Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 7 - Knowledge (XXG)

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 Merge/Redirect to List of The Bill characters. I'll perform the redirect, anyone interested in merging can use the article's history. (Non-admin closure) --Explodicle (T/C) 17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable character Truckerr (talk) 23:59, 7 August 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 A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc by User:SatyrTN. (non-admin closure) Amalthea 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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

A band without a recording contract, only notable because is was a side project of a minor television actor, the main coverage of which is about how she was hit by a train at a level crossing. Wongm (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 06:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I put up those articles and The Volten Sins MySpace site to prove that Jessie Jacobs was in The Volten Sins until the time of her death. HorseGirl070605
  • Very Weak Keep doesn't WP:MUSIC say if a band has a notable member than they are notable? There definitely needs to be better sources (ones which talk about the band itself apart from the notable member's death) would be best. If I'm wrong or there is more to WP:MUSIC that overrides that than do what needs to be done. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge maybe, but definitely redirect to Jessie Jacobs. Individual notability is unclear for the musical group, but she was clearly a notable person.--h i s r e s e a r c h 10:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jessica Jacobs per WP:MUSIC C6. According to The Age Jessica Jacobs was a member of this band, and WP:MUSIC is pretty clear here: A band is notable if it "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.".
    Since the band isn't notable on its own a redirect is in order.
    Amalthea 11:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. No assertion of notability for the band. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 8 August 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 Hersfold 02:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Boy Status (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources found for this album. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:38, 7 August 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 23:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

J.R. Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined a speedy request because I felt it at least had assertions of notability, but it's hard to assess them without any sources verifying if, for example, any of the films or roles played are significant, or whether the actor played minor roles in nn films. Some sourcing would really help clear this up. Dweller (talk) 23:19, 7 August 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Subject does not appear to be notable; no reliable sources —teb728 t c 22:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep -   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete--Mjpresson (talk)Ray Liversidge does not appear notable and he wrote this article himself. Arkayel=RKL=Ray K. Liversidge. The references are to blog pages and a personal website=COI. Mjpresson (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I did quite a bit of googling but could not find substantial coverge of this poet or his work by reliable sources. In particular, I looked for substantive reviews of his poetry in literary magazines but found very little, mostly some brief mentions. No significant poetry awards or prizes that I could find either. The closest I found was this:"Highly commended" (an equivalent of third prize, since the first and second prize were also awarded) in a 2004 literary competition by the poetry magazine "The write stuff". Not enough evidence here to pass WP:CREATIVE. Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (as nominator). The RKL theory is a conjecture (originally mine). Even if it is correct, WP:COI discourages but does not forbid autobiographies. The problem with an autobiography is that it is apt to be POV, but this article is not POV. The area where Arkayel seems to lack objectivity is in assessing the Liversidge’s notability. And that lack of notability is why the article should be deleted. —teb728 t c 07:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to fails both the notability and verifiability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:00, 8 August 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 G3 by Tanthalas39 , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Troy Rodriguez Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete for non-notability. No google return hits at all. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete as G3 pure vandalism. Report on users actions has been left for AIAV to handle.Report included below. Excirial 22:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thedarkness2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account, account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User received no warnings, but his vandalism campaign is so wide that i will not even get into that. User created and altered several article to include himself as being the most important developer, publisher er all.

user then created The Darkness 2 (video_game), mostly a copyover from the first darkness page, again with subtle changed to hide the copy, and again listing him as the main person. After that the user created an article on the company (Which was a redlink) luckily failed to make it convincing, by adding himself as being 13 year old. Im cleaning the mess he made up now, could take a while though.. Excirial 22:52, 7 August 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

My apologies, Twinkle blew this one up (and thanks, TPH!). Anyway, non-notable local duo doing covers of other bands' stuff, completely fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Only 15 G-hits for the band name plus the surnames of the (equally unremarkable) duo, those hits being - as ever - their own web pages, Myspace pages, personal blogs, Youtube, Facebook and this article. Sourced only to their own webpages, and a cut-and-paste of those pages to boot - the article reads like a band brochure. Nothing in general release, no tours, no airplay, and I'll be filing AfDs on the duo's individual articles as well. Created by an SPA whose sole edits are related to this band.  RGTraynor  16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Completing unfinished nom for User:RGTraynor, apparently Twinkle goofed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:01, 7 August 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 as blatant advertising. The growing consensus here is also clear. Kevin (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable, unreleased youtube video, fails WP:N among others. See this diff for creator's comment about sources. ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 7 August 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 due to improvements to the article since nomination. If there is a desire to merge this elsewhere, please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Hersfold 02:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

This seems like something that belongs in a pickup-artist guide. It features over-analysis of a very lightweight subject as if it were drawn from a work of satire or that someone just wanted to see how often they could work the word "cockblock" into an article. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - When you take a minor societal phrase and inflate it into a full page of strategy as if it is an Audubon field guide, that's lightweight. The 'burgeoning seduction community?' This is like something out of the Zombie Survival Guide where a similar lightweight subject was fleshed out at great length for entertainment value. The article currently reads as puerile over-expansion on a non-encyclopedic subject. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Changed to Weak delete per my comment lower in the discussion) Let's see, for sources we have "Diabolikseduction.com", "thepickupkings.com", and "e-seduce.com/How-to-handle-cockblockers" I'm not seeing any of these as reliable sources, and by the way, Knowledge (XXG) is not a seduction manual. Term exists at Wiktionary, that should be enough. BTW, I see the prior nominations were deletes, can one of you admin types tell if this is significantly different in content? Xymmax So let it be done 22:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Heavily trim and merge to "concepts" or "practices" section of Seduction community. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (or merge) It's a minor term with little if any rigorous research to draw upon for the article. At the moment the article quotes sources' amateur psychology as though it were fact. Remove that type of content and there is pretty much nothing left. -- SiobhanHansa 00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Doesn't "amateur" imply that they don't do it as a profession? Mystery et al live on this stuff. They've turned it into an art and science that has taken the world by storm. What could have been done to make it more scientifically rigorous and more of a reliable source – have surveys and such and ask people what's worked for them? Who's going to fund that, when the overwhelming anecdotal evidence is all there, and is already sufficient to operate on? I don't really see a compelling case for deletion, and I think this article is a good example of fulfillment of the purpose we are supposed to serve, which is bringing together knowledge from many reliable primary sources into one place. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
My use of amateur is supposed to imply they are not professional, respected psychologists. The people that are quoted may make money from their claims but their conclusions are not taken particularly seriously outside that circle. And are not rigorously studied within it. -- SiobhanHansa 00:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Changing to Weak Delete or Merge to seduction community. The new version by SecondSight is certainly better but still seems to fall short in terms of WP:N. The two last references are to alternate usages of the term. Two other sources are articles in student newspapers. The first reference only mentions the term once and is not really a discussion of the term but a story to which the term is applicable. The most substantive reference is "The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists" by Neil Strauss which is cited three times. That is a solid reference, but somehow the overall coverage seems a little thin for establishing notability, even in terms of importance and widespread usage within the seduction community. Nsk92 (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, common term used widely outside the seduction community such as wingman. Mathmo 05:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete nn neologism Mayalld (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or relist. Users voting for deletion raised some valid concerns. The article only had one reliable source. To address these concerns, I rewrote the entire article to include multiple sources, and I removed all the blog sources. Some of the new sources are about the term and engage in extensive discussion of it (e.g. types of cockblocking), so it passes WP:NEO. Although some users in this AFD expressed a lack of interest in the minutiae of cockblocking, these minutiae are discussed in reliable sources and consequently includable in this article, now that it has better sources. This article cannot be merged with seduction community, because of its size, and because the term is used outside it (by college students, by political commentators, and as the name of a lesbian dance club). Since the article is completely rewritten with the goal of accommodating the concerns of this AFD, I propose that this AFD be closed. If my rewrite is deemed unsatisfactory, then it should be relisted for a new AFD with a clean slate (since this AFD already contains votes for deletion that do not apply to the current form of the article). --SecondSight (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
SecondSight - I think you improved the article greatly and I've adjusted my recommendation. But I take issue with the use of student newspapers (or any newspaper using its journalists' opinions rather than reporting on research) as the source for "reasons for". This is still the same amateur psychology as the blogs exhibited. The disambiguation issues are minor passing mentions and without those sections it's just about how the phrase is used within the seduction community. -- SiobhanHansa 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree that student newspapers aren't the highest quality sources around, but they still seem to qualify as reliable sources. Student newspapers have editorial boards. WP:RS requires that the authors of reliable sources "are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Surely a college student writing for a college publication is "trustworthy or authoritative" in relation to the usage of the term "cockblock" among college students. This article doesn't have the best reliable sources in the world, but it has reliable sources. Are there any guidelines or precedents for using college newspaper sources? --SecondSight (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree they're probably fairly authoritative in relation to the usage of the term but that's not what they're being used to support. They're being used to support why cockblocking happens - and that's psychology (or sociology) and I'd hazard fairly sophisticated psychology at that. I don't think any journalist's view - in the absence of other qualifications - would be appropriate for that. If they were quoting experts it would be a different matter but they appear to be writing their own opinions. -- SiobhanHansa 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • comment- sad to say, there are WP:RS that mention this maybe due to the seduction fans mad keenness to sell the ideas, which we've seen here. As such I can't in all conscience vote 'delete'. However, this one isn't as notable as Neg (seduction). We maybe don't need all these as separate articles. Sticky Parkin 02:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge The article is well referenced but is mostly about the meaning of a fashionable term (and Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary) rather than a notable phenomenon. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, when you've been cockblocked, it's real notable... --Father Goose (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge A read shows that it needs lots of work. But, reluctantly, I think it is very barely notable. Atom (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just wanted to return and acknowledge the substantial improvements made to this article by SecondSight; candidly I understand why the nom no longer supports deletion. I still maintain my delete !vote, although now weakly so, because the sources, while much, much, much better still do not strike me as reliable in the manner in which they are being used here. I would suggest to Wikiproject Seduction that SecondSight has shown you the way; if your articles look more like this, they are unlikely to be nominated in the first place. Xymmax So let it be done 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This may be a neologism but so is E-mail and dozens of others that have risen to the notability threshold. Article needs improving via regular editing. Better writing, stronger sources and a meaningful and sourced section on uses in popular culture so others can see its usage. Banjeboi 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Trim to bare bones and merge. This is a very long dictionary definition, not an encyclopedic article, and I can't see how it warrants its own entry. I appreciate efforts have been made to improve it, but IMO it's essentially unimprovable at its core. – iridescent 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep i'm an inclusionist when it comes to this stuff and this article definitely could use some work but not that much at that. this is a very common term that should have more content on it than a dictionary definition. there is newspaper coverage of it, something that i think should cockblock its deletion!♥INchile 03:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article provides reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A well-referenced article. Notability doesn't seem to be a problem here. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:04, 13 August 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; prior AfD is relevant, but contains only a nomination and one comment, so I hesitate to consider it strongly binding. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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

The result was Delete. Tiptoety 02:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Non notable student magazine, with the only claim to notability being that it is the only magazine created ny undergraduate students. No reliable sourcing as well (Self-published or biased) Excirial 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete par being the nominator Excirial 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Notibility Issues   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I usually like to give articles that are {{underconstruction}} a chance, but after reading the authors assertion of notability on Talk:The Gadfly (Philosophy Magazine) I'm afraid that this topic will never pass WP:NOTE, barring some new significant coverage. Campus magazines and blogs just aren't enough, leaving only this. --Amalthea 11:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Amalthea. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)*
  • keep article needs improvement. the gadfly is quite famous and meets notability for publications once it is properly cited. Hasn't been around long enough for an afd, hasn't even been through any improvement. This does not qualify for a speedy, very clearly. It needs improvement, improvement is not a reason for afd. Notability will be established.--Buridan (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find any independent coverage of this magazine (the one reference to the Columbia Spectator hardly counts as "independent" coverage of a Columbia University publication; even then, it seems to have been mentioned only once). This is not enough for WP:N, which requires "significant" coverage in "independent" sources. The Spectator's claim that there was no undergraduate philosophy journal prior to 2006 is false (which is one reason not to count college newspapers as reliable sources): see some of the journals listed here or here. Thus, the one thing asserted to be notable about this magazine does not pan out. RJC 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • keep The Gadfly article is of interest to Knowledge (XXG) readers as an introduction to a magazine they might read or contribute to, and for information on an active and innovative philosophy publication. Most new student publications receive purely internal coverage of their activities so that seems an unfair reason for deletion. The Gadfly's own website provides PDFs of the magazines, and they are original in the realm of philosophy publications. Knowledge (XXG) should assist in making The Gadfly's activities more discussed outside of its university. I think this is a short article on a small but worthy topic, ready for expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stt2104 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that's not quite The Way of Knowledge (XXG). An encyclopædia should cover topics that are already notable, and not assist in making them notable. I'm sure that it is a fine and interesting magazine, but it needs to have gained significant coverage in independent reliable sources first to pass the notability guidelines. It's a strict guideline, but I can't see how it is unfair. --Amalthea 08:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • keep Responding to two major criticisms that are brought against this article. The first, and most important, is the objection that The Gadfly is not the first undergraduate philosophy magazine in the country. It seems the commenter does not recognize the difference between a journal and a magazine, a critical and, if one reads the publication, obvious distinction. I refer you to the summer 2008 issue of The Gadfly and any given issue of a number of undergraduate philosophy journals, take, for instance, Stanford's Dualist or Michigan's Meteorite to see the difference for yourselves (or check out any of the other journals in the link provided above ). Basically the difference is that journals accept academic papers, while The Gadfly, as a magazine, accepts a range of works and emphatically not academic papers. This difference is now explained, in greater detail, in the opening of the article. The second criticism I will respond to is the comment about the lack of credibility of the The Columbia Spectator. It is not a campus magazine, rather one of the oldest daily campus newspapers in the country, second to Harvard s Crimson and is read and taken seriously by a wide readership not limited to undergraduate students or even members of the Columbia community. Further, and more importantly, The Spectator is financially independent from Columbia University and has been since 1962 . I'm not sure how previous commenter's feel they can justify calling this a "biased" source or if the sense in which they can has any real relevance to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker901 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think that if the Gadfly's notability relies on the distinction between a journal and a magazine, its case is tenuous at best. In any case, a single article in a student newspaper does not constitute significant coverage, which is what the notability guidelines require. It might be a fine magazine, but it is at best little-known fine magazine. Stt2104 thinks that it needs to be better-known outside of its university, which is a clear sign that it is not yet notable. RJC 16:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Commment. I'm not sure why RJC thinks that The Gadfly's case is tenuous based on the distinction between a journal and a magazine. The distinction may not mean very much to some readers, but it is a real and important distinction. A journal publishes academic papers accompanied with the appropriate formal notation and referencing. A magazine is not nearly as restrictive as this. The Gadfly, for example, publishes columns, interviews, feature articles, event reviews, humor pieces and information such as course listings, valuable websites, or events. Most, if not all of these things you will never find in a philosophy journal. Furthermore, the layout and design of a magazine is very different from that of a journal. A journal's top priority is content. To the extent that a journal might care about appearance, readability and convenience is the goal. A magazine such as The Gadfly focuses an equal amount of attention on aesthetic concerns and interesting, creative, design. Why do readers who don't immediately understand the distinction between a journal and a magazine suppose that the distinction does not exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker901 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless independent third party sources can be found.Nrswanson (talk) 04:23, 11 August 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Presented as though it were a generic name for a type of computer program. As far as I can tell, the only usage for the word is the name of a non-notable company. Sgroupace (talk) 21:05, 7 August 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 Daisy Turner.  Sandstein  06:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex Turner (slave) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An interesting biographical entry, and probably an interesting man too, but the only references for this are two local histories. These may well be reliable, but two smalltown sources aren't enough to demonstrate notability: otherwise, every person of much of any prominence in any community (for example, every local politician) would be notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way: please note that there has been canvassing in favor of keeping this article by Hmose. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge into Daisy Turner, due to lack of notability. The Alex Turner article is a much better article than the article about Daisy Turner, but she has a much stronger claim to notability than he does, and his interesting story would fit very nicely into the article about her. --Orlady (talk) 15:59, 8 August 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) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

V. R. Gopala Menon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Religious person cited in a website related to a notable religion. Other than this reference, there is no reason to believe this person to be notable. Also, reliable sources are lacking. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:34, 7 August 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, though noting the nomination does not appear to have been made in bad faith (as was alleged). – Luna Santin (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Screwfly Solution (Masters of Horror episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable television episode from Masters of Horror. Fails all notability requirements for having a stand alone episode article (WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, WP:MOSTV. The only content is an excessive long plot summary (863 words) and some unsourced material about its origins. Originally redirected to List of Masters of Horror episodes as per guidelines, however was twice reverted as vandalism, then a third time under the claim that this is a film not a television episode. It has never aired separately, is less than an hour in length, and was created specifically to be an episode of this television series. The article full considers it an episode as well.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Artiocle needs improvement and citeation, not deletion. As do most of the episode entries for the matsers of horror series, which Collectonian seems to be on a bit of a spree with. Howabout slowing down and actually fixing stuff instead of the knee jerk deletions/redirects? Artw (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
They aren't knee-jerk. I'm a member of the TV project and cleaning up TV and episode articles is what I do. The episodes are all unnnotable as noted in the edit summaries and the deletion note above. No one has even touched most of these for a month or longer until I actually added REAL content to the Masters of Horror article and created the episode list it hadn't even had before. While not actually help fix by expanding the summaries in the episode list instead of trying to keep these mini-novellas that serve no valid purpose. Of course, your uncivil reply to the polite question on your talk page really answers the question already. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you're part of some knee jerk deltionist collective? Same thing. Well at leats you AFDed this one rather than just redirecting it, which is particularly unhelful as it doesn't really notify anyone or give anyone a chance to work on it. Why are you deletionists always in such a desperate rush anyway? Artw (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. DCEdwards 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- Brief plot summaries are OK as part of proper coverage of notable fictional material. Extensive plot summaries, particularly when they form the whole content of the article, are not OK and especially in a case like this where the episode's whole claim to notability is inherited from the series. Reyk YO! 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to Weak Keep because of the expansion and sourcing that's happened since I first voted. I'm still not entirely convinced about notability- comments by the director and lead actor aren't decisive- but I think it should get the benefit of the doubt. Reyk YO! 22:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The nomination tells us that this is a case of WP:POINT. The nominator actually wished to redirect the article to a list of episodes in the manner of other disruptive editors such as TTN. Because other editors have opposed this, the article is brought here as a forum-shopping tactic. Note that we have no discussion on the article's talk page, which ought to have been the first stage in dispute resolution. As for the article, we might consider merging it with the main article on the prize-winning story: The Screwfly Solution and deletion would be obviously unhelpful in this. By the way, the excellent story concerns an plague which causes people to go on a spree of irrational destruction which they rationalise with a bizarre ideology. There turns out to be an ulterior motive behind this. Food for thought... Colonel Warden (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:SK — if any other users agree that the article should be deleted, it is no longer eligible for a speedy keep. Please consider revisiting your "vote". Stifle (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Not a case of WP:POINT, case of it can't be redirected and it is a contested "deletion" per Artw's on definition of deletion and his support of it being brought here instead. Contested deletions are brought to AfD and it is not "forum-shopping". Discussion has occurred at the main article page and the episode list page, wholly appropriate places to discuss a single episode among a group. Nor is it a valid speedy per Stifle. What the heck does that story have to do with anything, or is that supposed to be some sort of backhanded personal attack (I'd hope not, as while you and I rarely agree on deletion discussions, you usually are polite in them). If its merged, I would think it should be to the episode list. Though based on the short story, it is purely about the episode, not the story. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The story is the essential content while the Masters of Horror branding seems comparatively unimportant. The interesting details are the way in which the screenwriter and director extended and presented the original story. Because the story is distinct and separate from others presented under this branding, it should be considered separately. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Too much summary without real world context. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have spent several hours raising the number of sources to the auspicious number of 8, so demonstrating that the nomination's claim that the topic is not notable is a blatant falsehood and violates the emphatic guidance of WP:BEFORE: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Note also that Collectonian is starting to establish a pattern of singling out episodes with a strong feminist subtext to bring here. (c.f. Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 06:11, August 9, 2008
  • Um, WTF? "Strong Feminist subtext" Who gives a rats ass about that and where is there "feminist" anything in this episode? Hell, define feminist subtext please because I don't pay attention to such nonsense and am not sure what you even mean. I guess Lassie has feminist subtexts too, and every other TV series I've worked to merge bad episode articles into better quality featured episodes. Stop pulling red herrings out of your hat and stick to the topic, not attacking the editor with such BS crap. I used to have some modicum of respect for you, but if you must sink this low to argue against an AfD I nominated, I don't anymore. As for the sources: 1 is a French book with no page number or anything to verify you actually say a reference to this episode (and not the source book) in it (and I seriously doubt you just happen to own that book and read excellent French); #4 (Reuters) is a simple one line advertisement for the upcoming second season of the series, not significant coverage of anything and it adds nothing at all; 5 is about the series in general, and again not significant or specific coverage of this single episode; 6 is a link to the front end of a site that doesn't even mention the episode. If you're gonna go hunt for sources. So what you really have are 3 reviews of the DVD and one interview on the production of the episode, all of which can fit very nicely in an episode list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I would like to volunteer to tighten the summaries and improve the articles, for a start. Deleting all of these episode articles would result in an unacceptable loss of information, as little included in them will ever make it into the list article. The list should have been created before the individual article pages, but hey, things don't always proceed in an ideal fashion. I feel that the case for deletion according to WP:EPISODE is not as clear cut as it's being presented, either. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, no one is saying delete them all. Indeed, I've expanded the one for "Imprint" (the unaired episode). The discussion on merge/redirect for the rest is proceeding on the main talk page and the episode talk page. Right now, most of the individual articles have little information besides the plot summaries and IMDB copy/paste trivia. For the plots, if they were pared down to the appropriate length (200-400 words) they would be quite welcome is the current episode list and much preferable to teasers there now. Of course, if you feel the episode list is an appropriate split from the main article, you also want to say so at Talk:Masters of Horror, as Colonel Warden has decided the TV project's guidelines advocate "content forks" and cause dissension, so he is threatening to AfD it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer a solution where existing articles are kept, improved, and linked from your ep list, which we should also keep. I will go say as much at the talk page as well. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:21, 9 August 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. Deleted as WP:CSD#A7 by User:Fuhghettaboutit. Non-admin close. Reyk YO! 01:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Red Pepper Chinese Cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject asserts no notability to be an encyclopedic entry. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 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 both as neither pass WP:ATHLETE. Leave me a note if they make their debuts, and I'll restore them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD, reason being as the football season starts in a few weeks and so the player might play, this is crystal ballery. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league / competition. --Jimbo 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating Andrew Boyce for the exact same reason.

  • Delete both - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and relist in a fortnight if necessary. I noted in the deprod that "Season starts in less than 24-hours. Recommend wait a week or two before deleting to see if he is playing" not "reason being as the football season starts in a few weeks and so the player might play". Doncaster plays Derb on August 8th. I see no reason to start AfDing players less than 24-hours before the game. I have no idea who might play, but this seems like an extreme waste of everyone's time, and a violation of both WP:FAITH and WP:POINT. Nfitz (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Oops, Doncaster plays on August 9th of course - for some reason I was thinking it was Friday when I wrote this. Point stands though ... Nfitz (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, according to this, the game has already finished and neither Fairhurst nor Boyce played. Nsk92 (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom unless he plays during this AFD (within the next 5 days). Gtstricky 20:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Notability Issues, quite presumptive to write an article.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Would also support speedy close. I think it is a misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL to invoke it here. WP:CRYSTAL is aimed to prevent articles based on speculations and rumors and makes it clear that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." That seems to be the case here with the August 8th game (almost certain to take place) and, in fact, in general with Fairhurst competing for Doncaster in the near future: it was verifified that they did sign him up and it is clear that he will play unless something quite unforseen happens. One of the criteria of WP:ATHLETE explicitly states: "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." It is clear that this criterion will almost certainly be factually satisfied in a few days (and the spirit of this requirement is satisfied already), likely even tomorrow, which would be before this AfD is supposed to close. I don't see much point in having this AfD now. I agree with Nfitz that waiting a couple of weeks would have been much better in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Changing to Neutral. The Aug 9 game has already finished but neither Fairhurst nor Boyce played. Nsk92 (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "may never play at the highest level", I think you may be looking at the wrong part of WP:ATHLETE. That item refers to participation in amateur sports. For professional sports there is a separate criterion of WP:ATHLETE which reads:"Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." Doncaster Rovers is a part of Football League Championship, the top tier of The Football League, which is a fully professional football league in the U.K. Nsk92 (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't made an appearance for Doncaster as of yet (other than friendlies, which don't count as I understand the policy). He may God/Allah/Buddah/whomever forbid get hit by a bus tonight and never play for them in a fully competitive match. He therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. He doesn't have significant coverage to pass WP:N either. Hence my userfy suggestion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:46, 8 August 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/keep. Batch nominations can be problematic, if users strongly support the inclusion of certain pages and do not comment significantly on others; it may be appropriate to nominate some of these pages individually in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Les Légions Noires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
William Roussel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belketre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March to the Black Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black Murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mütiilation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hail Satanas We Are the Black Legions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vampires of Black Imperial Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black Millenium (Grimly Reborn) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Majestas Leprosus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rattenkönig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sorrow Galaxies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Remains of a Ruined, Dead, Cursed Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New False Prophet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mütiilation Split with Deathspell Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Satanicum Tenebrae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vlad Tepes (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A huge walled garden of unsourced band articles, some of which have already been tagged with {{unreferenced}} and/or {{notability}}. Even though the main article asserts that these bands and releases are all "underground", I still can't verify so much that they even exist, outside of unreliable sources such as MySpace and Last.fm. As a result, I believe that these acts and their albums (excepting one demo which I prodded) fail WP:MUSIC entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Metal Archives has been deemed an unreliable source on numerous occasions. Being on Metal Archives means absolutely nothing - a band that has released 5 copies of a demo can end up on there. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral at present Gonna have a look for sources and such but, thought best to point out now that Existence isn't the same as notability as the keep argument by Ciacchi seems to suggest. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral at present The scene is genuinely stupidly influential given its obscurity, but finding sources is going to be extremely difficult, given that the LLN refused to give interviews and the like and distributed their material exclusively between themselves. There's a couple of mentions in the Terrorizer articles I mentioned on the discussion page, and I could fairly easily dig out some reviews in print sources; I don't think we can use Metal Archives as a source in this case. I'll look for more references in the meantime. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Well, Mutiilation probably pass WP:MUSIC by having multiple albums released through Drakkar Productions. The others are struggling with that criterion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I definitely think the articles should be kept, as I've argued before, but it's been an uphill battle all along, because the groups have little online presence. The simple fact that Mutiilation have an article on five other Wikipedias is a fair indication that the group has a significant international following, but most of the sources are going to be offline and not in English. Chubbles (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete in the absence of citations from reliable sources, which are required to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Les Légions Noires exists in four Wikipedias, while Mütiilation appears in six—looks to me like they are notable enough. Sourcing is always a problem for even the most notable of black metal acts, but I am fairly certain something usable can be found given time and patience. = ∫t 5th Eye 13:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Mostly for the reasons invoked by user Ciacchi and Chubbles. I agree that the article has to bee scrutinized and reduced to the established facts. However as this AfD discussion is about several articles, I would propose the following: Delete for the articles Black Murder and Satanicum Tenebrae as those bands have no release on any remotely official outlet. Merge for the article William Roussel as he is the only member of Mütiilation and not notable otherwise. Keep for the all the Mütiilation albums as they have been released by official labels. Irina666 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep These are extremely well known bands in the black metal scene. You can merge the William Roussel article, but, keep every other one. Vlad Tepes has side project bands, which, under WP:BAND are notable. Undeath (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment, I'd like to see this article kept as well, but I'm interested in which bit of WP:BAND you think Vlad Tepes et al pass. Mutiilation can probably get through, but without sources the rest are screwed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    The part about releasing multiple works in a notable label. Undeath (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment WP:BAND states "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Vlad Tepes clearly don't meet this criterion. As far as I can tell they haven't released any albums on a notable label at all. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Similar to the Elephant 6 collective. While black metal might not be everyone's cup of tea, it's certainly has a passionate international following. --Oakshade (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete People who say these groups are well known amongst black metal are talking total horseshit - simply put, these are blatant lies.. It's about time this little black metal fanclub actually adhered to Knowledge (XXG) policy, and not keep creating articles on non-notable crap. I'm sick of seeing AFD after AFD on self-released black metal tripe that has no notability. Also, none of the above keeps are actually valid since they have no adequate reasoning behind their keeps. If this is kept due to the invalid keeps above, I have every intention of renominating this article. It's because of users such as the above that metal's presence on Knowledge (XXG) is seen as a joke. To those black metal fanclubbers above - read WP:MUSIC sometime. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Could you please adhere to Knowledge (XXG)'s Civility recommendations and assume good faith. I agree that to pretend that the Légions Noires are "extremely well known" is exagerated to say the least. However the interest in their material - I talk about the very sought-after reeditions of the demos by a third-party publisher - can be seen as an argument for notability. Regarding the "self-released black metal tripe" - no less than 10 of the articles tagged for deletion are about Mütiilation who has official releases on about 8 different labels. So please verify your claims before accusing other Wikipedians of amateurism. Irina666 (talk) 21:12, 13 August 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. No clear consensus to merge, but that may continue to be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Berlin Circle (traffic circle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A critical part of our extensive encyclopedic treatment of NJ traffic circles? How 'bout WP:N-failing, defunct, incidental road feature? Eusebeus (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC) *Alternatively, editors may wish to consider the merits of merge & redirect to List of traffic circles in New Jersey.

Stifle, so once the object in question ceases to exist, should we delete the article? Can we extend it to people? Once they die, we delete their articles? Kushal (talk) 23:22, 8 August 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. --jonny-mt 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Bio of a non notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply After reading the above links on the subject, the notability is still questionable if not lacking completely. These sources do not contribute to the notability of the subject. As is, the subject lacks notability and should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:19, 13 August 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. Keeper ǀ 76 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Non notable religious organization. Also, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The result of the Afd discussion on Swami Vivekananda Saraswati was to merge into the Agama Yoga article because he is not notable. Like its founder, Agama Yoga is also not notable. There needs to be reliable sources provided that demonstrate how the subject is notable. As there are none, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: The article title leads a user to believe thta it is a "type of yoga". However the article does not reveal anything different about it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The Fact that the article's name may or may not need changing is irrelevant for the discussion regarding if the article should be kept or deleted, i invite you to open a discussion regarding the article's name in the articles talk page Tomeryogi (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Swami Vivekananda Saraswati himself is not notable, and this is not a type of Yoga, its a promotional ad that is using Knowledge (XXG) as a vehicle. Wikidās ॐ 12:51, 13 August 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 Destiny's Child. --jonny-mt 02:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

This band fails WP:MUSIC. They released no albums, split years ago and return no relevent G-hits (aside from links to Knowledge (XXG)). for "Anjel", for "Anjel" + "music", for "Anjel" + "band". Anjel's only claim to notability is the fact that two of its members were former members of Destiny's Child. Information about Anjel would be better included in the bios for these members and Destiny's Child. The band itself doesn't warrant an article. Escape Artist Swyer The mess I've made 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • merge and redirect per Ten Pound Hammer and his otters. The information is significant enough for inclusion, but the article is not strong enough to stand alone. The Allmusic page for Anjel does not even mention the Destiny's Child connection. If anyone looks for the info on Anjel, they'll get a better look at the subject this way. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:52, 7 August 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 22:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lyricus Teaching Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If ever I saw an "indiscernible or unclassifiable topic", this is it. I've read this very carefully multiple times. I've also read it's "parent" article, and attempted to make sense of the single alleged reference. Having done so, I am no closer to understanding what on earth this article is about, and exactly why it warrants a Knowledge (XXG) page. From what I can make out, it appears to be an element of some kind on wannabe-Scientology website, or possibly part of a particularly odd hoax (nothing seems quite clear as to exactly what this is). Whatever it is, I don't see why we need a page on it and see no possible way to expand it.  – iridescent 15:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 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 two last "keep" opinions do not address the sourcing problems that are raised in the nomination, and are discounted.  Sandstein  22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A decades old hoax that appears not to have garnered much if any independent notice. Notability is not temporary, of course, but I cannot find any evidence that it had any when it was originated either. Even within the ufology community, this appears to be a minor claim. At the most, we might should have a passing mention at UFO conspiracy theory. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC) - Eldereft (cont.) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Seven references, including a book, already establishes the idea of the group as notable, hoax or not. Even urban legends can be notable. However article is presenting the UFO theory as fact and it needs to qualify a lot of those statements and include criticism of the theory. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That was my first impulse, certainly, but sources 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 5 are self-published. The NYT source is irrelevant (and probably WP:SYNTH. This leaves us with one book, plus a couple passing mentions in non-WP:RS that I found before bringing it here. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A few of the sources are self-published, but theyre only used for minor details; the famous Above Top Secret book is really the important one. The NYT quote is not a "synth", but a "coatrack"; that whole paragraph belongs in the biography of MacArthur, and the preceding paragraph should leave it as "General Douglas MacArthur, who had mentioned the possibility of conflict with extraterrestrials", with an anchor link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 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 - per G4 -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. TN‑X-Man 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment- So we have. A pretty obvious G4. So tagged. TN‑X-Man 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The previous afd resulted in a delete and redirect, so I wasn't sure that G4 applied. But I guess it does. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 19:52, 7 August 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. --jonny-mt 02:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Game of "S.K.A.T.E." (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is the second nomination of this article for deletion. It fails WP:N, WP:TOYS. Its only reference is a skateboarding forum, and google returns nothing promising. To quote Travellingcari, "No evidence of this game's notability". Leonard 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Although I agree that this article needs some work in terms of style and content, within less than two minutes of searching I found some interesting sources including an official website for a tournament featuring the game with professional skaters participating.Nrswanson (talk) 18:31, 7 August 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) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

17-year-old who's done well in science fair competitions. All the sources refer to his placing in these competitions. I don't think this makes him a notable "scientist". NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE:This discussion may include the use of sockpuppetry by users Pdfreeman, ambcfoundation, Bpaftw, and Pbstrypsin. A formal on going investigation is in place at Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Pdfreeman.Nrswanson (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, science fair winner does not equal notable scientist ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Although what he has achieved in his 17 years is notable, it doesn't seem Wiki-worthy yet. Raymondwinn (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Articles of child academics such as Philip Vidal Streich and Sho Yano are acceptable, by precedent this article should not be deleted as well. The article is fine, because no where does it indicate that he is a notable scientist. Thus, the two above arguments are making a faulty comparison. Law should not be compared to other scientists but rather other 17 year olds. As an adult his contribution is substantial, but as a 17 year old it's wiki-notable, especially at a time when America's youth is slipping in science and math. ambcfoundation (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete In agreement with Ukexpat. Had a 34 year old performed these studies, he wouldn't even hit the papers. This is mere sensationalism because he's 17 years old, but so are the other 50 students who are listed in each source, so either this gets deleted or we get cracking on another 49 articles. DRosenbach 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I would respectfully disagree with DRosenbach. Saying other students are in the sources is equivalent to saying Lance Armstrong shouldn't be in wikipedia because hundreds of people compete in the Tour de France. Although other students are listed in some of the sources, the sheer quantity of accolades he has received makes him a unique, notable individual. The average high schooler certainly doesn't have over 13 news sources and a news segment devoted to himself (especially a widely circulated paper like the Star Tribune) . Plus, the news segment says he's doing graduate/post-doctoral work on developing a brain cancer vaccine. Yes, maybe it won't make front page news, but not every article on wikipedia has to be earth shattering news. A cancer vaccine, not matter how old the scientist is, is certainly an interesting development. YPdfreeman (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. He fails WP:PROF -- "as good as a senior graduate student" is not quite "more notable than the average professor", but he's marginally notable as a young celebrity prodigy type; under the general criterion in WP:BIO. He's got one full profile by a news channel, and numerous incidental writeups. RayAYang (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Who? MiracleMat (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep A damn smart 17-year-old, to be certain. The article could use better references, but his accomplishments are notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- Although impressive achievements for such a young man, he has yet to accomplish anything of longterm note by himself. The projects he has/is working on are mostly led by adult senior scientists, and although he is participating in a meaningful research he certainly isn't directing the course of the scientific studies. I think this article is a bit premature since the subject's notability seems to be too closely tied to his age. If Law doesn't do anything truly noteworthy in future than this article really is worthless as notability of Law may dissapear. Therefore this article really isn't a valid encyclopedic entry as notability is not temporary.Nrswanson (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nrswanson. If ever the article would be kept, it would need extensive cutting and re-writing so that it resembles a bit less a breathless fan-report and becomes more encyclopedic. --Crusio (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • delete Nrswanson sums it up. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Challenging the Pasteur effect in favor of the Warburg effect is a notable accomplishment. Even if he wasn't a scientist, the fact that Law created a large nonprofit organization is enougth merit for a wiki article. Pbstrypsin (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

— Pbstrypsin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Note The article on the Pasteur effect talks about the "inhibiting effect of oxygen on the fermentation process", which apparently has nothing to do with tumors. The Warburg effect was discovered in the 50's in tumor cells. That article cites some recent discoveries on this effect. None of this mentions the Pasteur effect or the Warburg effect. It really does not look to me like Law has discovered the cure for cancer, unfortunately, unless something escapes me here. As for the nonprofit, if that organisation is notable, Law could be mentioned in an article about that nonprofit, that still does not establish notability for a separate article. --Crusio (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note I think two technical points need to made. Firstly, fermentation not only occurs in yeast cells, but it also occurs in tumor cells. Just read the scientific journal article by Warburg himself, <http://www.jgp.org/cgi/reprint/8/6/519>. Law's paper is arguing oxygen does not inhibit the fermentation process of glioma tumors (in other words his conclusion is contradicting "the Pasteur effect"). Although, the Warburg effect was documented in tumors in the 50's, scientists did not know gliomas exhibited the Warburg effect. Otto Warburg was working with sarcomas and carcinomas not gliomas (refer the the journal article for verification). Secondly, even though Law's abstract doesn't mention the Warburg and Pasteur effect by name, his conclusion is consistent with Knowledge (XXG)'s description. Fermentation takes place through an anaerobic process called glycolysis. The fact that oxygen does not inhibit fermentation (and therefore glycolysis) means that gliomas have a "glycolytic-dependent phenotype" (notice that phrase is in the title of his paper). This contribution is noteworthy; he doesn't have to find the cure to cancer to be notable. The fact that we are debating the scientific merits of a kid's paper is a testament to his notable contribution to the scientific dialogue. Pdfreeman (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Questions Thanks for that explanation Pdfreeman! However, as far as I can see, nobody ever claimed that the Pasteur effect occurred in glioma cells? So why is it such a big deal that somebody comes up with a hypothesis that it indeed doesn't occur? And if this indeed is such an important discovery, why has this only been published as a science fair abstract and not in a scientific journal? --Crusio (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. To answer Nrswanson, there are two levels of argument to keep this article. First, even if we disregarded age, “challenging the general assumption that glioma cells exhibit the Pasteur effect” is a wiki-worthy accomplishment in itself. Such a finding is not temporary, but rather a newly established theory in scientific debate. Even if Law decided not to pursue science later in life, his discovery will still remain (scientific theories don’t expire over time). Second, if we acknowledge his age, an article about a “child prodigy/extremely gifted teen” with a substantial amount of publicity would suffice in keeping this article. Science fair rules require students to construct their own original research plan, so he must’ve directed his own study. Bpaftw (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Note that Bpaftw appears to have only made three edits in the Knowledge (XXG) namespace, and five total. The current version (as I type this) of his very impressive user page appears to be a clone of that of another, well-established user. Jll (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Another comment The same is also true of two other advocates of keeping the article who have made few other edits outside of it. Pbstrypsin's user page looks identical to Art LaPella's page. And Pdfreeman, who apparently spends a lot of time editing the Royal Military College of Canada article according to her user page (but not her edit history), has a user page similar to a recent version of a user called Victoriaedwards who does put a lot of work into that. Now these discrepencies shouldn't really matter, but they make me a little uncomfortable because if Pbstrypsin says he is Art LaPella and isn't then how can I trust those assertions of his which are relevent to this discussion, for example that Brandon's discovery is a notable one. Note I have linked to the historic versions of these pages as I see them now. I hope this is some almighty cock-up in my computer, or perhaps wikipedia's database, and I can make a grovelling apology for taking these advocates' names in vain, but that isn't how it looks to me at the moment. Jll (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
????? I just had a look at Pbstrypsin's user page and it is as Jll says, it's identical to that of Art LaPella's. But here is something even stranger: Pbstrypsin created a talk page with several messages from other users on it, but apparently there's only one single edit to this talk page: his own. The same thing happens with Bpaftw, who crated a talk page containing already a message purportedly from 2005. Now I know that I have to assume good faith, but this looks to me like there is one person trying to create different "personalities" that look legit. Note that none of the people whose userpages were copied ever edited anything related to this AfD. Sorry, despite AGF, I have to say that this looks very fishy to me. Jll, are you a detective in real life or something?? :-)) --Crusio (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes this does seem fishy. Perhaps we should bring this up at a suspected sockpuppet review?Nrswanson (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but I don't reallly know how to (and in addition it is getting late over here, so I need to get some sleep...) --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and filed a report. See note above.Nrswanson (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not a detective, but I was carefully reading this discussion to help me form a view. I was curious that someone had been awarded nine barnstars for a handful of edits. Jll (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you are jumping the gun on calling his work a theory. At this point it is only a published study (and not even that really as Crusio has pointed out). In order for it to become a theory, numerous other studies will have to be done by other scientists to validate the research and its findings. At this point the study hasn't been sufficiently substantiated to know if it will survive the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific community. That process takes years. Therefore, it is impossible to say whether or not Law's study will have a lasting impact or not as of right now. Notability based on the research is therefore really not established yet. Also, theories do go away as science improves itself and new discoveries are made. (It doesn't happen too often but it does happen) Only scientific laws are so well established. Furthermore, he clearly fails the guidelines for Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics), which is the standard set for scientist articles on wikipedia. Therefore, the only thing making him notable is his age (which is temporary) and possibly the non-profit he started. The non-profit, however, has yet to achieve anything that would pass notability for an organization on wikipedia so I think that fails too. No notabiliy can be established. Nrswanson (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Concerning the notability of the non-profit, it has a sleek, professional-looking website. However, the events listed are all events organized by others. The fundraising page lists as total raised so far: $ 0.00..... Not a notable feat, to say the least. --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Notability (and independent verification) of effect in tumour cells dubious. Non-profit organisation appears to be non-notable. As for "child prodigy/extremely gifted teen" — he's done well in science fairs just like many other people. If he were, say, 5, and competing against 17 year olds then this argument would be more convincing. Jll (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Let me add that if one takes some time to browse through the references given in the article, that it turns out that Law did not win any of those Intel International Science and Engineering Fairs, at best he shared third place in just one category (and look how many categories there are, how many people share first, second or third place). These competitions are held yearly, there must be hundreds of teens that did at least as well as Law in these. The same goes for "Minnesota Scholars of Distinction in Science", according to the source given, he is one of three such scholars in his own school alone. For someone who developed a "cancer vaccine (per Pdfreeman above), that is a bit meager. --Crusio (talk) 09:54, 11 August 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) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Very new artistic/musical movement. Even for a new organisation the number of Google hits seems very small and the article lacks any independent refs. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:35, 7 August 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 a7, doesn't assert notability, being mentioned in a Soulja Boy song isn't notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Arab' (Rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rap artist, has yet to release an album, fails WP:MUSIC. TN‑X-Man 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Needs verification. I disagree that this artist does not meet notability guidelines. The article says that he has songs on the billboard charts which does indicate sufficient notability. However, the article needs verifiable sources to prove that.Nrswanson (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Actually, the article says that SouljahBoy had a song reach the Billboard charts. This artist has not. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 17:41, 7 August 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 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Argument from poor design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating for deletion because the name of the article consitutes original research. The phrase "argument from poor design" does not appear in any cited source, gets zero hits on Google Scholar, and gets only hits that derive from Knowledge (XXG) on Google Web. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment This article has been in AfD before (sorry, I don't think I marked it correctly when submitting). It was saved for the reasons given above, but nothing ever happened. It seems that an actual deletion is the only thing that will change this. Note that "dysteleological argument" also gets zero Google Scholar hits, although it does get apparently independent web hits. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable argument against the existence of God, well written article. JIP | Talk 18:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete OR, not notable. Gnixon (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep valid argument, notable by mentions in books by Darwin and Dawkins. Article quite well written. Don't rename - no one will look up "dysteleological argument" as the wording is too obscure. I don't even know what the first word means. -- Escape Artist Swyer The mess I've made 19:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per above. It does appear to have valid citations, but I do think the article needs cleanup and there is some original research in the article, but the article's subject is not just something WP:MADEUP - it is apparently notable.-h i s r e s e a r c h 20:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - well-written article on significant argument with adequate sourcing. Leave name as is, per User:Escape Artist - clearer than suggested alternative. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - well written and well sourced article on notable argument used by Dawkins, Gould et al. No opinion on correct name beyond noting that a misnamed article is not a reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone. I added the dysteleological argument name in a more prominent place in the lead. --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 11 August 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. --Leivick (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable footballer who has never played in a fully professional league Jogurney (talk) 16:49, 7 August 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.

You guys might want to bring this back because with the first two starting goalkeepers on IR for Besitkas he is their new starting goalkeeper and made an appearance for them in the Turkish Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.67.67 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2009 (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 Snowball Keep --JForget 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary, not in general and certainly not for bits of stray jargon. This article is not an encyclopedic topic. At best the concept of an "anchor baby" could maybe be mentioned as a section, with proper cites, in some more appropriate article, but it just doesn't fit Knowledge (XXG) article standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wetback (slur) should also probably be deleted or merged elsewhere as an example of some real topic, but the rest you named have no bearing on whether this article should exist because they aren't merely neologistic jargon. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You're seriously suggesting one of the most notable ethnic slurs in American history be "deleted or merged"?! --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I will suggest that the request for deletion originated due to some 'unknown' person's dislike for the term, and not due to any real issue pertaining to its worth. The justification for the deletion request itself is weak. Then again, the article has gone through several editing wars... Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not really used in most of those articles - it's just a wikilink or mentioned in passing as a derogatory term. Ethnic slurs are problematic, but we don't avoid problematic content here. I'll add my "keep" vote below, on that basis. Wikidemo (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Second, I would also point out that many of the issues pertaining to the term have only recently gained their own Knowledge (XXG) pages. In fact, Anchor baby contains more information about Chain migration than Chain migration. Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Encyclopedia articles about words are not automatically "dicdefs". This is a rather good encyclopedia article about this word, well written and fully sourced. An article like this is totally outside the scope of a dictionary and totally within the scope of Knowledge (XXG).--Father Goose (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable epithet. Article is documented with reliable secondary sources. As for the nominator's suggestion to delete/merge Wetback (slur), I would oppose that also. That term is even more notable, and has a much longer history than does "anchor baby". In fact, the "wetback" article should probably be expanded, given its long history, and the likely amount of reliable information available about the epithet. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The topic could probably be covered adequately by merging its content and sources into Birthright citizenship in the United States of America and turning "anchor baby" into a redirect. If the existing article is kept, the amount of overlap with material in the "birthright citizenship" article should definitely be minimized. Richwales (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Moderately notable neologism. I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but if enough exists maybe we can derive an observation about practice. We do have articles about slurs - wetaback, Welfare queen, Kike, Sambo (racial term), Shiksa, Guido (slang), on and on. In fact most have articles. What takes this above the level of a mere neologism (widespread usage seems to date only back to 2006) is that it's become associated with advocates for immigration reduction. So it is at the tip of a phenomenon. The article is correct in focusing on the phenomenon of the term as a reflection of people's sentiment about immigration, and not the phenomenon it purportedly describes. Thus, just like the N word is an article about the objectionable slang rather than the people who it's applied to, so is this article about the word and not the US citizens who some people wish were not citizens. Wikidemo (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, as a response to the above I do not think we should merge with "birthright citizenship", which is a broader concept that most people consider legitimate and not worthy of derogation. Wikidemo (talk) 05:19, 9 August 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 nom, a source not cited in the article shows this topic is at least historically notable. Thanks all for your input, it helped. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. Assertions of significance are not sourced and most of the article content has been stirred up by internal church disputes which are not of enyclopedic interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Where are the sources for that level of attendance? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. However based on the size of the building you have to assume a minimum of 8,000 --T-rex 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Go here which backs up the claim with a reliable source. There is also this, published in a reliable publication. If they are not good enough, how about the LA Times here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The LA Times fragment is almost 20 years old, the adherents.com listing is sketchy at most and the Christianity Today article is an obituary from 2001. These can be cited for what they are but still, I think they're a bit shakey. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Irregardless of the exact number, I think everyone here agrees that it is big. Personally I consider any church with over 2000 to be significant, so this is way over that on all counts --T-rex 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I initially suggested deletion, but I'm still on the fence...I did find this, which shows that while it is one of the country's larger churches, the 20,000 number given is twice the actual number. The age of the church shouldn't factor. Most First Baptist/Methodist/Presbyterian churches are going to be over 100 years old...hence "First": they are the oldest of that congregation in the city they are in. --Smashville 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, looking at photos on the church's website, I did a rough count of the seats in the sanctuary. No way are there 20,000, not even close. My quick guess was maybe 8,000 but this doesn't mean all those seats are filled every week. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking again, I think my first quick guess was way too high. I don't believe I see seating for anything more than 2000, maybe a bit less. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Question Did you 1) Pick up on the fact that they have two services on Sunday, 2) that "membership" does not necessarily equal "Sunday attendance", 3) consider the possibility that you may have missed entire sections and balconies in your counting chairs from a picture, and 4) that the article cites "Weekly Attendance" which includes multiple services during the week and quite possibly smaller classes?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, given extra services, 4000. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
In response to your later edit, given the angle of the photo and symmetry of the room, no I don't think I missed entire balconies and sections. Truth be told, I added several hundred to my count when I was done, because one could squeeze lots of folks onto those benches. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
A Fundamental Baptist, Hyles became the church's pastor in 1959. Attendance at the congregation in Hammond, a community in northwestern Indiana just south of Chicago, grew from a few hundred to 20,000 today as Hyles sent hundreds of buses to neighboring areas to bring people to the church each week. Christianity Today "In Memoriam: Megachurch Pastor Jack Hyles Dead at 74" April 2, 2001. Good enough for me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that source. I'm also aware of the buses. Hundreds of them? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite... what do you mean by that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The church keeps (or kept) a fleet of hundreds of buses? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh... yeah. It was one of the largest churches in the country at the time and was a pioneer in the bus ministry efforts. Like the sources stated. I'm gathering that you think that they did not have a fleet of buses, or not that many buses... which, of course, they did...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
QUESTION Is this entire AfD based on the nominator not believing the contents of the article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No. However, going by the sources (or lack of them), I still believe this topic fails WP:ORG. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's take a look at the reasons given in the header: "Assertions of significance are not sourced and most of the article content has been stirred up by internal church disputes which are not of enyclopedic interest." Lessie... the "Not sourced significance" are well sourced by Christianity Today, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times... and the "internal church disputes" involve investigations and records from "Cullman (Alabama) Police" to the FBI. What more could you possibly want? What's your motivation behind this AFD nomination?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
These are passing references, not significant coverage. If you're looking for a WP:COI motive behind this AfD, you won't find one. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so the nominator doesn't beleive the information (hundreds of buses) and then doesn't think that the source is adequate enough because it is "only in passing" even though there are multiple qualified sources (including one leading paragraph in a sample article above) to support the data. If that's all there is, I still stand by my position of keep and leave it to the admins to make the best decision on this afd.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
PS I don't think there is a conflict of interest on the nominator, I'm just not seeing any logic behind the nomination. I'm sure it's a good faith nomination.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind, any editor can take part in this AfD discussion and whatever an admin may do will be limited to closing the discussion based on whatever consensus (or lack) comes up. Speaking for myself, I think the sources are mostly adequate as sources, but don't support the notability of this topic because they only mention the church itself in passing. I'm skeptical about the numbers because the sources on these are not very stirring but the pitch is, I don't see meaningful independent coverage of the church itself. Thanks for talking about this with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Keep largest church in the state, obvious keep. If that fact turns out to be incorrect, then we fix it... but until then I will assume good faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is the meaningful independent coverage of this church as an organization? The sources listed in the article are either publications clearly linked to the church itself, or news stories about criminal allegations against individuals linked with the church. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the "criminal allegations" articles actually do have meaningful information, like the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times article... granted, the article could be cleaned up, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes but these sources have to do with individuals, not the church. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't negate the information in them about the church.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
But it is worth pointing out that the individual involved in those controversies already has an article. Essentially, this article right now is merely serving as a different method of presenting those controversies. --Smashville 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
So Fix It this is a wiki! If you don't like the content, edit away! But that is a content issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Keep. As it's the hub around which a number of criminal acts revolve, and the number of allegations more directly about it, including the Jonestown vibe of the place, and how supported they are, I say keep. Further, the number of comments reported on by pastors when in the position of pastor of the place shows that it's the center of the community viewpoint as well. Unfortunately, if kept, the article will almost certainly need massive copy editing, as the grammar's beyond atrocious there, and permanent semi-protection and watch-listing by numerous editors willing to keep it neutral, given the history of vandalism from IPs purported to be associated with the community. ThuranX (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Has the church been noted in independent sources as a hub of crime/scandal? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You mean besides these (allegations, not proof of course)?
  1. By Debra Gruszecki. Church's alleged acts questioned. Local lawyer charges Northwest Indian Times October 22, 1991
  2. Voyle A Glover. Fundamental seduction: The Jack Hyles case. Schrerville, In. : Brevia Pub., 1990.
  3. Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5
  4. "Church leaders sued in sex-abuse case," Chicago Tribune, October 16, 1991.
  5. Baptism by innuendo Northwest Indiana Times May 19, 1993
  6. "7 accused of abuse linked to preacher." The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Michigan: May 17, 1993. pg. B.2
  7. "Preacher has links to molest suspects." The San Diego Union -Tribune. San Diego, California: May 17, 1993. p. A.7
  8. "Springs drive-by baptisms immersed in controversy" Bruce Finley, Denver Post Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colorado.: August 22, 1993. pg. 7.C
  9. Debra Gruszecki FBI won't continue with church sex abuse probe. Not enough Northwest Indiana Times" May 19, 1993
  10. "No Investigation of Church in Abuse Cases, Police Say" Chicago Tribune May 24, 1993
  11. Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5
  12. "Baptist Megachurch Faces Sex Suit". Christianity Today (2006). Retrieved on May 1, 2006.
  13. Debra Gruszecki. Suit claims rape at church Northwest Indiana Times October 4, 1997
  14. "Blind Man Says Church Bans Him, After He Gets Guide Dog," The Associated Press, July 6, 1984.
  • You'll never get rid of this one. There are too many people who desperately want the article in order to include their POV on the controversial characters involved. Forget the past Gastroturfing and other nonsense, prune it right back to what is verifiable from impartial independent sources (no churches, no newspapers, perhaps news magazines and maybe books on the history of the baptist movement), then lock the sucker and leave the peanut gallery to fight it out on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The only thing we may not agree on is, one can't lock a page down like that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think they do. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Time Magazine reported in 1975 that they were hitting 14,000 in "weekly turnout", spurred by around 10,000 brought in by 230 buses, and a record attendance of 30,560 back in the 1970's. Hmmm... Even if the building is empty today, that's notable any way you slice it. But go ahead, don't beleive it... if you don't think they fit them in, then why not go to the building yourself and count chairs? I'm sure that TIME MAGAZINE did that back in the 1970's...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
33 years ago Time said they (likely) had the "world's biggest Sunday school." This isn't cited in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 7 August 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 Deleted per WP:SNOW, also as borderline patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

General Theory about Compensations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a badly written essay whose seconded PROD was contested by a WP:SPA anon-IP. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 16:09, 7 August 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/selective merge. Although there are a number of policy-based calls for deletion below, the consensus seems to be to keep the article so that the relevant content can be merged where it needs to go. As Nrswanson (wisely) points out below, this task is too complicated for a single closing admin to handle, so I leave it to the normal editing process to sort out. --jonny-mt 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

List of elementary schools in the Peoria Unified School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An indiscriminate list of elementary schools in a school district. The only information about each is Principal's name, address, phone number, ect. so this can easily be defined under "Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory." Tavix (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Indiscriminate collection of information (see WP:IINFO). I would suggest merger with Peoria Unified School District, except that the parent article already includes a list, and the list article consists almost entirely of nonencyclopedic details, almost entirely copy-pasted from http://portal.peoriaud.k12.az.us/Schools/default.aspx . The lengthy part about Marshall Ranch Elementary appears to have been a separate article that was supposed to be merged into this list (probably after an AfD discussion), but the "merger" was done by dropping the entire article (which is full of non-notable details) into the middle of the list. Each of these elementary schools could have roughly one paragraph in Peoria Unified School District, not to include phone numbers, hours of operation, and similar trivia. --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Repeating and expanding from the above. Almost the entire contents of the article are copied and pasted from pages such as http://portal.peoriaud.k12.az.us/sites/ApacheEl/default.aspx . (It's probably not a copyvio because the PUSD website does not appear to be copyrighted.) --Orlady (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No. I am nominating this article for DELETION, and this is the place to discuss such things. I highly disagree with your nonsense comment about trying to discuss this elsewhere when this is a deletion discussion. Please do not come back here again if you want to have that attitude towards these kind of discussions. Tavix (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Calm down Tavix. I believe DGG was merely saying that decisions regarding splits and mergers will need to be decided after the AFD is closed (assuming the decision is keep) which is true. I don't think he was saying that the deletion discussion itself should be moved elsewhere or was in anyway devaluing this conversation. Please assume good faith.Nrswanson (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Beyond that, the other problem I have with DGG's statement is that he jumps the gun and automatically assumes its going to be kept. In a conversation to establish a consensus, I take that personally as devaluing mine and other peoples arguements as false. I do agree that if it is kept, we should discus a merger, but that statement was way over the top. Tavix (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It is a valid option when the article can easily be merged by the closing administrator. In this case, however, although a merge is probably warranted it would be too complicated of a problem for the closing admin. The reason for this is because the best way to merge the information is not immediately obvious and would therefore require further discussion among editors interested in this page. I would say that the admin could tag the article for merge if it is kept but the actual merging process will take some further discussion and time beyond this AFD.Nrswanson (talk) 16:28, 12 August 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) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Marvel Comic's Civil War reading list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, original research Tomdobb (talk) 15:46, 7 August 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) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bet Yitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Strong delete - per nom, and per WP:N. I must say this one of the very few articles I've seen for which there are zero online sources. -Samuel Tan 15:55, 7 August 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 he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

José Antonio Solano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Young Spanish footballer who does not meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN per lack of appearances in a fully professional league (in Spain, only Primera and Segunda Division are fully professional, for all I know). WP:PROD contested by User:Gundam gx, the article creator, with no summary at all. Angelo (talk) 15:34, 7 August 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. John254 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Bio of religious activist. Although he may be associated with notable people, he is not notable by himself. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep for now because he is famous. Will look around for references in due course. Tintin 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't keep the word about the references. Hopefully Priyanath's refs are sufficient for the time being. Tintin 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Very weak keep, waiting for Tintin to produce sources, else delete as BIO and SPAM per nom. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply I have looked for references and was not able to find any. I hope there are other sources that I was not able to find. There are two issues that I am concerned with. What is Vagbhatananda Gurudevar famous for, and what reliable sources back up this claim to being famous? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a keep because he is fairly well-known in Kerala as a social reformer & philosopher, and his association with Narayana Guru and author/scholar Sukumar Azhikode (the latter considers him as his guru and often talks/writes about him). Perhaps I should have looked around a bit more before commenting. I have access to a couple of encyclopaedias in Malayalam. If they don't have an entry for him, I'll have to withdraw the keep. Tintin 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep References in the article but, unsure of how the verification process works for non-internet based sources. I don't see an outright statement of importance or significance though and I'm not sure whether any of the external links really apply so... Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep He was notable in Kerala for fighting for civil rights and more. References include:
  • Peasantry and the Anti-Imperialist Struggles in Kerala
Author(s): K. K. N. Kurup
Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 16, No. 9 (Sep., 1988), pp. 35-45
Publisher: Social Scientist
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3517171
  • CONTRIBUTION OF BRAHMAN AN DASVAMI SIVAYOGI AND VAGBHATANANDA TO THE RENAISSANCE OF KERALA
B Sivayogi - Studies in Kerala Sanskrit Literature, 2004 - Publication Division, ::University of Calicut
  • Studies in Kerala Sanskrit Literature
By En. Vi. Pi Uṇittiri, University of Calicut
Published by Publication Division, University of Calicut, 2004
ISBN 9788177480665
  • Peasantry, Nationalism, and Social Change in India
By K. K. N. Kurup
Published by Chugh Publications, 1991
p. 126
There are many more where these came from.
Ism and tintin - please note that people who are notable for various social and religious movements are often not famous. Famous is not a requirement for notability on Knowledge (XXG), though it may be important for People magazine, etc. ~ priyanath  16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find Ism's comment about fame was in regards to the "Keep for now because he is famous" statement by tintin. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I see - I've just added tintin to my comment, then. Thanks. ~ priyanath  16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Priyanath, can you expand the article a bit based on your references. I am struggling a bit because I don't have too many print sources. Tintin 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't have time right now - I was able to find those sources very quickly and easily with Google Scholar and Google Books. Perhaps Ism or another editor would consider improving the article. Regardless, I think this AfD is well on the way to proving notability. The article should be kept on those grounds alone, whether it's improved right now or not. ~ priyanath  16:25, 7 August 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 23:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Bio of non notable. Also, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:07, 7 August 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. BJ 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Bio of non notable. News coverage of one story cited. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep or Merge: the incident is notable in itself, although i don't know if the person should be the topic of the article, or the incident, or if it should be removed and merged in a more general article like Islam in India, or a (non existent) Hindi-Muslim Marriages in India. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Might I also add that this article was created by a well known POV pusher. So I really wouldnt attach any credence to this article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment - The story merited coverage in India. Personal statements removedBut back on the actual topic at hand, it merits mention on Knowledge (XXG) in some fashion due to its widespread coverage, though I also believe now that a page is unnecessary and that wikinews/the like is a more proper form of description.Pectore 18:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply: I will reply to your personal comments on your talk page. W.r.t the news coverage , every second day there is some news report in the paper about some inter-caste love story with opposing parents & community members, court cases, police protection etc etc. Should they all feature in Knowledge (XXG) as notable just because newspapers cover them? What is so special about this love story? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply - I have removed personal comments, I dont think it was right for me to escalate this into a mud-digging page. The point is that unless you find a case with similar notability, we dont have a reason to believe it does not merit coverage. It went to the Bombay High court, it merits over 300 google news hits. Just remember that wikipedia has notability guidelines for a reason. If papers cover it, there is obviously some importance to it. The marriage itself isnt a big deal I agree, but the rammifications of divisions within the sindhi panchayat, the apparent hypocrisy of the RSS/Bajrang Dal/etc, and the legal events make it notable.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a blatant copyright infringement of http://www.mundoandino.com/Argentina/Tartarian-Nights (WP:CSD#G12). PeterSymonds (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I do not see any reason of notability (nor any is claimed, apart an unsourced "amount of controversy due to its graphic nature (in spite of amounting practically null body count) and a certain number of subjects both parodied and criticized in its plot (religion, institutions)"). Of the links provided, one is a one-minute YouTube video, and the other does not mention the book. A Google search for "Benjamín Harguindey" mostly shows WP mirrors and a blog of somebody who liked the book. Goochelaar (talk) 14:44, 7 August 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. lifebaka++ 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

This subject does not seem to show a significant level of notability. The references used in the article only mention the organisation in passing, usually mentioning it merely as the publisher of Book X. In a previous nomination, this article was kept as it was believed that the subject had a "demonstrable effects on ...entertainment, athletics...". However, as was also pointed out in the previous nomination, the subject in question was merely incidental in the instances where there was a demonstrable effect. – PeeJay 14:37, 7 August 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 --Leivick (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

This article describes a flash-in-the-pan news story that got picked up by a number of different papers and TV shows in a slow news week. The article fails WP:NOT#NEWS and has no potential for expansion that I can see.
Note: This page was previously speedy-deleted. The speedy-deletion was overturned in a Deletion Review on 1 Aug on procedural grounds. Rossami (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Forgive me for choosing not to read between the lines, but there is absolutely nothing in BLP1E that invokes the necessity for sensitivity and caution. Yes, the overall BLP guidelines are very aware of this fact, but the "one event" subsection is a question of notability alone. Shereth 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If you look at the section in context with its parent section "Presumption in favor of privacy" and in context of its neighboring sections "Privacy of personal information" and "Basic human dignity" the general policy idea should be obvious. But as you said, if you don't want to read between the lines, you don't have to. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for complete lack of notability. Yes, there are references that say this cat exists, but so what? That does not confer notability. There are any number of people (and I'll put aside the fact that this is a cat) who have verifiable references to themselves on the Internet. They exist. They've been covered in human-interest stories. They volunteered at the fish fry last week. They opened a new branch of their medical practice. They had their 15 minutes of fame on the local newscast for surviving a 20-foot fall into a dumpster. Yes, the AP ran a story on them and it was picked up around the country in "reliable sources." This does not confer notability to them; nor does it do so for this cat. Any references to "world record" are totally useless in this context, since all they do is mention some OTHER cat that was BIGGER...and now there is no official category for this anyway.  Frank  |  talk  15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This prooves that not all fat-cats deserve encyclopedia entries... Gorgonzola (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Inclusion is not harmful to the encyclopedia. AfD hero (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    Note to closing admin: A review of User:AfD hero's contributions to the encyclopedia (and, indeed, the pointy nature of the user name) suggest a WP:SPA focused solely on inclusion of articles up for deletion, and opinions at RfA based on perception of an editor as an inclusionist or deletionist. No "delete" opinion was found among all of this editor's contributions to date (yes, I checked every page).  Frank  |  talk  20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    AfD hero has a track record of some well-reasoned votes at AfD, even if you disagree with them. I fully support your efforts to exclude his vote here. There should be a substantial minimum amount of editing to articles and a consistent pattern of reasoned votes in both directions to be allowed to participate further at AfD. While this would eliminate AfD hero, it would also eliminate a vast number of the far more numerous kneejerk delete voters. Alansohn (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    I choose to participate in the project by contributing to deletion and other administrative discussions, at which I (try to) make well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. AfD hero (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to the newspaper articles, it says that "He has made television appearances as on Live with Regis and Kelly, Today, Good Morning America, Fox News, and MSNBC.". Seems notable. Also as the only other heavier cat reported died 20 years ago, surely this is currently the worlds biggest cat - surely the world's biggest living human would be notable - it may be WP:BIAS to eliminate article. Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Nfitz, Chuck could be the largest living cat. While we cannot state that as per WP:No original research, I recommend that we keep this article. Kushal (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    Are you seriously suggesting that an article remain because it contains information that suggests something that is unverified and unverifiable?  Frank  |  talk  20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    I am sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant was I supported keeping the article despite it could suggest something that was unverified and unverifiable. However, as I have mentioned in the IRC conversations (which, unfortunately, I cannot upload because of a ban on public logging) I strongly support a unanimous decision, if at all possible. I would support merging Prince Chuck with Subprime mortgage crisis if there is a broader support for it than for keeping this article. Kushal (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR. Fits the Knowledge (XXG) mandate of functionaing as an enyclopedia and an almanac. Add to that the guideline that says notability is not temporary and this is clearly an article that should be kept to provide comprehensive coverage of all those things we have, by policy, deferred to the judgement of the popular press. Jim Miller 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Although I adore cats a lot, the notability of the cat seems not to last after some period of time pass. Knowledge (XXG) is not a news.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not just any found cat. The media attention has been significant and the article contains a credible claim of notability. Given the reliable and verifiable sources provided, the notability standard has been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This cat greatly exceeds the General notability guidelines with worldwide, reliable and third-party media reports (ie. not just in the US, but New Zealand and Australia as well). The fallacy that seems to be being repeated here is that this cat is only notable for the news coverage; this cat is notable because it is the second largest known cat, the heaviest known cat alive, the extensive media coverage and because of its "TV stardom". Notability is not temporary and if this cat is notable enough for inclusion in multiple national newspaper and television news reports, for being a large cat, there is no reason why it is not notable enough for inclusion into Knowledge (XXG). We may not be news, but when news reports reveal a notable subject, we should revel in the reliable sources that offers, not dismiss the subject by citing acronyms. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 09:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per JimMiller and AmeIiorate.--DrWho42 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    AFD is not decided by !vote as you know.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    And is it absolutely necessary to restate something that has already been stated quite eloquently? Shereth 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    That is someone else's eloquent statement, but not DrWho42's. :) --Caspian blue (talk)
  • Keep The cat is Famous now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trele6 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    That would be useful if only fame were relevant. Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it.  Frank  |  talk  19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    Thankfully, the standard is notability, which is best demonstrated through inclusion in reliable and verifiable sources, a standard that this cat (and his article) clearly meets. Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable giant cat. NEWS does not apply. It might apply to the second article if there was an article on the event and on the cat, but there's only one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alansohn. And to Caspian blue, I feel it unnecessary to retype or copy/paste the arguments made by another participant that I think were sound and logical and based on policy/ guideline/ prior consensus. It is perfectly acceptable to just say "Per X". Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Strictly speaking, this article passes our notability guidelines: 'Prince Chunk' has been the subject of coverage from multiple independent reliable sources (although in many cases, that coverage has been pretty brief, as there's really very little to say about him). I am concerned that this article may not meet the spirit of the guideline, in particular when considering WP:NOT#NEWS; but it's probably too early to judge that. The best approach would be to keep this article now, and reconsider it for deletion in a year or so's time, when notability can be more accurately established. Terraxos (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment while the coverage hasn't been pages of information, it hasn't exactly been stub-like either. This and this for example are decent sized articles. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 03:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The "world record" issue is a red herring. We know he isn't the heaviest ever, but we also know he's received substantial coverage in mainstream media. (I felt like unburdening myself of this comment, but I also agree with Jerry that "per X" is an adequate reason for keeping or deleting an article.) JamesMLane t c 22:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Indeed, the cat is notable (whether we want to admit it openly or not). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:10, 13 August 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) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Unremarkable web cartoon. Probable COI (cartoon made by "Braintree Studios", article created by User:Braintreestudios). Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:59, 7 August 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. John254 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Elc International school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notibility issues have been raised. Avi (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep due to coverage in what I can only assume are reliable 3rd party sources here. Although, the article as written does look too much like an advert and contains a substantial amount of information that isn't required. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a significant international school and, unusually for such schools in Asia, sources are available that meet WP:N. The way forward is to add the sources and improve the article, possibly from local searches, not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - in the interest of full disclosure this was posted on my talk page:
"Hey, a couple days ago you contested against User:Avraham that elc International school is not a notable school. Officials from the school has contacted me about the article and that they would like it removed, otherwise as a student I might be well..sought after. Could you please remove it ASAP? Thanks, --Hanaichi 10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)"
TerriersFan (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not sure of the concern. It is not unusual for schools' administration to object to Knowledge (XXG) articles. However, this is normally when there is something particularly negative in the page. In this case the only section that looked in any way negative was the discipline paragraph and I have thinned it out to make it read more neutrally. Anyway, good luck in your discussions. TerriersFan (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Main concerns turn out to be infrequent vandalisms which occur from time to time. The school doesn't want to have a bad reputation. Thus far, either we comply and delete the page, or they want the page to be semi protected at the very least.--Hanaichi 10:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Naturally, it would help to keep it on your watch list. We don't semi-protect articles out of the blue nor do we delete either at the request of the subject organisation nor because of the threat of vandalism. If the article requires protection it will get it but we are not there yet. If it gets vandalised we deal with that and/or the vandal as we do with many other school pages. TerriersFan (talk) 19:36, 8 August 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. BJ 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Programming Without Coding Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete promotional article about a programming development system. This is clearly an advert, including phrases such as "It's Very fun like a game", and an internet search yields just a few hits, which is indicative of lack of notability in this particular field. Mindmatrix 13:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

CommentWith respect to the first point 1 - It's really fun like a game, in scientific point of view because games are based on interaction, and programming without coding too, are based on interaction Programming without coding classified under multi-topics including Programming Languages, AI, Compiler & Games

With respect to the second point 1 - In the real world, there is lack of resource related to programming without coding, and this project (Programming Without Coding Technology) presented to reduce the gap in this field and present programming without coding to the real world as full replacement for coding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud Fayed (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete based on lack of verifiability from multiple reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. It does in fact read like an advert and use "Weasel words". Although WP:COI is not a reason for deletion I'd encourage the above user (referenced in the article itself) to please review that policy as well as the ones for notability and verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I have already edited the article, removing words like "IT's very fun"
The source of this article is an open source project hosted on sourceforge (http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/doublesvsoop)
I removed my name from the article
I think now, there is no problems
Could you review the article again, and remove the speedy for deletion mark ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud Fayed (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Please read the policies. The article isn't marked for speedy deletion. The sources aren't reliable 3rd party sources (per the verifiability policy). And your name appearing in the article or not doesn't change the fact that you have an apparent conflict of interest that may be colouring your judgement in a way not beneficial to the project or to the article in question. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


i will change the resources to be just one resource (the project website on sourceforge) Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Please read the policies I've pointed out. Removing sources isn't going to help you need to provide more (specifically ones that conform to the verifiability policy).Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be a vanity piece with no second or third party sources to assert any kind of notability which the third paragraph all but admits. --neon white talk 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

CommentI have already updated the article 1) adding (Hello world example without coding - using Screen Shots of PWCT) 2) i removed the third paragraph 3) Is this help ?, or there are problems ?

Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There are problems. Please, please, please have a look at the relevant policies (I placed a nice note on your talkpage and everything). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Then, could someone modify the article to avoid these problems ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone could except you are the only person that appears to know about the subject so you should probably review the policies and correct the problems that have been already pointed out to you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The problems are with the lack of sources existing to assert notability, if these cannot be found then there is little that can be done with the article. Knowledge (XXG) has criteria for what subjects may be included specified here. --neon white talk 18:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - After reading the article, I'm still not sure what this is really about. At the very least programing without coding is a contradiction of terms. For the most part this appears to be a vanity article on some obscure non-notable semi-educational tool or something. --T-rex 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the project is about programming via a visual GUI that doesnt involve a user having to write code, however the nature of the subject is not relevent to it's notability. It's a largely unknown (15 ghits only) open source project. --neon white talk 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, i have updated the article, i hope that now everything is fine ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that there aren't any secondary sources describing the Programming Without Coding Technology. Without them, the article is deemed original research and is against Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, so it must be deleted. I suggest that you keep all the work you've done in this article and publish it as documentation in the sourceforge page of your project. Diego (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is not the original research the article source is (Programming Without Coding Technology Help - 220 Pages) and every one can get these documents after downloading the software from sourceforge Is this everything, or i still need to do somthing ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, and hopefully for the final time. Please read these policies notability, verifiability, Conflict of Interest. Make sure the article complies and you won't have to do anything else. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Now guys, is there a need to be so rude? You could help by telling him what the rule means in short, instead of making him read piles of legalese to find it out. Diego (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Mahmoud: your project must be famous before it gets a Knowledge (XXG) page. That's why it's getting deleted. You should talk about it in Freshmeat and other technical sites to get people know it, Knowledge (XXG) is not the right place for this. Diego (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi

At first with respect to project name there is no contradiction because programming is not coding, programming is a goal, and coding is a method to achieve that goal you can look at http://expresscode.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/coding-vs-programming/

With respect to freshmate, my project works only on MS-Windows and freshmate doesn't accept projects that works only on MS-Windows

With respect to other resources refer to the project it's well known in the xharbour community

1 - http://www.xharbour.org/index.asp?page=product/thirdparty you will find a link to the project under the name (Mahmoud DoubleS (Super Server) Framework)

2 - http://www.xharbour.com/xhc/index.asp?page=xhc_download.asp&show_h=8&show_i=8&show_sub=2 you will find an abstract for the project for download

3 - http://www.the-holms.org/xharbour/addon.htm you will find a link to the project under the name (doublesvsoop)


Also on sourceforge my project rank is 134 of (more than 130,000 projects) with active percentage = 99.94%

i hope that this is what is required ?

Greetings, Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out countless times, the project has not been covered in second party reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your work. --neon white talk 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The same article, published on www.codeproject.com at this link http://www.codeproject.com/KB/winsdk/programmingwithoucoding.aspx is codeproject considered as second party reliable sources ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because you wrote the article, and you aren't independent of the subject of the article. Any reliable sources used to indicate notability must be independent of the project. Silverfish (talk) 13:01, 11 August 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 WP:SNOW Delete --JForget 23:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails to satisfy basic notability and verifiability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:49, 7 August 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. Now, there is a consensus that there likely shouldn't be an article at this title, but there's no consensus on exactly what to do with it. I am going to leave it to editors more knowledgeable about the subject to discuss and make any editorial moves, redirects, merges, and disambiguations. lifebaka++ 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Redundant article, there are already pages for each individual soundtrack. The article voilates WP:CRUFT (what is PoA, GoF???) and some statements are left unsourced (WP:V). Merge any worthy and sourced infomation into Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (soundtrack) or Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (soundtrack). Dalejenkins | 12:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete and merge / Soft redirect Agreed that it's unneeded if there are already different articles for the sound track of all films. But all information should be rescued and transferred to the different articles, preferably by someone from the WikiProject who knows what is important to keep. Maybe leave the article as a soft redirect / disambig page for the different sound tracks. So#Why 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The previous AFD was 2 years ago, and comments made there are irrelevant now as policies have changed and new articles have been created. If, as you say, merge and delete is not an option, does that mean we just delete? Also this article does not qualify for a speedy keep, you need to read WP:SK. Dalejenkins | 18:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • comment a merger discussion doesn't need to occur here. If there isn't anything worthy of merging then push to delete the article. If there is then withdraw the nom and open a merger discussion through regular channels. I wouldn't normally argue following policy for policy's sake, but AfD is a poor forum for merger discussions. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete With that said, the article appears to be a collection of unsourced or duplicated claims and original research. I don't see a single logical redirect target (not that it couldn't be redirected but that I don't know which one I would redirect it to) and I don't know what verifiable information I would merge into another article. delete it. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Avada cadabra - Uncited original research. And although a discussion may spring up elsewhere, I wholly oppose any sort of migration of this uncited content anywhere else. --EEMIV (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is just a list of tracklists. Extremely ridiculous article. --LøЯd ۞pεth 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • That is simply not true as it contains paragraphs and descriptions of the songs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment, those descriptions are not needed at all because most of the Harry Potter songs are not notable, except for Hedwig's Song. An article listing every appearance of every song is nothing but fan-cruft and does not provide encyclopedic knowledge. --LøЯd ۞pεth 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Songs that appear on soundtracks for a major film franchise and as published sheet music are notable. ] is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Wrong. Harry Potter is notable. The film series is notable. Each soundtrack is notable, but individual songs are not that notable (as they have not been individually covered by a significant amount of reliable secondary sources), only singles are. And I still do not see the point of keeping an article that is a re-tell of all tracklists with descriptions, some of which seem more like personal POV or only mention when the song appeared. I cannot imagine mentioning every single appearance of every single character in the series. --LøЯd ۞pεth 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
            • We are not talking about separate articles on songs, but one article on the music collectively. If each soundtrack is notable, then by that logic the soundtracks combine are extra notable! I don't see any point in outright deleting this article. As the paperless encyclopedia, we can afford to cover all kinds of stuff. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
              • You've already said it: each soundtrack is notable enough to get its own article. The HP music article would have been useful if the soundtracks had not had their own articles. This is not the case, I see no reason to keep an article in which all information is repeated from the separated articles with some overdetailed extra stuff. Just imagine that the current list of HP characters mentioned every scene in which every character appears. I think that the second best thing we can do with this HP music article is to transform it into a disambiguation page linking only to the soundtracks and no more, or merge it into a section in the HP film series article and only give links to the soundtracks. --LøЯd ۞pεth 03:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
                • I would not oppose making this page some kind of navigation page to the other articles, but we can do that by boldly editing over this article. We don't need to delete to do that and if we merge anything than we can't delete it per the GFDL. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Harry Potter. Also in note... a few more cites would been helpful in understanding some of the points made in the opening paragraph. Schmidt (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment if the result is to merge the article, I suggest to merge it into Harry Potter (film series) under a "Music" section, I think it suits there better. The information about other music, which is primarily for videogame music, can be moved to the "Games" section in the main Harry Potter article. --LøЯd ۞pεth 17:26, 10 August 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. This article adds no value whatsoever. I would call it "original research" but the research is hardly original - there must have been many people who have figured this out already. It isn't particularly difficult in coming up with the formula - it's actually calculating its numeric value that is. You can put "the power of 10 to 5 trillion" in the numerator using your average home computer, but it would take the IBM Roadrunner to actually calculate the formula's value. And, most importantly, calculating the exact value of pi is impossible. Sorry for the rant. Just deleting it as a test page, OK? JIP | Talk 18:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pi exact value (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An original method of correctly calculating pi to "zillions" of places. Yeah, okay. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 12:11, 7 August 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 04:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

)

Question so as an expert in the field and a competitor you are able to supply the non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources to verify this notability? Or rewrite the article from a Neutral Point of View (or at least more balanced)? If so please do and I'll gladly review my comments above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I already did it on the Dutch version, with reliable sources. Will do. JacobH (talk) 15:29, 7 August 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 CSD G3 - obvious hoax, no track of subject's existence in real life --Angelo (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Notability not established. Possibility of becoming notable in the future, but not yet. role 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Well, if the book the article speaks of, is really due to be published, that should establish notability and he does play for a renowned club. I think when in doubt about whether to delete it or not, keeping it will not do any harm... So#Why 10:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per reasons below, I forgot to think about looking up arsenal.com. So#Why 13:27, 7 August 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) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Software Companies in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is, in its current form, nothing more then a promotional article for the software companies added to it (With no good article to revert to). I added a warning that lists should only contain links to Knowledge (XXG) articles, but its still only featuring external links along with full contact information Excirial 10:20, 7 August 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 - though there is disagreement on what Greater Europe means; perhaps this debate is what the article should be about if the reliable sources talk about the subject but cannot agree on what it is. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Quite simply this entity or concept does not exist. All alleged references are not reputable sources. I severely doubt the term is used in any reputable notable publications. Nothing in this article could not be said in the Europe article. It is original research. Willy turner (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The article when nominated was in shambles. I have since removed the unreliable sources, added reliable ones, and tidied up the page. It is a term I have encountered many times before. Hopefully the page can be saved. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The concept does not exist in any authoritative sense. Siberia and the Islamic states formerly part of the USSR have never been thought to be European, Greenland is on the North American tectonic plate, and Israel's only European linkage is participation in the Eurovision Song Contest. --Anthony.bradbury 11:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge As the IP points out, this term is used, as the sources show. So there is something like that contrary to what the nominator states. If the NY Times, Coca-Cola Inc. or others use it, it does have a meaning and if it does, it can have an article. I think the nominated article and the current article are not the same and the current article is sourced okay and might only require a cleanup. Alternatively it could be merged into the Europe article as a new section and the nominated article made a redirect to point there. So#Why 11:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per above. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Europe - this does not seem a credible or generelised concept, but a mere jornalistic or comercial expression used to denote some dubious reality. The Ogre (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Besides the article's destiny, there is also the question of the map: if it is a geographical depiction of the location of Europe in the world (as some user in Template:Regions of the world tried to do), then it is completely wrong; if it is an illustration of Greater Europe, whatever that might be and assuming a map for that should exist, then at least it should be renamed. The Ogre (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, I checked the old and the new sources and found them less than convincing. Judging from them, I doubt that of three people speaking of a Greater Europe, any two agree on what they mean. Several sources use "greater Europe", not the proper noun "Greater Europe". In effect, a neologism which has not gained mainstream recognition or a unified meaning. We could summarize the article as "Greater Europe is a geographical or political entity greater than Europe or the current EU", but it's not a notable term. Huon (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment May I point out that the article is vastly different from how it was when it was nominated, so that is not a good enough reason. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I still stand behind Delete. I find the concept unsupportable and counter-factual. We are moving into Humpty Dumpty land, by taking a concept ("Europe") and stretching it to mean "Eurasia" as well as the "Mediterranean Basin." I have looked at the current version of the article and see no value in it. And to me, Coca-Cola is not an authority. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to UEFA, which covers all of "Greater Europe" Merge into Europe per the Ogre. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into a new section in Europe Keep, considering the new changes to the page. --Maltalia (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are hundreds of books which talk of this and some, such as Towards Greater Europe are specifically about the topic. The nomination's contention that the term is not used in reputable publications is evidently false. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but seriously improve with more and credible sources. I really hate the map, IMHO it should be deleted and a better one should be found (along with proper sources). The map includes Jordan and several Asian countries who might be influenced by the wider Western world, but being a part of a 'Greater Europe' seems to be quite a stretch. I believe that the article is a bit suspicious but recent improvements seem to indicate that the term exists in some quarters. The argument of Colonel Warden is very unclear. Perhaps there are two terms/ideas with this name (Greater Europe): one shown in this article (kind of a fringe idea), and the other one concerning the EU (i.e.:a Greater Europe created by the EU - EU being the proper name for the article). Either way the term seems to exist - the article just needs more work and improvements. Flamarande (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a widely debated topic - and useful to a researcher. May want to consider more edits. Eisenhowerdd (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC) — Eisenhowerdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced article that does not assert its notability. It is also unclear whether all the listed programmes actually belong to a series per se. -- JediLofty Talk 09:56, 7 August 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) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

In its defence it's listed to distinguish it from the other Doodlemail, it's software from AT&T so presumably they're known to you (Wiki also has links to ZX Spectrum games and how 'notable' are they?), and it's independently mentioned in patents: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7003308/description.html. I find this incessant demand from anonymous sources to delete anything and everything they personally don't find notable to be baffling. It's not Windows Vista sure, but its worth keeping in. The creator's details are on his research page at AT&T:

HOWARD P KATSEFF

email:

180 PARK AVE - BUILDING 103

FLORHAM PARK, NJ, 07932

Doodlemail (talk) 09:51, 7 August 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

This article is proposed for deletion for the following reasons:

1- Article has remained without any sources, verifiable or otherwise, since at least November of 2007.

2- Article reads as a fan page, with phrases such as "(the subject) is known to do a little bit of everything", "internationally recognized", "career has recently taken him to another level". These such phrases are typical in fan pages: internationally recognized in what nations? By whom? "A little of everything" is very ambiguous.

3- Multiple grammatical mistakes and incomplete sentences. 207.237.232.74 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC) IP nomination copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 09:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. -- JediLofty Talk 12:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    I know I proposed this deletion, but I'm unclear about the process here. It looks like a user named Hakob has changed the template to read that this was being contested, but he's made no comment here. Can you please advise? Thanks.207.237.198.131 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    That objection was to the original "PROD", which can be removed by anyone for any reason. This AfD is a more formal process that cannot be derailed (well, it can, but not as easily). If you can't see the version of the article with the notice for this AfD on it, you should either do a hard refresh of the page, or sign up for a free account (no personal information required) - either should force the latest version to appear. ➜ REDVƎЯS has nothing to declare except his jeans 18:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    No thanks to the account. But yes, I see it on the page. Just wanted to make sure this was going correctly. Thx for the advice :o) 207.237.198.152 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the two Google News hits are not enough. One is from when he was 10. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:25, 14 August 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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable free game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unless sources are provided to assert notability. For example, the comment that "Overall, reviews for the game were generally positive." - if there are reviews, can they not be cited? -- JediLofty Talk 12:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The only sources I come up with are totally unreliable or trivial mentions. There's a 'guest review' posted on TIGSource (IE reader review) and a trivial mention on PCWorld (which is reviewing another game by the same developer). I had a look for sources for this one awhile ago and came up with none then. Someoneanother 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable fan-made game. JIP | Talk 18:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someoneanother 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per JIP. Interestingly, the main site for this game seems to have gone offline some time ago. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No homepage, as User said the comment is "...reviews for the game were generally positive..." without reference to those reviews, and nothing about the game seems groundbreaking. This entry seems to be an ad for a product, not an informational page.D3l8 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it Around! The homepage is there, I don't know what you mean. You can find it here- You can get sources for reviews right on the site's review page, which is here- . "Nothing about the game seems groundbreaking" Um, since when is that considered criteria for a Wiki page? Why don't you go and nominate a thousand other Wiki game pages for deletion then if that's your gold standard. Nobody had any issues with Hasslevania being put on Knowledge (XXG) months ago until now. I'll go and try to save his article by putting the "new" links on it. Sorry if this seems harsh, but I know the creator of this game and something stinks around here... TheHenge (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because a home page exists does not establish notability. Otherwise I would be a notable enough person to have my own article since I do have my own site. As far as the reviews are concerned:
    • PC World: the person says nothing else but to go check the game, which also happens to be on that same page. Nothing else.
    • The Daily Click: None of these reviews pass WP:V; all reviews seem to be done by users with no fact-checking or editorship established.
    • TIGsource: Can you show that reviews coming from this site are reliable besides simply saying that it is?
    • Indygamer, Slimaczek, Victory Gamer: See The Daily Click.
    • E-Mails: Are you kidding?
  • Please try to read WP:N, WP:V, and WP:VG/S. While you're at it, read WP:ALLORNOTHING regarding the other thousands of Wiki game articles. MuZemike (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with MuZemike - there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comment above. MuZemike (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reliable source? Alright so TigSource- if it had a reliable review of this game- would then merit a green light for this article over the other websites? Okay sure e-mail reviews could be anything I understand that but I'm curious: What makes TigSource more reputable or more valid than any of the others? Have you checked their editorial degrees too? Especially Daily Click which is huge in Europe and very viable to many others, are they all editorial novices? One review is from an admin there. You said "all reviews seem to be done by users with no fact-checking or editorship established." I don't know for sure, you may be right, but by saying "seem" you also don't know. Go ask them and get whatever proof you need. At least nobody argued that saying this should be deleted because it's not ground breaking was bush league at best. It's apparent to me you all will win and this will be deleted but I really wonder if there was nothing else you could have been doing with your time instead of depriving people like me who are fans of this game and come here to read about it at times. Sorry guys but that's pretty sh*tty. TheHenge (talk) 23:39, 12 August 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 CSD G6 - housekeeping, one of the two articles this page disambiguated has been deleted. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Doodlemail (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Dab page that consists only of redlinks (and where the redlinks are unlikely to result in an article) Mayalld (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The first article has been created and it does not assert notability. I tagged it for speedy deletion and from the latest text written on this page, it does not appear the sectond article will be about a notable software program. Jons63 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how 'speedily' deletion occurs so I am having to waste my time asking for these articles not be deleted before I have a chance to create them. You may be jaded wikipedia editors sick and tired of people creating pointless articles on their friend's aunt's pets, but Doodlemail the AT&T program is used by many people, as is the Doodlemail.co.uk email service. They are valid articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodlemail (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 August 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 he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Backup goalkeeper (fourth-choice) for Calcio Catania, a contested WP:PROD. He played solely with amateur teams, and never made a single appearance in a fully professional league . The PROD was removed by User:Juve10 under the claim he actually played twice with Catania, but this is a false claim, as you can realize yourself with a short look at the sources. Angelo (talk) 08:07, 7 August 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  07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (population) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Incoherent list Gabriel Kielland (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep There is a logic to the page. It just needs to be explained better. Would be good if we could can get some input from page creators to know what they had in mind. lk (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems I merged some articles such as 1 E1 people and 1 E2 people together to make this following some inconclusive AFDs here, but as it was nearly three years ago I can't really remember much more :) Tim! (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete no purpose to article, certainly not encyclopedic. -- Escape Artist Swyer The mess I've made 19:19, 7 August 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--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Following deletion at the last AfD, the article was recreated with the justification that it is about the trailer for the film, rather than the film itself, and thus is exempt from future film notability guidelines. I have several problems with this. One, this appears essentially to be an attempt to side-step process by following the letter of the guidelines while ignoring the spirit of them. Two, the vast majority of the article discusses the upcoming (as of yet unshot and thus failing NFF) feature film which this trailer was created for, and not the trailer itself. Three, this creates a somewhat tenuous precedent whereby all trailers, shorts, etc which are created for the purpose of attracting investors to a feature film may be considered notable. Indeed, if this is the example to follow, then all that is needed for any film big or small to warrant inclusion here is a trailer, even if no shooting has begun. However, some of the article's information is notable enough to merit merging to the bios for Baruchel and Rogen. I'd like to recommend that the rest of it be userfied and deleted from articlespace, for reasons above. I understand the frustration here, but a sober consideration of the larger picture aside from this particular entry is needed, instead of recreating deleted material under a slight shift in supposed focus. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Steve 08:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Before I decide which way to fall on this one, I will say that I don't think this should be treated purely as a film article in this debate. WP:NFF is probably less relevant than the general notability guideline, and it's this it should probably be judged against, as an article about any other popular Youtube video might be. With that in mind, can anyone cite precedent one way or the other here? Do we have any articles on other Youtube clips that have had a large number of hits and have subsequently received some minor press coverage? Steve 07:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It fails WP:N and WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Come, now; enough sources are cited in the article for it not to come anywhere close to failing WP:V. PC78 (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC) (Reply was to a comment made by Jasynnash2, which has since been removed.) PC78 (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
      • My understanding is it isn't about the quantity of sources but, about quality and such. If I'm wrong in that than please accept my apologies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
        • That's okay. Sources must be considered in realtionship to what they are sourcing. This is an article about a short film, after all... and not one about nuclear medicine or quantun theory. With film, sources usually have more than a bit of hyperbole. My best ones are the secondary sources that deal directly with interviews of the subjects asking about the film. These secondary sources (stronger} then give support the tertiary (poorer) sources. That's why so many. Notability had to be shown beyond a doubt. Of course, the thrust of the article has changed since entered this second AfD. Its no longer about a trailer... its about a short film that billed itself as a trailer to gain attention. In that it succeeded magnificantly. You have no need to apologize. Your concerns have been addressed. Thanks for taking the time. Schmidt, 06:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. With respect Giro, this isn't an attempt to recreate deleted material; this was all thrashed out at the previous AfD, where some of us felt that the faux trailer had enough notability in itself to warrant an article. That said, the lion's share of internet coverage seems to be in relation to news of a feature film adaptation. With regards to precedents, the nearest example I can think of is Grayson (film). PC78 (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Changing to delete, per analysis of sources by Steve. Media coverage is really about the proposed film, and only mentions the trailer in passing. I had a look for earlier sources about the trailer itself, but a handfull of blogs aside, they just aren't there. PC78 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Have great respect for your opinion, and your delete vote just shows I need to continue working on the article. You may find THIS better as I incorporate Steve's concerns and change the focus from the film or trailer to the unique aspects of the trailer's cause and effect, as this gives that trailer a notability beyond it simply being a film short. Opinion? Schmidt (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I don't think trying to get around policies and stuff is very good but, that is a behaviour thing. On the article itself I think despite the copious amount of mentions in news sources the majority of the coverage is about the actors, from blogs, or fail to provide significant coverage in a non-trivial manner. Although, I'm not 100% on what is/isn't a fully reliable source in the movie business for our purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Week keep. To be fair, this incarnation of the article did originally have the word "trailer" in its title, but was moved to this title on 4 August 2008 by PC78 (diff). -- JediLofty Talk 12:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per sufficient notability about the trailer, which has already been produced and released. If such trailers like these establish their notability through independent coverage, then we should not fear a precedent. If a trailer does not have its own notability, then we can delete them through the same channels as other non-notable topics. I don't see any major issues with the setup of the article, though there could be some sectioning to separate what was made and what is planned to be made. This article doesn't attempt a layout that indicates the certainty of this upcoming film, using {{Future film}} or {{Infobox Film}} related to the plans. The structure is intended for the trailer, so the trailer is clearly identified as the primary topic here. The trailer, not just having coverage, is a tangible topic, as opposed to mere planning for a film that may never be made. I think that is the real difference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steve. After his useful analysis of the existing sources, I tried to find earlier mention of the trailer before the related mention of the planned film. The wording in some of the sources led me to believe that the trailer had gotten attention in the past, but I couldn't find anything. So per WP:N, it doesn't have "sources address the subject directly in detail". It seems that the coverage is oriented toward the planned film with the trailer mentioned as mere background. I suppose brief blurbs on each actor's article would be appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- Based on the sources, this trailer, even if no movie is ever made, has achieved some notability on its own. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. With respects to the nom... One: When PC78 moved the current article from Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (trailer) to Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse on Aug 4 and added a redirect, it was certainly not intended as an attempt to get around policy. That earlier Afd is what inspired the current article. Two: the article discusses the prospects for a future film because this article is about the trailer and how it might inspire a film. That is part of its notability. Early press response acclaimed the trailer and suggested it be made into a film. Several production companies vied for the rights to produce. The intent behind the trailer was to create the subsequent buzz. Illustrating a possible change in how films are marketed, this article is a window on changing times. The success of that effort give it notabilty. Three: Each article on Wiki must be judged on its individual merits. The only precedent being set here is that an article should be notable, well sourced, and well cited... as an AfD awaits any that fail to acheive those goals. But that's true for any article, so its not really a precendent so much as an affirmation of how Wiki works. If there are future articles about film trailers, they will have to answer to the same high quality Wiki expects. But what might happen tomorrow or next week or next year should not be a deterrmination here and now. The article now in AfD is not the same article that went to the first AfD, but was inspired by it... so naturally, and considering the subject, there will be names and events in common. But that original article was a poorly sourced few sentences about a future film... this one is not. My own suggestion is to return the article back to Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (trailer) and add a redirect from Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse in order to avoid any further confusions between a potential future film and the trailer of the same name. As it now stands, the name aside, the curent article has Knowledge (XXG):V, Knowledge (XXG):N, and Knowledge (XXG):RS. I do not believe any of the 12 cites or 17 external Links are blogs... they are all reasonably relaible for the subject being discussed, and they all speak toward the article's contents or the trailer's notability. if any future articles cover trailers in the same maner, they will have to mainain the same high quality that Wiki expects from any article. Schmidt (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think a renaming is necessary. (trailer) was the original disambiguation from the future film article, but now that it was deleted, there was nothing to disambiguate the trailer article from. I think PC78 made the right move, and I think that the nominator's concern is not quite about "confusion" but more about a questionable precedent with trailers. If production does begin on the future film, we could discuss the best way to handle the content (separate articles for trailer and film, or combining them), but right now, all we know is that there is a trailer and there is not a film in the making. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This article is about the trailer and not a future film. It shoud be judged as that... and not because it shares a name with a failed article. My suggestion for name change was only to remove confusion. Again, and with respects to the nom, the only precedent being set is that any and all articles should be worthy of Wiki. If I used Knowledge (XXG):CRYSTAL and predicted hundreds of such articles (just as there are hundreds about feature films or film shorts) I would expect each and every article to individually meet the same standards applied to all of Wiki. Schmidt (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Still mulling this one over. On the one hand, it has received some coverage. But, as WP:N says, "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." I'm not sure that this has passed the threshold required. It's also worth noting that of those references and external links that aren't from sources of borderline reliability (not in a real world sense, but a Wikiworld one), they're pretty much just reporting the intention to make the feature film, with a brief note that it was "based upon an internet trailer that went viral last year." Steve 18:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • An ill choice of wording; I should have paraphrased the intention, rather than quoting outright. As I say, I'm still mulling this, and indeed I am checking out the sources (though more specifically, what they say). Steve 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've examined the sources used in this version of the article (permalink for reference, should the article be improved in the interim):
  1. A link to the trailer itself. This is a primary source, and cannot be used as a demonstration of notability. Posted June 2007.
  2. Slashfilm.com story announcing the forthcoming feature film. This contains a brief mention of the trailer as the inspiration for the film, though the film is the primary focus of the article ("The idea for the film began as an internet trailer that went viral last Summer"). Posted June 11th, 2008.
  3. Newteevee.com story on the announcement of the feature film. Contains a larger description of the trailer, but is a self-admitted "work in progress" site that has not demonstrated any credentials towards being a reliable source. Posted June 16, 2008.
  4. Variety.com announcement on the planned feature film. A bona fide reliable source. But again, the story is about the film, not the trailer. The trailer is mentioned once in the article ("Film is based on a comedy short from "Superbad" scribes Rogen and Evan Goldberg"). Posted June 10, 2008.
  5. Cinematical.com story on the announcement of the feature film. Reliability not determined, but I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. Still, this is another story that has only been decided is prominent enough to run one year after the trailer appeared, and is little more than an announcement of the film. Posted Jun 11th 2008.
  6. JoBlo.com story on the announcement of the planned film. This site is of indeterminate reliability and barely mentions the trailer. Credits the Variety article as its source. Posted June 10, 2008.
  7. Same cite as #2
  8. SFFWorld.com announcement of the feature film. It does mention that the trailer was a "huge hit" online, but is mostly about the film. Posted June 18, 2008.
  9. IMDb page. Not a demonstration of notability, and not about the trailer, but the film.
  10. About.com story concerning the announcement of the planned film. It contains a very brief mention of trailer ("The feature film is inspired by a trailer Stone shot for the internet"). Posted June 11, 2008.
  11. Geeks of Doom story that follows the same format as the rest. As a blog, it is also not a reliable enough source to bestow notability. Posted June 12th, 2008.
  12. Moviefone.com IMDb-style cast and crew information page for the film. It literally contains not one word about the trailer (undated).
  • Of those above that do qualify as reliable sources, not one is dated before the announcement of the planned feature film, one year after the trailer first appeared. It could therefore be argued that the trailer, on its own, does not have sufficient notability to meet Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. The planned feature film has a certain notability, but the trailer does not inherit this. Each of the stories listed above appeared after one Variety story ran, kick-starting this brief spate of coverage, and each one is essentially an identikit announcement of the intention to make a feature film, with a brief (usually one-line) mention of the trailer (almost as an afterthought). I'm sorry, I know you've put a lot of work into this, but I'll have to !vote delete on this one. It does not cross the threshold of WP:N for me, and most of the verifiable content in the listed citations is about the film (in which case the notability guideline for future films would apply, were the article expanded to include this information). I do of course reserve the right to alter this should any better sources be found. All the best, Steve 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • In addressing your points above... certainly the trailer is a primary source... but only offered to show that the trailer itself calls itself a trailer. The other sources were used simply to cite the statements in the article, as is required. The External links show the whole picture (no pun intended). And yes, they center around a future film... because it was the trailer that inspired the interest. Had there been no trailer, there would have been no buzz. Unique event "A" caused interest "B". The press furor created the notabilty. But if you wish specific cites about the trailer as a trailer... they DO exist in the cites and EL's. They may not be expansive, but the video gets menton... and yes, often in conjunction with the buzz about a possible feature... for THAT is a unique notabilty that is shared by no other "fake" trailer... and with coverage that has remained constant from the date the trailer first appeared until recently... Hollywood Reporter describes the plot and says "Stone directed a short trailer for it last year in the hopes that the concept could one day be turned into a movie.", SFF World speaks toward motivation: "Last year, screenwriters Evan Goldberg and Jason Stone talked Goldberg’s writing partner Seth Rogen and actor Jay Baruchel into doing a fake movie trailer and short film, currently in post-production, with the hope of maybe turning it into a larger feature", Rafe Telsch of Cinemablend "...had to watch this trailer four or five times to catch everything due to my own laughter. If this ends up being more than just a trailer..", Empire Movies "...catalyst for the project was a "joke" trailer which appeared online last summer.", Eugene Novikov of Cinematical "About a year ago, a goofy trailer for what appeared to be a comedy short film apppeared..." and "The trailer is moderately funny, though you should probably use headphones if you're at work, or around kids, or something. The jokes aren't brilliant, but Rogen's delivery brings them pretty close", MovieCritic.com "Rogen has so much player power in Hollywood right now that he could wrap a hot dog in discarded newspaper and people would line up around the block for it", Movie-Moron: "Should be interesting. Rogen seems to be on a roll, and the plot sounds intriguing/hilarious", ScrambleNetwork: "Whoa? Where the hell did this come from? A little Seth & Jay goodness to get you started on a Monday morning.", CinemaBlend: "it was around this time last year when we hipped you to this clip, a fake trailer in which Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel survive the Apocalypse together, and then get on each other’s nerves. At the time, nobody was entirely sure what it was supposed to be for, we did however know that it was one minute and twenty-five seconds"... and there's many more mentions and reactions to the trailer as a trailer... but of late (naturally) in relationship to a film. To stress... it is just that coverage in connection with an unmade film that gave the trailer its notabilty... its special and singular uniqueness. But I knew the battle was lost the moment Girolamo weighed in. Out of respect for those whose input made my work possible, I had to counter his coments for I believe he is wrong in this instance. As for your own kind words addressing the work I put in... thank you. I thought I had done a pretty good job a creating an article about a notable trailer and why it was so unique. It was fun. Challenging. Sorry I failed. Schmidt (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I think Steve explained it well. Have 20 sources mention the trailer in a single line does not constitute the "significant coverage" required by the notability guideline. Yes, the trailer was such a hit with fans that it inspired them to go ahead with the movie, no one is doubting that, but no one is really reporting on the trailer itself...they are reporting on the film. You cannot extrapolate notability on the trailer from article's that focus on the film. That's like saying if a minor character is briefly mentioned in 20 film reviews (e.g. Minor character X was played by famed actor Brad Pitt, in the film Y..blah blah blah), then we should have an article on the minor character that is mentioned 20 times in one line statements. The last half of the page is devoted to....a future film. This is really something that should be on Rogen, Goldberg and Stone's personal pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, Steve did explain it very well. And thank you for granting that it was the trailer that instigated the furor. I can find no other circumstance of that ever happening, which is why the aftermath of the trailer played such a major part of the article. I thought this uniqeness and the subsequent heavy press coverage was notable. Unlike your example of there's no point giving notability to a minor character, in this case it was the minor character that was responsible for all of the following events. Without him there was nothing. "A" caused "B". No small wonder that in every article about "B", there is an acknowledgement of "A"'s part... but naturally, "A" is now the sidenote of history as everyone concentrates on the importance of "B". I have saved the current article in my Sandbox. I will see about rewriting it completely to stresss the uniqueness of the circumstance of this one trailer... that the circumstance and results are the matter of notabilty. The sources definitely exist for that... as eveyone here has conceded. I will make it a point to ask Girolamo personally to approve a possible reincarnation when it is ready. I feel it is an important enough event on its own to not have it become a dismissable sidenote on some other page. Anyone wish to lend a hand? Schmidt (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • And have done some further work in my sandbox that changes the focus of the article to show the notability of cause and effect. If the trailer had been done by "Joe Nobody" it would have died within a week. The notables who did it and why they did it and the results of their doing it IS the story. Please visit. I invite comment. I hesitate to move the information to the current article as naming conventions would still make it seem to be about something that it is not... and then we'd be back at a 3rd nomination. Any suggestions for a title for the new article? Its rough... very. I am adding EL's so as to keep track of sources. There is a copy of the current article below my draft so that comparisons might be made. It has yet to be cited. Schmidt (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article seems to meet verifiability requirements and minimally meets notability requirements. It certainly needs work, but that isn't a reason for deletion. — BQZip01 —  04:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ahhh.... what the heck. Editors are encouraged to be bold. I have entirely changed the thrust of the article from what was originally sent to the 2nd AfD. It is no longer an article about a trailer... it is now an article about a film short created by notable artists specifically as a fake short in order to influence and affect interest in the making of a feature film. Yes, it shares many elements with it's precursor, but the emphasis has changed and notability has been strongly established to confirm each aspect the article and its conclusions. Consider two phrases: "No. Don't. Stop." and "No, don't stop". They have nearly identical components, yet they have entirely different meanings. I ask those who voted to delete to compare what was sent to the 1st AfD of an article by this name (about a future film), to what was sent to the 2nd AfD for an article by this name (about the trailer}, to what is curently sitting on the article's page, as of just a few minutes ago (about the cause and effect of a short film). It just ain't the same article, despite the name. Schmidt, 04:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Good rewrite/rephrasing. I think that only solidifies my keep !vote above. — BQZip01 —  04:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Per your request, I've re-reviewed the article based upon the improvements you've made to it since my last comment here. But I'm sorry, it still doesn't quite get there for me. Most of the problems I had still stand, e.g. the fact that the majority of the citations from bona fide reliable sources primarily focus upon the announcement to make a feature film, with only a one-line mention in some cases of the trailer/short. In addition, you now have text unsupported by the citations used (e.g. "It is unlikley that this furor would have resulted if the clip had been created by a non-notable" is your own interpretation). As an experiment, trim from the article any repetition, all the original research, and everything that doesn't directly relate to proving the trailer's notability. That includes the third paragraph (all about the proposed film), most of the second (a description of the events in the trailer), and part of the first (OR and repetition). What you're left with is this:

      "Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse, the Trailer" was made specifically as a fake trailer intended to incite interest in the making of a feature film. It was written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, starred Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel, and had a soundtrack from Randy Newman. The ploy was successful as Variety reports that the comedy video created a "stir" when it appeared in June of 2007, and that several production companies vied for the rights for production. When first posted to Youtube the clip billed itself as a trailer. The trailer has had over 200,000 hits in the 14 months since its release. Eugene Novikov of Cinematical predicts the clip will disappear as potential filming nears.

      As you can see, there really isn't much to go on. I suggest incorporating the relevant information into the participants' individual articles, and when (if) the film begins principal photography, there will be plenty of scope in the film article's "Development"/"History" section to include what you've put together here. All the best, Steve 09:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Point made (chuckle)... but that's not what I'd be left with, as certainly any article or proposed article can be pared down to one terse paragraph. My flaw perhaps was in my attempting to provide as much information as possible... and giving too much. However, you have shown me that there is a core worth saving and just which sources hold the greatest notabilty. I'll keep at is as time allows. Schmidt, 20:46, 13 August 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. John254 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The article has several issues, including WP:COI, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:ADVERT. Λuα 07:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article does have problems with conflict of interest and advertising, and I have started to improve it by, among other things, removing the list of beverages served and the list of occupations at the restaurant. On the other hand, I have added a reference to this Texas restaurant in the form of an New York Times article which was entirely about the restaurant and its then-manager. The restaurant also has been covered in other independent sources. In addition to its Texas locations, the restaurant also has a branch in Las Vegas and is in talks to open a location at the Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City. So I think the restaurant is sufficiently notable to have an article here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:ORG states that: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". One article in the New York Times does not constitute notability. Two or three branches are not an indication of notability neither. Furthermore, all the editors -except the user who wrote the article- who expressed their opinions on the article's talkpage seem to disagree with you.
Cheers mate!
Λuα 08:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Those results -other than the NY times article- are, and am quoting Euryalus from the article's talk page are: "paid advertising, blogs or trivial mentions in travel pages." And I agree with that.
Would someone be kind enough and tell me how this restaurant is different from others? It might be a great one but I don't think that would cut it. That's the issue here; notability.
Cheers mate!
Λuα 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Any restaurant in business for about 40 years will get its name published here or there, and as much notability a published reader's message, serving Samsung executives or even a Tribune Business News's article can give to a restaurant, I am yet to be convinced. All I am asking for is a simple statement telling what makes it stand out. There are according to one of those results "thousands of places to get barbecue in Central Texas", so again what makes this one worthy of inclusion. I don't even need a source, just explain to me in simple terms how is it notable and I will withdraw the request for deletion.
Finally, a Google search will yield more results for other subjects that don't have their own articles.
Cheers mate!
Λuα 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do me a big favour and tell me what makes you think this restaurant is notable? How is it different than others?
Cheers mate!
Λuα 06:11, 9 August 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. lifebaka++ 13:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Music group which fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. No matches were found in the Google News Archive (all dates searched). JBsupreme (talk) 05:49, 7 August 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. Sources provided by keep arguments, some of which are already on the article, are very strong. Spam concerns in this case are not enough to require deletion. lifebaka++ 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

not a notable educational institution. Does not belong in the Knowledge (XXG) — Drjohnphd1965 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

NYT substantial article (2 pages): .
Madville Times/Keloland TV (South Dakota news organization) substantial article (1 page):
Huffington Post (brief mention):
education.com magazine substantial article (4 pages): AfD hero (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though I did pull some stuff from their site, those were mostly specific details. A lot of other stuff came from the official charter submission that was reviewed, and from the NY Times article. Also, in regards to it being a "future thing" - this is not "unverifiable speculation" or original research, and the event is almost certain to take place. Thus, it at least cannot be considered a Crystal Ball article. And more info can be added from those sources above to make it better... I stated on the talk page that I knew it could use improvement. JDbruin (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The purpose of WP:Crystal is to prevent original research, editor speculation, and unverified information. None of these are an issue here. When CRYSTAL was written, situations such as this were considered, which is why WP:Cball point 1 explicitly allows future events which are notable, in development, almost certain to occur, and sourced. AfD hero (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment.* True, but the notability of schools in itself has been a hotly debated topic on wikipedia with many school pages being deleted. Those that have been kept have had to work hard at establishing notability. In this case, this school has yet to even open which really makes it a non-notable institution.Nrswanson (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If I recall correctly the school debate is focused around generic public schools that lack substantial coverage in secondary sources - the question there is, lacking all the usual means of establishing notability, is simply being a school enough? AfD hero (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The subject of this article should be considered as more than just a random school; as I stated above, there is a social experiment aspect of this as well. If we look at this with the approach that it is an upcoming social experiment, does the same claim of non-notability hold? And, if we still consider it a school, note that it also has more established notability than many of the New York City high schools. JDbruin (talk) 23:14, 12 August 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) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

List of marine parks with Orcas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. List is not notable and information should be incorporated into the respective park pages. Momo Hemo (talk) 04:47, 7 August 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 Redirected per TerriersFan, content has been merged already. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 19:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Weidman School of Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be non-notable. Only source doesn't even mention a "Weidman school of economics". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 04:50, 7 August 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 Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of plot points from the various Warhammer 40,000 articles plot sections. It is therefore pure duplication and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:36, 7 August 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:V. That policy states, in relevant part: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it." The article is currently only sourced to two wikis, which are not reliable sources, and it does not appear to have had better sourcing at any time in the past. Furthermore, no specific sources have been provided here - links to mere lists of Google search results are inadequate. As a core policy, WP:V cannot be outweighed by consensus. I am therefore compelled to discount all "keep" opinions in the vein of "the sources are out there" and delete the article. It may be userfied on request, and may be recreated after it has been complemented with sources that satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:N.  Sandstein  07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is simply a repetition of plot information from other Star Trek articles plot sections. As such, it is duplicative plot summary, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a year ago, and no notability has been demonstrated, so what you must mean is Speedy delete. Also, the last decision was decided upon with zero proof of notability, so it should have been delete then too.

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean speedy keep, because the existence in multiple sources demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You must be confusing this with another article, as none have been demonstrated of any kind. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No the arguments made in the previous discussion and the results of the Google Book search are sufficient to convince me it is worthy of being covered in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to post something, make it have some baring on what we are discussing, which is notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
JS, please keep to the discussion of the article, and do not attack others for what they post. DGG (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Others have already asserted notability above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
People posting text that is basically nonsense to filibuster the AFD, create confusion, and distract from the nominating concerns is not an "attack", it is what is taking place here. No notability has been established of any kind, and it is obstructive and rude to make long posts that add nothing to this discussion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If notability was not established, multiple editors would not be arguing to keep across two AfDs. These editors are not lying per "assume good faith." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There exists the possibility that they are wrong in good faith. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's the case. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion carries only the weight of the arguments you make to support it. Empty assertions of notability and vague gestures to articles using the two words in proximity don't carry much weight, no matter how much good faith you have. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, I am not alone in my opinion and others are correctly convinced that the topic is sufficiently legitimate that there's no pressing need to redlink this search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:43, 12 August 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 Kevin (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Randwick-Botany Greens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In the same way that Knowledge (XXG) draws the limit at councillors by only allowing federal and state MPs, I believe wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party (see this revision of the greens template) Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that the Greens party structure in NSW is such that party members are members of the local group and the state group is basically an alliance of these. That means that the local groups have far greater importance than in other parties and in fact form the constituent parts of the party rather than being merely branches. Local groups generally have their own constitutions and are self-determining in regards to policy. I believe this is also the case in Victoria. It may not be the case in other states and territories. I do agree however that the more recent edits to the page (not by me) lack appropriate encyclopaedic quality and require editing. Sambauers (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, I agree that the template blows out when including these, and it need not include the local groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambauers (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you cite where a local (non-fed/state) group has achieved wikipedic noteability? Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Particular notability has not been established. Since there are over 50 such local groups in NSW this could be the start of an avalanche. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is an incomplete list of local political party precedents from the UK...

Local council level details in Greater London are maintained in detail. The fore-mentioned limits on political articles are being smashed in this case. Check the number of sub-categories and pages listed in this category for example.

Another example, councillors in New York City - Membership of the New York City Council

Many lists of mayors exist on Knowledge (XXG), many of whom have pages, e.g. List of mayors of Phoenix, Arizona

Here's a random "sub-councillor" from Capetown, South Africa, Simon Grindrod. Found via this list of councillors - Members of the Cape Town City Council.

This is from a fairly brief search and is by no means comprehensive, I'm sure there are must be more examples of local politics articles. I appreciate that you don't wish to be inundated with articles for review, but there are clearly precedents for this level of detail on Knowledge (XXG). And considering that up until this point this article is the first example of this sort of entry in Knowledge (XXG) for a local party in Australia I wouldn't think that you will find a major influx of new articles at this level. Sambauers (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't change my view, non-noteable. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
While acknowledging the extensive research undertaken by Sambauers, none of the above examples relate directly to the situation of the article in question. Randwick-Botany Greens refers to a local (that is, sub-capital) branch of a state or national organisation. There is still no reason to report the workings of a grassroots, non-notable group. WWGB (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The above examples are not analogous and are in no way precedents. The three British examples listed are all political parties in their own right: IKHHC has an MP in Westminster. Randwick-Botany Greens is not a stand alone party, merely a party sub-branch. Bush shep (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Past precedents don't matter for this article anyway, as the author has failed to provide any reliable references that mention the "Randwick-Botany Greens" as a single entity. Reliable references must be provided first, before we can even consider step #2 about past precedents.-Lester 07:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a non notable local branch unless evidence otherwise is provided. Nuttah (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The UK examples are acceptable analogies because the Randwick-Botany Greens (as is the case with many of the Greens NSW groups) is a political organisation in it's own right. If the NSW Greens was disolved tomorrow, many of it's affiliated groups (not "branches") would still exist as individual political parties, many with their own rules, bylaws and constitutions, like the Randwick-Botany Greens.
It appears that there is a fundamental misunderstanding prevalent in the comments here as to the organisational structure of the Greens in Australia. It is organised from the bottom-up, not the top-down. Any mention in the mainstream media of contests in the Federal seat of Kingsford-Smith or the state electorates of Coogee or Maroubra that mention the Greens is reporting on the direct activities of the Randwick-Botany Greens. They select their own candidates, they organise their own preferences, they co-ordinate their own campaigns. Federal Greens Senator Kerry Nettle was a member of the Randwick-Botany Greens when she was elected to the senate and of course by association she was a part of the NSW Greens and the Australian Greens. The group also succeeded in producing metropolitan Sydney's first Green Mayor. I feel these activities and links are notable enough. The reason you will not find the name "Randwick-Botany Greens" specifically used in sources is because it is consistently short-handed to "The Greens" in the major press.
One should acknowledge that the organisational structure of the Greens NSW is clearly laid out in the NSW Greens article here on Knowledge (XXG) and the publicly available NSW Greens constitution (See section 2.3 and 2.4 specifically), and to discredit a local group goes against these premises and the principles of the organisation you are attempting to describe here on Knowledge (XXG). To discard the local groups as "branches" is counter to the origin and structure of the NSW Greens and creates a false and possibly even biased POV of the NSW Greens. Sambauers (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to add that the argument for deletion has been reduced to the notability guideline. Non-notability is not grounds for deletion per-se Knowledge (XXG):Criteria_for_inclusion#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines, at worst the article needs to be marked with Template:Notability. Sources help create notability but this is an ambiguous situation. I am being asked to prove the existence of an organisation before I can apply precedents. This is nonsense. Detractors here have linked to pages listing the organisation as a member group of the Greens NSW in support of their arguments (calling it a "branch"), coupled with the statements in the NSW Greens constitution, that evidence supports the group's existence as an autonomous body. I am working on adding further notable evidence to the article keeping in mind the draft guidelines for political party notability (Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(political_parties)) which seems less strict than the burden of evidence being applied in this discussion. Sambauers (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Sam but the consensus here is clearly for deletion. Local branches are deemed to be non-noteable, the page will soon be deleted. Timeshift (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is majority opinion but no consensus if I still don't agree. Yes, I am blocking consensus. This is supposed to be a debate, not a vote, and I am supposed to be offered the opportunity to improve the article to appease the objections stated here. The main objection appears to be that it is not notable, and lack of evidence of notability in itself is not grounds for deletion. As mentioned in the draft guidelines for notability of a political party, there are many more criteria by which a political organisation can be deemed notable than just press articles. Relative success in elections is one example and the article now covers that in summary (as a detailed overview would be excessive) and cites reference material. I am willing to take direction on how I can improve the article. I can easily add sources from at least one 3rd party media outlet, but I fear that they it won't be considered good enough (namely, Southern Courier - Established 1918, readership approx. 102,000). I feel I am acting in good faith, my last edit was aimed at removing non-neutral POV. From further reading of guidelinesI am attempting to remove self-published references. I am willing to work with anyone who is able to bring this article up to notability and NPOV standards, but I am not willing to accept that it is inherently not notable. Sambauers (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is to delete. One objection, especially from the article creator, does not change that. I await the textbook deletion of this inherantly non-noteable article. Timeshift (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment. No misunderstanding. The party organisation is no different to the Conservative Party (UK). The consensus is still that branches, local affiliates, or whatever you want to call them, tend not to be notable unless good evidence can be shown. Nuttah (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me while I complain... I'm sure you will delete this page, but you really need to review your collective process. It would help if you simply said that you were going to delete the page and there is nothing I can do about it rather than sending me on a wild goose chase for precedents, which were found, and pretending that the article would be kept if it was supported by certain types of sources. I have referred to Knowledge (XXG) documents regarding notability of political parties and presented evidence of the groups autonomy for naught. This article is verifiable, is not original research, does not violate copyright and has no POV. The deletion is based on a single editors belief that "wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party" and not any precedent or policy. Consensus has been determined by a head count rather than the strength of the arguments, this goes against Knowledge (XXG):Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. Not once have I been offered assistance to bring the article up to an acceptable standard. I have good reason to refer this to deletion review, but I won't bother, clearly there is little opposition to limiting the scope of political articles in Australia. I will be a good Wikipedian and make sure that all trace of Randwick-Botany Greens and any other "non-notable" local content I can find in my local government area is removed or marked for deletion. Sambauers (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't remove this redirect page, it should be Speedy Deleted Sambauers (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, appears to be a garden-variety branch of a politican party. While the Greens themselves are notable, I'm not sure that any branch or subunit of the party has enough coverage to meet WP:N, much less this one. Lankiveil 08:03, 13 August 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 withdraw. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The company does sell through Kroger - a major notability claim. However, there are several problems: only one secondary source is used, an overly promotional tone (some of which may be copyvio from an old version of the website), a logo used without any fair use declaration, and really bad layout requiring wikifying to even bring to par. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've declined the G11 speedy based on the presence of a non-spam version in the history. And just as an aside on the logo, I'd actually argue that it's in the public domain per {{PD-textlogo}}. --jonny-mt 06:44, 7 August 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. Synergy 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

This page is biographical, uncited, and unnecessary. This person is not a person of relevance. Ohgreedohyes (talk) 03:33, 7 August 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 Operator Please. lifebaka++ 13:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

No longer notable person, keeps adding to her own article, constant vandalism. Drinkaboutit (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Her page is constantly being vandalized and i believe this to be just another act by those childish people involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.209.2 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 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 all. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ozzfest 2-Song Promo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Saron Gas 4 Track Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seether EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Five Songs (Seether EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD. Promo EP with no sources nor assertion of notability. According to WP:MUSIC, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis mine) Stormie (talk) 02:54, 7 August 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 deleted as blatant advertising. -- Longhair\ 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Article fails to demonstrate that the company meets the primary criterion for notability specified in WP:COMPANY. The article is aimed at commercial promotion of a business entity. The creator of the article, Bugsbunny1, has contributed only five edits, all related to this company. It appears to be a conflict of interest. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 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--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Usual crystal ball article. Sources provide essentially no information. Track list unsourced. No release date. No title. Kww (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Change to keep. Significant change in article since I proposed AFD: now has a title, and a release date on multiple CD seller websites (Best Buy and Amazon).
Kww (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: I left a note on the talk page of all editors that had expressed an opinion to make sure they were aware of the change. You can assume that any editor that argued for deletion and has not changed his statement still feels deletion is warranted.Kww (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

*Delete The article fails to give reliable sources and verifiability about the track listing and the release date about the album which WP:Music#Albums wants. Reuters and billboard doesn't state the track list or the album release date but only states their will be an album, therefore it also fails WP:CBALL --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Here are some sources , , which should almost pass WP:Music#Albums. The track listing hasn't been confirmed, and per WP:MUSIC#Albums, "speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation"; but also "however, properly and reliably referenced information about the album's recording process, such as known guest musicians, may be sufficient to justify an independent article." I'm still going to give a keep. --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:05, 12 August 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 as evidence shows he meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 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 as evidence shows he meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. mentions athletes "who have competed in a fully professional league." This football/soccer goalkeeper is playing with a team competing in a fully professional league. We don't care if he's been a substitute since he joined. -- GarbageCollection - 02:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply - Uhm..... Competed means played, which there is no evidence of him playing a game. We do care if he is a sub or not. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Has played at least a couple of games for Galatasaray in 2005 per Turkish Football Federation website. (Striking out my keep vote per Jogurney clarification that these are not Super Lig games. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

According to these match details, he appears to have plays the full 90 minutes in at least eight games for Galatasaray. There may be more, I stopped there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but those are neither Super Lig nor Turkish Cup matches, and as far as I can tell they are reserve or youth league matches (check this for the league and cup matches: ). I'm quite certain he has only played 1 Super Lig match (per TFF.org) and it was a meaningless 15 mins at the end of the last match of 2004-05 season. Jogurney (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that I look more carefully, Elmas has played in 10 Turkish Cup matches. I have not looked to see if he was on a Super Lig club and whether the opponent was in the Super Lig, but if so that would help pass WP:ATHLETE on a more substantive note. I'm still at very weak keep on this article. Jogurney (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Ah, I see. I didn't realise that these were not Super Lig matches that I linked to (it is not clear). Is the Bank Asya 1. League fully professional? He seems to have made several appearances for Antalyaspor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect back to his club. This player has one club. Therefore, he's on the roster. Therefore, there is a roster. Therefore, there is no need for a solo article now. When he is more of a personality distinct from the clubs he's on, then his information will be sought out independently. This is basic logic. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. is quite clear that he's played many matches for Antalyaspor. Although they are in Süper Lig they've just been promoted from TFF First League, and are yet to play a match in Süper Lig (season begins this month). However in past AfD discussions, no one has dispusted that TFF First League wasn't fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Note his short Süper Lig appears to be good enough anyways. He was the back-up keeper for many Süper Lig games - so only one short appearance isn't that surprising if the primary was healthy. Also note that his page references that there are pages for him on the Dutch, German, and Turkish Wikipedias. Nfitz (talk) 20:12, 7 August 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

the sportsman may be notable, but the people who work for him are not inherently so Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:40, 7 August 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 as he passes WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. bneidror (talk) 01:20, 7 August 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. I considered the arguments for merging the article, but if this article is expanded to include basic information on all parks in the system, keeping it standalone would be the best way to present this information. Elkman 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cobb County Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself, any content could be merged into the Cobb County article. Wizardman 01:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect: We solved this shibboleth long ago: departments of counties fold into the counties' articles. Even if there is a major scandal with the department, the info stays with the parent county. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Contributors could extend the main article. --JJ.Mike (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This AfD is baseless. Yes, it's still a collection of stubs, but I'm working on it, and I invite others to also. It is intended to have the basic history of the department itself and each park or other unit, such as size, when and how it was founded, and what basic features it has (i.e. greenspace, stream, dog park, fields, civic center, etc.). This is far too much information to put into the article for a county or city.  –radiojon (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Radiojon, but consider moving to a "Parks in Cobb County" sort of article, I think this is more standard. --Rividian (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although this article is currently a stub and not well developed, the scope of the article seems to be significant enough to meet the notability guidelines for a wikipedia article. Therefore this article should have been tagged for expansion rather than nominated for an AFD.Nrswanson (talk) 04:35, 12 August 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 List of Twilight characters--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable fictional character. Deprodded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep this article- It is strong enough to survive on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.86.192 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

KEEP THIS ARTICLE! It's 100% valid. She's not JUST a minor character. Ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.208.119 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 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 Penance Stare... um... delete. Keep arguments did not give sources to verify information to my knowledge. Marvel reference necessary. lifebaka++ 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Rider (motorcyclist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was prodded a long time ago, apparently (article dates to Nov. 2005), and while the prod was removed, notability of the subject is not established by reliable sources. Looking at the talk page, it's all "sourced" through Google video and blogs. The article itself uses nothing but the rider's own site as external links. All the material he has appeared in is self-released. GHits are this article as #1, followed by YouTube and blogs. MSJapan (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Notability is easy, verifiability obviously harder for someone so deliberately secretive. In the absence of any suggestion that Ghost Rider isn't genuine, I'd say we're adequately covered as it is. Obviously anything better would be welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete only ghits found were for the videos and random blogs, little actual discussion. Videos appear to viral on the internet (though I did find some on DVD) perhaps it could be merged into viral videos. SOL Basic 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete Those sorts of riding feats are pretty incredible. Then again, they're illegal. Should we create a page for everyone who does increbible, but illegal, activities? Would an article about such create the illusion that Knowledge (XXG) at least tacitly condones such activities? If a TV station were to pick up this guys videos or make a real movie about them, then it'd be notable, but as cool as those videos are, they haven't even really spread virally to the various viral video sites on the web. Until it does, or some other notable company picks them up and promotes them, it just isn't notable enough (plus it's illegal). Banaticus (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. We should keep this article if and only if we can find reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. If such sources exist, hopefully we should be able to write a neutral article about him that doesn't make anyone think that opinions expressed about him by other people reflect the views of Knowledge (XXG). I don't know whether we have such sources yet, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete although widespread as far as video content goes, without the verifiability aspect the article fails our policies and guidelines for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete via Jasynnash2, sounds like a ripoff off Knight Rider --Numyht (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: A viral video/meme etc. that amounts to a popular but unstable subject for biography. I.e. you can't write a biography of a screen name, of a pseudonym, or a joke. You have to have some there, there. Without a studio or some other stable corporate essence standing behind this name, we don't have anything to describe. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"you can't write a biography of a pseudonym" Interesting point, but we seem to manage with The Stig. It's also likely that Ghost Rider is really one person and the Stigs are really multiple, suggesting that biostiggery would be the harder target. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: While mentioned above, the Stig is a secret person, he is featured on a legal and sourcefull content. You can go to Top Gear and ask about him. Ghost Rider on the other hand, is an unofficial and illegal figure, and you don't have any legal and credible sources to cite. He is a myth, and the only real "credible" evidence he exists are 5 DVD's, distributed illegaly and under the table. Fukla (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Question Sorry, I must have read you wrong because if the only "credible" evidence of existence (much less notability) is basically unobtainable that would imply to me that he fails our verifiability policies yet, you are using that rationale to argue for Keeping the article? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"unofficial and illegal" doesn't mean non-notable. We also have Captain Swing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I understand that ""unofficial and illegal" doesn't mean non-notable" the issue is also one of verifiability (which is the one I was trying to address for the new user). Captain Swing is simply other stuff and doesn't really have any bearing on this particular article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
With regard to "distributed illegaly and under the table", the dvds are sold in Australia legally. I have worked in a shop that sells the dvds without any sort of dodgy dealing. I'm not sure if he's notable however. 58.161.194.228 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I remember Ghost Rider got atleast some national media coverage when the first DVD was released. And the myth about him is quite widespread in Sweden. Cleanup is needed however. bbx (talk) 14:57, 9 August 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. Gazimoff 07:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Revenge (Generation X album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: The timing inside the article raises concerns. Billy Idol's solo career had begun and ended by 2003, and the idea that he would "later" cover "Dancing with Myself".... However, I suppose that I have to say Delete because it is, effectively, an unreleased record that was included in a set. In other words, this record did not see release as a record. The information on the trials and tribulations would be better included in the Generation X article or the article on the box, if it's legitimate. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources; unreleased albums generally aren't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per TenPoundHammer: WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith 04:59, 8 August 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.

↑