supported by the European Commission represents a ground to include the service. The included sources demonstrate the points made in the article. Ellenbeate (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Caselex has been covered by many reliable sources in many languages, certainly compared to other online law databases: Caselex: 31,300 hits on Google; Lawtel: 14,300 hits; "Scots Law Times": 13,900 hits; JustCite: 5,600 hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.192.220 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC) — 82.156.192.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Case law reporting in Europe, and for the European audience, is in the Stone Age compared to the US. This is partly due to language and cultural barriers, and equally about national publishers not moving to cover international content for their national audience. Not even the leading international publishers covered by Wikipedia have been systematically covering case law on EU law topics like Caselex. This is why the Caselex service is a leading example of how Europe can finally move towards case law reporting, tearing down previous barriers and leading the way as best practice example. The service is notable and the current presentation cannot be seen as a marketing plot.--Nwschk (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)— Nwschk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KeepI have worked for the European Commission (basically the European Government). Its support is only awarded to worthy initiatives that Europe is in need of to move ahead towards its political objectives. Caselex is also supported by the leading associations representing most of the lawyers and judges across Europe. I presume none of these would be interested in distorting the market. So why support to Caselex? Such support is only granted because there is a recognised need from a societal perspective which the private sector, or the market, does not deal with. Why then should it not be included on Wikipedia? To me it is notable, it has demonstrated its support and links to the societal value, and this service is not built on unpublished facts, undocumented research, speculations or wild ideas. Harmonisation of law and Europeanisation of law are key points on the political agenda in Europe. The consortium and its supporters lends sufficient credence to the role Caselex plays in this context.Rodemackertje (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)— Rodemackertje (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have to say that this argument for keeping an article, because the European Commission says so, must be the strangest I have yet encountered. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. 1. I use the service in real-world work, so probably it is notable. :)) 2. Like any startup, it will either pick up or vanish. It does not qualify automatically under notable website guideline. 3. The article has issues that can be edited out (peacocks/weasels), these are not arguments for deletion. 4. Ultimately it's all about twisting general notability rules. Some would say the sources are good, others will object that there are no major independent reports (no reuters or bbc or whatever your favorite newswire). But keep in mind (as the anon already said) that EU legal scene is quite a closed and fragmented realm, nowhere near as public as Mongolia or the United States. NVO (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am unable to find any significant coverage about this company. It may become notable, but it doesn't appear to be right now. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep major international service, descriptive article. The paragraph about the types of law included may not be necessary as an internal linkfarm, but otherwise it is not in the least promotional. The sources are adequate. News reports are not necessary. DGG (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable organization which whilst not likely to be much covered in newspapers is still adequately sourced given its only really been in existence for a year. RMHED (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Perry

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

Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Fails to appear on Google, Google News, and Google Scholar, and the article itself asserts no assertions of notability except that he is the director of an organization. I have found no third-party sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Themfromspace (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitter Quitter Records

Hitter Quitter Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no reliable sources, all the links seem to be blogs Jessi1989 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notability appears to have been clearly proven during the course of the debate by Cunard and further concerns with the article are manageable enough to be resolved by regular editing. (A quick review of it showed that there is nothing really urgent, but some sections resemble company website info to some degree) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyland Software

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

Fails WP:ADS WP:CORP WP:SOFTWARE Delete Shortbrother (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Major COI issues, including one editor involved with the article and the company founder correcting his own name. If we can get an NPOV write-up of this, it can be saved, but in the current form, it's a NPOV nightmare. Nate • (chatter) 09:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I posted the following on Friday on this talk page:Nate, but thought it was more appropriately posted here. Also, welcome Shortbrother to the Wikipedia community, way to be bold with your first contribution.

Hi, I started this article and would like to discuss your reasons for deletion. I understand that I am the primary editor with few exceptions, but can that be an argument since I can't exactly seek out other users to edit it? I am an advocate for NPOV as well; please let me know if I can improve the article. Thanks for your dedication to improving Wikipedia! Kaitlin510 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 00:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmy

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

nn website PongPingKong (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - It's been covered by the Washington Post, the inquirer, etc. 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 00:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan X. Cote

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

Contested prod by anon. A local councillor, nothing more nothing less. The article makes no claims as to meeting WP:BIO and there are no obviously available to sources to establish a claim. Nuttah (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-nuclear future

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

Article gives the views of "energy analysts" who are only anti-nuclear, a clear POV fork. (This is I believe my first afd nomination, so bear with me.) Simesa (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article while merging the various pro/anti-nuclear debates into one section in Nuclear power#Debate on nuclear power. This article represents a fork of that section. Simesa (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive Index

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

Article is a wholesale copyvio from CPA Journal Online, reads like an advert, has no sources (been tagged for a year) and is a generally substandard article. I think its time for it to be put out of its misery. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recockless

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Middle School (San Francisco)

Roosevelt Middle School (San Francisco) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete for non-notability. I would argue that Middle Schools, being there are so many, are inherently non-notable. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software Freedom Day Hong Kong

Software Freedom Day Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Software Freedom Day is notable, celebration by a little team in Hong Kong is not. Timurite (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V.I.L.A: The Chronicles - Marble (film)

V.I.L.A: The Chronicles - Marble (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertisement for film not yet made, by non-notable director. VerticalDrop (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software Freedom Day Hong Kong

Software Freedom Day Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Software Freedom Day is notable, celebration by a little team in Hong Kong is not. Timurite (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medway Mariners

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

My initial hope was to find sources and expand this article, however on further investigation it seems that this baseball team would fail notability guidelines. There is very little in the way of 3rd party sources and it also seems the team is not in the top few tiers of Baseball in the United Kingdom, where the sport is amateur. Improving the article to the required standards seems difficult, but if anyone else can find suitable sources to prove notability I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Basement12 (T.C) 15:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info into Maidstone if unable to Keep the article. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea whether it gets deleted or not, i've added a sentence to Maidstone#Sport but there is little of relevance in the article. Basement12 (T.C) 16:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - after attempting to salvage the article, I couldn't find anything to add that would make it notable. The best source I could find was from the BBC but it was merely a sport review. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (default keep). I recommend that this article be improved to address the mentioned concerns, and failing that, renomination in a few months would be appropriate. Although already having been relisted, this discussion has failed to attract very much participation, and it is not possible to find clear consensus in it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hill and the Hillbillies

Billy Hill and the Hillbillies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable group. Performs at Disneyland with rotating members, only sources are primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a search through Google News shows there are articles from the Buffalo News, LA Times, Modesto Bee, and Las Vegas Review-Journal behind pay walls but the summaries indicate that they are the primary subjects of the article. As such, reliable sources do appear to be available offline to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply The articles are all behind pay walls, but based on the article title, and the lead sentence in the summary, it's quite clear they are the subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted. Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sega X

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

This page has been speedily deleted three times now. Its a yet to be released Sega emulator with no assertion of notability whatsoever. Hopefully this can be deleted and salted to prevent recreation. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I just found My product on wikipedia, as to one of My developers wrote an article 1. without letting me know to give out such info, this is why I vote delete and to be salted until Sega X earns it's notability after December 13th, 2008 when it is released as a final. Please delete this article now or I'll do it myself, not to be rude, but I don't like inside people leaking My projects, as this article could be a start. -CB (For security reasons, I will not give out My full name and IP and I had bad experiences) 16:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.35.238 (talk)


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G DATA AntiVirus

G DATA AntiVirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Similar to SuperAntiSpyware, the software makes no assertion of notability and is nothing more than an advertising vehicle for the company. seicer | talk | contribs 16:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: An encyclopedia should have as much information as possible, especially if the information is correct. But since you have no idea of what an Encyclopedia is, and since the administrators are so stupid to listen to your baby cries, then do what you want and Screw you. [unsigned comment by Emperordarius 03:54, 13 September 2008]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Zero sources, zero verifiability — Coren (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Tour Live

Reality Tour Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced tour. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, or at least insufficient consensus to delete. NawlinWiki 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meow Wars

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

This did somehow manage to survive a previous AfD, mainly, it seems, on the strength of ILIKEIT, IREMEMBERIT, ITSFUNNY, and similar (non)arguments to keep. Unfortunately, while the article is amusing, there's no reliable source material available about this. "Sources" cited include a Google Groups search, alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead (you can't make that one up!), more Google Groups searches, and some personal-recollection essays not published or fact-checked by any reputable publication. I remember this whole thing too. Yes, it was funny, yes it fires up the nostalgia factor a bit, yes, I got a chuckle out of reading it. But it belongs on a net nostalgia website, not Wikipedia, because we're effectively putting together an article completely out of synthesis and interpretation of primary sources here. That's original research and publication of original thought. Since there are no secondary sources, this problem is unfixable, and the article should be deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burgerless burger

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

Not needed, not referenced, and the article it self does not make sense. A burger does not automatically mean meat, a burger is a patty that cane me made from non-meat sources, so saying a burgerless burger and then saying it has a non-meat patty in it does not make sense. Plus there is already Veggie burger, if anything delete the article and merge with that one. Sugarcubez (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No sources have been found, no objection to re-creation once sources are found. TravellingCari 18:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Algoryx Simulation

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

Nonnotable company, doesn't seem to have been acknowledged by reliable independent sources. Also nominating its products AgX Multi Physics and Phun 2D Physics Sandbox. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Obviously all other Physics engines on the planet, and their makers, do have an entry in wikipedia, so this proposed deletion would not be consistent with the overall policy of this topic, unless a total deletion of it planned..

Here's a reference for you:

Phun was shown in the Intel Developer Forum opening forum keynote speech on Aug 19 2008, by Intel corporation chairman of the board, and Algoryx was also referenced. The opening forum keynote was by Intel chairman of the board Craig R. Barrett, and the theme was "Inspiring Innovation". The keynote webcast is available from Intel's IDF pages, and an excerpt is also found at Youtube. Other software displayed was e.g. Google earth, Microsoft Virtual Earth, Photosynth.

I am honest about placing these things in wikipedia, and could certainly have done it under the name Donald Duck, or whatever, but I didn't want to do that, since I have the deepest respect respect for wikipedias integrity, and I have done my best to be neutral. While the entries certainly can be improved, I would appreciate getting concrete constructive criticism for them, rather than deletion which I honestly believe is very unfair. Kenbon (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no third party sources cited in the articles. No suggestion that the topics are notable in any of the articles. Being mentioned at the Intel Developer Forum is a good start, but that's still only one third party source. The existance of many other articles on physics engines is a sign that there are other deletable articles out there, not a sign that this one should be kept. GDallimore (Talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources. We66er (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close, never mind, withdrawing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of progressive rock supergroups

List of progressive rock supergroups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of grunge supergroups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Overly narrow criterion for a list. No really clear definition as to what progressive rock constitutes for the former, no sources for either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ffm 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cap Sante Marina

Cap Sante Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I am willing to userfy for any editor interested in merging some of this content to other articles, provided such editor agrees to maintain GFDL attribution, which would require undeleting the history of this page and referencing it in the edit summary when merging content. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hymers

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

Where to begin? The subject fails the notability criteria (in general as well as WP:ENTERTAINER), verifiability, and WP:NOTINHERITED (in an admittedly weird reading of it maybe). Article has no assertion of importance/significance that I could see and it was tagged for speedy as such (a tag which the author removed in direct contravention of the advice provided in the tag). The show he was involved in may in fact be notable but, that does not confer notability to him, nor has he been covered in any significant form by reliable 3rd party sources Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to The 1940s House, since that appears to be notable and since the references in the article support the program. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the article as it stands, lack of notability of the person seems pretty much beyond doubt in my view. If The 1940s House or something similar existed, I would suggest merging, but the fact is that such an article does not exist and might not meet notability requirements if it did. The show was nominated for a pretty major TV award, but failed to win any - which means it doesn't meet even the secondary criteria in the related Wikipedia:Notability (films) guidelines. Also, no independent, reliable sources are cited in the current article to establish notability of the show. Merely being shown on a major British TV channel is not enough, in my view, if it did not get mentioned by other sources. The current article is also not a great starting point for an article about the show. Based on all that, I disagree with the above suggestion to move the current article since I feel that it's just delaying a valid deletion nomination. GDallimore (Talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly move, per above, but probably delete as non-notable. If he's barely 19, he has time to become notable :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)#[reply]

The reference to the IMDB proves the notability of the programme, and the individual's (Ben Hymers') notability within said programme. The belief is held that such notability is not in contradiction to WP:BIO. Thankyou. Thomwilkinson (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as blatant spam.  – iridescent 18:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ovaflo

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

Contested prod. This went from being a very short entry about non-notable software to almost blatant advertising. TN‑X-Man 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete: presently, this is a copy of four paragraphs of the second page of this. Looks pretty blatant to me. Cliff smith talk 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: It is a copy I give you that, I just wanted to draft something, it's work in progess, I want to describe the concept of meta workflow and have Ovaflo as an example of an implementation. This is my first post, please guide rather than just delete. Gean Boegman.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Wind Tour

Banana Wind Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tours generally aren't notable unless there are sufficient sources. I see none, except for one which includes a rather fishy setlist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of humanoid and synthetic Combine in Half-Life 2

List of humanoid and synthetic Combine in Half-Life 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article also fails both WP:N and WP:NOT just as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combine Forces. See WP:SNOW.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is designed exactly the same way and has exactly the same problems as the former:

List of Combine non-combat technology in Half-Life 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuZemike (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this fails both notability guidelines and verifiability policy in that neither of these two aspects of the Combine have been scrutinised in this level of detail by reliable, secondary sources, and although I imagine The Combine itself has covered by such sources, there's no evidence of independent notability for these spinoffs. Many aspects detail information are of use only to players of the game (hitpoints, weapon damage, entity spawn codes, spawning behaviour, advice on how to defeat enemies, etc), in breach of Wikipedia is not a guide and points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of inappropriate video game content. Likewise, particularly with the technology list, this stuff is pretty indiscriminate, against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, listing things down to a door and a shelf for storing weapons. Large parts of the articles consist of speculation, and it is primarily the result of original research from playing the game. This level of detail is simply not needed, cannot be saved and should be disposed of. Most (ie not the doors and shelves) already exist comfortably and in proper context at Combine Wiki, generally in better forms, so there is no need for a transwiki. -- Sabre (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definitely fails the WP:N guideline, because a search reveals no reliable third-party sources that cover this subject. Also fails WP:V, because "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Also fails WP:VGSCOPE, because we only allow a WP:CONCISEPLOT rather than a detailed list of every weapon/technology/enemy/etc. in the game. Randomran (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you at least keep the information about Citadel in List of Combine non-combat technology in Half-Life 2#The Citadel? Maybe delete the old page and create a Citadel (Half-Life 2)? Unlike the other technology in the article (which can be unnecessary information), It has a big importance in the game and in the game plot. Or maybe it's better to transfer this information about Citadel to City 17? --Kotofei (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree some coverage of it is warranted, although not a separate article, as that would have all the same notability problems here. I'd suggest covering it in Combine (Half-Life) if anywhere, but the information contained on it here is still far too detailed for any encyclopedic coverage of the Citadel. You'd be better off just writing something new about it in either the Combine's article or if you wanted to City 17's article (both articles have their own problems that need to be addressed though, although unlike these two up for AfD they are surmountable) than trying to merge from this version strewn with original research and excessive plot and fictional details. -- Sabre (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect to Combine (Half-Life), as this is far too detailed a series of descriptions to even begin to meet WP:VGSCOPE and related guidelines (esp. WP:WAF). Nifboy (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as overturned non-admin snowball keep of previous AfD. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Smackdown

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

Most of the discussion of the page is written as an advertisement for the website. For example, the first sentence of "Concept" states "The Movie Smackdown concept is based on the premise that to succeed in the Internet age, film reviews need to be more fun and more surprising. They need to be, whenever possible, as entertaining as the films they seek to criticize or praise".

A large chunk of this page has very little to do with the website itself. For example, "Evolution (and Revolution) in Film Criticism" has nothing to do with Move Smackdown itself. Rather, it just comes across as an essay on film criticism in itself.

This was nominated for deletion before (obviously). One of the "Keep Votes" (User:CineTex) is obviously a single-purpose account: all four of his edits deal with Movie Smackdown, and his "Keep" vote was a large impassioned essay. Another "Keep" vote, from User:Walkingbillboard, also made all of his edits on the deletion page. Yet another "Keep" vote, from User:Pusster1 made his sole edit on this page. Another Keep Edit, User:Chickflix made their first edit on this page, and the rest of their edits were on the page for Bryce Zabel, the creator of this website. Did anyone look into this at all when making their consensus? CyberGhostface (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Non-notable athlete/Non-notable seicer | talk | contribs 01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Trew

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

Fails WP:Athlete as he never made an appearance in a professional league. He only played reserves football which doesn't make him notable. Crickettragic (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Failing WP:N is enough reason to delete. If someone in the future wants to rewrite an article, with references to all the books, magazines and articles dedicated to this guy's achievements, they can resubmit the article. As the article stands now, it contains only unverified unreferenced claims that don't show the subject's notability. The current article is not worth keeping.--Lester 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see that you agree with WP:N. For your reference, it does not agree with you, however. It says "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." This means that the onus is on those requesting deletion to search for sources to satisfy WP:N, before declaring that such sources do not exist. I looked quickly for some (Aussie newspaper archives only), and found these:
Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jerry, a few here but when you filter out the false positives, they just confirm that he has been unable to find a permanent team. Has not played. While WP:ATHLETE may not hold to non-athletes, it has been accepted as a general guidelines for non notable athletes to keep Wikipedia from turning into a directory of athletes who have never played. If they're not notable as athletes adn aren't notable under any other guideline, why keep? TravellingCari 02:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is when people misapply the supplemental notability guidelines as if they are an additional filter that subjects must fit through in order for their article to be kept. Prior to my objection above, nobody had even mentioned that they attempted to determine if this subject was notable under the general notability guideline. For all we knew, he might have been a former child sitcom star, or could be a famous chef or architect. All we saw above was "this subject fails WP:Athlete, so delete". Even athletes who have extraordinary lackluster careers can be notable if they are the subject of numerous non-trivial mentions in reliable independent sources. I was just trying to steer this discussion toward relevant argumentation that would make closing easier. I don;t care whether this article is deleted or not; I just care that the process is executed properly. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example, read over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nimo (3rd nomination). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May be just me, but I would find it frustrating to have to jump through 40 hoops if an article asserted notability in one field, we'll use athlete here, that at AfD I'd have to judge it not on that but also all the other notability guidelines. Where's the limit. If he had published one article, would we have to judge him against WP:PROF as well? Hell in this case the article itself essentially said he wasn't notable. There are athletes who are notable, amateur ones who receive press coverage, minor leagues who are notable for s omething else. But there was no evidence he was notable. And yes I googled before I !voted. I didn't link the lack of results because the article itself said exactly why it wasn't notable. That's just my .02 TravellingCari 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may indeed find it frustrating, but also understand that for the people who wrote the article, it may be equally frustrating. The answer to your question is absolutely no, there is no limit as to how many notability guidelines may be applied to a given subject, and none of them bypass WP:N. If a former child star becomes an opera-singing, tennis-playing lottery winner and discovers the cure to gallstones while teaching chemistry at the local university and writes it in his memoirs right after writing a screenplay for a Jaws Meets the Jetsons movie, we would indeed have alot of work to do to prove he was non-notable. Perhaps the reason would be that such an interesting person is actually notable. Think of it this way: each notability guideline is a filter, by which an article can be saved from the deletion process. all of these filters are additive. It only has to be saved by one such filter to avoid being flushed away. Just about the only area in wikipedia where we have difficulty with this is soccer-related articles. It seems the wikiproject members for soccer-related articles want to define their own notability criteria that is more deletionsist in nature, and they seem to want their local consensus to overrride the community consensus on the deletion process. And perhaps this is not a bad thing. But the way to do that would be to make a proposal in WP:N to make WPAthlete and/or WP:Footy an exception to the rule. I seriously doubt such a proosal would pass, but I am sure that to try to force such a policy change through local consensus one AfD at a time is not the way to do it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jerry is just arguing for the sake of arguing, he certainly isn't being helpful. Luke Trew has seen more clubs than Tiger Woods and even when he wasn't signed up by a fully professional club he did nothing of note. Seeing as he wasn't a child sitcom star or a famous chef, which I knew before nominating him, I see no reason not to have him deleted. In future though, before I nominate someone, I will be sure investigate whether or not they were the Mayor of Paris on the 0.0000005% chance that he or she was. Crickettragic (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nay, nay, my fine wikipedian friend, I am not arguing for argument sake. I am defending process. We do not want wikipedia to become a place where editors cluster in masses voting to delete that which they do not like. We don't want wikipedia to swell and shrink to ebb and tide of recent sentiment. We have laid down some simple lasting processes which ensure that a fair cautious approach is used to consider deletion of content. That process requires for target pages to be deleted on the basis of notability, that an honest effort be made to accurately determine if the subject is notable. This means that we first scrutinize articles by WP:N, if the subject proves to be notable by WP:N, then whammo! We are done. If it fails WP:N, or is a marginal case, then we can look to see if a one or more specific supplemental notability guideline(s) are applicable to the subject. If so, and if the subject passes such a supplemental guideline, then whammo! We are done. Far too often, especially for some reason in soccer-related articles, we find participants want to throw WP:N out, and go straight to WP:Athlete or WP:Footy, and if the subject fails it, kill the article immediately and ignore any reference to WP:N, as if supplemental guidelines somehow trump WP:N. In this discussion, NOBODY even mentioned any cursory attempt to determine if the subject passed WP:N. I was duty-bound, as a prospective closing administrator, to comment on that deficiency and relist the discussion. So please do not impune my motives and ignore that the arguments you and others made were not effective in reaching an acceptable consensus to close this discussion. Please instead do your due diligence and search google and newspaper archives, and see if this subject is notable and comment on your findings. That is the only way this discussion can be correctly closed. IMHO. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly fails the inclusion guidelines of WP:ATHLETE, WP:BIO & WP:N, lacking significant coverage and never having competed in a fully professional league (I PRODded him initially). --AmaltheaTalk 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - his most notable act appears to being characterised by the West Australian as a notoriously poor recruit for West Coast. Most references appear to detail his playing time in the Diamond Valley Football League, several rungs below AFL, suggesting he falls quite short of meeting notability guidelines. Murtoa (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon-X

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

The subject of the article, the web comic Pokémon-X, doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an article. The page is badly written, and badly laid out, as well as most of the work being done by the comic's author themselves (as user ReconDye). It does not have a neutral point of view, nor any cited sources. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respiration of human / mammal

AfDs for this article:
Respiration of human / mammal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant to respiratory system, which is of significantly higher quality. Title is unlikely search term, so keeping it as a redirect seems useless. Huon (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman, Texas bus accident

Sherman, Texas bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable bus accident. This article was written shortly after the accident when it was still in the news but Wikipedia is not a news source and it should have been deleted back then. Creating articles about every road accident that gets into the news would not be a worthwhile venture for Wikipedia. And who, outside of the area that it happened in, actually remembers this accident now? Notability is not temporary. Millionsandbillions (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it still looks like a WP:NOTNEWS violation to me. The debate on seatbelts in buses has been on and off for decades so I can't agree that this is anymore significant than other crashes based on that alone. The overseas news coverage doesn't make it anymore notable than news coverage in the states of americans dieing in a bus crash in germany would make that crash notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As well, the fallout from the crash has already begun. See these stories: Feds nix new bus company licenses after crash. Sherman crash angers those fighting for bus reforms. Activists say belts, special glass can save lives; industry defends standards --Eastmain (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And note that the crash was covered by media outside Texas, including the International Herald Tribune and The Times of India. --Eastmain (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not done relooking but, I have to say that just because news is covered internationally doesn't mean that it still isn't news in wikipedia sense. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Traffic accidents involving buses tend to produce greater carnage than those involving cars, but only because more people are in the vehicle. This measn that they get greater press coverage, as sensational. Neverthelss, this seems a very ordinary accident, and does not need an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep. Refers to safety issues involving buses. If there a magic number when a road/rail/ship/air accident becomes notable because of the number of deaths, 17 may be enough? PS: I was asked to write the article. Hugo999 (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastman's logic re NTSB involvement. A similar rationale has been used for aviation accidents/incidents i.e. that involvement of a major investigative agency with attendant (likely) impact on regulation or operation brings notability. Reviewing the NTSB's list of Highway Accident Reports and Briefs suggests, by looking at the second numeral, which is the annual report index, that they rarely produce more than 3 or 4 formal Highway Accident reports per year (for some reason they went crazy in 2002, with 19, but many are similar and there may have been a 'campaign' to cover many similar accident causes that year.) That would tend to suggest, if this accident generates an NTSB report, that it's one of the 5 most important US highway accidents this year, certainly grounds for notability I think. In fact, I note the NTSB has announced a public hearing; not even all aircraft accidents get one of these. That usually signifies high profile and likelihood of significant recommendations.MadScot666 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still haven't finished but, other stuff needs deleting isn't a valid rationale to keep. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know that there are some who will point out that bus crashes happen all over the world, and that not all of those get their own article. On the other hand, there is no reason to delete an article about a fatal bus accident in Africa or South America. If 17 people were killed in an airplane crash, it would be considered notable, and I see no difference here. Mandsford (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) the difference is in rarity of occurance (just as a beginning). I fail to see what point you are trying to make with the reference to accidents in Africa or South America? Would you mind elaborating?Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I think it is relevant to the point about recentism (which I think, by the way, is a good point!). Would this be notable if an editor hadn't seen the breaking news coverage of the accident on CNN, and news items that night on NBC? I'm saying that if someone were to create an article about a bus accident that happened on March 5, 1998, in Colombo, Sri Lanka, where 32 people died, it would be entitled to the same deference as a bus accident that happened in 2008 in Texas where 17 people were killed. I can guarantee that the Texas accident received significantly more coverage on CNN, however. Looking back over your original point, you raise recentism, which is most certainly relevant. People see something on TV and want to create an article about it. In the case of a recent event, we have to ask the question-- regardless of when or where this happened, would it be notable? My opinion is that any accident which has a significant number of deaths is notable, regardless of when or where it happened. I know, "significant" is something that's a matter of opinion. And before anyone calls me on it, I know that Sri Lanka is not in Africa or South America. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sri Lanka incident was a terrorist bus bombing campaign. How can you compare the two? [7] Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political corpse

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

Neologisms have no place in Wikipedia. Martintg (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it has fewer Google hits than "random terms" Martintg (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Blum

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

nominating for deletion as the subject appears to be non-notable and non-verifibable in accordance with the policies and guidelines of the project. The WP:COI creator and main contributor removed the PROD tag and all the tags for improvement without addressing the issues and according to[this] has doubts himself whether he is actually sufficiently notable for inclusion Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Although the delete votes did not far exceed the keeps, none of the Keep rationales provided a convincing policy justification. For instance, one of the keep voters said "There is a huge universe created by Angie Sage in the Septimus Heap series and fans are willing to read all the information." Factors that Keep voters should have addressed were WP:PLOT, which is part of policy, and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which is an essay but has a lot of influence. The Times Online article cited in the AfD discussion clearly shows that the Septimus Heap series of books is notable, and it is well-justified to have an article on the series, which is what Septimus Heap is. But there was no evidence provided that the Septimus Heap *character* has been addressed and commented on by reliable sources. I am willing to userfy the article for anyone who believes they will be able to add sources and improve the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Septimus Heap (character)

Septimus Heap (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article on a fictional character that does note cite notability UltraMagnus (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Snorri Snorrelssen because it is unreferenced and fails both Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (under Elements of fiction) and Wikipedia:Plot. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a little late to add new articles to this nom. Meanwhile, Marcia Overstrand and Jenna Heap have been created, and I think it's best to open a new AfD for the three of them. – sgeureka t•c 09:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with sgeureka's reasoning and boldly followed his suggestion, moving Snorri Snorrelssen to WP:Articles for deletion/Jenna Heap with the other newly created pages with exactly the same problems. Huon (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have already put in a !vote above. – sgeureka t•c 08:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's good now, so why delete? --RoryReloaded (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is good now? Double-voting is never accepted, and the article hasn't improved at all (no sources or analysis were added). – sgeureka t•c 09:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually look, he has triple voted....--UltraMagnus (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't even notice... – sgeureka t•c 09:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fullmetal Fantasy

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

Appears to be a Fancruft/Vanity article, unsourced since July 2007, few pages link to the article, mostly Wikiproject links. I don't think this has gotten to the notability level of the Troops fanfilm as well. 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for being "Old School," but I saw nothing in the general deletion instructions that disallowed noting "vanity" in the nomination. Skipping that point, I did normal Google and Yahoo searches: this was one result. It would seem that unless the film as about Iron Kingdoms or Final Fantasy (oddly enough, it was via a mistype in a Final Fantasy search on Wikipedia that showed me this article), it has already failed the Notability guideline as I don't see any "verifiable" third party articles (or is buried so far into the search results or under an obscure search parameter/words). It also appears to be a pure fancruft article given the tone of the article and the Trivia section. Also, it was tagged in July 2007; there is a line when you can only give so much before deletion is the only option. Seeing it's September 2008, whomever had an interest in the article had a good year to clean it up with an extra 2 months thrown in for being unoticed. I tried to at least attempt to salvage the article, but as stated above, to meet current Wikipedia guidelines, it failed.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. —Reedy 09:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burwell village college

Burwell village college (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Some essay by a (presumably) former student. Not notable,at least not in this state. Fireaxe888 (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 04:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of beloniform fishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested (a year and a half ago). Page is just a gallery, which violates WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a photograph gallery. seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual gallery of Adelidae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This page is nothing but a collection of images, which violates WP:NOT. If it would be expanded to be truly an identification guide (which hasn't been done in its first year of existence), then it would still violate WP:NOT a how-to guide, and it would be at the wrong title anyway. The page as it stands is not an article and can (with its current title) never be an acceptable wikipedia page. Also nominated:

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 07:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual gallery of toucans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This page is nothing but a collection of images, which violates WP:NOT. If it would be expanded to be truly an identification guide (which hasn't been done in its first year of existence), then it would still violate WP:NOT a how-to guide, and it would be at the wrong title anyway. The page as it stands is not an article and can (with its current title) never be an acceptable wikipedia page. Fram (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - This deletion request was closed as "The result of the debate was keep, as no consensus. Closing comments: This really should have been taken to the policy level for wider community input, since this effort may be used to set standards by setting a precedent." While not directly relating to the present types of galleries, I think the comment about "This really should have been taken to the policy level for wider community input" should be taken into account in closing this AfD. AfD is not the place to establish policy level decisions. -- Suntag ☼ 14:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Toucans as a gallery.- There are bird field guide books largely composed of photos with a little text. I have one on clouds that is just photos and names with an index table of information. A gallery of images of nature similar to bird field guide books would seem encyclopedic. Wikipedia does include galleries in articles. See, for example, the twenty eight images in Breast#GalleryNot work safe images. There even is an edit button that produces

    <gallery> Image:Example.jpg|Caption1 Image:Example.jpg|Caption2 </gallery>


    for an article. It would been nice to see discussion on why articles similar to nature field guide books cannot be maintained in Wikipedia. I think that images can convey much more information than some lists we have. However, in view of the prior attempts to establish article galleries as a format for articles (see above), this issue may be better resolved by a wider policy discussion. -- Suntag ☼ 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Suntag suggests. A very reasonable way to deal with this for the time being. DGG (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the toucan article should not be cluttered with a gallery; toucon photos should be put in their commons category and the existing link to the commons category is all that is required.--Grahame (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commons is not an encyclopedia. A toucan gallery on Commons should not be an encyclopedic overview of toucan species; it should be a gallery of the best toucan pictures we have, and it should link toucan species galleries and categories, not to Wikipedia articles about species. Nikola (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Suntag. Though moving to commons with a link from Toucan may be another viable option. This is clearly a valuable, even necessary project but the topic is a poor fit for a stand-alone article. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. —-- Suntag ☼ 06:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merge obviously not an article, so can't stand alone. Shouldn't be dumped as a gallery at Toucan either. I've just excised a trivia section from that article, and a massive gallery is just pictorial trivia. The images are available for appropriate use in articles, they don't have to be in use all the time. jimfbleak (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't merge. Galleries of species is what Wiki Commons is for. Wikipedia is for articles. Now the article on toucans could be improved, no doubt, and when I have time I will get round to it (after I have finished woodpecker and swallow and new zealand wren and gull and auk and tern and god knows how many articles. And when I do a representative number of images of the family can be included - and it isn't a big family. To touch on previous comments - a separate article that lists every species is appropriate in families of multiple species but it would be unfeasable to have a visual list of the tyrant flycatchers., for example. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I presume they are all on commons? Selected images can and I am sure will be spread about the various toucan pages. So I suppose that is merge bits. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. There is Wikimedia Commons for this page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose, list, gallery comment. WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies to "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." This page has some text. I think the general desire here is to have a Wikipedia article designed to help the reader distinguish between similar objects of natural occurrence such as wildlife (plants and animals) and minerals. As part of a publicly-accessible Internet guide, Wikipedia gallery articles are. I believe, to be a browsable picture guide organized by family, color, shape, location or other descriptors to help users distinguish animals, plants, and minerals. I think the a main question is how little text is enough? When you factor in the significant information conveyed by images of naturally occuring objects organized by family, color, shape, location, prehaps less text is needed for such an article than other forms of Wikipedia articles (list, prose). Before deleting this aritlce, there should be consensus on whether this article contains enough text or a likelihood that it will contain enough text in the future. This AfD should not serve as a place to establish policy and then implement that very same policy.
What text? Text means coherent prose, not labels for images or groups of images? A commons gallery is the appropriate location, Wikipedia isn't a how-to, Any proper prose should be added to Toucan itself. jimfbleak (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this solves the problem. If you are going to have one image per species, you might as well do it at Toucan, since there aren't an impossible number of species (see Nuthatch). If you have all the images in the List of toucan species, you are back with a gallery. jimfbleak (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. BJTalk 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acland Hospital

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

Hospitals are no different from organizations they must pass WP:CORP. Nothing I can find anywhere gives this hospital notability. It can not be called notable because of those it was founded in memory of because notability is not inherited. (Although a mention in that persons bio may be appropriate. Being sold also does not create notability....I mean you have to be kidding! benjicharlton (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete AS per my nomination... benjicharlton (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep reviewed my discussion based on the new information added to the article
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Clearly not notable as a hospital. (Changed vote below.) Not convincingly notable as Acland Hospital building. A list of works by the architect belongs in and is in the article on the architect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Looking at google books, there seems to be an entry on it on p. 6 of The Encyclopedia of Oxford, ed. Christopher Hibbert, London: Macmillan 1988, ISBN 033339917X (snippet only, so I don't know what it says). Mention in Pevsner (given in the article) also strongly suggests notability. As to famous people having stayed there (more candidates in Google books), the comparison with visits to a pizzeria is not appropriate (a serious biography will say what hospital its subject stayed at, not every restaurant they ate at). N p holmes (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Notable (1) a building by a notable architect (2) a nursing home that operated for 125 years. Even though it is now defunct, the article is worth keeping for its historic content. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable building, notable architect, notable history, sourced. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to sufficient rationale provided by Bduke (talk · contribs) and Peterkingiron (talk · contribs), it was relatively simple to find independent secondary sources which give significant discussion of the subject of this article. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? I hope you don't mind me asking. Brilliantine (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As "Sarah Acland Home for Nurses" - in Bristol Times And Mirror, April 19, 1897.
Canada Free Press, November 16, 2004.
Some additional book sources "Sarah Acland Home for Nurses", "Acland Hospital", "Acland Nursing Home", "Acland Home", hospital
The fact that there is an entry in The Encyclopedia of Oxford is also compelling.
There is enough info there in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to establish notability, not to mention also enough to get this article up to WP:GA status. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Encyclopedia entry I would say is not at all compelling. It has thousands and thousands of entries for what is essentially a pretty small city. Pretty much every street would be notable by that standard. I am still looking at the other sources, as Google Books is being very slow today. Brilliantine (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good, keep us posted. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is unimportant now, I hope, since Cirt has updated the article, but Brilliantine's description of The Oxford Encyclopaedia is at odds with what the review in The Oxford Review of Education 16 (1990), 126 says "The Encyclopaedia comprises some 1000 entries" (accessible via JSTOR). Since these are on institutions, places and people as well as buildings, it ought not to be surprising that Oxford has more than a thousand notable subjects. N p holmes (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ningauble (talk · contribs), most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well done Cirt, thank you for all your interesting research. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks, it was a fun little expansion project. It was most interesting in the course of research to learn that George V of the United Kingdom officially opened the new buildings of the facility on May 12, 1879. Cirt (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I extended the debate for a second time to allow time for editors requested to look at this from WP:WPVA. This has happened and they have endorsed the deletion, as failing wikipedia's requirements regarding a combination of WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Please note this is not a vote, but a debate related to policy interpreted by informed consensus. Editors whose only or main contributions to the encylopedia are to this debate or the article concerned carry very little weight compared with established editors. See also WP:OSE. Ty 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis St. Lewis

Louis St. Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist. Google search returns only local mentions, no national coverage or other reason for WP:N. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete this entry: Artist is represented in multiple museum collections, and has been reviewed numerous times by national and international publications over the last 20 years. His collaboration with Sean Yseult of White Zombie and his activities as a openly gay artist in the South ad to his distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.242.120 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Wikipedia does not have listings on very notable museums such as the New Orleans Museum of Art ( which happens to have the largest collection of Faberge in America), the Morris Museum, The Masur museum etc. seems to run contrary to being an informative encyclopedia. While I can certainly understand your needing entries on Paris Hilton, I would certainly hope that in the end, your purpose would be to include a myriad of institutions and people of note and merit....such as Louis St.Lewis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"Keep'", google search clearly shows articles and reviews throughout the country for this artist as well as museum references on askart.com The artist has many google hits as well being an arts writer. Just how many museums are needed for an artist to be worthy of wikipedia..3--5 - 50? It's ludicrous to think that a well known and well collected artist is being considered for deletion because of the lack of arts knowledge by some on this site. What is Ironic is the fact that there are pages upon pages for murder victims from obscure crimes here on wiki, yet this artist's importance is up for debate. If wiki cares to be considered having any integrity whatsoever, they truly need to rethink their mission. I personally think that what this entry needs is someone capable of editing, placing references, and registered facts about this artist, as opposed to just deleting the entire entry. What is especially striking to me is that many of the editors requesting deletion for this entry have as their own entries a series of shopping malls and other obviously " notable" organizations. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia deals with what is, not what ought to be. LSL is not notable; the claim that there are other non-notable articles in the encyclopedia does not change this. DeGawl (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"' updated references and links have been added to this listing, which more than adequately supports the artist's notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 19:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Delete (see below) for now. There should be more links to on-line refs, as most are recent, but Florence Biennale and other claims suggest notability. Most coverage is in the US South, but not everyone has to live in New York. This article should have been added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts from the start - nominator please do this. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ty 08:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the lack of accessible and reliable sources required to show verifiability. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [8]. Didn't see that source in the article so it might be a new one. Very borderline. Neutral for me. Brilliantine (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm in agreement with Johnbod. While being a "featured artist" at the Toronto International Art Fair means little (trust me), appearing at the Florence Biennale is significant. Coverage in Artpapers is also useful. There seems to be enough coverage to establish some notability. There are problems with the article: no inline citations for some of the claims (i.e. Warhol's comment) and way too much name-dropping for my liking. But this can be fixed. I suggest erring on "keep" for this one. freshacconci talktalk 14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On reflection, I'm now leaning towards delete per CactusWriter and Huon. There are too many unanswered questions and unsourced claims. That much of this may be a self-promotional stunt is troubling. Unless these issues are addressed and corrected, I say delete. freshacconci talktalk 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or gut it. The problem with the article is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. It includes large amounts of un-sourced material -- no in-line citations -- and much of it of dubious nature. The entire early life portion appears to be an exaggeration, if not a parody, and is unsupported by any evidence. The person's own account only states that, as a teenager, he was in high school (not a child genius at the university) and he was expelled from the North Carolina School of Arts. The AP article states this person is a self-promoter and he admits making up stories about himself. (for example: on his website here] he implies that he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford from 1980 to 1981 - check the bottom of the page.) What can be sourced is that he has written an art column for a monthly city magazine for four years, his artwork is exhibited for sale at several North Carolina galleries and he is known in North Carolina as a pop artist. (The Ogden Museum does not presently list him among the artists in their collection. And commercial galleries which are trying to sell artwork and post bios based on unchecked information from the artist do no qualify as independent sources.) Unfortunately, this article might pass notability criteria, however without any veriable information it is difficult to judge. The article will need to be deleted or, at the very least, gutted. — CactusWriter | needles 14:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After the unsigned IP address posted their response below, I noticed that the subject had altered his web page from [9] to [10], removing the Rhodes Scholar bs that I mentioned above. This continuing pattern of deception is problematic. — CactusWriter | needles 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I find the problem with this entry to be the fact that several of the statements deal with publications that predate google or being able to be easily referenced. The artist does indeed seem to be represented by galleries in California ( under the name Louis St.Louis) as well as New Orleans and the Carolina's and to possess a extensive exhibition record and notable critical references such as ArtForum and ArtPapers. With half of his career in the 80's and early 90's it comes as no surprise that the facts are hard to pin down. The reference to the Ogden Museum not having the artist listed on it's website should not neccissarily negate his being in the collection, and it seems that this article is at the least in need of paring down and cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Second vote. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find the lack of results whenever one tries to find confirmation for something mentioned in the article extremely troubling. The Ogden Museum has an "art search" option that, according to their website, searches all their collections, but it doesn't find anything on Louis St. Lewis. Or take the "51st. annual DAG juried art contest" where he's supposed to have been ranked first. The only relevant Google hit for the search terms "DAG", "art contest" and "St Lewis" is - his Wikipedia article. I wasn't even able to find out whether there is a "DAG juried art contest", an odd lack of information for an event supposed to be held for more than half a century. For the Florence Biennale I'd like to see a reliable secondary source before I beleive it. Their online list of artists goes back to 1997, and St Lewis is not on that list. Huon (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do get that his work was auctioned by the Ogden at a fundraiser (home page search), but that is not much help re notability. What is the link to the Florence list? Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's this [11]. Appallingly designed and I'm not sure what it's authority is, but probably legit. No sign of the artist.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment"' -What"s is most appalling is the fact that if a fact can't be found in 30 seconds via google then it doesn't exist. This artist has been recognized since the mid 80's and documented by reliable sources since then. BUT because they can't be referenced in 2 seconds via google, the rats come out in droves. aaaaawhat is Wiki's viewpoint on references that have been removed from websites after a few years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
In which year did the artist participate in the Florence Biennale?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Biennale website. I did find that auction at Ogden mentioning St. Lewis, but the article explicitly claims his works are part of their collection. I just mailed the registrar of Ogden; he should know if the Art Search is correct or if they do have some work of St. Lewis. Huon (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find those pages before - he's not there under LE LO SA or ST, so changing to delete above; we seem to have a merry prankster on our hands. What a lot of Lopez's though. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Ogden registrar replied that their collection records are not complete online; St. Lewis is represented in the Ogden collection by two paintings, Self-Portrait as a Dandy and The Prophecy. Now we'd only need a reliable source, something I found extremely difficult to obtain when St. Lewis is concerned. Huon (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - do people think this, & the other (smaller?) museum collections mentioned in the article are enough for notability? Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking on that, Huon. It provides a confirmation to a point all of us felt could be made -- the subject would probably pass the criteria for notability. However, we are still left with the original problem of WP:SOURCES and verifiability. WP:BLP guidelines are clear that biographies of living persons must err on the side of caution. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. (emphasis is WP's); and ...badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted. (emphasis is mine). The discovery of so much dubious, if not blatantly false, information about St. Lewis is still problematic. So the question remains: What improves WP's standing more -- the inclusion of a North Carolina contemporary artist of minor notability, or the lack of a self-promoter with an apparent desire to create his own mythology? If kept, the article needs to be gutted, and then will need to be carefully watched to prevent further BLP violations. — CactusWriter | needles 19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Additional information and links have been provided to this entry. Anyone who has referenced the askart.com website surely has noticed that they contact the museums before listing them for each artist. It could have saved the time of people contacting the registrar at the Ogden Museum. As you can see from the added sources, there are many references to St. Lewis' notability over the years, and even an Ebay listing where they are selling a page from ARTFORUM magazine featuring St.Lewis' portrait of Andy Warhol from 1988. The fact that many of the periodicals listed have not kept articles online for reference certainly doesn't take away from this artists notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Ok, now something seems kinda crazy to me. Some folks here seem to be saying that the artist is running a fast one and doing so without use of verifiable information. But lets look at facts. The links show that the artist is indeed in multiple museums ( even though some people might find southern museums objectionable, they are still very much museums). The entry states that the artist works with Sean Yseult of White Zombie, and has statements by Andre Leon Talley, both of these are documented. The entry shows comments by Warhol about St.Lewis and there is a link to the mint Museum of Art that actually links an article where St. Lewis talks about meeting Warho back in the day....not to mention a link on EBAY where they are selling a page from the International Magazine ARTFORUM featuring an ad by St.Lewis about Warhol. Now I don't know if people here are aware or not, but regular local artists don't get full page ads in ARTFORUM, not now and not in the 1980's when each page would have cost $ 5000 +. I think this is an example of someone caught between print and internet, where verifying is more difficult than most because of the lack of online information. I also note that someone mentioned above were the other museums "smaller" museums. Anyone who has ever dealt with the New Orleans Museum of Art, knows that it is a major institution that rivals any museum in the country. St.Lewis' inclusion is worthy and distinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - by now there are lots of external links, but I remain unimpressed. A collection of articles written by St. Lewis, passing mentions, and gallery blurbs. The low points are a forum entry, a Wiki, and Spanish eBay. Those are supposed to be the best secondary sources on a notable artist? I think not. All those "sources" don't even once mention his date of birth, for example. Huon (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many problems here, too vague, too ambiguous. Clarify, simplify and come back when you're ready...all this explanation should not be necessary. The article should speak for itself, or don't bother. Modernist (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Modernist expresses my view on this exactly. Also, the IP states that the artist falls between print and the internet. They're referring to the difficulty of finding references, but I think it also applies to the artist's notability: enough for some mentions in the local press, but not enough for the kind of mainstream newspapers and specialist art magazines that have a large presence on the internet. Notability isn't decided by Google, but since a 47 year old artist can't really be described as pre-internet the lack of online sources is a real problem. Especially because we're talking about someone who's claim to notability is slight to begin with. Reluctant delete as having a minor claim to notability per WP:CREATIVE, but one that can't be verified with reliable third-party sources.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WOW, has anyone really looked at the entries that the people crying delete have as their own entries? Shopping malls, backwoods Scottish artists with one show, never seen films, and very recherche biographies. Give me a break, this artist may be most notably a Southern Art, but the South is Larger than the UK, France, and Germany combined. All of this smacks of snobbish behavior. This artist is obviously in several museums, yet for some reason, they aren't the RIGHT museums to please some of the critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia's page on notability for creative individuals clearly states that if an artist is in the collection of several museum then he is indeed notable. And since some of the people here have been kind enough to contact museum to check on the validity of that claim, that objection is now totally mute, and that is the end of the story. Someone commented that the museums were " smaller" museums, but smaller in whose estimation? an art curator? A critic? All of the museums that hold work by St.Lewis are respected organizations, and as much as people may object to the artist being of regional importance, the fact remains that he is indeed notable in his field.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Bäckman

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

This article fails the notability criteria, with references to four primary sources (all Estonian press publications) reporting the same single event, which was an interview where he makes some controversial assertion about Estonia while promoting his unpublished book "The Bronze Soldier". Martintg (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you follow the ISBN links in the article you can easily see that the books are not self-published. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
self-published sources have a specific meaning on WP, it has nothing much to do with following the ISBN numbers but only if the books are written by the guy or are those written about the guy, that what determines WP:Notability. Currently the only secondary sources about the guy provided in the article, once more, are about his statement in printed press regarding possible future of Republic of Estonia. There are no secondary published sources provided that would cover his notability otherwise. Since Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources, once more, the notability of the guy according to the sources provided lies only on his statement about "10 years left for Estonia"--Termer (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, 17-year-old fanfic author, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Brown (author)

Jamie Brown (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article beginning "a little-known..." is never good notability-wise. This would appear to be a writer of fan fiction - straight under our notability radar. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 08:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Any subsequent discussion about merging to Champagne socialist, chattering classes, liberal elite, etc is not something for AFD to determine, although it strikes me as a good idea worth exploring. fish&karate 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chardonnay socialist

Chardonnay socialist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauche caviar‎

This is an unsourced dictionary definition, and as we all know Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merger was proposed to Liberal elite but the consensus was to oppose the merger - see Talk:Liberal elite#Multi mergers to this article (Discussion closed - No changes being made) --Matilda talk 05:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Liberal elite would not work too well for this article, which is Australian and the Liberals are the right wing party. chattering classes might work for a lot of these articles, but perhaps not all. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Liberals are not liberal in the worldwide sense. Timeshift (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer slightly more than one-sentence mentions. All they offer is proof that the term is in use and of its meaning. They don't offer enough information to give anything more than a dictionary definition with a bit of background. What would be useful would be articles or substantial article sections on the phrase itself, or more in-depth scholarly discussion of the phrase. I still think it would be better transwikied. Brilliantine (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the quotes that I embodied in the citations - in particular Mark Rolfe's article (noting that the title refers to wine) - and perhaps you would like to read the 30 odd pages and you would discover that it is a substantial article that deals with the phrase and its use in more than a passing mention. Once again AfD is not a call for cleanup , it is a debate as to whether the article should exist - are there sources to support the development of an article - I believe there are. It may be better that we have one article but I do not know if that can be done without breaching the policy on no original research. --Matilda talk 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Hm, the article is a little more expansive than the quotes suggest at first glance. I'm not sure if there is enough meat here for a dedicated article though. One article for the lot of these ad hominems would certainly be better, I think. Brilliantine (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that one article would be better - but as I noted above, there was no consensus to merge to Liberal elite - see Talk:Liberal elite#Multi mergers to this article (Discussion closed - No changes being made) . Then there is the qquestion of creating such an article without resorting to Original research and or breaching WP:SYNTH. Possibly could be done but AfD is a distraction. Moreover at the very least this and other related terms should be a redirect to that grouping ad hominem article.
In French the grouping article would be fr:gauche caviar and in German it would be Toskana-Fraktion, in the Netherlands Neo-gauchisme, in Sweden Rödvinsvänster.
The grouping is pejorative political terms currently a red link and perhaps deservedly so - however, I am not sure that the category Category:Political metaphors referring to people is quite on the mark - the Swedes do it better with sv:Kategori:Pejorativa politiska termer . Note at Champagne socialist - a larger list of international terms is provided. Our problem , compared with our other-langauge colleagues, is that there are many varieties of English and hence one person's champagne socialist, is another's chardonnay socialist, or limousine liberal - and there are possibly other terms - what does the Indian press in English use a similar term?
How do we create "one article for the lot of these ad hominems" ?--Matilda talk 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think chattering classes would be the natural title (especially since that article is extremely underdeveloped). but others may have different opinions. Brilliantine (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed chattering classes above but as BDuke observes: it "might work for a lot of these articles, but perhaps not all". I think the best fit is Champagne socialist. The term Chardonnay socialist is clearly linked. I suspect Gauche caviar is too given the timing of its creation and use. Perhaps the book by Laurent Joffrin might help to verify. The article in the Daily Telegraph [ http://www.nysun.com/foreign/french-socialist-is-accused-of-failing-to-pay-her/46935/ ] asserts it is the French equivalent. --Matilda talk 23:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sword and crown (module)

Sword and crown (module) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article topics should be notable. However, it appears that Sword and crown as a module has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Suntag (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collision (physical attack)

Collision (physical attack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article seems unwarranted, hardly a disambiguation page, scanty defintions, no sources, poor potential for anything useful. Article was previously PROD'ed, otherwise I would have simply done that now. meco (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Bay Marina

Elliot Bay Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Marina

John Wayne Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to ear shaping as a non-admin editorial action. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ear Pointing

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

Unnotable variety of cosmetic surgery. Lacks sources. - Icewedge (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Non-notable marina seicer | talk | contribs 01:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Landing Marina

Chinook Landing Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject failsnotability guidelines for academics and people in general. Since the first time this was AfDed, several editors have made efforts to find reliable, 3rd party sources, and none could be found. Basically all there is on this guy are primary sources (his organization's website, various youtube videos, some discussion forum posts). The first AfD was closed as "Needs cleanup but ... Keep for now," but unfortunately without secondary sources the article remain a mess, and will probably stay that way. Yilloslime (t) 06:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As an academic he's non-notable. As a 'guru', perhaps it could remain. But the article should be written to represent that. I would prefer that he not be able to claim that his work is being suppressed. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:PROF. The validity or lack thereof of his ideas is not important here, but more important is that a Google search does not really come up with independent verifiable sources establishing notability. Hence also fails WP:FRINGE and WP:BIO. The main purpose of the article seems to be the promotion of his 4 DVD set, which is mentioned several times. --Crusio (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a rejoinder, I think somebody should have a critical look at the related article on Elizabeth Rauscher, too. --Crusio (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the comments of others above. Does not pass either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No evidence of substantial citability or reviews of his work in scholarly publications; much of his work appears to be self-published; no significant newscoverage. As noted by Nomoskedasticity, the subject's book is only held by a few academic libraries. No other evidence of passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO that I can see. Nsk92 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and delete every biography article linked to in this one (not Einstein perhaps). None of the actual refs look appropriate, though I haven't also looked at everything in the (odd) further reading section N p holmes (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject may be a crank, which is certainly by itself not sufficient to establish notability. At the very least, many of the hallmarks of crankiness are here: a self-trained individual who proposes a major advance in physics that the mainstream research community appears to have overlooked and which it refuses to recognize. Web of Science shows no hits in any academic area (searching on "Haramein N*"). I took a casual look at what seems to be the main result of this new theory (accessed here on 10-SEP-2008). The paper is filled with many equations found in undergrad science and engineering texts, e.g. definitions of torque, angular momentum, and such. More problematic is the fact that the authors seem to confuse the concepts of torque and energy (e.g. pp 162, where they say the units of torque can be expressed in ergs, which is patently incorrect). These are concepts taught at the undergrad level, suggesting that the paper may be mostly non-sense. Agricola44 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Theserialcomma (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Patently fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF, wee bit of a WP:COATRACK, no usable sources which would permit construction of a useful, neutral encyclopedia article, and the subject of edit-warring to boot. Previous AfD should almost certainly have been closed as "delete"; many of the same points were raised there, and have not been addressed. MastCell Talk 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:FYI on the above reference to Haramein’s calculations, that paper discussed the origin of spin/angular momentum as spacetime torque. Obviously such a paper would have fundamental classical mechanics equations discussing torque and angular velocity as well as tensor equations discussing these classical equations in the context of a tensor form. Haramein’s papers have both, including a group theoretical model for unification of the quantum level. As for the comment on ergs, maybe the editor should go back to undergrad school. Haramein’s paper expresses torque in dyne-cm where 1 dyne-cm = 1 erg, this is clearly expressed on Wiki’s own page on ergs referenced above. He could have expressed it in ft-lbs (unlikely for a physics paper) where 1 ft-lb of torque = 1.3558 x 10^7 ergs.

    The difficulty I see with this article seems to be a lack of complete understanding of Haramein’s work to begin with, and a negative knee-jerk reaction to any alternative material he refers to, which further clouds any real understanding of his physics. I will vote that Notability can be established with his papers published at the Noetic Journal (which has NO affiliation with IONS, by the way). Many reputable physicists consider his work acceptable and valid [21]. Also, articles published by Elisabet Sahtouris mention Haramein’s work in numerous publications cited in the article. She is a scientist of note and is featured in Wiki as such. However I realize that for now the article is on thin ice, and may be appropriate when Haramein is published in further, more diverse publications.Avsav (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC) — Avsav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • comment publishing papers is insufficient to establish notability; they need to be widely cited and/or attract attention in other ways. The web site you link to ("The Resonance Project", with "testimonials") is not effective in this regard: looking at their "personnel page" we see that Haramanian is first on the list. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please allow me to respond to the above comment from Avsav, because I think it is illustrative of how some work fails to pass for legitimate scholarship. Several points need rebuttal: (1) "Obviously such a paper would have fundamental classical mechanics equations discussing torque and angular velocity..." – This is patently false. Research papers rarely, if ever will repeat well-known equations, but instead will cite other sources for such equations, usually a standard text in the field. Referees immediately flag this sort of thing in any submitted papers (I myself have done so), precisely because the equations are well-known and because journals cannot afford the column-inches to repeat established knowledge. With all due respect, this assertion suggests the commenter does not really understand how research is vetted and published. (2) "As for the comment on ergs, maybe the editor should go back to undergrad school. Haramein’s paper expresses torque in dyne-cm where 1 dyne-cm = 1 erg". This issue is much more serious and reflects a basic ignorance of mechanics. Specifically, torque is a vector entity, having units of force*distance (dyne-cm, if you like). While energy also has the same kind of units, it is a scalar product. So, for example, a torque displaced through a unitless rotation would then give you energy, and would only then have units of ergs. I'll refer the commenter to Wikipedia's own page on this point, which gives a good layman's explanation. I'm afraid this discussion gives further weight toward deletion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The units of torque relative to the stress energy tensor are dealt with appropriately in Haramein and Rauscher’s paper on page 160. The statement on page 162 is taken out of context. Having said that, this delete page is not the appropriate place for this discussion, rather this should be taken up directly with the authors. By the way, Google Scholar thinks he’s notable enough to list [22].Avsav (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I will be indulged one last response on this entry. Avsav is clearly very passionate about this article, which I think is commendable. I doubt that anyone in this forum has any intention of taking up mistakes in this paper with the authors. That job will fall to future referees, should the paper ever get submitted to a mainstream physics journal. (The paper is highly relevant to the debate on this article, because the subject's claim to notability appears to rest entirely upon the results presented in it.) I do not know how Avsav proposes to speak for the authors regarding their intent on pp 162. The paper says "The units of torque are dyne-cm or gm cm^2 / sec^2 = ergs". The context is very clear – the authors believe that torque can be expressed in units of energy. Avsav concurs, according to a comment above: "where 1 ft-lb of torque = 1.3558 x 10^7 ergs". No amount of argument will make this true. I think what is now established is that this paper has fundamental problems and is unlikely to ever be submitted to the physics community for proper scrutiny. Consequently, I don't see that the subject of the article has any real notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that it passed AFD with a keep decision only about 6 weeks ago. The closing admin said pending cleanup, but it's too soon to renominate even on that basis. Articles must not be renominated repeatedly until a desired outcome is reached. 23skidoo (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6 weeks is quite enough to add some sources if there were any sources to add. Moreover, looking at the previous AfD, the closing admin's decision clearly went against the consensus for deletion. I am surprised that it was not taken to DRV back then. There were two delete, two weak delete !votes, plus the nominator's delete !vote and one keep !vote. Even a dedicated inclusionist like DGG !voted delete back then and that is saying something. The only keep vote was increadibly weak in terms of giving any kind of a policy-based reason for a keep argument. To have a few or even a lot papers published in peer-reviwed journals was never considered enough for passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. To pass WP:PROF one basically needs to demonstrate either evidence of high citability of Haramein's research in publications of other scientists or a significant number of papers where his work is discussed in detail. For passing WP:BIO one would have to show some substantial coverage of him personally by independent reliable sources. None of this was available then and none is available now. Nsk92 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To second Nsk93, I don't think this is a case of if-only-editors-would-give-it-more-time, but rather a case of there-simply-aren't-any-secondary-sources. Six weeks is plenty of time, and it's been tagged with {{notability|academics}} for the last 4+ of them. In those 6 weeks, 80+ edits have been made to the article by 9 distinct editors (excluding bots and IPs); and with 110+ edits by 10 separate editors (not counting bots and IPs), the talk page has grown by 70,000 bytes. On top of that, threads have been started on the talk pages of two separate admins. (1&2). A strong, good faith effort has clearly been made to salvage this article. Simply put: without sources, dozens of editors could put months of work into the article and the same problems would remain. This is exactly why WP requires that the subject of a BLP "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject"Yilloslime (t) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 03:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I really can't believe how this has blown over to such a big deal. Nassim is by no means a pseudoscientist and I do not understand why some citations are not worthy enough for mention (see Concolour and Avsav's arguments on talk page although the ratio of editors totally outweighs the supporters). Wikipedia isn't paper: there are countless articles some of which deserve to be more scrutinized. So much time and energy has been put into this one (someone said the creator had scary motives?). Nobody noticed this page until I led them to it, and it gave the desired results of a debate until it blew into an edit war; however, I'm glad that I got the chance to witness the conversation on the talk page which I will be keeping and spreading for future reference. In any case, I concede that the article still doesn't meet notability guidelines which is why I'm making it a weak keep. Ace blazer (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
since notability is the criterion for inclusion for a bio on wikipedia, your 'weak keep' should probably be a 'weak delete'. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd let Ace speak for himself about what conclusion his arguments come to. If someone thinks an article that he thinks might almost make the guidelines is a keep, there's nothing wrong with him saying so. DGG (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a big deal, its just a borderline spam article probably presented by people involved with the subject, who were using wikipedia to sell DVD's. The last AfD should have ended in delete, and this one certainly will.Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am only a "dedicated inclusionist" for articles potentially worth keeping, and i am equally dedicated to getting rid of nonsensical articles and pure public relations for nonentities and imaginary scientific hypotheses. I probably speedy-delete several times as many articles as i even try to keep. As I said before, no presence in ArXiv = no notability as a physicist--they'll include even the non-conventional if there is any scientific merit whatsoever. True, I don't like over-rapid renominations, but the previous close though worded in a non-standard fashion-- "keep for now" was a non-consensus, not a keep, in the hope of additional material--which has not been forthcoming. As I said before, even the most absurd pseudo-science can be notable, if anyone has noticed it. For an article where one of the references in "personal letter from [the subject]", it's clear nobody has--in spite of whatever publicity exposure in Wikipedia might have afforded them. DGG (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

why?He's ideias deserver's a space! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.137.155 (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2012 (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. Mr.Z-man 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blaine Harbor Marina

Blaine Harbor Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A1) (Non-admin closure). MuZemike (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlap High School

Dunlap High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article created today, about a school. Doesn't look like it's very notable. Matt (Talk) 06:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 'Soft redirect' to Wiktionary.. — Coren (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kvetch

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

This is a dictionary definition attempting to masquerade as a disambiguation page; it fails in this because it doesn't link to any ambiguous articles. I don't see what could be written about kvetching beyond the dictionary definition which Wiktionary already has an entry on. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 19:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a article at wiktionary that is better than this, so I don't believe there is any content that it would be beneficial to transfer. Brilliantine (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Time's up. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddisee

While this artist has worked with notable people, I do not believe that this notability is inherited or transferable. Lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications and fails WP:MUSIC guidelines too. JBsupreme (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day New York

Good Day New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No more notable than Good Day Tampa Bay which was AFD'd months ago. Microremote (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided above refer specifically to the New York one. Probably someone should stick them in the article. I might do later if I have time, but this isn't my area of expertise at all - I'd be more comfortable with someone who knows anything about US TV doing it. Brilliantine (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that multiple full-length New York Times articles are enough to establish notability - at least two of them are whole articles on the programme and its history. Brilliantine (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not everything in the New York Times is of national and interational interest. We have to remember that the Times must also cover local news for the benefit of its readers, most of whom live in New York City. I haven't seen a source that shows that "Good Day New York" is the subject of a discussion outside of the New York area. The analogy to "Good Day Tampa Bay" is correct. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources discusses how its success led to several similar shows being started elsewhere in the country. In any case, local newspapers (if you are going to call the NYT that) are still reliable sources, the depth of coverage is quite good, and in the absence of any specific notability guideline for news shows, I think it is fairly clear that the article subject passes WP:GNG. Brilliantine (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody disputes that the New York Times is a reliable source. But I am going to call it a "local newspaper" as far as its section that's called "NY/region" [31], in order to balance the "It's in the New York Times, therefore it must be notable" argument. As all Times readers know, it contains "all the news that's fit to print", and fitness and notability are different concepts. WNYW is inherently notable, there being a policy on that, whether it's watched outside of the northeast USA or not; but a program on WNYW isn't entitled to the same pass. I've yet to see anything that says that a television show seen on one station is, per se, notable. Otherwise, articles about 18 Action News in Elmira would be automatic keepers. I know that you cited something from the publication Broadcasting and Cable, though it seems to be about the station's anchor rather than about the tation itself. Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Entirely promotional. — Coren (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intoscape

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

Spammy article on an e-commerce software product with very few news articles, most of which are press releases. Sofware was launched in Feb 2008 and appears to have attracted little in the way of interest - It has won some sort of award but does not seem to meet the corporate notability requirements Peripitus (Talk) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 19:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is more an advertisement for a product then an encylopedic article about a product. It seems written towards getting people to go to the company's website rather then explaining what the product actually does Erebus Morgaine (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This crystal ball is sensing that the album non-notable and pre-mature. No reliable sources or much context,. seicer | talk | contribs 02:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homesick (album)

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

Prod removed by author without improvement. Prod reason: "WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV violations, as well as WP:V." Cliff smith talk 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The crystal ball is sensing that the article is a few years premature, and is pure speculation at best. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Presidential Election

2012 Presidential Election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing but crystal balling. - Icewedge (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(expansion of rationale) While it seems such articles have been traditionally created a very long time before the election (United States presidential election, 2008 was created back in 2004) we should wait until after this current election as the results will drastically affect nearly everything about the next election. - Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patareni

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

Serious WP:V issues. The band appears to have been around for a long time, with an impressive number of releases; however, without multiple albums on a notable independent label this doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. If sources can be found to establish notability then fair enough, but I've looked and couldn't spy any. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Ok, so I realize no one actually said "redirect", but the "merge" stance below is what swayed me. I don't know the subject matter, I won't be merging anything, but this title will now redirect to the main Puyo Puyo article, specifically, the characters section. The history of this page will be intact, per GFDL, and for mining for information to expand the Puyo Puyo page. Keeper ǀ 76 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harpy (Puyo Puyo)

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

Side character in a video games series. Considerable amounts of dubious content and zero evidence of any kind of notability. --Leivick (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and there is no deadline. Sources have been provided in this discussion to counter the nomination/ sole argument for deletion. Decision accordingly is keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Avalon Collection

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

no reliable sources Jessi1989 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is not notability, it is the lack of reliable secondary sources as per wp:v. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lack of sources is grounds for finding sources. if none can be found then the article should be deleted. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Lack of citations is grounds for improvement, and some primary sources may be ok for supporting uncontroversial statements. Nonexistence of reliable secondary sources is grounds for questioning WP:Notability (books), which seems to be a problem here but is not the issue raised by nominator. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reliable secondary sources are required to verify any information in the article. the issue i have raised is how to verify any of the information in the article without reliable secondary sources. notability is another issue, although still very relevant here. but as a guideline, compared with the wp:v policy, it is of secondary importance. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
good work, but the article needs to be rewritten based soley on information in the secondary sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to take a look at this: deletion is not cleanup. Also, the article doesn't need to be rewritten based solely on information from secondary sources - the book itself is considered a reasonable source for such things as a plot summary, short descriptions of the characters, etc. - as long as there are sources that exist to show that the subject is notable enough for an article. Articles are allowed to be based mainly on secondary sources. (A small but important distinction, I feel.) But, yes, the article really really should be cleaned up. It's in terrible shape. I'll try and polish it up a bit... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I saw the PW items, but would not put notices there in the same category as critical reviews. I missed the KidsReads piece. It only contains plot summary, but I guess it counts towards notability. Audiofile is a good source. I have withdrawn my vote to delete. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PW article about the publication history I thought would be an excellent source for referencing the current section on that topic in the article. :) (And I don't see why it shouldn't count towards notability - things are notable if they're noted, and reviews aren't the only way of noting something...) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salat (Universal Sufism)

Salat (Universal Sufism) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be non-notable. The subject contains only a specific and questionable prayer for a religious movement. I am also concerned it is a hoax... Additionally, the user who created this has also had other similar articles removed (per their user page). ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 05:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sufism in Europe and North America by David Westerlund seems to contain a brief mention. Knowing nothing about the subject, I cannot evaluate this source properly. Needs someone who knows something about this topic to look at this discussion. Brilliantine (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The prayer certainly exists and the article can be expanded and sourced given some time and effort. There is no deadline. To say this is a hoax is pure silliness. There is encyclopedic content present, such as who says the prayer when, who wrote the prayer, and the hand movements that accompany it in traditional practice. Of interest to those researching Innat Khan and/ or Sufism. Stubs are to be edited, not deleted. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly Executive Air Charter

Dragonfly Executive Air Charter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has a number of google hits, but many simply as company listings and nothing in depth coverage as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). triwbe (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral + Comment News articles on the company in Western Mail on May 5 2004 as evidenced here [37], June 3 2005 as evidenced here. [38] One mention in South Wales Echo but no proper coverage. This is absolute borderline notability and I can't decide whether it should be kept or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliantine (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Oak Records

Burnt Oak Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod deletion. Non notable music label, fails WP:CORP Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep on rotation on a major network meets criteria of WP:Music, and counters the claim by the nominator that the only claim of notability is the MP3 downloads. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical Sun

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

Prod removed without reason. Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Releases not on important labels. Only claim to notability is unreferenced claims of mp3 dowloads that does not make a band notable Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.   jj137 (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W.B.I.

W.B.I. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC; no albums on notable labels, no press, couldn't even find any reviews. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssal Engine and Tools

Abyssal Engine and Tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. (Currently) non-notable software / software company - fails WP:CORP. No third-party independent references. Article is almost an advert, and there is a potential COI with the author. CultureDrone (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 16:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live in the three Dimensions

Live in the three Dimensions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article created for a live album which is a bootleg and not an authorised release from the band according to their official website.link. Article contains falsified information including label and a reference to an Allmusic professional review that doesn't actually exist. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Raumanmeri

Live at Raumanmeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article created for a live album which is a bootleg and not an authorised release from the band according to their official website.link. Article contains falsified information including label and a reference to an Allmusic professional review that doesn't actually exist. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and Redirect to Data (Star Trek). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soong Family (Star Trek)

The Soong Family (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claims cited to unreliable wiki. (well, if there were a References section). Original research for topics' inclusion. Content is mostly plot summary. No citations to third-party sources to establish notability. Unlikely search term. Quintessential example of well-intentioned but ultimately unencyclopedic content better suited to Memory Alpha or some such. --EEMIV (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You confuse the title and the topic. The particular words used in the title are just a convenient summary. The topic is the group of characters associated with Data's history and my search was a sensible way of identifying sources pertaining to this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The results of your search give no indication as to whether the results actually support the article. All you have provided is a list of sites that happen to mention the terms. Nuttah (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that we disagree upon the facts of the matter. My general point is that there are numerous sources for this which can be readily found and so the article just needs some cleanup not deletion on the spurious grounds of OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No you haven't, you've provided searches that return places where terms appear somewhere. If you provide a source with context I will reconsider my opinion. However, merely saying a book x mentions family, data and lore somewhere within its 200 pages is not providing a source. Not one of the 'sources' you claim from your search mention Data, Graves and family in the same sentence. Nuttah (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source The Computers of Star Trek states In a sense, Graves is Data's grandfather. - an obvious family relationship. Other sources make the same point and so it is no mere fancy. Construing this as OR is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't, the reviewer is assuming that. If it came from the book the Google search would return the page number (as it does for the novel A Time for War, A Time for Peace: The Next Generation #9). Nuttah (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that this is a direct quote which appears in chapter 6, pages 105-126. The nature of this searching is indicative - I am not willing to expend great time and expense upon this while so many editors threaten to delete it. This is why deletion is quite inappropriate - it does not afford proper time for research and improvement over time in a calm manner per WP:IMPERFECT. Redirection to the article Data (Star Trek) would be a better way of putting the matter on hold. There seems to have been no consideration of such options per WP:BEFORE. There is not even a talk page for this article and so going straight to AFD is too impatient. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Laviolette

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Colreavy

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

Person fails WP:Athlete as he has only played in a semi-professional league. An exception could perhaps be made if he had a notable career but this person has not won an major award. Crickettragic (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't help that the article has only one online reference, which only mentions the subject in passing, and then only because he was absent from the game. It seems this player is not playing AFL any more, and his past seems minor. If he was notable, you'd expect there to be some articles specifically about his achievements (rather than his absence).--Lester 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 16:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Martial Arts Academy

Oxford Martial Arts Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert for a recently created company. Sgroupace (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to I Need Mine. MBisanz talk 01:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What It Do

What It Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable song by Lil' Flip, fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC#Songs. SRX 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Primary sources and press releases do not notability indicate. — Coren (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XX/1 Transaction Server

XX/1 Transaction Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert for non-notable software / service. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have been trying to cut out the advertising-type language from this. I have a gut feeling it might be notable, but it needs sourcing to establish this. Brilliantine (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your gut feeling it right! I know for fact that it is used in the industry. However, since it is a backend system I guess many times it is “hiding” behind the better known brand names. Nevertheless I assume many developers who have to “deal” with this product appreciate more information about it. I just searched two of the primary travel news sites in Europe and the US and the product is mentioned on both of them (http://www.eyefortravel.com/node/2180 or http://www.travelweekly.com/Article.aspx?id=129106). I’m sure there is more once you dive deeper.
  • Comment I tried to get some more references for the XX/1 but it is used by all the GDSs for sure. As well as by lots of Travel Management Companies, (like the first 3 in the Travel Weekly Power List of '08). This makes it a notable product since all the biggest players in the travel industry rely on XX/1 as backend server system. I would be glad to get further help with this article since it is my first one. I would definitely like to help people with this article and avoid "advertising-type language" Thanks Brilliantine by the way! I am interested in further suggestions for improvement. Thanks! --Yellowbox (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Definitely not an article to delete! I found out about XX/1 thanks to it - and I was researching exactly how to work with GDSes programmatically. Surely an article to be corrected, though. Please, don't remove it. -- AndyBrandt (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G10 as an unsourced negative bio. I know the subject was supposedly dead, but I think it likely that there is an unknown, possible living target for this article. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua tolbert

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

Suspected hoax. Google turns up nothing of relevance. Brilliantine (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi (Cabbie Talk)

Taxi (Cabbie Talk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A recent book. Mostly copy & paste of the publisher's adverts. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. BJTalk 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Kerry bogslide

2008 Kerry bogslide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is clearly a silly article that does not meet any guidelines for a notable event. A natural disaster that destroys no property and kills no people is not notable, even if it does displace a moderately large volume of bog. Dzhastin 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • comment "...that destroys no property..." But there was damage to property--a road and two bridges were swept away. Freederick (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was significant damage to the road and to the two bridges, although the article does not include an estimate for the cost of repairs. The fish kill was significant. And the incident is made more notable by the possibility that it was caused or made worse by the machinery at a wind farm site, which may have implications for wind farms being built elsewhere. The article has 14 references, 12 from a local newspaper and one each from two national media, RTÉ and The Irish Times. --Eastmain (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep I am not sure what to say about this. It is impeccably referenced, has had quite a lot of news coverage, and there is even follow-up coverage over the last couple of days [41], [42]. My first thought was that this shows the futility of including local papers as reliable sources, but a lot of the coverage (for example those two links, and the Irish Times one on the article) is from major national media outlets. I can't see any valid arguments for deleting it, as silly as it might sound. Brilliantine (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC) - Although, on second glance, an argument could be made for cutting down on some of the irrelevancies. The article is too long and detailed for an incident of this nature. Brilliantine (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Damage to a road and 2 bridges in a rural area does not a natural disaster make. The number of references is irrelevant. Please see wp:EVENT. "A news event reported by the media only within the immediate region is generally not notable, and does not justify an article, regardless of the number of reliable sources that can be provided." Dzhastin 02:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzhastin (talk • contribs)
Sadly, the whole country is a bit bigger than "the immediate region". I think this just, but only just, fulfils "heavily reported damage", one of the criteria for nationally reported events (which this is). Brilliantine (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean it wasn't natural, or wasn't a disaster? And what difference would it make to notability in either case? Richard Pinch (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well referenced; well written; interesting ecological angle. Granted, there were no human victims, so the notability is borderline; but with national level of coverage, it is sufficient. It needs to be trimmed a bit though; especially the individual sob stories ought to be cut, or reduced to a one-sentence mention. Freederick (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The "well referenced" and "well written" points are true, but that just means it's worthy of moving to Wikinews. There are hundreds of worldwide road closures caused by landslides (with environmental impacts/etc) every single day of the year. Doesn't make them encyclopaedic in scope. Newsworthy: yes. Encyclopaedic: No. Guliolopez (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak delete per nom, Dzhastin and WP:EVENT. Even if this occurrence could be tagged a as "disaster", the notability criteria for disaster is that they "significantly affect the region which they strike, resulting in heavily-reported death or damage. Not every earthquake, storm, or meteorite landing that destroys just a few houses can be worthy of an article." In this case, there were no deaths (except a bunch of fish). No injuries. No property damage (just a road closure). Etc. In short, it's not encyclopaedically valuable. Someone put a lot of work into it though, so move to Wikinews. Guliolopez (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damage was estimated at 500000 Euros, according to one of the national press articles. Sounds like property damage to me. Brilliantine (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the estimate to fix the road/bridge. In my note above, I used "property" to mean houses/buildings/"properties". That is to say that, other than having to drive the long way around, there was no major impact to citizens. Certainly when one cmopares the actual material damage, injury and loss of life to (say) the flooding all over Europe recently.Guliolopez (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, DzHastin, and WP:EVENT although I'd have no problem if it was cleaned up. Locally notable, but otherwise ...? Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How can it be that Beefart is the only one on the planet who can see that the author of this article is mocking you? The whole thing is a send-up from start to finish. Look at the background of the person who created the article. He is far too smart to have written this crap except as a joke. Why does somebody with the power to do so not ask him for his views? What he is saying, in a nutshell, is this: "Let me show you what is wrong with Wikipedia"...Captainbeefart (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Yes, it's blatant, but that isn't a valid deletion reason. You may have noticed it from the tone of my earlier comments. Policies contradict each other, and one can include almost anything if one tries hard enough. It's a problem. Brilliantine (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually guys, I'm not so sure of that. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by a simple lack of awareness. I've had some "overlap" with the user who created this article over the years, and I'd be surprised if this was a joke. It's actually perfectly in line with his/her style of editting - focusing as he/she does on creating or editting articles on "current events", pop-culture topics that happen to be hot at any given time, and generally stuff he/she sees on TV. So, to put it simply, I don't think the article creator is pulling the piss. Rather I've never been really sure that they actually fully understood the project. (In terms of WP:WWPIN and WP:RECENTISM) Guliolopez (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, apologies, it is quite an odd article though. Brilliantine (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. I totally agree with that. But have a look at the users history and you'll see what I mean. By way of example, you will note that the same user also created 2008 Irish flash floods. Equally better suited to "the news" (structured as it is as a day-by-day update with limited longterm "encyclopedic" context). And similarly dodgy in terms of classification as a "natural disaster" - certainly when compared to other events that are categorised as such. Both "articles" are a little (how to put this) "shortsighted". Given that flooding has been occuring for thousands/millions of years along every river in the world. And will for years to come (if the LHC doesn't collapse space and time in upon itself next month). Anyway, it just goes to my point that just because something was on the news doesn't make it worth an article all on its own- synthesizing content from multiple news sources. With no lonterm/encyclopedic context. That is actually kinda what Wikinews is for. Not for here. I think I'll actually let the user know about Wikinews. Again. Coz maybe he/she just doesn't appreciate the difference. Guliolopez (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this was not created as a joke. In fact I failed to realise that such a situation would arise. It only seems to have happened though after it was put up for DYK which surely shouldn't be the case. I created it after witnessing it broadcast on a national news bulletin. The news bulletin itself seemed more concerned about the ecological aspect of the disaster rather than the lack of loss of life. It seems irrational to ignore an ecological disaster if enough people haven't be killed to make it notable. And by coincidence just as I created it it was back in the news again. So it was fairly continual.

This is on the talk page but I'll leave it here again.

OK. First of all. A quote.

"Up to 30,000 people in north Kerry were left without a water supply due to polluted water courses and threatened reservoirs." [43]

That line is referenced by an article from The Irish Times, a national newspaper with no special relationship with County Kerry. 30,000 people is a lot of people, certainly by Irish standards. So a highly regarded national newspaper has reported that 30,000 people have been affected by this occurence. Another reference in the article is from national broadcaster RTÉ, whose news bulletin was how I first came to hear of this.

This article may not be up to everyone's taste but that seems to be because most of the inclination to use local sources which I thought would be a good place to start. There are many national sources available which I have not had time to complete but I thought the inclusion of at least one source from a national newspaper and a national broadcaster would at least appease those who are opposed such "local" events whilst serving to remind that there are easily other references available.

"A news event is notable if it receives significant, continual coverage in sources with national or global scope." Well it certainly received significant, continual coverage in sources with national scope.

Of course the article needs tidying up but I have never claimed that it was perfect. If I used any lines that appeared exaggerated or extreme they were marked with a reference number directly afterwards. After all, it is not a matter of my opinion, I was just referring to what was said in the aftermath of the event.

The idea that the bogslide (a word I have not made up - it is used in the references and is taught in geography classes in schools across the country) closed one road and therefore is not notable is wrong as, if the article were read again, it would become quite clear that much more damage than the closure of one road was caused. --Candlewicke (Talk) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article states that "The original bogslide extended to over four kilometres on August 22 and August 23, destroying an estimated 10 hectares (25 acres) of bog, engulfing two bridges and led to the closure of a section of road, resulting in motorists having to undertake a 16 km (10 mi) diversion. It was reported that it could take anything up to six months to fix the road." A 10 mile diversion in a road is not notable, 25 acres of displaced bog is not notable, and 30,000 people having to buy bottled water isn't notable. Just because the Irish Times reported it doesn't mean that it's notable. The Philadelphia Inquirer (the Philly metro area is approximately the same population as Ireland) prints dozens of stories that I read every day, but not every one deserves a Wikipedia article wp:not. There's also no evidence of continual coverage on a national scope, just a single blurb. This could be Wikinews and is actually an amusing, well-written article, all the hyperbole notwithstanding. It is not encyclopedic though. dzhastin (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - Well that may be true but if that's the case can very many articles be created that refer to Ireland or say to other small countries? The Irish Times and other such newspapers are the highest placed newspapers in the country, you can go no higher from an Irish point of view on news delivery than being national. It seems perfectly irrational to compare a newspaper in a large country with the same population as a small country to a national newspaper of a small country reporting on an event which is considerably large enough by that country's standards. Of course not everything in appear such as The Philadelphia Enquirer would make it onto Wikipedia. Neither would everything from The Irish Times. But the use of sources is only part of the argument and does not take into account the event itself. From the point of view of a large country like the US of course these measurements are probably non-notable. But by Irish standards events like this don't happen every day. 30,000 people is a considerable chunk of the population. What I have to ask is whether events in smaller countries are taken into context by those who are situated and have lived most of their lives in larger countries? And if they aren't what are we left with? An encyclopedia that is dominated with stories of events that occur in large countries with large populations because there are more people to be affected and therefore the event is on a larger scale and whereby anything that is relevant to smaller countries is systematically removed due to only a tiny handful of people being affected? What are the encyclopedic quotas for "bottled water"? Would 300,000 suffice? That would be nigh on 1/10 of the Irish population... yet if 300,000 Irish people had no water supply (a fairly significant occurrence on a national level I would imagine compared to, say, in the US or China or even compared to the UK) that argument could still be used against it. Which seems a little overprotective. --Candlewicke (Talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are only three reasons to delete an article like this: 1) The article violates WP:Verify, 2) The article violates WP:NPOV and 3) The article violates WP:NOR. None of these apply to this article. Absent some new guideline that defines criteria for Notable Natural Disasters, this one should stay. All the other reasons for deletion are just POV.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My last comment. Actually there is a notability criteria for natural disasters. And this fails it. See: Wikipedia:EVENT#Disasters. The simple fact is that the media totally over-blew and sensationalised this event. Giving as they did absolutely no global context for it. The quotes and sensationalist hyperbole in the Kerryman newspaper for example ""one of the most frightening and overwhelming events ever witnessed" and "It’s frightening. We dread to think that we’ll never see home in the future" are ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE when you consider that the only material impacts were that people had to drive the long way around to the shops, boil their water, and spend a few months repaving a road. We on the other hand are not a local newspaper, and should be giving a global and objective perspective. When for example you put the above quotes in the global/objective context of the 1999 Vargas mudslides - which killed TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOP -E, the sensationalism stands out as trite and embarrassing. We shouldn't inherit this sensationalism in a Wikipedia article. That's my opinion at least. Anyway, I'm going to shut-up now coz it sounds like I'm ranting against the article. I'm not. The writing/sourcing/construction is good. It's just that its inappropriately inheriting notability imposed by a sensationalist press. That we shouldn't inherit. Move to Wikinews instead. Guliolopez (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral sensationalism. The "sensationalist hyperbole" is used or is intended to be used alongside terms such as "was described by" and "was reported". Which is exactly what happened. It could not be compared to large scale disasters but the comparisons with large scale disasters are drawn from events that are completely different. A bogslide is neither an earthquake nor a tsunami nor a volcanic eruption and cannot be compared to incidents such as those. To say that thousands of these things happen - well evidently not that many, as at least one editor on the talk page has not even heard of an event like it ever taking place before. They certainly don't occur as often as hurricances yet each tropical storm receives an article upon its announcement before it even has the chance to cause any damage without any protest. No one here is claiming that the event is absolutely earth-shattering. The phrases that are viewed as problematic are quotes from elsewhere (and are constructed carefully in a way that is not intended to be misleading or to obstruct neutrality) with appropriate sources beside them. Naturally the local media would report most heavily on such an incident and extreme statements may be put across. But there is also evidence of this incident affecting people on a national level. --Candlewicke (Talk) 13:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Possibly irrelevant but interesting that the nominating editor has a total of 30 edits to their name, most of which have been on this article. Has inexperience provoked a rushed nomination? Praiseworthy all the same. End of. --140.203.12.243 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Based on some of the rationale given to date both for deleting and for keeping, I've done some cleanup of the actual article in an attempt to see if our reasons remain the same after cleanup. The tone of the article has changed which might affect how we view it. Take a look. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well. That is now IMMEASURABLY better. With all the hyperbole, sensationalist quotes and other wikisource/wikinews stuff removed, it certainly appears to be a lot more encyclopaedic in aspect. I still think it fails WP:EVENT though and is more a news item than a standalone Encyclopaedia article/reference source that has independent merit. I struggle therefore with changing my vote to a keep. I've "downgraded" my delete vote accordingly though. Very good work though. Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and re-copy edit it when I have time. It's a shame, cause the prose was wonderful but not so encyclopaedic before - now the article is more encyclopaedic but the prose may be in need of some work. Brilliantine (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has a large number of independant, reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources demonstrate notability. Arguments like "it didn't kill anyone" or "it didn't destroy enough property" are preposterous. Notability is assessed by looking at the attention received by a subject and the importance attributed to it, which can be easily evaluated in this case by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It definitely reads a lot better. See what can be produced through collaboration rather than one editor being responsible for updating an article? It's a shame about the hyperbole but I definitely agree on it being more encyclopedic in its current existence. It reads like I would have liked to have written it had I not been in quite a rush and had it not been nominated for deletion before I got back to it. I could perhaps move the hyperbole to elsewhere and tag it as Wikipedia:Humor if that wouldn't cause too much offense. --Candlewicke (Talk) 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Humor - Support Yes! Actually, the article in it's original form would be perfect for wikipedia:humor. It was a very well crafted article with good references, formatting and prose and was very amusing to me. I just didn't think it was encyclopedic. dzhastin (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. henrik•talk 18:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Cosmic Engineers

Order of Cosmic Engineers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is..uh..this is something. This is a non-notable guild I guess, tied to some new-age spiritualism. Some of the individual members might be notable, but the guild itself, or organization, or whatever it is exactly isn't notable. Before anyone points to all the "sources" in the article, none of the sources outside of a blog from a science fiction writer, actually talk about the subject. Mostly they're citing real events which occurred, but its the article that ties them to the group, not the sources themselves. This was deleted and restored on the promise of sources, but this is a bloody mess. There is nothing here to justify keeping this article. The only thing that can be provided that references them is obscure blogs. Their one criticism comes from a comment that that science fiction author made on his blog post, not even the post itself. This is how obscure and far reaching they are to try and find sources which actually mention the group by name. We'll get this out of the way to start with: Afd is not a vote if you want to see the article kept provide some reliable sources which demonstrate significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - totally non-notable (full disclosure: Charlie Stross is a friend of mine). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources that can be viewed online do not give non-trivial coverage of the article subject (apart from one, which I would not view as a WP:RS), and from the description of them neither do the others. Brilliantine (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sources don't support the group. Looking at the members' bios, I smell a whole new crop of AFDs. I'll work a bit more on that tomorrow.Kww (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable sources that talk about the actual subject of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - Emergent? Sometimes mighty oaks grow from small acorns, and this concept actually has some potential. Mensa started out the same way, as a group of intellectuals setting out to save the world. Give it six months and then re-nominate? Simesa (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't just keep articles on a hope and a prayer that they gain notability. If they're notable now, please provide the sources. Otherwise if they ever gain sources in the future the article can be recreated. WP:NOT wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We go on the sources that are available now, which are none.--Crossmr (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope; that's the old WP:SHOWSPOTENTIAL, "up-and-coming," "next-big-thing" argument. We do articles about subjects which are notable, not about those which might be notable someday. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support Simesa. The O.C.E. is a very young organization, and as such it has not yet had the time to build notability from many sources other than those managed by its founders. Therefore we will not object to the proposed deletion of this article on the basis of its lack of sufficient notability. The article will be resubmitted at an appropriate time with a unimpeachable list of citations, and I hope it will be evaluated fairly and objectively by reviewers.--(Eschatoon)
  • Delete. I tend to agree with Crossmr, if the group becomes notable then the article can be put back up when they do. I'd vote delete for now and see how our futurist friends do. nigell k (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks nigell k for your unbiased and constructive criticism.--(Eschatoon)
  • While making a backup for offline editing after this article is deleted, I noticed a strange thing that perhaps one of the more experienced editors could explain to me. A reference was deleted, and replaced by a flag stating that a reference was needed. I am unable to understand the logic of this, please explain. The reference in question (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/prisco20071204/) is a very critical one. It is a blog I wrote last year about the original 1981 work of William Sims Bainbridge, clearly quoting the source and trying to cast some of the ideas outlined in the source in a more current terminology.--(Eschatoon)
    Its a blog I wrote last year... please read WP:RS and WP:V regarding self-published sources. In this case it seemed the source just sourced the existence of text (not that a blog can do that, but regardless) it didn't source the claim being made in the actual article about the text.--Crossmr (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation Crossmr, but I still don't understand. The actual article, which contains the sentences quoted: "We need a new spaceflight social movement capable of giving a sense of transcendent purpose to dominant sectors of the society... The human condition is one of extreme absurdity unless fixed in a cosmic context to provide meaning... A species which does conquer the stars will have developed a culture including a cosmic religious faith well-adapted to continue expansion indefinitely... I have suggested that only a transcendent, impractical, radical religion can take us to the stars", and the references therein, is meant to provide explanations. And it is not a self-published source: the first line says quite clearly "Subsequently published in: Science Fiction and Space Futures, edited by Eugene M. Emme. San Diego: American Astronautical Society, 1982, pages 187-201".--(Eschatoon) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    I think I see your point now. By "the claim being made in the actual article about the text" you mean "The foundation of the Order was inspired by a 1981 article of one of its founders, William Sims Bainbridge". Correct? This is, as it has been correctly pointed out, a fact whose source is not the reference quoted. But in this cases perhaps the reference should not have been deleted, but simply moved at the end of the paragraph, immediately after the excerpt quoted in my comment above.--(Eschatoon) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    No because its still a blog so it can't be used as a reference in the first place, but yes it wasn't sourcing that claim even if it could have been used as a reference.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again: it is not a blog but a published paper: "published in: Science Fiction and Space Futures, edited by Eugene M. Emme. San Diego: American Astronautical Society, 1982, pages 187-201". I happen to have a copy, should I xerox it and mail it to you? When we submit the article again, we will use a reference to the published paper instead of a reference to a blog that references it.-(Eschatoon) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    To reference the quote, you should reference the original copy. not a blog which carries a copy of it. Regardless though its immaterial for anything to do with this group. You can reference all kinds of facts which may be loosely related to this group (things they believe, etc) but unless you provide sources which are actually covering them, and sources which are actually ties them to those facts, citing this information is of little value to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of the phrase "When we submit the article again, we will use" also conveys a discomforting feeling that this is an organizational drive to get the group into Wikipedia, in violation of our conflict of interest, notability and neutral point of view rules. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    English is not my mother language, but I believe "will" is used to convey an intention. I and others do, indeed, intend to resubmit the article at an appropriate moment with a list of citations and references in total compliance with Wikipedia formal rules. I believe any user has the right to submit articles, whose suitability for Wikipedia will then be evaluated by the community at large. This should, I believe, be evident. So, I am unable to see why you are emphasizing this point. To me, and please correct me if I am mistaken, this conveys a discomforting feeling that this is an organizational drive to keep similar groups out of Wikipedia, in violation of our conflict of interest, notability and neutral point of view rules. By all means, please feel free to delete this article if you can neutrally and objectively show that it does not yet meet the Wikipedia notability requirements (and I have already conceded this point). At the same time, please appreciate that I will not take orders from you regarding whether or not to resubmit it when it does meet the Wikipedia notability requirements. I or another Wikipedia user will resubmit this article if and when we think it is appropriate. Period.--Eschatoon (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has a philosophy of preferring to have non-involved people create articles about subjects. It helps to avoid the appearance of impropriety, to avoid any inherent concern about NPOV, etc. There is also a feeling that if your organization is truly notable enough, e.g. its generating coverage in reliable sources, someone will read those and create an article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rimon Law Group

Rimon Law Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, per WP:CORP. Available information is all promotional. The references in Reuters and Marketwatch come from press releases. Also, previously deleted under name Rimon Law Group, Inc. John Nagle (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I take the use of plural throughout to imply that one single source isn't good enough. This is how I've always interpreted it and that's not going to change, as it seems like a perfectly common-sense way of looking at the policy to me. In any case, it does specify that multiple sources are preferred. This is not a particularly mainstream news source, so to rely solely on it would be an extremely silly interpretation. Brilliantine (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I remain unconvinced of notability. Besides the press releases there's only one source, and I'd expect a notable law firm to make a bigger splash in the news than this. Reyk YO! 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While there is one press release cited there is also an article firmly establishing notability in independent press. Thus, it passes the notability and reliable source test quite easily. Bstone (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By your (in my opinion) rather eccentric interpretation of the notability criteria, there could be an article about pretty much anything. I hope you're not offended, but I do have to ask: Do you have a conflict of interest here? Brilliantine (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can I, an EMT who lives in Boston, have an conflict of interest with a law firm in Israel? Do you always suspect a WP:COI whenever you have differing opinions with people? Please remember to assume good faith about contributors. Bstone (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was only asking on the off-chance, as you created the article and have been defending it very consistently on here. It is possible for people to have conflicts of interests relating people or things in different locations - through family, friends etc - this is common sense. As you can see from my contribs, this is the only AFD I have commented on for which I have even considered the possibility that there might be a WP:COI involved. Lastly, a conflict of interest does not necessarily constitute bad faith. I am not questioning your good faith - I was merely enquiring. Brilliantine (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. One source is not enough IMO - especially given the fairly niche focus of it (presumably the north Californian Jewish community). My take on the notability guidelines is to require multiple sources unless the single source is really exceptional, as having a single source might be a "fluke", whereas multiple sources helps to establish a pattern. Silverfish (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's subject simply does not rise to the level of being "notable." A few press release describing the firm, but no secondary sources detailing accomplishments. This is not an attack on the writer, merely an opinion based on the article itself, and the sources supporting it.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence or even assertion of any actual accomplishments. Founding a firm does not make it notable, nor does suiccess in getting an announcement of the fact in the press. DGG (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like others I agree with the WP:NOT statement 'Multiple sources are generally preferred'. This is especially true for businesses where a notable company should be able to provide plenty of press coverage. The single source in local/regional press does not convince me that this company is notable. Nuttah (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Effective Governance

Foundation for Effective Governance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination (PROD, de-PROD, re-PROD). First PROD stated: "Unclear notability, written in overly promotional tone". De-PROD (by me) edit summary stated: "further reading section added with link to 'media about Foundation'; items here can be brought into this article to support notability as reliable sources". Second PROD stated: "notability". Second PROD permalink is also the version current at the time of nomination here at AfD. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Any subsequent discussion about merging to Champagne socialist, chattering classes, liberal elite, etc is not something for AFD to determine, although it strikes me as a good idea worth exploring. fish&karate 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gauche caviar

Gauche caviar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chardonnay socialist

Seems to lack notability, seems like a simple dictionary definition. — Realist2 00:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

c.80,000 google hits suggests it might not be made up - but in any case, it isn't worth an article. Brilliantine (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Segolene Royale article is not really a good source as it does not give coverage of the article subject. All it does is prove the phrase exists. Good sourcing for this would need to consist of articles on or scholarly philological coverage of the phrase itself. Brilliantine (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Brilliantine's comment seems to have overlooked the references in the French interwikid article which show that good sourcing is available. S/he also ignores my reference to the book by fr:Laurent Joffrin. For everyone's benefit I will provide the citation:
  • Joffrin, Laurent (2006). Histoire de la gauche caviar. Paris: Éditions Robert Laffont.
The publisher also has a French wikipedia article at fr:Éditions Robert Laffont - ie notable publisher . The link to the publisher's blurb The Amazon link to the book . The blurb states:

La « gauche caviar »… Est-ce une fausse gauche qui dit ce qu’il faut faire et qui ne fait pas ce qu’elle dit ? Une tribu frivole et tartuffe qui aime le peuple et se garde bien de partager son sort ? Pis encore, est-ce qu’elle n’introduirait pas, en douce, les réflexes des classes bourgeoises au sein du mouvement progressiste ? Ces gens-là seraient des traîtres, tout simplement.
Dans un pamphlet polémique et historique, Laurent Joffrin analyse ce phénomène apparemment superficiel qui a joué un grand rôle et souvent fait la différence dans le jeu politique, en France comme ailleurs. La gauche caviar irrite, certes, mais constatons qu’elle a toujours reçu les renforts de nombreux bourgeois riches et éclairés. Qu’ils ont souvent dirigé des partis de gauche, servi la classe ouvrière, œuvré pour le progrès et qu’ils furent constamment pour les socialistes un éclaireur, une aide, un compagnon. De Voltaire à Zola, de Victor Hugo à Kennedy, de Philippe d’Orléans à Keynes, la gauche caviar a été composée d’hommes et de femmes de qualité, d’une efficacité décisive et qui eurent une fonction essentielle dans la marche des événements.
En 2006, qu’en est-il ? L’argent-roi depuis les années 1990 a entraîné derrière lui et dans les tourbillons de la mondialisation une gauche caviar qui s’est peu à peu coupée des réalités. Le reste de la population s’est replié dans la condamnation d’une modernité toujours plus injuste. Et la gauche caviar a abandonné son rôle de charnière, c’est-à-dire son rôle historique. Il faut sonner l’alarme pour fermer la porte à tous les populismes et séparer clairement les partisans du progrès et ceux du conservatisme. C’est le but de ce livre.

Which in English translated by bablefish :

The “left caviar”… Is this a false left which says what it is necessary to make and which does not do only it says? A frivolous tribe and sanctimonious hypocrite who loves the people and take care well not to share its fate? Worse still, wouldn't it introduce, into soft, the reflexes of the middle-class classes within the movement progressist? These people-there would be traitors, quite simply. In a polemical and historical lampoon, Laurent Joffrin analyzes this apparently surface phenomenon which played a great role and often made the difference in the political game, in France like elsewhere. The left caviar irritates, certainly, but note that it always received the reinforcements of many rich and lit middle-class men. That they often directed left parties, served the working class, works for progress and that they were constantly for the Socialists a scout, a help, a companion. Of Voltaire with Zola, of Victor Hugo in Kennedy, Philippe of Orleans with Keynes, the left caviar was made up men and women of quality, of a decisive effectiveness and who had an essential function in the walk of the events. In is 2006, qu ' in? The money-king since the years 1990 involved behind him and in the swirls of universalization a left caviar which cut realities little by little. The remainder of the population was folded up in the judgment of a modernity increasingly more unjust. And the left caviar gave up its role of hinge, i.e. its historical role. It is necessary to sound alarm to close the door with all the populisms and to clearly separate the partisans from progress and those of conservatism. It is the goal of this book.

I won't clean up the translation - it is enough to to give the gist for the sake of this discussion. A reference in English to the book in the context of Ségolène Royal's failure to win against Sarkozy is at http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/royal_4110.jsp :

As Laurent Joffrin, former editor of the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur (and soon to take over the ailing daily Libération), explains in his Histoire de la gauche caviar (History of the Caviar Left): these bobos (bohemian bourgeois) have all but forgotten about the people. Meanwhile, her probable opponent Nicolas Sarkozy seems only to know how to boss the people around in the name of security, order and controlling immigration.

AfD is not supposed to be a call for improvement to articles, it is to discuss whether an article should exist or not. On the basis that reliable sources exist to expand the article beyond a mere dicdef, the article should be kept. --Matilda talk 20:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually think that this source does much more than prove the term's use as a synonym for all of the other ad hominems being discussed. It certainly doesn't seem to discuss the phrase's usage and background, rather it merely applies it. Brilliantine (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - but I am not sure I comprehend - we have a book by a notable author entirely devoted to the term gauche caviar - how do you think it "doesn't seem to discuss the phrase's usage and background" ? How is it that a phrase that according to a prominent French political commentator is "apparently [a] surface phenomenon which played a great role and often made the difference in the political game, in France like elsewhere" is unworthy of an article. Other sources - in French are http://pluriel.free.fr/gauche_debat10.html A bebelfish translation (unedited as this is merely a discussion not a ref for the article) of the lead indicates the definition is available from this source:

There had been the intellectual left, the left criticizes, the moderated left, the radical left… Since the Eighties, it there with the left caviar. This n' is more from now on one political positioning which colours l' membership of the left, c' is a sociocultural and economic marker. The Left caviar would be these rich, anonymous or known people who would have their entries in the circles of the capacity qu' it is economic, media, cultural or political, without necessarily in being and which would have a level or an easy way of life. This definition of course does not satisfy because, it does not comprise the moral share which is appropriate. The left caviar is inevitably middle-class with the warping direction of the term, it knows misery only d' in top and thus, for it, being of left, c' is to revolt comfortably. In fact, one reproaches those which l' one affuble of this nickname not to resemble those enough qu' they claim to defend and to miss sincerity and d' authenticity in their engagements.

Alternatively from La Libre Belgique - essentially a review of the book but a disussion also: http://www.lalibre.be/index.php?view=article&art_id=288175

The lawsuit of the left caviar
Eric de Bellefroid
26/05/2006
The fall of the elites progressists Frenchwomen magistralement dismounted by Laurent Joffrin
Director of the drafting of “Nouvel Observateur”, Laurent Joffrin enjoys for this reason d' noble and worthy expertise in what looks at the left caviar. This left which reads its newspaper d' access, and that this one observes very near in return.
Left in a remote exploration the phenomenon, it brings back qu' to us; there existed already in ancient Rome, and qu' a certain middle-class elite - even aristocratic - s' is attached for a long time to the cause of the popular classes. Thus it was seen with Voltaire, Fayette, Talleyrand or the duke d' Orleans, but still with Victor Hugo or Emile Zola, and even in the United States with president John F. Kennedy or in England with the brilliant economist John Maynard Keynes.
A USEFUL CASTE
If French socialism s' d' is ever prevailed; a less tradition ouvrierist, it owed it with proletarian masses which were pleased d' to have at their head of the chiefs able to dominate the line until over the plans cultural and intellectual. Also the left known as caviar caused it the vindication of this line as much as the hatred of l' extreme left. “Bringing the reinforcement d' one entregent and d' a competence, it was useful.”
But this n' is more the case, objects Laurent Joffrin. “The left caviar n' had ever lived with the people but it served it, what qu' one says. It l' gave up. It s' is put to think without him and even against him.” And that because, in the years 1990, l' money took its fol take-off. The financiarisation of l' economy, doped by the liberal internationalization, involved all the leading class in its morbidity.
Admittedly the left reformist, according to Joffrin, n' it does not have demerit of the working class and socialist values; it will have even humanized capitalism. While its historical assessment is sometimes brilliant, sometimes disappointing, but always honourable, the things thus are spoiled after 1990. Left of luxury, which was found so well in l' example of Pierre Mendès France, radical middle-class man, then will be found committal for trial.
THE TIME OF THE RIGOUR
The first years Mitterrand n' had however not been bad. “Technos” of the second left, Mauroy, Delors or Rocard, s' they s' were d' access évertués to implement the 110 proposals of the candidate-president, had negotiated since 1983 the salutary one “turning of the rigour”, ceasing cultivating the myth of the rupture with capitalism and fastening France with l' rather; Europe and with l' market economy...

It is quite obvious that the term exists and has been defined and discussed extensively - including its history and usage. There are sources available - the article should be kept and developed. --Matilda talk 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(unindent) What I'm trying to say is that the phrase is no more than a synonym or a translation of, for instance, "Champagne Socialist". Do we have the French word for "libertarian" as an article? Of course not. How should this be any different? I wouldn't mind noting it as a French language expression of the concept if a unified article is created, but it has no particular notability as a separate article. A notable phrase, especially a foreign language one, would be one for which the phrase itself is discussed - i.e. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, which has been discussed specifically as a phrase in terms of its meaning, usage and from the point of view of linguistics as a tripartite slogan. Brilliantine (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what you are perhaps proposing is a merge to Champagne socialist? A merger is not deletion. --Matilda talk 00:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the options I have given in my !vote above. Brilliantine (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys want to merge things, there are quite a lot of other similar terms that could be merged I believe. We could create a list "terms used to annoy liberals" lol. Sorry, nothing wrong with a bit of humour in these heated debates. — Realist2 00:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with humour :-) My issue with the merger would be breach of WP:SYNTH. We can find sources that link them but ...--Matilda talk 00:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep probably enough material for notability on its own, but possibly a merge to champagne socialist on the basis of the references. DGG (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the lot. The concept is notable and encyclopaedic but I don't think we need an article on every variation of name that has been invented. Nuttah (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable per the references from reliable sources, interesting and relevant to current affairs. It could expand in the future. The French wikipedia article is fairly well-developed. It may become a dictionary definition but it is not in the 2008 Hachette. Mcewan (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is in Larousse - see ref - search for caviar --Matilda talk 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete. Snow'ed in. No assertion of notability. CSD'ed twice, PROD'ed once. seicer | talk | contribs 02:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester city ligers

Leicester city ligers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this pro dodgeball team is notable. Being mentioned in an article about a charity event doesn't cut it. Was speedied twice, with one contested prod.OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's My Life/Bathwater (The Remixes)

It's My Life/Bathwater (The Remixes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Articles are for songs, not singles, and both of these songs already have articles. Very unlikely search term. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Dalby

Possible conflict of interest, author is Emilia's own father and has only ever edited this article. "Emilia Dalby" gets 114 Google hits. Proposal for deletion was contested, so going to AfD instead. I vote delete. JIP | Talk 04:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion//James Arthur Ray

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_10&oldid=237540937"