Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 27 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete as unsalvageable nonsense

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

This article has no encyclopedic quality, and should be posted in Wiktionary. Tigerclaw81 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable convention, no claims of notbility, no sources to prove notability. Corvus cornixtalk 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable convention, held every April since 2008, meaning, what, there has been one? No references to provide notability. Corvus cornixtalk 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Unsourced, non notable neologism. Merge proponents could certainly add a sentence or two to customer relationship management with a soucr, without a merge. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable neologism. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator after the article was speedied at author's request. Gwernol 23:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

An upcoming songwriter who has not yet achieved notability. Does not meet our criteria for notability of musicians. There are no independent, reliable sources that would allow readers to verify the claims made. The author removed the Prod notice without comment, though after adding a couple of references that do not meet WP:RS since they are neither independent of the subject nor published. The author appears to be the subject of the article and has a history of rather unpleasant vandalism. Gwernol 23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Feel free to create a dab or redirect page as appropriate. Sandstein (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wood's March Around Lake Lanao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability and Verifiability in question. This is not a formal campaign in the Philippine-American War. See Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Special:Contributions.2FKennethjaensss for verifiability issues Lenticel 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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



The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions, apart from RGTraynor's, are completely unpersuasive in the light of the various policies and guidelines cited in the discussion.Sandstein (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Roblox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
File:Builderman.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:BigRoblox.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable website, no claims of notability, no reliable sources. I would have tagged this for db-web, but it's been here for quite a while with a lot of editors. Corvus cornixtalk 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, an article cannot be kept purely based on the argument that other articles exist. There are articles on WP which should exist and do not, just as there are articles that shouldn't exist and do. It's why an article is discussed for deletion it is examined on it's own merits, based on the source material available. Additionally, Google hits and Youtube video counts are a form of Search Engine Test, which are not recommended for examining concerns surrounding notability or verifiability. It is why coverage is requested in the form of third-party reliable sources in order to assert this. Gazimoff Read 18:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but that level of internet activity does speak to a non-zero level of cultural relevance. My point in drawing attention to the other entries isn't that I don't think they should have articles, but rather that the guidelines that work well for WikiPedia at large may not be entirely suitable for emerging online games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.151.58 (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles of incorporation were filed in Delaware in 2006, if we have to we can change the entry from being about ROBLOX the game to being about ROBLOX, the studio that makes the game ROBLOX. --Shedletsky (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC) — Shedletsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The flatworld page has a chunk of Morgan McGuire's CV copied into it. He's a prof at Williams who has worked on ROBLOX. His CV is here ]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shedletsky (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That still doesn't make it a reliable source as to the website's notability. Corvus cornixtalk 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Judging from the articles you've started, you don't know anything about online games. So what's it to you? How did you happen to come across this page? I'm suspicious that you may actually be a competitor who has ulterior motives here, or some other vested interest that you have not disclosed. --Shedletsky (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Way to assume good faith. I never even heard of Roblox until I saw this edit, which violated Knowledge's copyright rules, and so I removed the edit and read the article, at which point there were no reliable sources, I went looking for some and couldn't find any, that's when I did the AfD. I have nothing to do with computer games or any other vested interest, as you would have been able to tell by looking at my edit history. Corvus cornixtalk 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please remember that when engaging in debates to assume good faith and not make personal attacks. Additionally, please note that knowledge of the subject does not restrict an ability to analyse the content of the article to meet Knowledge's policies for submission. The references listed in this AfD fall short of what is required as a reliable source. Sources should be from third-party organisations unrelated to the subject. Please see WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N for more information. Gazimoff Read 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep I know the whole article has no refrences because I wrote almost the whole article myself. B y the way, the user above me, Sheldsky, is actually the game developer. And I know he isnt an imposter because he was the one to create the article on Roblox. Anyways, I wrote the whole article using my own game knoledge, so I dont know anyway to give a refence to that. But after I wrote it, many people decided to vandalize it and change the article into a stub. But I digress, I dont know how to refrence the article, and I cant find 3rd party sources. --Briguy9876 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

QED. Corvus cornixtalk 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yikes. You wrote "Keep" up front, but then proceeded to point out that the article has potential issues with Knowledge:Conflict of interest, Knowledge:No original research, Knowledge:Verifiability, Knowledge:Reliable sources, and Knowledge:Notability. Pagrashtak 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete Isn't this a full on admission that the article is not-notable, original research, with a conflict of interest, and totally unverifiable? Holy smokes. This is practically a textbook case for a deletion-worthy article. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The only problem is that there Aren't any reliable third -party sources. Most are so tiny they dont help, or they were written by another user, such as this article now and the biggest one on Great Games Experiment. I know that I said that I wrote it, butI said Keep becuase there arent any 3rd party sources that can create the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And what would YOU consider a "reliable" source, Corvus Cornix?

Have you read WP:RS? Corvus cornixtalk 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Using that logic, you might as well delete half the articles on this site. --69.210.112.167 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself, Corvus. The article has alot of authors. And what you dont know, is that about 80% of those edits didnt help the article at all,and 15 of the rest were minor. Now, I say this because thats alot of vandalism, for something that has hardly any media attention, nor has lot of 3rd party sources. THats why I say for the article to keep, purly because the game is popular,and the article is popular, so removing it would be bad in my eyes. --Briguy9876 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep ROBLOX Has over 300,000 members, but isn't allowed to have a wiki article? I guess ROBLOX doesn't have many 3rd party things, but it is new and hasn't yet had time to collect such things. It is growing rapidly, and if you delete it now it will be ready to be re-made very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.120.40 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — 70.177.120.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Correction You can't vote "strong keep" and admit that the article cannot be supported by 3rd party resources. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
THeres just one more thing that we can point out: Since the few 3rd-party sources we do have gives enough info to make a stub , cant we at least save the article and turn it into a stub IF we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment People voting keep are admitting this article breaks every rule and still vote to keep it. The rules are not context sensitive. The rules for notability, reliable research, verifiability, and neutral point of view apply to all articles regardless of whether it's politics, movies, history, or games. Game articles aren't compared to each other. Game articles are compared to Napoleon. If you want to create a wiki for a random online flash game, there are other gamer exclusive wikis with much lower standards than wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: Alright, I know, I know. But there comes a point when the tide is high enough to lift the boat past the WP:IAR threshold, and I think this is one. No, there aren't any third-party, independent, published sources that I can find, and yes, the article should be edited to conform to POV standards. But ... we're talking a subject that has over 800 unique Google hits , and that's huge; by contrast, "United States of America" has only 930. Plainly there's a significant buzz out there.  RGTraynor  16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • However, we can't write an article without verifiability, and we can't have verifiability without third-party sources. How do you propose to overcome this? Pagrashtak 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Maybe external traffic stats would help? We're somewhere around the 30000th most visited site on the internet, according to compete.com and alexa. For comparison, any number above 10000 would be considered a "hit". --Shedletsky (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • You seem to be addressing notability (although please note that notability is distinct from popularity). I'm talking about verifiability. Pagrashtak 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Alright, I'll bite. Let's concede that the article needs to be trimmed dramatically (as it would were there a dozen copper-bottomed sources). Beyond that, what do you challenge? That the game exists? The basics of what the game is about? That it plainly has a lot of people interested in it? That it sports a respectable Alexa rank? WP:RS does not forbid (and, indeed, concedes) that self-published sources can be used for certain elements. Plainly some of the elements are sourceable: the existence of the corporation, that it is rated "E," for example.  RGTraynor  19:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Would game reviews by prominent websites/rating sites work? 63.204.151.5 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
            • For sure. That's exactly what a reliable third party source is. So long as the website was prominent and it wasn't just a user generated review, it would establish notability, and provide verifiable information about the game. Randomran (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
RG, I'm not challenging anything, I'm simply stating that we can't write an article if there are no reliable third-party sources. From Knowledge:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge should not have an article on it." In your keep statement you say you can't find any third-party sources, so I'm asking you to justify your statement against Knowledge:Verifiability. Pagrashtak 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I already did. That you don't like my rationale is plain, but I'm not going fishing for another one just because of that.  RGTraynor  13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Deleteall. Tyrenius 23:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fictitious team; believe me, if they were a real team, I would know. Also no such league as the League of Polmont. Keeno 11:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages which are about the fictitious league and national association with which Polmont FC is associated:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:OR. Sandstein (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Theory of Natural Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Let us just say "original research" and leave it at that for this long article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete . Sandstein (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable singer. Only sources are unreliable (myspace), primary, or trivial. She has not charted a single yet, and hasn't released an album yet either -- nor has she done anything else that meets WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

FK Makedonija 1970 Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
File:FKMakedonijaBerlinFlag1991.GIF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable local football club which doesn't appear to be involved with anything that would pass WP:N. PeterSymonds | talk 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

FK Makedonija 1970 is a traditional football club in the multiethnic municipality Kreuzberg of Berlin and is the second oldest football club in Berlin founded by immigrants (first being Türkspor, established in 1969). so it is a notable football club. Cukiger (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

But it is not a professional club; thus it is not notable. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No policy states that only fully professional clubs are notable, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of articles on WP on semi-pro teams, however this seems to be a really low-level completely amateur team, whose only supposed claim to fame is that they were not quite the first German team to be founded by immigrants........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
From the name I would estimate that it is a local league run by immigrants from the former Yugoslavia. GiantSnowman 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact the article specifically states "The league was established by Yugoslavian expatriates and collapsed when that country broke up." It's not very surprising that Google turns up nothing on a local recreational league which folded over a decade ago ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a non notable band. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stabilizer (Music Breakbeat UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable music group. Because of the name, I had trouble looking for sources, but the searching I did turned up nothing. Further, the article's external link redirects to some other artist's page. GlassCobra 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete no assertion of notability. --neonwhite user page talk 03:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

York Central Ball Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article purports to be about a non-notable league, however the contents reflect a particular team. Team name is a hard search due to Shoeless Joe, but amid false positives there's no evidence of the team's notability either. Claims, yes. Evidence, no. Creator is an SPA with a COI. TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Well that would explain Shoeless Merchandise was flying off the shelves & with great reason. "Paolo Pannozzo", "Rob Berenguer", "Anthony Notarfonzo" & "Steve Celebre" jerseys became every kid's stocking stuffer. In fact Rob Berenguer's jersey was # 2 worldwide in Sales next to Sydney Crosby's of the NHL. , someone was drunk. -Pparazorback (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable. Feel free to create a redirect to a "List of minor characters in..." article, that's how we usually deal with such articles. Nothing sourced to merge here, though. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Fictional character without evidence of notability given; article is entirely unsourced. Tagged with {{notability}} since February 2007; redirected to article of broader scope in November 2007; redirect deleted per CSD in March 2008, but later restored; reverted to full article in April 2008. I'm sending it here to sort the matter out. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My Mother is a Tractor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable vanity-press book. The author paid for publication through the notorious Canadian vanity press, Trafford. Google kicks up only blogs, author's own website, and wikimirrors. Utterly fails WP:BK. And this is also very disturbing: Someone with an Australian ISP has been going around adding wikilinks about this book to a weirdly wide variety of articles: . The book's author lives in Australia. Hmm. Now someone will have to volunteer to go through all of those articles and remove his awful spam. I'm going to start on it now. Qworty (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Author notes: I was directed to this page for comment. If you choose to delete, fine. I know I cannot stand in the way of a tidal wave of wiki opinion but just wanted to add some notes.

  • I'm originally from Australia but have not lived there for 8 years, hence those edits are the work of whoever - but not me. Upon checking Qworty's link I see they were added on June 6, 2006 - one of the busiest weeks of my year (exam week in Shanghai).
  • It may be self-published but, if you follow the Amazon sales, it's usually only outsold by "Learning to Bow" in the pantheon of 'JET' books.
  • Notability does not seem to matter much to Indiana University and Dokkyo University who utilise it as a standard text in courses WP:BK - Point 4
  • It's archived by both the National Diet Libary (Japan) and Library and Archives (Canada) WP:BK#Threshold_standards
  • This book has been independently reviewed by Japan Visitor, The Crazy Japan Times, Rocky Mountain JETAA and Rough Guide Japan WP:BK - Point 1
  • As for personal non-nobility that's not in question here, and neither would I ever assert it - although some have alluded to it. FYI I have had other work published in major media such as The Japan Times, Shanghai Daily, Fukuoka-Now, Asia! and Voyage.
  • Lastly if anyone have ever written a book one would realise the path of 'vanity press' is much easier one to tread than the continual slog of agents and publishing houses. Qworty obviously doesn't like POD/"Vanity Press' Talk:Trafford_Publishing and has deleted all other references without waiting for judgement here, so one must presume deletion a fait accompli

Given the last point I have therefore I saved a copy now as a last hurrah, expecting the worst. Good evening ladies/gents and good luck. Comment added by Nklar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 01 May 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Ann Catholic Church (Bartlett, Tennessee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Coverage limited to false positives and events (weddings, funerals, etc.) that took place at the church. Sole claim of being one of the largest in the area, is dubious notability. Churches tend not to be notable and this is no exception. TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep per consensus. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Does not meet the standard of WP:BLP1E, as the subject of the article has no notable accomplishments other than his involvement with the Virginia Tech massacre. From the policy, noted in multiple situations (including from Knowledge legal and ArbCom cases) as being key to the project: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." --Avillia 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep as a well-sourced biography of someone who is undisputably notably. The driving force behind WP:BLP1E is to ensure that articles on living persons are NPOV compliant, and don't give undue weight to one event. However, in this case, we have a substantial amount of biographical information that lets us say more than "this person went on a shooting spree". Bfigura 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy keeep. Subject is ridiculously notable. Even though most of his notability can be tied to one event, there is a lot of coverage about the subject beyond the simple acts that he did; i.e, his history, psychological issues, etc. Celarnor 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highly notable, the perpatrator of the worst school shooting in US history and linked from a featured article, as well as mentioned internationally should have an article. ~AH1 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone, and also because I think it's dangerous to read our policy on biographies of living people as applying to content on people that aren't, you know, living. Maxamegalon2000 05:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If his article was short, he could be considered to be merged back into the VT shooting page. But his article is not short, it is also not bad (quite the opposite), so this article should obviously be kept. – sgeureka 08:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, whole article was a copyvio added by one user.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

St Anne's Church, Corstorphine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local church lacking sources required for WP:ORG. Also copyvio of somewhere "we can observe" but I can't find the source -- only partially from here TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 21:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This is a non-notable artist who's exhibited his work in a handful of places but whose real "claim to fame" is that he once made some collages, then paid the notorious Canadian vanity press, Trafford, to publish a book of them. Clearly, these are not the qualifications for a notable article, as he fails WP:BIO and his vanity book fails WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I don't think the choice of a book's printer/vanity publisher should be a consideration unless the work is being presented as anything other than self published. Significant references or reviews by mainstream or (more likely) reputable industry/trade pubs meeting WP:RS would contribute to establishing notability for this person, but how the book got published shouldn't matter unless it's notable in itself. However, as Qworty says, there are no independent published sources (at least none easily found online) to establish artist's notability. Flowanda | Talk 01:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

NES-on-a-chip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by anonymous IP without leaving a reason. Non-notable piece of electronics; unverifiable article. Chardish (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable footballer, has never played for a professional side and therefore fails the notability guides for sportsmen. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Sole delete preference was WP:PERNOM, topic has non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Skomorokh 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Undeveloped Buffy the Vampire Slayer spinoffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT as these are all proposed spin-offs that never were actually developed. Seems more a page for rumors and what ifs than encyclopedic content. Mostly sourced from various Buffy fansites and other unreliable sources. The two notable ones already have main articles that could be mentioned in summary style in the main Buffy article without this extra step. Collectonian (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The only part sourced from TV Guide is the Spike movie, which would be better served as being a short paragraph in his article as part of his reception section. Collectonian (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And the parts sourced to the BBC include parts of the Ripper section and the SLayer School section. Other sources seem reasonably reliable as well. Otto4711 (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as not notable per WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOT#NEWS. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

He has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:ATHLETE as there's no evidence he's ever played at the fully professonal level and he is of 'local fame' TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was The result was delete as non notable. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC). Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable wrestler with only two references. iMatthew 2008 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a TV listing page, that is not a good third party source. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Kalahari Boerboel (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wrestler with one reference. iMatthew 2008 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While it's difficult to call two opinions a consensus, I agree that the policies and guidelines referred to in the opinions are applicable and persuasive in this case. Also, while certainly not grounds for deletion, the almost complete lack of third party WP:V sources after over a year and a half of development is also a factor. Pigman☿ 04:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ba Sing Se (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article was previously nominated for deletion, but was kept with no consensus. I believe the article should still be deleted. Though, as some users argued, the article discusses some notable points with relation to the show (Avatar: The Last Airbender), this article is way too detailed. When only a short summary would suffice, whole sections are dedicated to encyclopedic information. For instance, there is a three-paragraph section dedicated to the royal palace, when only one-paragraph describing what happened in the royal palace would suffice. In addition, the article is nowhere near properly sourced. In fact, it could be argued that there is a lot of synthesized original research in the article (though I will not particularly make this accusation, as I have not fully analyzed the article).

To place what I just said in better terms: A lot of the article does not fall under WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:FICTION; A lot of the article does fall under WP:DUE; There are few reliable sources and even fewer third-party sources; The article might have some WP:SYNTH. — Parent5446 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

prod request disputed. Notability concerns per WP:Music being a mixtape Wolfer68 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We Can Get Them for You Wholesale (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There just aren't enough sources to write an article on this film. We can't evaluate it through reviews, we can't provide context, all we can have is the limited information which is here. If you've seen the film, you know more than we do. If you haven't see the film, we can't tell you anything about it which doesn't amount to advertising. Hiding T 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable, no external sites, Google search turns up a MySpace page... 21655 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

External links added by Eastmain. Still NN? 21655 00:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Still delete. I don't think the source of any of those links or references are sufficiently removed from the subject to be independent or notable. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Seems non-notable, as far as I'm concerned. 75% of the links are red. 21655 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Gayle Laverne Grinds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not believe the article passes the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. The minimal notability is strictly connected to the unusual aspects of the subject’s death. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Signficiant coverage in multiple, reliable sources is needed. I don't see that here. Nick Graves (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Overall, she just makes the mark for notability, but the parts of the article that make it notable have no sources. Seems a bit far-fetched, though if there are sources anything is possible (well, almost anything). — Parent5446 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The only reason people would look this up is because her unusual death inspired a scene from Nip/Tuck otherwise I believe this needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belazekial (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Cheryl Sarate. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 12:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This article does not state it's importance whatsoever, or any kind of encyclopedic relevance. Tigerclaw81 (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep I'm with JeremyMcCracken. I've never personally heard of this and I don't personally know if it's notable. But a quick google shows the topic is at least legitimate. It's not pushing an agenda or an advertisement or a POV. You could have waited at least a few weeks before trying deletion, if not a few months... no? Let the creator of the article have his/her chance to make it work. Randomran (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete As per Gazimoff. I don't want to stonewall this one. Randomran (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - After giving the article a fair amount of time, I've done a search for sources and can't find anything to help with notability. Article appears to be an entry for a quite mundane game server. Gazimoff Read 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable. Knowledge is not for things made up in one day. — ERcheck (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.¤~Persian Poet Gal 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Vermont sports network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability. Website has Alexa rank > 1M. — ERcheck (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, closed early per WP:SNOW. Notability is clearly established by the massive international coverage of this case. There may at some point be a case for renaming the article, but that does not require an AFD decision, and there is clearly a strong consensus to keep this article. Discussion of any proposed merger or renaming should take place on the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Per WP:BLP, subject's only claim to notability is being the victim of an alleged sexual crime. Yes, it's published in major papers, but out of respect for the dignity of the victim, I'm recommending Delete. // Chris 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, WP:BLP1E is a long outdated guideline. Knowledge in actual fact is a newspaper amongst many other things. By now, all the things lots of oldtimers have listed wikipedia "is not", would mean we would soon have to delete about a million articles, including Natascha Kampusch. ephix (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above/WP:BIO1E. Until this deletion happens, I've added the {{current}} tag. Booglamay (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is already being compared to the Natascha Kampusch case. The article will just have to be recreated in a few days. This is much more than an alleged "sexual crime". HtD (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I can't believe this has been nominated for deletion when there is an article on Kampusch on Knowledge. Unless there is an influx of similar stories, this needs to be kept. If it must be deleted then we will need to delete Natascha Kampusch as well. And the article on Priklopil. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a lead story throughout the world. --Tocino 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to an article on the event. The existence of one article (NK) is not a reason for the existence of another. Kampusch has gone on from the kidnapp event to perform other media roles which are worthy of documentation. If, in the future, Fritzl does this then no doubt she will get an article. Furthermore it has emerged that there are other people who were kept in the house; Elisabeth may not yet turn out to be the most prominent person within this story. --Pretty Green (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for the time being at least and see how things develop. This is no different in many ways than other articles which detail miseries that have happened to various people.I think this may be best served with an article about the event rather than the person but we can see what happens as things develop. To suggest deleting it on the grounds of respect for the victim would be akin to asking the various media covering the event to stop reporting it and to purge their archives. I know it's not Knowledge's job to act as a news agency but this event is likely to be examined or studied in future, so I believe there is merit in recording it here. IrishPete (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep/merge. May best be rewritten into an article that covers a chronological history of the event more than the person, but deleting this content certainly isn't going to bring us any closer to that goal. For the time being, it should be kept, at least until something substantive can be written regarding the event. Celarnor 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E, privacy concerns, Knowledge is not a newspaper, etc. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP There are many crime victims who have articles on this site (see Kidnapped Children, Hostages, Kidnappings, among others) whose notability is derived from being a victim, and this one is no exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILuvTea (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepThe iprtance depends on the crime. go read the article. DGG (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP -- It is important for others to be aware of what is going on. As someone already mentioned, there are plenty of other crime victims stories published on Knowledge, why should this one be any different?
  • Strong MERGE The particular event is notable and deserving of inclusion in a larger article on kidnappings, etc. This particular article is WP:BLP1E. 75.1.243.237 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Merge , maybe keep as is, but certainly don't delete. This is comparable to Kampusch's situation. Noble Story (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This even is especially notable due to its comparisons with the Kampusch story and the length of time involved versus the Kampusch story (24 years of captivity versus 8 years along with her children being held captive as well). There will be many more details revealed in the coming days and it is beat to keep this article on it's own so there is a coherent place to put all the information. Merge can be discussed later (though I believe even after all the facts come out this story deserves it's own entry). Diemunkiesdie (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Taking aim at the first call for deletion, there are a lot of other people listed in Knowledge who's main claim to fame is that something happened to them. And they should be here. This is an encyclopedia. It should be as inclusive as possible, as the aim is to provide information. We should not judge the information we provide as to it's worthiness to be included, but only on it's accuracy and readability, and any judgment on either should only be made with the aim of improving the article. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep For now. I am all for deleting articles which are merely a news item, but this is one of the most bizarre stories of the late 20th/early 21st century. The nominator grossly misstates the facts by claiming it is merely a one time sex crime. It is alleged incest over a 24 year period of imprisonment, probably a world's record. It has had widespread coverage so far. If it is deleted as a mere current hot news story, and it turns out to have the long lasting significance it seems to have, we could certainly re-create it. Defies belief. And the alleged imprisoner's wife had NO IDEA there was anything hinky going on. Edison (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Just to let you know, I understand the enormity of the crime we're talking about. My objection is that (a) the story is less than 24 hours old, and (b) we don't have any real standards for inclusion based on type or magnitude of crime involved. I know it's newsworthy and it's attracted a lot of attention, but then so did the Corey Delaney article (which caused no end of drama. I decided to play it safe and recommend deletion, and I stand by my reasoning. // Chris 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:BIO1E is not really relevant, this article is about an event, not a person. It just happens the person's name is the best name for the article. SeanCollins (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As far as I can read, Knowledge:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! states that it is best to avoid using too many acronyms, and isn't a justification to use more. I know that Articles for Deletion isn't the ideal place for new members of the community to begin, but we could probably do more to help make this easier to understand, especially when the deletion notice is (currently) as big as the entire article. --Stozball (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It is good practice to type out an acronym in full, with the acronym in brackets, on the first use in an article. This isn't too painful, it assists those who may not know (and shouldn't have to look up), and is general practice in all 'serious' writing. And it's good manners, too, unless you wish to discourage new active mebers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heenan73 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A point- I would recommend always wikilinking these (e.g. type ] rather than simply BLP1E). These are already wikilinked at the top Peripatetic, so follow those links to see what the posters are referring to. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:BLP1E. Also, the names are not published in most news papers, as far as I can see. mabahj 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and consider the possibility of renaming the article so that it clearly is about the crime, and not about one of the victims. There are after all, at least eight more people involved in this bizarre story. The relevant inclusion policy here is more likely to be NOTNEWS than BLP1E, but even NOTNEWS does not rule out the possibility of articles on current events. (NOTNEWS mentions "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", something this is not.) Apart from the very horrific circumstances which has turned this case into a major news story, the case also has called into question the role of authorities which should have stopped this, so it's an event with a significant aftermath and investigation. Clearly, care should be taken to write the article in a conservative, and non-sensationalist manner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If this article is deleted, then the all articles on people who have been imprisoned and abused should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.168.104 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I understand the nomination, and its worth discussing. But as an internet based encyclopedia, some times the speed at which we can react to news and create an article, which against definded standrads may seem trivial; needs to be judged against other similar stories and then reviewed after a bit of time. This potential scale of this one needs a bit more time before it can be reviewed properly. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. meets notability criteria in spades. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: WP:BLP1E is irrelevant here, except as an argument to rename into the name of the story rather than the ame of one individual involved. But the affair - to my knowledge - does not really have a name.--Noe (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we wrap up this discussion? Can we remove the deletion tag from the page, based on the rather strong majority of keeps above, and the lack of specific suggestions of something to merge with or rename to?--Noe (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Not really suitable as the alleged case took place over 24 years and only came to light in 2008, so to have a year in the title would be misleading. Also not so much a kidnapping as an imprisonment. Perhaps The Fritzl Case‎ would be better. But this alleged crime began with the alleged imprisonment of Elisabeth, so I think it's the best place to start. We can look at merging later once more facts are known. HtD (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Then there are a lot of Austrian, British and other European media outlets that are going to be fined, not to mention the Austrian police who have released details of the alleged crime and confession! HtD (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Interested editors are invited to discuss a merge on the relevant talkpages. Skomorokh 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Seems marginal, especially for such a small part of his workl. I have already merged what he is "most notable for" into the Chand article, and that seems to work. The other two tidbits can probably be merged into the seperate articles as well. Seems marginal, and the subject requests deletion on otrs:1501807. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, he's a leading attorney in the largest Terrorism investigation in Canadian history, one which made headlines across the world - and was referenced by the administrations of both Tony Blair and George Bush as a grave threat and tremendous operation. He's not the attorney for one of the lackeys, he's the attorney for the alleged leader of a group that intended to storm Parliament, behead the Prime Minister and hold Cabinet members hostage until their demands were met - as well as purchasing Ammonium Nitrate to blow up various targets across Southern Ontario...the allegations may or may not be true, but it's certainly the equivilent of the "OJ Simpson" case - and the attorneys, whether they like it or not, are "public figures", especially the ones who speak to the media.
The article has seen 64 edits by 14 distinct users, including both Moon and Mubin Shaikh, and he's chosen to not only take this case, but involve himself in the Supreme Court hearing of Omar Khadr. Certainly not a non-notable lawyer we're dealing with.
Not that it matters, but if we are going to use an edit analysis for notability, lets do it properly.

User statistics for these edits:
Number of users: 17
33.33% IP/anon edits (22 edit(s))
62.12% other users (41 edit(s))
3.03% administrator edits (2 edit(s))
1.52% bot edits (1 edit(s))
Time range:
212 approximate day(s) of edits || 212 approximate day(s) since first edit
Most recent edit on: 12:28, 27 April 2008
Oldest edit on: 20:47, 28 September 2007
Current time: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:42:10 UTC
Analysis:
Notable edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0 edit(s))
Significant edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0% (0 edit(s))
Superficial edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 24.24% (16 edit(s))
48.48% marked reverts (any) (32)
42.42% probable reverts of vandalism (28)
Unmarked edits: 27.27% (18 edit(s))
Averages:
66.67% edit summary usage
Average edits/user: 3.88
0.312 edit(s) per day (current)
0.312 edit(s) per day (since last active)
0.151 marked revert(s) per day (since last active)
1 : 0.94 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV)
40.91% edit progess (non-reverts/reverted edits) (27 edit(s))
9.09% of edits by IP-only users are non-reverts/reverted (2 out of 22 edit(s))

Then we ought to include a piece in that article. I don't think this one is notable enough for an article based on the small amount of his work. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It is unclear to me exactly what point the nominator wanted us to conclude with these statistics, above. Geo Swan (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to the above comment by Sherurcij, when s/he said The article has seen 64 edits by 14 distinct users. The point was, there is nothing to infer about these stats, they are meaningless. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: "...but if we are going to use an edit analysis for notability, lets do it properly..." No offense, this does not look like an attempt to "do it properly". Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
None taken. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The edit analysis means nothing, and should not be used in this debate. That was the point I wanted to make. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Per the "subject's request for deletion", he actually trolled WP and threatened to sue its "close-minded, ignorant Wiki-fascists", and has been blocked twice, and called the blocking admin a "closet fascist" who "wants to advance terror". He then proceeded to announce that he was reporting people who work on his article to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (Canada's version of the CIA).(evidence). Sherurcij 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
What does the subjects behavior on Knowledge have to do with this deletion debate? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You're the one who said he "requested his article be deleted", I'm merely pointing out the context - this wasn't a polite "Excuse me, I believe this article should be deleted", it was a hyperbole-fuelled rant that led to him being blocked twice for threatening users and threatening legal action against WMF, as well as involving Canada's domestic spy agency...people who vote presumably deserve to know the context of his "request". Sherurcij 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets not pee in the water. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
this article has been included on Knowledge:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism
Just a note, not to harrass you - but I want to point out that the majority of lawyers and judges who have articles on WP don't have articles "about them", but about the case in which they're involved. Whether it's Leonie Brinkema or Dennis Edney. Sherurcij 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I don't see where this nomination suggests that this article violates any policies. Let's only nominate articles for deletion when they violate policy, OK? What troubles me about this nomination is that it seems to assume that merging related articles is a good idea. One of the most powerful features of modern hypertext systems, like the wikipedia is that they allow readers to wend their own path through the universe of human knowledge. Merging related articles, and then arbitrarily deleting some articles, is, IMO, a very grave disservice to readers. Nominator has no way of knowing whether readers go to the Moon article are going there because they are interested in Chand, or interested in Erhun Candir, or interested in his role in the Omar Khadr case, or interested in his article for himself. Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't normally include biographys on marginally notable people. A good way around this is to merge the article into the notable event, rather than have an article on a non notable person. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't merge them into other biographies. If a "non-notable person saved Mariah Carey from oncoming traffic", we wouldn't include an article on that person - but if a lawyer becomes a public figure in an international terrorism investigation, giving interviews to the media and such, he's certainly not "marginally notable". Sherurcij 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Dhartung. Source 1 is about him but there's almost nothing there, like at 6. 5 doesn't even mention his name. I don't have access to 7 and 8, but from their titles they also don't seem to be about him. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-27t20:59z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Difficult to verify the assertions, and this one is marginal notable. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Maybe I looked in the wrongs spots, but I failed to find coverage of the article's subject in a reliable, secondary source (or in a primary source, for that matter). fails WP:BIO. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, very nearly a speedy as a non-notable biography. The closest thing I see here to an assertion of notability is that he's the "author of a number of legal articles", and that doesn't really say much - plenty of people have written and published papers, but relatively few of them are well-known for having done so, and Mr. Papadopoulos doesn't appear to be one of them. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability at all. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete The notability depends on the articles, the number and importance. It cant be assumed from a Knowledge bio like this that the work either is or is not significant, and I wouldn't be prepared to !vote without looking for myself. Actually looking, in this case in Google Scholar, as a preliminary, I find 4 or 5. (there are 3 as ssrn) There's an alternate form of the name: . Ioannis Papadopoulos - I don;'t think he's notable yet. As he apparently is 24 years old, that seems reasonable. DGG (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Author had blanked page within a day of creating article, also fails WP:BIO. Paste (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Classic film lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unencyclopaedic list which could never be comprehensive and could never be neutral depending as it does on subjective interpretations of what is "classic", "well-known", "iconic", "ironic" and "witty". Wikiquote exists for a reason. nancy 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Exactly what the nom said. This list could never be comprehensive or neutral. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 15:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably written by someone new to Knowledge, so I don't want to be too mean about this. One of the toughest concepts to handle for a newcomer is the bar against "original research", where one creates their own list of items, or comes up with their own theory. While it may seem like a harsh rule, it's one of the better ones here; if everybody compiled their own list of what they consider "classic" anything, the results would be widely different. Even if one were to quote from a published source of "classic film lines" (say, for instance, a top 100 compiled by Entertainment Weekly), it's not a very good topic. We encourage you to contribute. Everything gets published on Knowledge, but not everything gets to stay on Knowledge. Don't get too upset when this gets deleted, it's nothing personal. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TravelTalkRADIO. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

nn web site related to nn travel radio show Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravelTalkMEDIA has been merged to this article apparently.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

nn travel radio show Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The consensus below is that the article subject is verifiably notable. Darkspots (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

nn host of travel radio show Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable EMC Personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poor article title, will not be more than a stubby list, not a notable topic for WP, irretrievable stub (?) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Larry the Lizard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Children's book. The author of the article denies that the book is either of two already in print, but does not provide an ISBN or other reference. So I assume it is MADEUP. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Nonencyclopedic article. Knowledge is not a "how to" guide. Unreferenced, original research. Evb-wiki (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Independent Source: http://jobsearch.about.com/od/referencesrecommendations/a/referencetips.htm Dwrjr (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 12:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Previously PRODded, now recreated. The subject is a Romanian youth player currently contracted with Hearts of Midlothian (Scotland). The subject clearly fails WP:ATHLETE per lack of professional appearances. Angelo (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jailbait (disambiguation). Sandstein (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete simple dicdef. Possibly redirect to Lolita (term) Jailbait (disambiguation) after deletion. Previous keep arguments three years ago were based on the idea that the article could be expanded, but it has not been and doesn't seem to be expandable. See old VFD here .Ave Caesar (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 22:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This appears to be an advertisement for a minor program on a Hobart radio station. I can't see anything notable about it. Grahame (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete This article and a related entry on Ben Waterworth appear to have been conceived by the same author, appear to be self-promotion and are not notable. Murtoa (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep this article and the related article on Ben Waterworth as this is as relevant as any other page on a radio show, it is a show that serves the community and is relevant to the city of Hobart. The citizens of Hobart rely on it for information. In no way has the author written this as an 'advertisement', simply as a biography on the show and one of the hosts, which is completely relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.9 (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - this and most of the articles on contemporary shows at Category:Australian radio comedy appear to be self referent with little or no reasonable third party sources - I would suggest a short close of this afd - and a review of all the arts - as to whether the others get off scott free sets a precendent where bias against one and there has not been a look at the others within the category - SatuSuro 05:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable show, cannot find online sources. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A program on a college/community radio station cannot have sufficient notability without independent coverage from reliable sources. I see none here. Similarly, I see a lack of coverage of Ben Waterworth; so that article needs major improvement in a hurry before it also goes through AfD. B.Wind (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Closed as speedy keep -- bad faith nomination by a competitor. --A. B. 17:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

procedural listing of incomplete AfD; article was tagged for AfD by IP. I may comment later. Darkspots (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Article should be deleted as the content is self-promotional and external links are not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.101.40.60 (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to Closing Admin: 137.101.40.60 has been blocked repeatedly for spamming a blacklisted domain. I believe this is a bad faith nomination to delete an article that is considered "competition."¤~Persian Poet Gal 16:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This article is about a one-time supergroup that performed a single song in 1993. While both U2 and R.E.M. are both notable groups, the fact that the played one song together in the past and called it "Automatic Baby" is not. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris Fraser (DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unreferenced one sentence article with external links that anyone can create. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

8monkey Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines. It amounts to an announcement that this company will soon release Darkest of Days. That article, in turn, amounts to an announcement that Darkest of Days is a game which will soon be released by 8monkey Labs. Neither of them has any real content. 007bistromath (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

::Added Darkest of Days to this newly relisted debate. Delete and log links point to 8monkey Labs. Potatoswatter (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This is original research, verging on advertising. I can find no independent confirmation. The link provided is to a web-site run by the Warren Ward who is said to have discovered "havards"; I can't find any mention of "havards" there, but the website has pages for various diseases, the cure for which turns out to be "ActivSignal Sodium, a new invention of Warren Ward". JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW -Djsasso (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Global censorship of Youth's books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Global censorship of books for children. The ugly title could easily be fixed. But is it oroginal research? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Bible Quiz. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

MACSA Bible Quizzing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced, apparently non-notable local quiz competition. Black Kite 10:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Some of the earlier "delete" commentators do not seem to have taken into account the sources provided before the relisting. Personally, I find DGG's assessment as a librarian persuasive and recommend that it be taken into account in any later deletion discussion. Sandstein (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Votescam: The Stealing of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Book and its authors are not notable It is me i think (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

delete It is me i think (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't find anything in the NYT or CBS, but The Miami Herald had a 1401 word article (I hope that writer got paid for the odd one) in 1993 and I found another reference in a book by Douglas Kellner. I don't accept the statement about Gore Vidal not being a reliable source. We're not arguing the merits of the book's thesis here, but notability. The fact that major writers such as Gore Vidal and Douglas Kellner have noted the book makes it notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Relisting to allow editors to discuss the sources found by Phil Bridger after other delete opinions have been made. Davewild (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Gore Vidal thinks it's woth five pages, I think that establishes notability. Klausness (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Since deletion process commenced, this article has been improved with sourcing which meets WP:BK. IMHO, Gore Vidal, Miami Herald, and Douglas Kellner meet WP:RS criteria. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - my view hasn't changed and remains delete. This is a self-published book that has never had significant sales or influence. Gore Vidal and Douglas Kellner are notable in their own right but do not meet WP:RS as a source on unrelated topics. The Miami Herald article was a one time human interest story on an unknown congressional candidate from 1970 and his continuing quixotic crusade to claim vote fraud in his 1970 primary loss to Claude Pepper, which is what this book is. The book has never been the subject of widespread nor continuing coverage or relevance. I also notice the Miami Herald article is dated 1983, while this book was not published until 1992. KleenupKrew (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Of course it is NOT going to get such coverage. From the article, "The book was immediately banned by the major book chains, who listed the book as "out of print" and actively worked to prevent its sale." IT IS A CONSPIRACY. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the editor who has done the most to defend this article I must say that even a delete decision would be better than such a merge. This article is about a book, not about the subject matter of the book. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources given. I'm kind of disturbed that editors participating in a deletion discussion can't be bothered to check the notability of the subject. In any case, there's plenty of material written regarding the subject, and that constitutes notability for me. Celarnor 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notability established. Hope all those previous delete editors take note and learn to use {{find}} rather then repeating parrot fashion what has gone before, it rather brings the Afd process into disrepute. SunCreator (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the overall subject of vote fraud may be notable, but not the book. I am unwilling to believe in the reality of the suppression of the book--according to OCLC WOrldCat, its in about 60 public libraries and about 20 academic, but not the really major ones. That's too many for suppression and not enough for importance. Just what would be expected for an attempted popular book that didn't take off. There's no reason even to merge the content--even the supporter of the article opposes that-- not significant enough to be even mentioned at Knowledge. I note the "publisher" Victoria Press is an apparently unsuccessful volunteer group trying to raise money to become notable--named after an actual Suffragette printer of the earlier 20th century. Like the book, they apparently didn't succeed. Phil, could you summarize just what Vidal says about it (not that his use of this for some reason makes it notable any more than any other reference he might choose to use.) I'm pretty open minded on book articles but this is way below the bar. DGG (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 also note that the only source in the article, the MySpace link, is broken. Pigman☿ 04:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Based on the text in the article, this fails WP:MUSIC as a non-notable song that should be redirected to the album article. I attempted to do so but was reverted. I therefore put this to AfD. Erechtheus (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2008

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Operation Backfire (FBI), which seems to have been done already. Although the consensus is not entirely clear, this seems to be most in keeping with WP:BLP1E and would address most arguments made here. Sandstein (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea Dawn Gerlach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Negative BLP for single-non-notable crime. Sources all discuss crime. Not seeing lasting notability. MBisanz 10:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, action taken by TheslB was perfectly reasonable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Southeastern U.S. earthquakes of 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable topic (the two earthquakes that occurred in 2003 in the southeastern United States are unrelated), not useful as a disambig page since the earthquakes can be directly linked, and no article uses it as such (no links to this article for disambig purposes). TheslB (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Both articles were originally on one page, and it was split into two, with the result that the history is at the original title. --Snigbrook 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Would there be a way to integrate the history into one of the other articles? Edits on the article prior to 01:35, 10 May 2006 could be prefixed to 2003 Virginia earthquake's original version without chronology problems, if technically feasible. TheslB (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That's probably what should have been done, as the page is not useful as a disambiguation page (because the earthquakes are unrelated). --Snigbrook 12:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One incident does not make someone notable, per WP:NOT#NEWS, and the sources are suspicious. (For the record, a correctly-formatted Google search for him returns only 37 hits, but that was not a factor in my assessment of consensus.) - KrakatoaKatie 04:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment If you changed your vote from Delete to Weak Keep due to this individual's criminal record, then I do not believe it is a worthy arguement. A person's criminal record and/or the accusations against them have little weight as there are many criminals and/or persons accused of crimes. Aside from this point, I believe that this individual is non notable and that the sources are very suspect. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well I've never read an encyclopedic article about someone who was famous for being accused of a crime. And in this case, it doesnt satisfy wikipedia notability. 38.99.101.180 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So Knowledge articles are only for nice, pleasant people? Better get rid of the article on that Mr. Hitler fellow, then. You say he's a "notorious" rapist, which, if your statement is true, would ipso facto make him suitable for an article. "Hardly 10 ghits" - funny, I see a bit over 700. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I also support a Strong and Speedy Deletion. Anyone disagree? 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Changing my opinion to Delete. The common consensus is that the page isnt suitable for an encyclopaedia and that its sort of an advertisement. There are some minor references but they leave alot of primary issues unanswered. I have some Hindi news articles but they are not online. We should consider the suggestion of starting an article in the hindi language section? 74.85.13.60 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Harjk, Can you stop vandalizing the article? Otherwise you should say which part you consider refers to self-published material or original research... If noone can give a reason to delete the article, its not being deleted.
  • I am removing the tag. No one has yet given a reason for deleting it. If the wiki page needs changing, then change it yourself, or say whats wrong with it. What is the protocol for repeated abuse of the deletion tag? 86.40.100.198 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

74.85.13.60 (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting your edits. Dont remove AfD tag until the discussion is over. That's our policy. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - The person does seem to be somewhat notable at least in the sense of being a sort of "spiritual teacher". Although ghits != notability, Google Searches do show him to be mentioned in connection with several (religious and social) organizations. I think the we should give some opportunity to let the article be improved with some WP:RSes. He also seems to lead an organization that has created hospitals in India. I've been hard pressed to find any news articles on him other than this which looks like an editorial/opinion piece of some sort. If more reliable sources can be found, then the article might merit inclusion. --vi5in 15:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Changing to Keep. As the sources show below, he is definitely notable. However, the sources need to be examined to see if they meet WP:RS. --vi5in 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing admin's notice: All references below are not independent of the subject. Many of them doesn't even saying about him. It is more or less lying. This swami is only notable for his rape of a fellow follower. It seems User:Vivin is trying to mislead participants getting more favourite votes for keep. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't say I'm trying to mislead people. I've stated my opinion and provided my reasons for doing so. I have no vested interest in this article I don't want to get involved in a pissing match. I'm not going to respond to anything unrelated to this discussion from now on. --vi5in 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • noticeThere could be a simple case of misunderstanding on what is notable and what is reliable. Just because someone is notable and a disciple of some guru, that does not make that guru notable. In all the sources I have seen he is mentioned, not as a leader, head of something but as guru - there are thousands gurus, how does it make him notable? If he was 'actually' what you say about him, you will see many articles about HIM personally, not just about his friends who happen to mention his name (that appears to be written differently every time). Show us ONE reliable source that state: Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj is supreme acharya of this age, called supreme among jagatgurus. One link to a reliable source stating this simple fact will clear it up. So far its just an ad. You of course should understand that Archives of Kashi Vidvat Parishat, Kashi, India is not WP:RS. None of the sources, even TV ones checks out. So far nothing checks out to prove him what the article claims, except that he is a guru, which in itself not WP:NOTE. Maybe if the article is deleted, it can be created again, this time using what is actually WP:RS. I mean one link to New York Times or Indian Times article supporting the claims will do for me. Wikidās ॐ 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. He is not my Guru... I support a quick and speedy deletion. 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


--- I would suggest the following:

  • It resembles a fan site. Tagged since April 2008. -
remove honorifics, move it to Swami Kripalu Ji with explanation that he also is using honorifics.
  • Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since April 2008. Somehow it was deleted
write less about his titles and more about what he said and what was 'exactly' said about him in the above list of references (some of them can be reliable, I did not check all). Academic sources and major newspapers are preferential, see WP:RS.
  • It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since April 2008.
As long as you actually link every paragraph to relevant WP:RS there should be no dispute.
  • It may violate Knowledge's policy on biographies of living persons. Tagged since April 2008.
Controversial material should be ONLY reliable sources, no your own words or quotes without RS.
  • It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since April 2008.
Its mainly because the tone. One also needs to address the issue of completely original spelling. Such as Krishn instead of Krishna, Jeev instead of Jiva - wikilink them to the articles.
  • It reads like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tagged since April 2008.
Tone it down, comparing him to Vallabhacharya or Ramanujacharya should be (if at all) done in a neutral tone, even if his is your guru.
  • It describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style that may require cleanup. Tagged since April 2008.
His philosophy should be referenced and linked to relevant pages and/or have proper references. He did not create it - but it appears he did.
  • It is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to NPOV policy.
Remove the items that are partial and keep it in a sober encyclopedia tone.
  • It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since April 2008.
Remove references from his own books that support claims that are not supported by other evidence.

These are my suggestions as far as the article. I have not changed my opinion on the article as it stands. Wikidās ॐ 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Clearly notability has been shown. The newspaper articles quoted mostly predate the allegations. Otherwise, the article is sourced correctly. I am confused why this issue is even being discussed. 86.45.206.161 (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 'note Found some evidence of notability, mainly due to rape publicity. I do not believe that he was ever proven guilty, but there is a lot of media about it, and I do not think that at 85 he 'can' rape, so that is notable. I have changed to weak keep, based on that and some of book references and that the article should be moved to 'Kripaluji Maharaj' - Jagatguru is a title and makes it hard to find notable reference in google if run by it, mainly fan sites, it should be explained in the article and redirect will work fine. Wikidās ॐ 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. 86.40.196.166 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. His name may be mentioned here and there, not enough to warrant wikipedia notability though. I haven't heard of him. 74.85.13.51 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AfDs are not votes. You must provide policy and guideline-based rationales for your opinions. Corvus cornixtalk 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - non notable. It is difficult to know this guy's name from the article entry, as two of the four words are honorifics and/or titles, and even the links point to several different names for him. If he is notable, let's start with what is actual name is, not his titles. It may be that independent sources can be found that support notability, but several different searches in university databases under "philosophy and religion" and "quick search" yield no hits. I'm prepared to change my opinion, but I'd need a real name. Presidents, prime ministers, senators, etc. are listed under their own names - not their titles. I'm not saying he's not a great guy with a bunch of followers. There's a local rabbi who has been the leader of the congregation since 1978, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page. He is well-respected, a great guy, smart, accomplished...and no wikipedia article. He's just not sufficiently notable...and the same applies to the article referenced in this AfD. In response to the box at the top of this article, I was not solicited to view this page; it's on the list of the 10 oldest AfD articles.  Frank  |  talk  00:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, personally i have heard of him. My only concern is that he appears to go by many different names by different people, even in the links on the page. If there are pages in other languages (like hindi) that clear up this confusion, there should be an article in the Hindi wikipedia. My conclusion: delete for now, but of course if someone else can come up with a reliable article later on, they can contribute. And no, i wasnt solicited to say this. 38.99.101.180 (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 erroneous dab page now superseded by Poynting. Unlikely search term, so no redirect. Sandstein (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This is a disambiguation page which is disambiguating between nothing and nothing. Disambiguation pages are meant to allow readers to find an article from a group of articles we have, and we have no articles on any craters called Poyting. I can't find any evidence, via a google search, that there even is any crater anywhere named Poyting. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. There appear to be lunar and Martian craters named Poynting (after John Henry Poynting) rather than Poyting. The lunar crater has its own article, but the Martian one doesn't. I'm not too familiar with the guidelines on dab pages; should there be one when there are two entries and one is a redlink? Alternatively, does the Martian crater deserve its own article? AnturiaethwrTalk 10:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep as not a BLP; I managed to find a few brief non-poker references whilst looking at this (i.e. ) which leads me to suggest that, although on the borderline of notability, this one just scrapes in. YMMV, of course. Black Kite 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Overall fails WP:N as her "notability" derived from her infamy due to several controversial events involving poker professionals (i.e. (BLP REMOVED) sexually assaulting her, scamming Gavin Griffin, getting paid by Full Tilt Poker for a picture of their logo over one of her breasts, posting nude pictures of herself online). Considering Brandi committed suicide there is no chance of notability increasing beyond these drama-fodder events that have largely played out on internet forums. –– Lid 08:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, yet another crime/gossip article on a non-notable person. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple reliable sources included in the article indicate notability. Rray (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What reliable sources? A blog, a "mob poker database", and cardplayer.com? KleenupKrew (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, those are the reliable sources I was referring to. CardPlayer is the oldest and most respected magazine in the poker field, the Hendon Mob website is a well-respected source for poker information that is used in hundreds of poker articles, and the blog is a news feed from Bodog, a large corporation. (i.e. It's not just some personal blog.) Your lack of familiarity with those sources does not equate to them not being reliable sources. Rray (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • None of those sources is notable enough to establish the basis for an article in an encyclopedia. Searches on "Brandi Hawbaker site:cnn.com", "Brandi Hawbaker site:nytimes.com", "Brandi Hawbaker site:washingtonpost.com" all come up with 0 hits. A general Google search on Brandi Hawbaker has the top two hits on YouTube and the next two on Blogspot, almost all other hits on poker gossip forums and blogs, and nothing that I can see from the mainstream media, a sure sign of being Not Notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I appreciate the point you're making, but I think the consensus about what constitutes notability differs somewhat from the rather strict interpretation you've provided with your examples. (I'd say that what comes up first in Google in a search has little relevance to a subject's notability, for example. A lack of coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN doesn't disqualify someone from being notable in their field either.) And one of the principles of Knowledge is that we combine a traditional encyclopedia with the concept of specialized encyclopedias; it would be difficult to build a specialized poker encyclopedia without considering Cardplayer, for example, to be a reliable source. Rray (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • The sources are clearly reliable. CNN isn't an issue here, or with most niche-famous people. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
            • The sources are reliable, but they do not illustrate notability. Nearly every poker player who has ever cashed in a live poker tournament has a page on hendonmob, the cardplayer article refers to her as a cult figure on online poker forums which is not indicative of notability either, and the third (written during her life) simply states she is a controversial figure and that the only source for the controversies are her own word. Yes, these are standard cites for poker articles, but that's because nearly every other poker article is about the persons notable contributions and accomplishments in poker, this articles notability derives from a girl who happened to be a poker player that caused drama. –– Lid 04:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Cardplayer.com is a pretty solid source; the other two aren't particularly useful for establishing notability. However, this woman's antics were widely noticed in the poker world, so that pushes it over the bar for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep I am on the fence on this one and could go either way, but I lean towards "keep" because the subject is noted in secondary sources relevant to the subject matter. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keepbecause it is not only the person, but also the reaseon for her death, which is kind of important. I guess it is a wake-up call for many to pay attention to mental illnesses. I plead strongly to keep it.(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. If she had not committed suicide it would probably be a delete, but she clearly meets the WP:V and WP:N. The article has three reliable sources, with one unquestionable. Additionally nominator incorrectly posits that "infamy" is not notability. This is false. Policy has nothing against Paris Hilton-like infamy. Silly, weird, crazy or eccentric drama-magnets can be notable by the same criteria as more sensible people. Finally, there is no doubt she is notable in the more general sense -- there are thousands of non-relaible mentions, and forum threads concerning her have hundreds of thousands of page views, as well as being a very popular google search term. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • To me (and the way I believe WP:N is meant to relate to) this all adds up to something that should be on encyclopedia dramatica, not wikipedia. Do I doubt the reliability of the sources? No, but just because something is verifiable, or even true, does not make it notable. –– Lid 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The operative guideline is Knowledge:Notability (people), which makes clear that "dramatica" is perfectly acceptable: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough..." Unuusual certainly covers this person, and also obviously huge numbers of people find the events "interesting", even if some of us don't. She has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Not everyone peculiar deserves an article, but if a person achieves near Paris-like levels of independent notice, then dramatica can merit an article. One other comment, Lid, for WP:BLP reasons I'd suggest you remove the name before "sexually" in your original nomination and say "someone". 2005 (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Except it goes onto include this section "Knowledge articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Knowledge aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Knowledge editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." –– Lid 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • And the article does exactly that. It doesn't go into the various weirdness. It says though she committed suicide, which a reliable source quotes the Coroner's office to confirm. 2005 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
            • And the article does not seem to include any real notability outside that fact. Yes she committed suicide, but committing suicide does not make her notable when she was unnotable for the same acts while still alive. –– Lid 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
              • She meets the guideline. I'd agree that the guideline could be tougher, and that thousands of relatively trivia bio articles really should be deleted from the encyclopedia, but that is a discussion for the guideline page. But then also, perhaps a person suffering from mental illness may not have deserved an article when alive, but suicide is a significant development which does impact here. The phenomenon of weird behavior - extremely nasty societal over-reaction - suicide... there is a whole story here, not isolated parts. 2005 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
                • The whole story doesn't really add up either. Cutting out the poker association, which did not make her notable while alive, the article becomes "Mentally ill girl commits suicide after being taunted on the internet". I do not think an article of that description really has a place here. Yes, I know I am seemingly being contrary to everyone else here in this discussion so far but I am not trying to overturn the notability guidelines - it's a controversial deletion and such controversial discussions are going to end up having arguments from both sides interpretting their side of the debate. –– Lid 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per nominator. I know it sounds odd, but the nominator has just given tons of information about the subject, all of which is verifiable in reliable sources. All of that suggests, to the contrary, that she is quite notable. Celarnor 23:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have to admit, out of all the possible keep points I expected to occur during this afd, this wasn't one of them. –– Lid 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, seems to just barely meet WP:Notability (people). Lots of google hits too. --Patar knight - /contributions 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per SmartGuy - Very borderline Notability that just falls under (removed previous comments)▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete and weak mainly because it's just my opinion that Brandi is nothing more than gossip fodder for an audience limited to participants in a couple of popular online poker forums. Based on wiki's own guidelines - small amount of coverage in Cardplayer, etc. - meh, it's REALLLLY borderline. Have any of the accusations that she made against various poker pros every been validated by sources other than poketfives, twoplustwo, or random poker blogs? If not, then I say nuke it. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP. It's information. There is no such thing as bad information, it's just some is better than others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.42 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
that's about the weakest argument possible. Knowledge has notability guidelines specifically so that we can avoid becoming a collection of random fringe articles. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete. Notability 'within the poker community' is quite irrelevant as is mostly not WP:RS and/or not mainstream publications. I thought she might pass per google news hits which are reliable, such as the Guardian, but that only has 2 sentences about her, and the rest of the 9 articles about her are passing mentions. Having said that, if this article survives, we owe it to her memory and family for the article to mention more about whatever accomplishments she had, and not only her health problems and death as at present. Merkin's mum 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per WP:N as 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.' Weak because her notability comes from the controversy she caused in the poker world, and from the unfortunate manner of her death; she was not a professional poker player. A Sheep (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Bbut the article as I read it earlier this afternoon didn't mention any of the controversy, as I recall. If we don't include it, it's pretty unencyclopedic/uninformative. I still wouldn't know what it was, apart from what's mentioned in the nomination at the top of this page. The article just said she was ill and killed herself...oh and she used to go on some internet forums:) Merkin's mum 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment that is because most of the controversy surrounding her "eccentric behavior" stems from postings on poker forums twoplustwo.com and pocketfives.com. Some of the gossipy issues were confirmed or substantiated by others involved, other issues were not. Examples that I remember:
  • she accused Tom Franklin of stealing her money, touching her innapropriately, cheating on his wife, expecting sex in exchange for poker coaching/mentoring, etc.
  • she accused other well-known poker players of cheating her/stealing/all manner of other stuff
  • one pro accused her of emptying out his PokerStars account of some $30k
  • some other guy accused her of moving in with him and then trashing his place/stealing all of his valuables/etc
  • and so on and so on
of course, to my knowledge, none of this was ever reported outside of twoplustwo, pocketfives, or Internet blogs, which are dubious sources of information at best. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I think the way Knowledge asks for notability in regards to Poker players is skewed heavily towards people who play in tournaments, mainly the large EPT/WPT/WSOP "festivals." No one gets a Knowledge article for winning one of the minor tournaments that occur during these festivals (unless its for a substantive amount). So why should someone whose best cash was for $20,000 and highest placement relative to the field was 55th out of 1500+ in a $2000 buyin event? We are attributing her relevance on Knowledge to her being a poker player and her tournament results do not really qualify her as a notable poker player. Strongsauce (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on her poker stats alone this article would be grounds for speedy delete (CSD A7), But in fairness I don't think it was suggested by the people who wish to keep this article that she was ever a notable poker player, clearly she was not, but rather the her bio meets WP:N by way of being a minor celebrity, as it is now somewhat borderline Celeb/News figure at best, but not quite enough to keep.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ 04:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I found the article interesting and informative. I think I would still find it so 20 years from now. So it's not just news, it has encyclopedic value. I think it ought to be expanded with more information, if more information is available. Jlawniczak (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:INTERESTING. –– Lid 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:VAGUEWAVE. Celarnor 07:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Touché - what I meant was just because it is interesting does not make it encyclopedic. The other part of the keep, the addition of new information, I have addressed above as the person involved is dead so there is pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person. –– Lid 08:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
          • That's quite a huge assumption, especially in an unnatural death. There is a very good chance more coverage will be forthcoming. And of course it is no argument for a deletion. 2005 (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
            • That is quite speculative, what evidence is there that more coverage is forthcoming? –– Lid 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
              • You are the one making an absolute statement based of course on no evidence at all. It's obvious there could be further coverage if somebody plays up the "gambling can be tragic" angle, or if criminal charges are filed around any of the various incidents, or if someone writes a "poker characters" article, or if there are details we have no idea about currently. So "pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person" is very bad thing to flatly state. 2005 (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                • I am making the statement as the contrary argument is the same as someone saying a non-notable bands article on wikipedia should remain because "they may become more well known... later." It holds little to no water as it avoids the notability argument by stating that their current notability is to be ignored on the basis of hypothetical notability. If Brandi does become more notable through more sources, outside of forums and niche poker news, then it can be re-created then, but in the here and now these sources and coverage do not exist and can't/shouldn't be used as a rationale to keep. –– Lid 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • That's not what you said, and no one suggested anything about her possible future greater fame being reason to keep the article. You stated "there is no chance of notability increasing". That's plainly false, and certainly no argument for deletion. I assume you see that now so let's move on. 2005 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • That's what I said in the original deletion reason, yes, but this discussion is derived from this comment and reply: "there is pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person" followed by "There is a very good chance more coverage will be forthcoming. And of course it is no argument for a deletion." That reply is quite contrary to "and no one suggested anything about her possible future greater fame being reason to keep the article." –– Lid 10:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • Please. I said nothing about that being a reason to keep the article. Clearly people can become more notable or famous after their death. That's no argument to keep an article. I only stated it because your "no chance of notability increasing" statement is obviously not true. 2005 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree that "interesting" to the consumer shouldn't be considered at all. I'm new to Knowledge and there are a lot of guidelines, that are often cited in the first instance as gospel to be followed religiously. But take a step back and consider the ultimate question. Here that question is whether this article belongs in this encyclopedia. The guidelines are there to help answer that question, but it can't hurt to focus on the ultimate question itself in the discussion. And whether the article in interesting to a reader of an encyclopedia is an importart fact in that discussion. And that's the context in which I meant my "interesting" observation. The example in the guideline is that whether I have pencils in my nose would be interesting but wouldn't make a good encyclopedia article. Of course not, but because is in not interesting to someone reading an encyclopedia. I don't go to an encyclopedia to find out whether you have pencils in your nose. An editor of a commercial venture better consider whether the product is interesting to someone who is considering buying (using) the product or the editor will be out of a job shortly. I would hope that we are doing the same at Knowledge: considering the ultimate "customer." Jlawniczak (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not that interesting should not be considered, it's that interesting should not be used as an overriding reason to keep the article when it fails in other more important aspects (namely notability). Most articles on wikipedia are interesting in one way or another, but they have to fulfill other criteria to be articles, not just the topic being interesting. –– Lid 15:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:INTERESTING is not a valid "keep" argument. A one-time participant in the World Series of Poker falls short in the notability department. Her suicide or her boyfriend's description of her behavior and/or mental illness doesn't add to it. Apparently the article has been "sanitized" since the beginning of this discussion, thus eliminating some potential evidence for keeping (if it were indeed supported with reliable sources). B.Wind (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable neologism nancy 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability. I couldn't find any sources for this activity. nneonneo 08:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. Citations will be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyallman (talk • contribs) 08:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as a non-notable neologism. The only sources found for "flash dropping" relate to the price of memory it would seem. And while nominating for AfD while an article is new may be slightly bitey, it doesn't invalidate the nomination. (Aside from biting, we usually leave articles alone long enough for sources to be found, but in the case, it doesn't look like there are any to be found). Bfigura 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • weak keep for now, to see if it gets improved. It is true, as said above, that articles often get nominated for various forms of deletion immediately after they've been started. It's a bad practice, hostile to new-comers. The thing to have done with this one is to have placed tags for notability and sources, and given a friendly advice to the author. Obviously, if nothing gets improved, it will have to go, but it's unfair to a newby to ask for it by an AfD, rather than a tag and a note. In my personal opinion, doing so should rank as BYTE and failure to AGF. I know that wasn't the nom's intent--I'm not blaming him, but the practice. DGG (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. No reliable sources. I vaguely recall something about some band leaving flash drives with their songs in the bathrooms of their concerts (or something like that), but it wasn't called "flash dropping" and hardly constitutes a movement of any kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to this subject. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I declined the speedy on this because the article did, in fact, assert notability in that it stated he founded a major financial firm. A search for references regarding him turn up his presence on the Financial News Top 100 list of the most influential people in the European capital market; there are some profiles of him in magazines (unfortunately, the majority of that article is behind a paywall, but here's a cache of another one in Global Investor magazine). Google News turns up a fair number of hits, as does Google itself. I think there's enough to indicate notability out there. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Presence on such lists alone does not establish notability. I did not get a hit on Google News for either "Jeremy Coller" or Jeremy Coller, and he gets fewer Google hits than I do; in any event, Ghits alone do not establish notability, nor does cursory mention in magazines (and I think being on a list qualifies as a cursory mention) - but unfortunately he may be more prevalent in British print media, something my access to is essentially nonexistant. Apparently he pioneered private equity secondary market related stuff, and I found an article to that effect. If someone can find some articles and assemble a reasonable article about him, I'd change my vote. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cap'n_Crunch#The_Soggies. Black Kite 22:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Easily fails WP:N, has no sources, orphaned, highly unlikely to ever be expanded. Previous attempts (by another user) to PROD and redirect have been reverted. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fábio Pereira da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A youth international but not yet a professional footballer. Matthew_hk tc 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I also nominated Rafael Pereira da Silva (born 1990).

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

The result was Keep per consensus. The COI issue has been addressed, the article is leaning further and further towards NPOV, sources seem to show Notability, therefore passing CORP. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by a user with a WP:COI. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Urbanrenewal has provided references, which are at Talk:Landmark Partners Potatoswatter (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

*: Would you mind cutting that out and pasting it on a page or section in your userspace, then linking that back to here? I'm not saying it isn't helpful information, but it would make it easier for those of us patrolling AfD to scroll by without seeing large amounts of text that isn't really related to the debate over an article. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That's equivalent to saying they're notable because of a corruption scandal where they bribed an official for business. One of your articles is a police blotter. I can make it to the police blotter. They're directly about Ben Andrews anyway. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • ”Verifiability”???? these are subscrition links.. the others; Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Knowledge is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Specialized newsletters and trade publications can be reliable sources. In particular, I note that Private Equity Analyst is published by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., better known as the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, and therefore I expect that the newsletter is as selective and careful about what it includes as a daily newspaper would be. I note that the newsletter's content is available only to subscribers. There is no requirement that a reliable source's content be available free on the web. --Eastmain (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • These guys are in the business of raising capital and publicizing it. Does it sound notable to you that they borrowed 1.x billion USD from various people in order to lend it to someone else? I think a lot of this is more akin to business advertisements. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's more significant is that the sources are unbiased. I can't access the one referenced, but reports on the business they do are likely to be based on their own press releases. The preview lead paragraph looks like "business is still humming along, as you can see these guys are borrowing and lending!" Potatoswatter (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per my nom. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account. Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with spam articles.
See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#private_equity_firm_Spam_articles
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Knowledge is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Check the WP:Spam noticeboard for these users and domain names. Protonk (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The page isn't unduly promotional now that it includes a discussion of the bribery scandal, and I am not sure that it ever was a conflict of interest. Perhaps the article's creator thinks that venture capital firms are interesting, the same way that other editors like to create articles about trains. --Eastmain (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Similar rationale, same consensus, as Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Landmark Partners Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See also my comments on Coller Capital and Landmark Partners.

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#private_equity_firm_Spam_articles
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Knowledge is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Admittedly, this reads like an advertisement for an important company; it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. A good rewrite would justify saving this article.



  • Comment I wrote this page and have made substantial further edits in response to the comments above. I think everyone will agree that the page is now substantial in content and fairly balanced, with a section on competitors, etc. I also think given the references to third party articles and other sources this should be considered a notable topic and worth of keeping on the site. Please see my work on similar firms in the same space Coller Capital, Landmark Partners and a work-in-progress User:Urbanrenewal/AlpInvest Partners. i appreciate all of the comments and do not expect to make substantial further additions and would much prefer to let other users comment and adjust the page as necessary. Urbanrenewal (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep anothermajor company. sources to show it, and t hat amounts to notability. Most of us perhaps arent too interested in the business world, but that';s not an argument for deletion. DGG (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments that this subject is not notable have been made, others assert that this is a notable company. Eastmain has done a good job in finding references, and in that light, comments before that time could be unaware of these new developements. After that comment there was still a call for (speedy) deletion. There is no real consensus either way, which defaults to keeping the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Recreated twice under different names Coller capital and this curent version, both have been deleted once per WP:CSD#G12. Article was created by a user with a WP:COI. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


See also my comments on Coller Capital and Landmark Partners.

DELETED as suggested Urbanrenewal (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Urbanrenewal, your arguments would be much more effective if you distilled your text down to the most notable things. Compare to some other notable private equity groups if possible. Please cut down your huge chunk of text; I can't read it and I doubt anyone else can either. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 07:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Would you mind cutting that out and pasting it on a page or section in your userspace, then linking that back to here? I'm not saying it isn't helpful information, but it would make it easier for those of us patrolling AfD to scroll by without seeing large amounts of text that isn't really related to the debate over an article. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Urbanrenewal, you should list the assets under management for each of these firms in their page. But I agree that if these are the largest firms in their sector, then they should be listed. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#private_equity_firm_Spam_articles
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Knowledge is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I wrote this page and have made substantial further edits. I think everyone will agree that the page is now substantial in content and fairly balanced, with a section on competitors, etc. I also think given the references to third party articles and other sources this should be considered a notable topic and worth of keeping on the site. Please see my work on similar firms in the same space Landmark Partners, Lexington Partners and a work-in-progress User:Urbanrenewal/AlpInvest Partners. i appreciate all of the comments and do not expect to make substantial further additions and would much prefer to let other users comment and adjust the page as necessary. Urbanrenewal (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all three of these articles are about major companies. The failure to recognize their notability is an example of cultural bias. It isnt the part of the world most Knowledge people know about, so we are reluctant to admit the sources. In fact, I think some of us who have seen many examples of corporate spam have a certain skepticism about that whole side of life, but it isnt at all reasonable. These are all notable companies, and we include as much information as the sources permit.DGG (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists of Stargate topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This navigational list contains nothing that the two SG templates {{StargateNav}}) and {{Stargate Races}} or browsing Category:Stargate couldn't do as well. It had previously only been linked from one nav template (it still is), and hasn't been updated for mergers or deleted pages between August 2007 and April 2008, so I am not even sure how much it is/was used in the first place. Prod notice was removed. My deletion rationale would be "redundance with no added benefit". – sgeureka 06:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum Nearly all of the non-cast non-episode links in this nav list also already appear in Aliens in Stargate as hatnotes. – sgeureka 07:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you point to this policy? Celarnor 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant article/list. If you've navigated your way to this list, you already have passed a vast number of other methods of locating the articles listed here. If this page did not exist, could readers still find their way around? Yes, that's the entire basis of wikilinks. This article is therefore redundant. Hiding T 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. You might have arrived here from our table of contents system, which is the main purpose of lists such as these. Celarnor 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply to many: This list has only been accessible via a navigation template in the first place for the last few months, first {{StargateLists}}, now {{StargateNav}} (as far as I am aware of). There is no need to click on a list when the template already gives the same info. Doing otherwise would be like looking up a book's table of contents to learn where to find the table of contents. Redundant. Or no-one missed a page like this in the first place to make it more accessible from other places. – sgeureka 07:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You make the fallacy of assuming that people look for information like this only via templates. Other people prefer using the categories navigation system, and still others prefer using the list system. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, which makes them not completely redundant to one another, which is in turn why we have the "redundancy isn't a deletion rationale for categories, lists, and templates" bit in the CLN guidelines. Celarnor 07:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is, in order to find this list, a user would have to use a template and/or the category system first. And if they do they latter, there is no point in this list anymore. – sgeureka 08:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I search for topics list by name; if I want the basic topics for law, I go directly to List of law topics; I don't muck around in categories because I think they're ugly as hell, and I don't like nav templates because that already requires I know enough about the topic to find a page with the navtemplate on it. This method doesn't require me to do either of those, which is one of the reasons I prefer topics list over the other two. Celarnor 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe this illustrates it even better: Per stats.grok.se, this list has so far been used 67 this month. Aliens in Stargate, which basically (but admittedly not fully) serves the same function but gives more context for each link, was visited 7083 times. The top level category path has been visited 294 times so far this month. The main nav templates are always accessible from almost every Stargate related article, and Stargate has been viewed 60846 times alone. So not only is this list redundant, it's also pretty much unused, or no-one at least really missed it for finding his way. – sgeureka 08:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Really, I think the numbers are non-arguments. Per PERFORMANCE, it's not our place to worry about disk space or bandwidth, and that's really all that boils down to. As this page is perfectly in line with the guidelines on stand-alone lists and the general guidelines for topics lists, the only things you've cited thus far as reasons for deletion that isn't outright against guidelines is that "few people use it", and I really don't think that's sufficient reason to delete anything, let alone serve as the sole deletion rationale. Celarnor 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keepjust as good as all the other lists of topics. This is one of the accepted types of navigational articles. Various ones have been proposed here from time to time,. and always kept. How large the usage is is totally irrelevant. that's not our standard of deletion. Paper encyclopedias cant afford to give the space to seldom used material, but that's paper. DGG (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, because the only real problem here is that not enough pages link to this topics list. The list itself is not at fault. The central Stargate articles ought to be linking to this topics list directly. The problem is the lack of links, not the article. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Make-believe "nation" created in high school. Completely non-notable. Tan | 39 05:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Note. Page was previously speedied per Gogo Dogo four minutes before recreation. Should now be speedied; placing a tag as such. Tan | 39 06:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Come over to My House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a stub about a book by Dr. Seuss; I redirected it (to Dr. Seuss) but it was reverted by MJBurrage, so I'm bringing it here. Seuss wrote over 50 children's books, and as this one is not particularly notable in his body of work, and as it contains no third-party sources, I believe it fails WP:FICTION. The book is already listed, along with its publication date, author, and illustrator, on Dr. Seuss#As Theo. LeSieg, so other than plot information, it doesn't reiterate anything new. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; not notable enough for its own article, and it seems highly unlikely it will ever be anything but a stub. Lack of secondary sources to establish notability hurts it as well; Knowledge articles about books need more content than mere plot summaries. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect or delete per Titanium Dragon. If an article has nothing to say beyond what's already being said in its parent article, it shouldn't exist as a separate entity. – sgeureka 08:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge simply redirecting this to a list of titles on the author's page is inappropriate. The entry may be brief, but it is encyclopedic. Knowledge is not paper, and is not restricted by a page count. Any book by Dr. Seuss is notable enough for this much detail. As for whether it should be its own page or a section in a page giving similar details on his other books is semantics. (Since there would still be a redirect.) —MJBurrage 17:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No, any book by Dr. Seuss is not necessarily notable enough for an article. As specifically stated on WP:Notability, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As for "Knowledge is not paper"—I didn't nominate this article because I thought it was taking up server space, I nominated it because it has no sources, and the title, publication date, and illustrator are already located in the main Dr. Seuss article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Picking and choosing which books from this undeniably notable author to include violates WP:NPOV. If someone wants to include a source with this, simply track down one of the biographies on the subject and include the source so that for those who don't believe it exists, there's their proof. WP:SOFIXIT 23skidoo (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Uh... no, this doesn't violate WP:NPOV at all. As I've stated multiple times already, the notability policy indicates that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Many Dr. Seuss books are notable under these guidelines, but this one isn't—the article has no sources, and a biography that simply mentions or lists this book doesn't count as "significant coverage". The source isn't just a matter of "proving that it exists". Also, per WP:PLOT, the article needs to contain more than just plot information. Mr. Absurd (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • First, by the general notability guidelines, just because there are not critical/review sources easy to find online does not mean that there are not such sources that could be found else ware. All of Mr. Absurd's criticisms are not valid reasons for deletion, they are valid points to consider for article/section improvement.
    Second, as a book; Knowledge:Notability (books) is the more appropriate guideline, and by its standards (See #5) any book by Dr. Seuss is notable.
    —MJBurrage 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No, any book by Dr. Seuss "may be considered notable". I wouldn't normally have such a problem with a stub, except that this really never going to be anything but a stub—it's a children's book, and even though it's by Dr. Seuss it's not really notable or exceptional in any way. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • How do you know that it's never going to be anything more than a stub? We have lots of full articles about books for young children - just look at Pat the Bunny or Goodnight Moon, for example. Some people evidently enjoy working on that stuff, and sooner or later they'll presumably get around to the Seuss back catalog. Far too often here on Knowledge, it seems like people say "no one will ever expand it" when what they really mean is "I'm not interested in expanding it". -Hit bull, win steak 13:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I beleive that by only including part of reason #5 and by bolding only certain words you are changing its meaning. The Knowledge:Notability (books)#Criteria says that a book is notable if it meets "one or more of the following criteria:, and #5 reads "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.". #5 clearly applies to Seuss making all of his works notable without separate sources. —MJBurrage 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not changing its meaning at all. The guidelines don't say that all books by a notable author are "automatically" notable, but that they "may be considered" notable. I'm merely emphasizing this fact, because I think this is a case where the book is considered not notable.
  • Keep all books by really major authors are intrinsically notable. Since when are articles on children's books impossible to expand--given the author, there are inevitably going to be reviews. There is no requirement for something clearly notable to have full sourcing immediately. And considering children's subjects uninteresting or unimportant for an encyclopedia is inappropriate. DGG (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You're putting words in my mouth. I have never said that children's subjects are uninteresting or unimportant for an encyclopedia, and I certainly disagree with those statements. I also agree that Dr. Seuss is a very major author, and many of his books are completely deserving of articles. However, although this book is by Dr. Seuss, it is not one of his more notable or exceptional books, and as such, I personally hold the opinion that it's neither particularly notable nor deserving of an article, especially as it doesn't contain any pertinent information. However, it seems I'm in the minority here. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, easily meets WP:BK as the book's "author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". Skomorokh 00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yes, many strange POVs are at times exhibited on Knowledge, but I think very few of us can come to grips with the notion that there can be such a thing as "a anti-Orcan and anti-conservationist POV to slander Orcans". Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Orca attacks on humans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Extremely POV article and collection of five non-notable incidents. Knowledge is not soapbox. These five incidents do not deserve for a separate article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Orca attacks is not much notable to have its own article. An article under this title is certainly POV pushing and soapboxing. An article titled Human attacks on Orcas will be more notable bacuse the threat they have from humans. We cannot have an article with four incidents. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We have lots of articles that document a single incident. What is your minimum number of incidents that an article has to cover? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is written from a anti-Orcan and anti-conservationist POV to slander Orcans. By that sense, Human attacks on Orcas will be more notable. Attack by X animal articles are only notable if the particular animal is will-known for attacking humans. We do not have Attack by X animal articles for each and every animal. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If the highest compliment one can receive on Knowledge is to be accused of having a POV opposite to one's actual POV, I think I've just been canonized. Seriously though, this article presents some verifiable facts that received a fair amount of attention from reliable third-party sources. It is interesting to see how this article comes across because if it comes across as biased then we ought to fix it. Can you suggest a different way to approach the subject matter? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, the article was written with the motivation to keep the interest of pro-Whaling lobby groups. Knowledge is not the place for pro-Whaling lobbying. The article itself states that attack from Orca is not any serious issue, nor it is notable. Only those articles should be written where the attacking animal is well-known and regarded by the scientific community for being dangerous to humans. Orca is not the case. Four isolated incidents do not constitute an encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Try some WP:AGF, eh? The author is a long-standing contributor here, with contributions in many areas. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Pro-Whaling? Are you kidding? Garion96 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the author has some Colbertesque fear of whales? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
By detailing the attacks, Clayoquot is trying to stir up our deeply ingrained Orcaphobia? (We repress it in polite society, perhaps?) You know what? I think she's right! After reading this article I now believe we must kill all the Orcas before they kill us!! But look, all kidding aside, this is a really reasonable "Attack by X animal" because, again, they are known as Killer Whales, and thus readers are going to be interested in the truth behind that. This article could not actually cause Orcaphobic sentiments in any remotely educated or intelligent person. --JayHenry (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"After reading this article I now believe we must kill all the Orcas before they kill us" - it is your personal opinion. Knowledge does not run on the basis of your personal opinion. Orcas never be so dangerous to humans that humans should kill them all. Because Orcas are not regarded threat to humans by the scientific community. Four isolated incidents do not deserve for a separate encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious I was joking. The claim that this was written for "the interest of pro-whaling lobby groups" does not stand up to a shred of scrutiny. Is that even a serious accusation? How would publicizing an Orca attack at Sea World help the pro-whaling lobby? People don't support whaling for purposes of revenge. --JayHenry (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to think that if there is a prospect for the article to be expanded beyond merely listing the attacks it would make a feasible article, but it should otherwise be deleted. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: WP:YFA states that just because both Fact A and Fact B are true does NOT mean that A caused B, or vice-versa. This article is giving a totally wrong impression of Orca as if they are known for attacking humans and humans are vulnerable to Orca. In fact the opposite is true. Environmental degradation and human activities are threatening the existence of this animal. The article Orca clearly states that Wild Orcas are usually not considered a threat to humans. This article documents some isolated incidents. Here is a source which documents some isolated cases, even these are not by wild Orcas, these are isolated reports of captive Orcas attacking at marine theme parks. This little fact should be mentioned in the article Orcas, the isolated cases are not worthy of having an article. Should we have List of Europeans killed in plane accidents involving the United States, List of American killed in the European Union, List of Asians killed while traveling in American airliners? This article in its present form is WP:TRIVIA because the subject of Orcas attack against humans in not inherently notable. Many general references on Orcas do not mention this trivial fact that there are some isolated cases of attacks invloving captive Orcas , , . This article is one-sided, gratuitously biased and misleading. WP:INDISCRIMINATE states Knowledge considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. This "article" violates many of the policies. There should not be any article under this title because the topic is not inherently notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oto, the very first sentence of this article says "Wild Orcas are not usually considered a threat to humans." How can you claim it's misleading people about the danger of orcas when it acknowledges this in the very first sentence? The third sentence acknowledges that the documented attacks are from domestic orcas. How is it misleading when it directly acknowledges these things in the first paragraph? Nobody here is trying to engage in pro-whaling lobbying. --JayHenry (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I said that the topic is not inherently notable to have its own article. I don't want to repeat it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Referencing could be improved, but the article actually shows how rare these incidents are, contra the nominator's unfocused ranting ("gratuitous, biased, and misleading"). --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Oto, these debates can come up with any kind of solution to the issue. The information in this article belongs somewhere in WP because it's referenced (hence WP:N), orca is too bloated to accommodate it, and the present article is obviously (somewhat comically) one sided. There's gonna be a compromise between erasing it and keeping as is. If we stay cool. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as this appears to have enough references to be verifiable. Further, the fact that orca's rarely attack humans would seem to make those rare orca attacks more notable, not less. (And really.... an anti-orcan POV? Seriously? The first sentence of the article says that orca attacks are rare.) Bfigura 23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep needs work but a significant topic and reasonable list. JJL (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see there is systematic bias in wikipedia. The "Keep" votes would have turned into "Delete" if the title of the article was Human attacks on Orcas. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur, please see:
When humans attack whales it's called whaling. Knowledge has literally about a hundred articles on different aspects of humans attacking whales. People are arguing to keep the article because it's covered in reliable sources and hence "notable". Absolutely nobody is trying to push a pro-whaling POV. --JayHenry (t) 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm totally confused by the POV accusations. Sure orca attacks are rare (it says as much in the article), but it seems sensible to catalog the ones that do occur (and get loads of press coverage). Just last week I read a case in my employment law class about the Sea World secretary who was mauled by Shamu (she was trying to claim that Shamu riding was outside the scope of her employment and thus was not limited by workers' compensation damages; she lost). Interesting to see that this isn't the only time it has occurred to orca handlers. Mangostar (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepThe POV claim is strange. The attacks are well documented. Edison (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -events are rare enough to be notable and counted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nancy 13:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Guild of Defiants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC and N. One claim of notability that is not sourced, as there are no sources. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Table of Doctor Who characters, monsters, and aliens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unfinished navigational list which is redundant in light of List of Doctor Who serials, which enables the reader to navigate to each episode/serial article and find out about the characters and monsters in each story. Lu Ta 04:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, this should just be deleted. There is no reason to redirect it. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several editors have expressed concern that there may be a systematic bias problem here. Others have put forward that there is no significant coverage found in indepent reliable sources. Others again express the opinion that we may presume this subject notable on its merits, without having found those sources yet. In the end there is no consensus for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Saurashtra Janata Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge is not a travel guide and there's no evidence this is a notable train. TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 04:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And why is this? It it because it's Indian? ----DanTD (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats exactly it. Well that and because its a completely unsourced article about a non-notable subject, totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Lemmey talk 04:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Why is it listed on the India related board? Yes, in case there's something in the local press and/or one of the languages of India that established notability. Why is it up for deletion? Precisely as I said in my nom and as Lemney echoed above. TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 04:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Searching news.google.com turns up nothing, not notabile, fails criteria.  Atyndall93 | talk  05:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. All named trains are notable. References are probably out there in some form or another, even if a Google search doesn't turn up much. There are a lot of books and magazines about trains that may not be indexed by Google, including material intended for different specific audiences such as railfans, vacationers, business travellers, travel agents and railway managers. After all, rail transportation represents a significant part of the economy of India. --Eastmain (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment No, not all named trains are notable. This appears to be a run of the mill train. The train line I commute on to work every day is named, there's no evidence it's notable either and that's in a large US city. If it's for travelers, then it's travel guide information. Railway service in general is important and some particular train lines might be for historical reasons -- there's no evidence this is anything but a runn of the mill train TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. We do not bet on future notability, and I disagree that all named trains are notable. This is apparently a good example of a non-notable one. There is nothing to indicate it is notable in any way. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Western Railway (India). As for comparison to US train articles, see Carolinian and Piedmont, and then browse to that article from Amtrak by clicking through Northeast Corridor. When we have that volume of information on Indian trains, there can be an article on this. For now, progress is very respectible but keeping structure cohesive will help. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - might I offer a British comparison Pines Express? This appears to be a railway service, rather than a particular train. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep I think all named trains should in fact be considered as notable; but if not, it should at least apply to major inter-city expresses such as this. That a WPedian happens to ride one regularly does not make it any the less notable. We'd expect that notable trains are ridden by many people. DGG (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment but what is notable? The article as it stands, which does not appear to be improvable due to a lack of information, is simply what you'd find in a travel guide. There's no evidence this is anything other than a train that runs between two cities with some stops. It had a death and a robbery -- probably not uncommon for Indian trains either. This train exists, but I don't think a name makes it notable. Just my .02 TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 19:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - A very important route in India between two major metropolitan areas (that's one of the reasons it's named). We're getting into systemic bias if we start deleting articles on a certain topic in one country and yet never had any problem with equivalent US article topics.--Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree, I'd support deletion of a non-notable train in the US as well. Trains connecting cities are not inherently notable. They exist, that doesn't mean they're notable. No one has proved any evidence this train is notable. Knowledge is not a directory of trains throughout the world TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 04:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Trains connecting major metropolitan areas aren't notable? Thanks for your opinion. And deleting named trains articles in one country when named trains in the US are considered notable is in fact a classic example of systemic bias. Your single (and sudden) "I would support deleting US named train articles" opinion is irrelevant. --Oakshade (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • May I remind you of Knowledge's notability: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. Has nothing to do with bias, there is no evidence this train is notable and if a US/UK/Mars train had the same lack of evidence of notability, it should be deleted. TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 14:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - I think what the nominator is looking for here (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is the historical significance of this service. A historically significant railway service will have references that list more than just departure/arrival information. The search results linked in the nominator's original statement lists several pages that mention this service, but I'm not seeing links that list much more than timetable information. There are two news links dating back to 1999 that were added to the article as references, and that kind of information is closer to the historical significance that we need to assert on this service, but their connection to the subject appears to be on the order of "this event had a connection to the train service" rather than "this train is notable because...". It's entirely possible that this service is historically significant, so our task is to find reliable sources that say so and add that information to the article in order to keep it. I'm holding my opinion on the merits of this nomination until I can do a more thorough search through resources that might not yet be indexed on the net. Slambo (Speak) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand what you're getting at, Slambo. But I still don't like it. The whole thing seems like we're just ready to ditch the article just because it's not from America. I may not know of every named passenger train in India, the UK, or France, but that alone shouldn't give us the right to trash it. Maybe you remember when somebody tagged all South Korean subway stations for deletion, and I mentioned that doing so would give the appearence of bias towards American railroad articles, and against railroad articles from specific countries. ----DanTD (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. KrakatoaKatie 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Constabulary crest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The crest appears to exist, but ghits are solely wiki mirrors, flickr and ebay with no infrmation about the crest. Article is apparently sourced to the Scottish Police but there's no evidence that it's a notable crest. TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 03:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Exit (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Yet-unreleased film of unclear notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick Delete - no one can deny the greatness of Johno Faherty's film that hasen't yet started filming, or can they? --Lemmey talk 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. Unreleased movie, zero Ghits (aside from Knowledge) on the producer Johno Faherty (which would be pretty much impossible if the movie was notable), probable Conflict of Interest with the author (judging from the username and the apparent single-purpose nature), no sources (let alone reliable ones), no notability. nneonneo 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. To quote WP:MOVIE, "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles," and this one definitely hasn't. (I'm not convinced it'll be notable even after release, but that takes me into crystal ball territory.) AnturiaethwrTalk 04:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete it's clearly not notable at this time. If at some later date (you know afer it's actualy done and released for starters) becomes a major cult clasic or something it can be revisited at that time. Delte the movie poster image too while at it by the way. --Sherool (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: A little digging confirms what I suspected. The author of this article is User:Johnofah5 who essentially admits in this diff to being the same Johno Faherty as is referred to as the supposed producer of this film and the goes on in this diff to admit to being a middle school student. As I suspected: something made up in school one day. OlenWhitaker • or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kuwaiti Premier League.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Al Shaheed Fahd Al-Ahmed League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is supposed to be about a football league, but instead, it is an incomplete list of non-notable facts. Tavix (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses. (non-admin closure). Article is well-referenced. WP:PROBLEMS with writing style are not sufficient grounds for deletion. Skomorokh 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

SAM: Significance Analysis of Microarrays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was listed on CSD, then PROD, but I've moved it here. Reason given for PROD was violate of WP:NOTMANUAL - I tend to agree, but because it's so detailed someone may wish to take on rewriting it, or it could be tranwikied in some way to Wikibooks or another source. Either way probably too long for a basic prod, so have put it here. Esteffect (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable subject, but it needs wikification. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/delete to DNA microarray. Note that this article is only about dealing with the large volume of data that results from DNA analysis. Well, particle physics and astronomy generate lots of data too, but we don't have how-to articles for their gory technical details. Also it looks like a big stinking copyvio. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepDNA microarrays are a sufficiently large & important subject for articles on specialized aspects to be justified. some of the detail does have to be reduced--that's an editing decision, & to improve the article, as encouraged during AfD, I have just removed some of the more obvious. DGG (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 03:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

A non-notable type of bread. A Google search showed 30 results for delbis bread. Tavix (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Cruzeiro Junior's Teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Junior (Under-17 and Under-15) teams of a notable club. I can see no reason why these are notable in their own right. Black Kite 01:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was rediect to Icky Thump. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

300 M.P.H. Torrential Outpour Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not a single, not notable enough for seperate article, should be merged into album article LukeTheSpook (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:PAPER refers to topics not articles. --Lemmey talk 05:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Good God. It's not even law. It just states that, previously, articles have been kept because Knowledge isn't limited in size to the number of articles it can have. Second, have you ever considered that articles make up topics? Finally, give me a rational reason saying why this article is worthless and should be deleted. Monobi (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
WP don't get your panties in a wad. How is the song notable enough to have its own article? What about this article could not be incorporated into the Album? As its not a single, the song and the album are the same topic and should be the same article. --Lemmey talk 05:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I would be bold and redirect it. Lugnuts (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, i have done plenty of times. It's feasable that the term might be searched for so a redirect is more useful than a delete. --neonwhite user page talk 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It has to meet the criteria which it currently doesnt. I can't see any reason to assume this article will ever be detailed enough to the point of needing it's own article. --neonwhite user page talk 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Which criteria are you referring to? WP:MUSIC doesn't actually describe criteria but just rough guidelines. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I plan on working on Icky Thump soon, so I will incorporate any useful info into that article. indopug (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
But in this case it works much better as a separate article. If every track had a large description about it then it would make the Icky Thump article too big. So it makes more sense to have it wikilinked inside the article. A separate article lets you wikilink it on other articles like it currently is with a wikilink at You Don't Know What Love Is (You Just Do as You're Told) as well as a wikilink at The White Stripes. Furthermore, there is a nice infobox that let's you navigate through the tracks. This is what wiki was made for. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Most tracks on an album aren't notable enough to be the subject of an article, however if there is suffient non-trivial information that is making the album article too long then a split would be necessary but that is not the case here. It's mostly trivial information from a review that could probably be linked to in the review links. --neonwhite user page talk 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble looking through the 31,600 hits to find something notable for inclusion. As I mentioned before, I think that 31600 hits are a good measure a songs notability. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirect If you're "having trouble looking through the 31,600 hits to find something notable for inclusion", um, doesn't that imply that the song isn't notable (note that a big portion of those will be lyrics sites)? Anyway, the two useful sentences of information in the "300 MPH" article right now would be fine for Icky Thump. indopug (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I'm having trouble is that there is alot of hits and it's difficult to find the stuff that can be added to the article from such a large number of hits. I submit that for songs, the number of hits can be a judge of notability as I've mentioned above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Icky Thump --JForget 00:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm Slowly Turning into You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not a single, un-notable LukeTheSpook (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This is just an apartment complex. Other than the news story of a plane crash, theres nothing else notable about this building since its just apartments! Was nominated before on the same day of the plane crash:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/524 East 72nd Street during its 15 minutes of fame. --Coasttocoast (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable musician. User has contested Prod. Made some assertion of notability, so was not tagged. and . Subject fails WP:MUSIC. Also, WP:COI concern. Wisdom89 (T / ) 01:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable footballer as he has never played a notable league Eddie6705 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable footballer as he has never played a notable league Eddie6705 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Subject does not appear notable as I read WP:ATHLETE. The article for the Southern Football League, in which this footballer plays, states that the league is comprised of semi-pro and amateur clubs. WP:ATHLETE requires play in a fully professional league or at the highest level of amateur play. The article on Southern Football League Premier Division, the division in which this athlete plays, states that it is the seventh tier in the English football league system which clearly indicates that this is not the highest level. OlenWhitaker • or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Southern League Premier Division is not a notable league? I'm not familiar with English football, but Stanbridge has received coverage TRAVELLINGCARITell me yours 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd have to say I agree with the nom. I like to think that if I'd stayed in the UK I might have played for Brackley myself (I was in a team that was basically a "feeder" youth side)... but it certainly isn't at the level of notability (good to see they finished this season one place above Banbury, though :) As to TC's query, the BGB Southern League is notable enough for teams to have articles (it is three flights below the bottom of the official English Football League, and therefore flight seven in the greater scheme of things); it is not, however, notable enoguh for individual players to have articles. Perhaps a smerge of info into the article on the club as part of a "current squad' section is worthwhile? Grutness...wha? 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above --Lemmey talk 04:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in a speedy fashion. Nom withdrew here. Great rescue. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple Gifts (folk and world music band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a spamvertisement, worked on by at least one of the band members and perhaps more, that is jam-packed with non-notable information and clearly fails WP:MUSIC. There was a very strong complaint about this one on the COI Noticeboard and it's time to take action by going through the formal deletion process. Qworty (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:N or WP:BIO. The article's only reference is to a specialized publication and, by itself, doesn't seem to me to establish notability. A good faith (if far from exhaustive) effort to find additional references was not successful. There are plenty of ghits but none of them appears to meet WP:RS except the single reference already present on the page which is also the only Google news hit that appears to actually be about this person. There are others but they all seem to be about other people of the same name. The single reference just doesn't make the grade in my book. Note that this article was created by a single purpose account called NOREEN222 strongly suggesting a COI is at work here. OlenWhitaker • or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BLP. This guy doesn't even have a web page! :-) As for the SPA: its truly pathetic when someone writing about himself is unable to contribute anything reasonably biographical about himself -- not even the basics, like date of birth, leave alone anything reasonably substantive. Bah. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stellenbosch University. Fabrictramp (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Procedural nomination. Contested prod, marginal claims to notability for a university residence hall. Notable? Pastordavid (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 18:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nancy 12:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails N, all of MUSIC, and partly V. Google hits for both names yield nothing besides the wiki page, and download sites. Non notable singer. I am also nominating the following related pages because they arethe albums released by the singer:

Beautiful (Cassendre Xavier album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Live at Tin Angel (Cassendre Xavier album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Affirmations for Survivors: Self-Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Affirmations for Survivors: Spirituality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Undeath (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nancy 12:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
    Trip The Light Fantastic Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The tour has been cancelled and it is not notable enough to have its own article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. It has been cancelled and that says it all. Probably should not have had an article in the first place for an upcoming proposed event. Until something actually happens notability is nonexistent. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nancy 12:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    N.B./Pocketful of Sunshine (Deluxe Edition) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No sources, and when I tried to find sources all that appeared were blogs and unreliable sources. This article is just based on a rumour. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - I am not sure there is much more to say as my reason for delete. No RSS. — Parent5446 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Prediction of an upcoming re-release of two albums which both already have their own articles. Knowledge is not a crystal ball, and in any case there is no reason to have a separate article for every "deluxe edition" re-release of an existing album. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Creation science fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    An article that seems to be a fork of science fair. Not enough material to justify a separate article. Paper45tee (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


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

    The result was Keep. The consensus is that the article meets the standard of WP:N. Darkspots (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    Museum of Earth History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    An unnotable creationist "museum" ran by a local Arkansas man. Other than some articles about its opening in 2005--three years ago-- there doesn't seem to be any sources that proves its significance/notability. The most recent news on its website is from about a year ago. Paper45tee (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep (or possibly merge with Eureka Springs, Arkansas.) The fact that the opening attracted attention of the British media (the Guardian), and not just the local media contributes to notability as defined by the guideline. Merging is also possible, for in an article on a town, some description of the local attractions are to be expected. I am a bit unsure if this museum is large enough, or controversial enough, for a separate article, but there is no compelling need to simply delete verifiable information. For a personal opinion, I think I'll say that founding a museum based on creationism and calling it something semi-scientific as "Museum of Earth History", is within the realms of the absurd, but my distaste for the museum's mission has no impact on its notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep for the same reason we keep Chariots of the Gods? While the concept for the museum is, to me, laughable, it is somewhat notable for simply existing and it has received national news coverage.—RJH (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Can anyone find any sources in the last three years? This is located in a town of less than three thousand people and has unsteady operating hours. The only sources are about its opening. This place seems to have marginal importance when it opened and less importance since then. Paper45tee (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep notable nonsense, though it ought to be brought up to date. Even if the had to close down, it would just be all the more significant.DGG (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep: Nonsense, but notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. International mainstream press coverage seems sufficient. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    Center for Natural Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unnotable creationist organization. Had the notablity tag on it since December. Paper45tee (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    Also delete Miroljub Petrović(redirect page) Paper45tee (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nancy 12:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    All About God Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unnotable creationist organization. A search at google news archive for "All About God Ministries" brings up no hits. Paper45tee (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete. This POV article raises red flags regarding notability/WP:CORP. First, an operation with 77 web sites and only three employees? Not likely for a notable organization. Second, no independent reliable sources. Third, not much turning up in Google and Yahoo! searches. Fourth, about 80% of the article is dedicated not to the ministry but to the founders, with magazine-style (not encyclopedic) biographies of the two of them. Sorry, but this article fails on several counts. B.Wind (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-notable ministry. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

    ↑